Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Backup Documents 12/13-14/2011 Item #16I
16y 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE December 13, 2011 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Florida Public Service Commission: Economic Development Rider by FPL and Approving New Existing Facility Economic Development Rider 2) Collier County Growth Management Division: Official Interpretation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Advertisement 3) District School Board of Collier County: School Impact Fee Schedule 2010 -2011 4) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: Regular Meeting Schedule FY 2011 -2012 5) Larry. Ray, Collier County Tax Collector: Collier County Tax Annual Report FY 2010 -2011 6) United States Department of Agriculture: Lee - Charlotte- Collier Newsletter October 2011 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition by Florida Power & Light DOCKET NO. 110194 -EI Company for approval of amendment to ORDER NO. PSC -11- 0342- TRF -EI economic development rider rate schedule and ISSUED: August 15, 2011 new existing facility economic development rider rate schedule. The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: Fiala _ ✓ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta BY: ....................... ART GRAHAM, Chairman LISA POLAK EDGAR RONALD A. BRIS$ EDUARDO E. BALBIS JULIE I. BROWN ORDER APPROVING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RIDER AND APPROVING NEW EXISTING FACILITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RIDER BY THE COMMISSION: Backizround Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) current Economic Development Rider (EDR) rate schedule was approved by Order No. PSC -98- 0603- FOF -EI, issued on April 28, 1998.1 On June 1, 2011, FPL filed a petition for approval of an amendment to its EDR and for approval of a new Existing Facility Economic Development Rider ( EFEDR) and associated service agreement. In its petition, FPL requested, among other things, that the minimum new or incremental load requirement in its existing EDR be reduced from 5,000 kW to 500 kW, and that the new EFEDR be limited to customers adding at least 500 kW of new load, as explained in greater detail below. At our July 26, 2011 Agenda Conference, FPL modified its June 1, 2011 petition to request that the minimum new or incremental load requirement in its EDR be reduced from 5,000 kW to 350 kW, rather than 500 kW, and that the new EFEDR be limited to customers adding at least 350 kW of new load, rather than 500 kW. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 288.035 and 366.06, Florida Statutes (F.S.). EDR Amendment Description of EDR FPL's current EDR rate schedule allows FPL to offer commercial /industrial customers a declining discount on the base energy and demand charges over four years. The EDR is vlis . o. PSC -98- 0603- FOF -El, issued April 28, 1998, in Docket No. 980294 -E1, In re: Petition by Florida Power �g'h g� ompanv for approval of Economic Development Rider Rate Schedule and Agreement. Date: V. - \�3 \� DOCUMENT N1.ME?rR -C }'F Item #: iys 05762 AUCE5= FPSC-COMMISSION CLEMr Al 16y ORDER NO, PSC -11- 0342- TRF -EI DOCKET NO. 110194 -EI PAGE 2 available to new customers (new load) or to existing customers who expand their operations (incremental load). An applicant for the EDR has to meet two minimum requirements: (1) new or incremental load must be a minimum of 5,000 kilowatt (kW) at a single delivery point; and (2) the applicant must employ an additional work force of at least 75 full -time employees per 1,000 kW of new or incremental load. This requirement guarantees that at least 375 new positions are created. In the case of an existing customer who chooses to expand, the discount applies only to the incremental load. A customer choosing to take service under the EDR is required to sign a 5 -year Service Agreement (agreement) with FPL and provide verification that the availability of the EDR is a significant factor in the customer's location decision. Service under the EDR terminates at the end of the fifth year. The discount is applied to the customers' base demand and energy charges in the following manner: 20 percent in the first year, 15 percent in the second year, 10 percent in the third year, 5 percent in the fourth year, and in the fifth year the customer pays the otherwise applicable charges. Regardless, customers always pay the otherwise applicable customer charge and all otherwise applicable cost recovery clauses. The latter requirement ensures that the general body of ratepayers is not being harmed by the EDR through the cost recovery clauses. Proposed amendments to EDR In support of its petition, FPL explains that while the EDR was designed to enhance economic development, it has met with limited success. FPL states that since its approval in 1998, FPL has only had two customers take service under the EDR. Given the current economic climate, FPL believes that there is a need to promote economic development in Florida by amending the EDR to make it more attractive to a wider base of commercial customers. FPL therefore proposes to reduce the minimum new or incremental load requirement from 5,000 kW to 350 kW and to reduce the job creation requirement from 75 employees per 1,000 kW to 10 employees per 350 kW. This reduces the minimum job creation requirement from 375 employees to 10 employees. The employment requirement for customers applying for the EDR after June 1, 2013, is 25 jobs per 350 kW. The jobs created must be full -time positions and must be maintained as long as the customer takes service under the EDR (or EFEDR, as discussed below). Therefore, temporary construction jobs would not qualify the customer for either rate schedule. Customers at the 5,000 kW level include industries such as aggregate mining, universities, or retail distribution warehouses. FPL currently has 67 customers over the 5,000 kW level of load. Customers that fall into the 350 kW load level include grocery stores, big box retailers, department stores, hotels, and office buildings. The majority of customers at the 350 kW load level take service under FPL's GSD -1 rate. The current electric bill for a customer at the 350 kW level and using 122,640 kilowatt-hours (kWh) is $10,447 (excluding any taxes) and is comprised of a $16.44 customer charge, $3,972 base demand and energy charges, and $6,458 fuel and other cost recovery clauses. The EDR discount only applies to the base demand and energy charges. Commercial customers differ greatly in size and usage; therefore, the discount a customer applying for the EDR rate schedule can expect will vary. 167i1 A 1 ORDER NO, PSC -11- 0342- TRF -EI DOCKET NO. 110194 -EI PAGE 3 Treatment of revenue shortfall In Order No. PSC -98- 0603- FOF -EI, we approved FPL's request to recover the revenue shortfall associated with offering EDR customers a rate discount as an economic development expense under Section 288.035, F.S., and Rule 25- 6.0426, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Subsection (3) of Rule 25- 6.0426, F.A.C., places a cap on the amount of economic development expenses which can be reported for surveillance reports and earnings review calculations. The current cap for FPL is $3 million. Based on FPL's May 15, 2011 Surveillance Report, FPL's economic development expenses for the 12 -month period ending March 2011 are $250,060 on a retail jurisdictional basis. Subsection (4) of the rule states at the time of each utility's next rate case, we are to determine the level of sharing of prudent economic development costs and the future treatment of these expenses for surveillance purposes. Impact on general body of ratepayers FPL states that between rate cases, customers would not see an increase in rates nor would there be any other adverse impacts of the proposed rate schedules. FPL further notes that customers may benefit indirectly due to the positive impact on Florida's economy of the new EDR or EFEDR (discussed below) customers. In FPL's next base rate proceeding, the amount of economic development expenses recoverable under the EDR and EFEDR rate schedules would have a base rate impact. However, FPL states that any load located in FPL's service territory as a result of the EDR or EFEDR rate schedules may lower or offset some or all of the base rate impact of the economic development expense by spreading fixed cost among a larger customer base. The EDR tariff includes a provision that allows FPL to close the EDR to new applicants when FPL's economic development expenses from the EDR, together with FPL's other economic development expenses, exceed the maximum amount allowed by Rule 25- 6.0426(3), F.A.C., currently set at $3 million annually. For FPL, a $3 million addition in economic development expenses in a rate case would result in an approximate $0.03 impact on a monthly 1,000 kWh residential bill. Conclusion We approve FPL's proposed amendment to the EDR rate schedule, as modified at our July 26, 2011 Agenda Conference. The amendments are designed to make the EDR more attractive to a broader range of commercial customers, thus fostering economic growth and job creation. While the exact impact on the general body of ratepayers in FPL's next base rate case proceeding is difficult to project at this time, we believe that any impact will be minimal. EFEDR and associated service agreement The EFEDR is available for the establishment of new load in commercial or industrial space that has been vacant for more than six months. Service under the EFEDR is limited to customers adding at least 350 kW of new load at a single delivery point and who create at least 16l I A 1 ORDER NO, PSC -11- 0342- TRF -EI DOCKET NO. 110194 -EI PAGE 4 10 new full -time jobs per 350 kW. The employment requirement for customers applying after June 1, 2013, is 25 additional full -time jobs per 350 kW. The EFEDR will provide a similar discount as the EDR, but with higher percentage discounts extending over five years. The discount is applied to the base demand and base energy charges in the following manner: 25 percent in the first year, 20 percent in the second year, 15 percent in the third year, 10 percent in the fourth year, and 5 percent in the fifth year. FPL notes that the increased discount is reasonable and appropriate because the customer's facility and the associated electrical equipment needed to serve the customer is already in place, thus minimizing the incremental cost on the part of FPL to establish service. FPL states that filling vacant facilities would provide numerous benefits to FPL customers, as well as the state as a whole, including the direct benefits of creating jobs and increasing the customer base, which allows long -term costs to be spread over a larger number of customers. As with the EDR discussed above, FPL proposes to report the economic development discounts pursuant to Rule 25- 6.0426, F.A.C. The EFEDR rate schedule also includes a provision that allows FPL to close the rate schedule to new applicants when FPL's economic development expenses from the EFEDR, together with FPL's other economic development expenses, exceed the maximum amount allowed by Rule 25- 6.0426(3), F.A.C. We approve FPL's proposed new EFEDR rate schedule and associated service agreement. The EFEDR is designed to fill vacant buildings with commercial customers, which will provide benefits such as job creation and increasing FPL's customer base. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Florida Power & Light Company's proposed amendment to its Economic Development Rider and new Existing Facility Economic Development Rider and associated service agreement are hereby approved as modified at our July 26, 2011 Agenda Conference. It is further ORDERED that the tariffs shall become effective on July 26, 2011. It is further ORDERED that if a protest is filed within 21 days of issuance of the Order, the tariff shall remain in effect with any charges held subject to refund pending resolution of the protest. It is further ORDERED that if no timely protest is filed, this docket shall be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. ORDER NO. PSC -11- 0342- TRF -EI DOCKET NO. 110194 -EI PAGE 5 ARN By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 15th day of August, 2011. ANN COLE Commission Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (850) 413 -6770 www.floridapsc.com NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and time limits that apply. This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought. Mediation may be available on a case -by -case basis. If mediation is conducted, it does not affect a substantially interested person's right to a hearing. The Commission's decision on this tariff is interim in nature and will become final, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed action files a petition for a formal proceeding, in the form provided by Rule 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code. This petition must be received by the Office of Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0850, by the close of business on SeRtember 5, 2011. In the absence of such a petition, this Order shall become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. Any objection or protest filed in this docket before the issuance date of this order is considered abandoned unless it satisfies the foregoing conditions and is renewed within the specified protest period. 9 1. 6 Teresa L. Polaski From: DeselemKay <KayDeselem @colliergov.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 31,20114:44 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Bellows, Ray; Lorenz, William; Patricia L. Morgan; Neet, Virginia; Rodriguez, Wanda; Williams, Steven Subject: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat Attachments: NDN ad 8- 31- 11.docx Please place the attached ad in the paper as soon as possible. Note this ad is NOT associated with any particular hearing date, it is an official interpretation. Should you have questions, please contact Ray Bellows at raybellows @colliergov.net or at 252- 2463. Please acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Also please provide confirmation for approval to my attention prior to proceeding. Thank you! 51a fm Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner V Zoning Services- -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning & Regulation Phone: 239 - 252 -2931 Fax: 239 -252 -6357 kaydeselem@colliergov.ne t Under Fior ida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mad address released in response to a public records request, do not send electrorrc mail to ibis entity_ instead: contact this office by telephone or in writing. Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ='C, Misc. Corres: Date: % -2A\1A Item #: k UM �q ..�,ies to Notice of Official Interpretation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Pursuant to Division 10.02.021.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 04 -41, as amended, public notice is hereby given of an official interpretation. RE: INTP- 2011 -PL -1238, Request for an Official Interpretation of Section 3.5 (Table I) of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 01 -61) to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. In regards to the above referenced ordinance, it has been asked of the Department of Land Development Review Manager to render an official interpretation in order to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. The reason for this request is to determine if the portion of the subject dwelling shown as a "media room" on the construction plans approved by Collier County is consistent with the required front yard setback which will allow for the continued use as a media room, and that it will not have to be converted back into a side entry garage or that a variance is required. The most relevant requirement of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Section 3.5 - Table I) defines the development standards for the patio and zero lot line dwellings which have been applied to the dwellings located on the north side of Lucarno Way. These dwellings were all constructed with the same 12 foot front yard setback for a side entry garage that also exists on the subject dwelling. Given the supporting documentation provided, it is my opinion that the intent of the development standards contained in the Mediterra PUD to require a larger front yard setback for a front entry garage was to be consistent with the LDC provision that the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. This is to ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Accordingly, under my interpretation of development standards contained in Section 3.5 of the Mediterra PUD, the subject structure is deemed to be consistent with the front yard setback requirements provided in Table I of the PUD document because the dwelling has been setback 23 feet, 1 inch from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door. This is consistent with the intent of the LDC to prevent a vehicle parked in the driveway from blocking the sidewalk. For a copy of the actual interpretation letter, please contact the Collier County Land Development Services Department at 252 -2400 by phone, or by mail at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, attention Mike Levy. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property within 300 feet of the property lines of the 16�j a 2 land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or adversely affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth management Plan or Land Development Code. A request for appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. (If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners.) An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. The interpretation file and other pertinent information related to this interpretation are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division at the address listed above. Please contact the staff member noted above to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Department of Land Development Services i 6y ►i a 2 Teresa L. Polaski From: Minutes and Records To: DeselemKay Subject: RE: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat I do need a P.O. # and account number to charge it to. As soon as I get those I can send it NDN. Thanks From: DeselemKay [ mai Ito: KayDeselemO)colIiergov.netl Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20114:44 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Bellows, Ray; Lorenz, William; Patricia L. Morgan; Neet, Virginia; Rodriguez, Wanda; Williams, Steven Subject: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat Please place the attached ad in the paper as soon as possible. Note this ad is NOT associated with any particular hearing date, it is an official interpretation. Should you have questions, please contact Ray Bellows at raybellows @colliergov.net or at 252- 2463. Please acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Also please provide confirmation for approval to my attention prior to proceeding. Thankyoul Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services - -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning d Regulation Phone: 239 - 252 -2931 Fax: 239 -252 -6357 kaydeselemll9colliergov.ne t Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity, instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing,. Teresa L. Polaski From: DeselemKay <KayDeselem @colliergov.net> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:11 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: FW: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat See below Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services- -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning d Regulation Phone: 239 -252 -2931 Fax: 239 -252 -6357 kaydeselem @co lliergo v. ne t From: WeIlsLaura Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:09 PM To: DeselemKay Cc: BellowsRay Subject: RE: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat I have account number 068779 and PO 4500122295. Collier County Growth Management Division Planning K Regulation Operations Depl. 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl, 31101 Phone: 239- 252 -5851 Fax: 239 -252 -6702 From: DeselemKay Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:02 PM To: WeIlsLaura Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat Importance: High Can you assist, please? Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services - -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning d Regulation Phone: 239 - 252 -2931 Fax: 239 - 252 -6357 1 6-1 A2 Teresa L. Polaski From: DeselemKay <KayDeselem @colliergov.net> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:11 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: FW: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat See below Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services- -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning d Regulation Phone: 239 -252 -2931 Fax: 239 -252 -6357 kaydeselem @co lliergo v. ne t From: WeIlsLaura Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:09 PM To: DeselemKay Cc: BellowsRay Subject: RE: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat I have account number 068779 and PO 4500122295. Collier County Growth Management Division Planning K Regulation Operations Depl. 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl, 31101 Phone: 239- 252 -5851 Fax: 239 -252 -6702 From: DeselemKay Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20115:02 PM To: WeIlsLaura Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat Importance: High Can you assist, please? Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services - -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning d Regulation Phone: 239 - 252 -2931 Fax: 239 - 252 -6357 1 kaydeseletn@collier o9 vnet 1611 r A 2 From: Teresa L. Polaski Imailto: Teresa .Polaski@collierclerk.coml On Behalf Of Minutes and Records Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:21 AM To: DeselemKay Subject: RE: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat I do need a P.O. # and account number to charge it to. As soon as I get those I can send it NDN. Thanks From: DeselemKay Lmai Ito: KayDeselem(aDcolIiergov.netl Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20114:44 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Bellows, Ray; Lorenz, William; Patricia L. Morgan; Neet, Virginia; Rodriguez, Wanda; Williams, Steven Subject: INTP- PL2011 -1238 for Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat Please place the attached ad in the paper as soon as possible. Note this ad is NOT associated with any particular hearing date, it is an official interpretation. Should you have questions, please contact Ray Bellows at raybellows @colliergov.net or at 252- 2463. Please acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Also please provide confirmation for approval to my attention prior to proceeding. Thankyou! Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services - -Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division -- Planning & Regulation Phone: 239 -252 -2931 Fax: 239 -252 -6357 kaydeseletn@collier9ov.ne t Under Florida Law, e -mail adc"resses are public records. If you do not wan: your e -oral address released in response to a public records request, do not send eiectromc mail to tfus entity, Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing_ 01 16s fA� Acct. #068779 September 2, 2011 Attn: Legals Naples News Media 1100 Immokalee Rd. Naples, Florida 34110 Re: NOTICE of Official Interpretation Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved, to this office.. Thank you. Sincerely, Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk P.O. #4500122295 ibJ , 10*4 A 2 Notice of Official Interpretation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 04 -41, as amended, public notice is hereby given of an official interpretation. RE: INTP- 2011 -PL -1238, Request for an Official Interpretation of Section 3.5 (Table I) of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 01 -61) to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. In regards to the above referenced ordinance, it has been asked of the Department of Land Development Review Manager to render an official interpretation in order to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. The reason for this request is to determine if the portion of the subject dwelling shown as a "media room" on the construction plans approved by Collier County is consistent with the required front yard setback which will allow for the continued use as a media room, and that it will not have to be converted back into a side entry garage or that a variance is required. The most relevant requirement of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Section 3.5 - Table I) defines the development standards for the patio and zero lot line dwellings which have been applied to the dwellings located on the north side of Lucarno Way. These dwellings were all constructed with the same 12 foot front yard setback for a side entry garage that also exists on the subject dwelling. Given the supporting documentation provided, it is my opinion that the intent of the development standards contained in the Mediterra PUD to require a larger front yard setback for a front entry garage was to be consistent with the LDC provision that the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. This is to ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Accordingly, under my interpretation of development standards contained in Section 3.5 of the Mediterra PUD, the subject structure is deemed to be consistent with the front yard setback requirements provided in Table I of the PUD document because the dwelling has been setback 23 feet, 1 inch from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door. This is consistent with the intent of the LDC to prevent a vehicle parked in the driveway from blocking the sidewalk. For a copy of the actual interpretation letter, please contact the Collier County Land Development Services Department at 252 -2400 by phone, or by mail at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, attention Mike Levy. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or adversely affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth management Plan or Land Development Code. A request for appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. (If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners.) An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. The interpretation file and other pertinent information related to this interpretation are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division at the address listed above. Please contact the staff member noted above to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Department of Land Development Services 16y t- A 7 Teresa L. Polaski To: Legals NDN (legals @naplesnews.com) Subject: Notice of Official Interpretation Attachments: Notice of Official Interpretation.doc; Notice of Official Interpretation 8- 31- 11.dot Legals, Please advertise the attached legal ad on Wednesday, September 7, 2011. Thanks Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III Minutes and Records Department 239 -252 -8411 239 -252 -8408 fax Teresa.Polaski@collierclerk.com i 16::� Ir A 2 Teresa L. Polaski From: Heredia, Blanca <BEHeredia @Naplesnews.com> Sent: Friday, September 02, 20111:52 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: Ad Confirmation Attachments: UAS165E jpg Hi Teresa, please see notice to print on September 7th, a reply with ok to print is required in order to move forward with publication. Thank you, Blanca 239 - 263 -4710 Ad Number 1914523 Total Ad Cost $316.14 Notice of Official Interpretation of 16,1, i Collieer County Land Development code Ordinance pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 04 -411, as amended, public notice is hereby given of an official interpretation. RE: IhlTP-2031 t -PL -1238, Request for an Official Interpretation of'Section 3.5 (Table 1) of the Moditerra Planned Unit Development (Ordinance number. 01-61) to de- termine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media roam for a zero lot line chvelling located on Lot 73, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consis- tent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. in regards to the ' above referenced ordinance, it has been asked of the Department of Land Development Review Manager to render an official interpretation in order to determine whether or not the cc+nversion'of a side entry garage into a media room For a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23,,Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry ga- rage. The reason for this request is to determine if the portion of the subject dvvell Ing shown as a "media roam" on the construction plans approved by Collier Coun- ty is consistent with the required front }card setback Nvhich till allow forthe contin- ued use as a media room, and that it will not have to be converted back into a side entry garage or that a variance is required. The most relevant requirement of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Se- ction 3.5 • Table 1) defines the development standards for the {patio and zero tat line dwellings which have been applied to the dwellings locate the north side of Lucarno Way, These clvvellings were all constructed with the carne 12 font front yarn setback for a side entry garage that also exists on the 5 ub'ect dwelling. Given the supporting documentation provided, it is oily opinion that t e intent ref the de- velopment standards tontalried in the Mediterra PUD 'to require a larger front yard setback for a front entry garage was to be consistent with the LDC provision that the distance from the bark of the'sidewalk to the garage door must be at least 23 feet`to allow morn to park a vehicle on the drivel ay without harking over the sidewalk. This is t4 ensure that parked vehicles twill not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Accordingly, under my interpretation of development standards contained in Sec- tion 3.5 of the Me' d terra PLIO, the subject, structure is deemed to be consistent with the front yard setback requirements provided in Table l of the PUD document be- cause the dvvellint3 has been setback 23 feel, 1 inch from the back of the sidewalk to ther ,garage door. This is consistent with the intent of the LDC to prevent a v--hr cle parked in the driveway: from blocking the sidewalk. For a copy of the actual interpretation letter, please contact the Collier County Land Development Services Department at 252 -2400 by phone, or by mail at 2800 North Horseshoe [rive, Naples, r-L 34104, attention Mike Levy. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected pro owner or aggrieved' or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (1317-A) An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpreta- tion is effective. An aggriev'e'd or adversely affected party is defined as any person or group of persons rnrhlch dill suffer an adverse effect to ah interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth management Plait or land Development Code. A request for appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up informa- tion in support oaf the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a 51,000.00 ap- plication and processing fee. (if payment is in the -form of a check it should be Arable out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners) Are appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact rue should you Dave any further qu trons on this matter. The interpretation, tation file and other pertinent infortnation related to this interpreta- tion are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division at the address listed above. Please contact the staff rrwmber noted above to set up an appointment if you wish to -review the file Raymond V. Rellom, Planning Manager, Zoning Servi ces Section Department of Lund Development Services September 7, 2011 No. 1914523 r� 161' A 2 Teresa L. Polaski From: Naples Daily News <naplesnews @clicknbuy.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 201111:12 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. Ad # 1914523 Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. The following represents the current text of your advertisement: Notice of Official Interpretation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.17.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), 04 -41, as amended, public notice is hereby given of an official interpretation. RE: INTP- 2011 -PL -1238, Request for an Official Interpretation of Section 3.5 (Table I) of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 01 -61) to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. In regards to the above referenced ordinance, it has been asked of the Department of Land Development Review Manager to render an official interpretation in order to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a media room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 Replat, is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a front entry garage. The reason for this request is to determine if the portion of the subject dwelling shown as a "media room" on the construction plans approved by Collier County is consistent with the required front yard setback which will allow for the continued use as a media room, and that it will not have to be converted back into a side entry garage or that a variance is required. The most relevant requirement of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Section 3.5 Table I) defines the development standards for the patio and zero lot line dwellings which have been applied to the dwellings located on the north side of Lucarno Way. These dwellings were all constructed with the same 12 foot front yard setback for a side entry garage that also exists on the subject dwelling. Given the supporting documentation provided, it is my opinion that the intent of the development standards contained in the Mediterra PUD to require a larger front yard setback for a front entry garage was to be consistent with the LDC provision that the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. This is to ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Accordingly, under my interpretation of development standards contained in Section 3.5 of the Mediterra PUD, the subject structure is deemed to be consistent with the front yard setback requirements provided in Table I of the PUD document because the dwelling has been setback 23 feet, 1 inch from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door. This is consistent with the intent of the LDC to prevent a vehicle parked in the driveway from blocking the sidewalk. For a copy of the actual interpretation letter, please contact the Collier County Land Development Services Department at 252 -2400 by phone, or by mail at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, attention Mike Levy. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or adversely affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth management Plan or Land Development Code. A request for appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied 161� 1� A 2 by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. (If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners.) An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. The interpretation file and other pertinent information related to this interpretation are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division at the address listed above. Please contact the staff member noted above to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Department of Land Development Services September 7, 2011 No. 1914523 You also have the exciting option to enhance your online advertisement with extended text, photos and even multimedia! Enhancing your classified advertisement will give you increased exposure to thousands of online shoppers that visit our classified section every day. You can also choose to add shipping and delivery options for the buyer. Enhancing your advertisement is easy; just follow the online AdWizard to add an expanded description, photos and even video /audio of your item. To log in to the New Ad Wizard use your email address and existing password. Go to: http : / /secure.adpay.com/adwizard login. aspx ?1= 18594725 , if this link is inactive, cut and paste it into your browser address window. If you need any assistance with your advertisement, please contact our classifieds department. 239 - 263 -4700 Thank you for using naplesnews.com Online Classifieds. 161> 11 A 2 lam`! ° o? a• rdiflance . . Collier County Land pevelo iaMt Dlav "menl Code 10.02.02.f.3 of the Gallia* C� affr& interpfetatlW4 Pursuant to Divistonded, P totlu Is here by 9wf ion 3.5 (Tabl* h (Ipn.O"1,"s n Dffictar Mtarpretetton of Sect 01.61) to l(e uest for. en (psdinance Number: room 1238. R ploprnsnt. ga ga Irma a consis- lhut t rce 125 'Rep RE: INTP- 2011 PL the convers Medrterra arce e of the Mediterra Plant pt of a ;Ida ail N P lag tertline ro p ran Nip9p k req', ement for a front eMrY 9arag teM hthaminirhunif}oNYar¢'� ordinance. k ftf/s been.asked ofr=D- npinKOmrdar _ nfflcHi Interp __ 1, . a, tnedie orlsisterrt wrtn o. "•°is requ; aye. The eS en'c. media rood ry� cor�^t'"� use as a media room, are e ry gafage or that a varrence - _ -_ A—f �ta lovi rtootrro+ to ro th Parked vemcle> r traffic. „— —tien of develo nil l 3.o w ......�..•_ �3 feet, i. �n ,, ..the LDC co v!'.....- - t N6tlhKei iii h hises�[ a wdh the iMl t Mthe 9 ay from blocking the sidewalk. �ty rked In She drnew contact the Collier 2800 it ck Pe relation. letter Phone, or by mai► Wb of the actual I40P at 2; I For a c meM Services �1t04, attention'Milte Levy ayarer or North oe DrNe, NaPtes affer�pred proPertYZ Board ,, K of publicatioyof _rtv may apPaai„ iterPrf? ion to ter of de a an,. ow nr .ISM 4.a tefDreta' �grievtd or aEversnelerse effect to an mi�rYd °proem uNlttl Will Growth tlanagert art Proust state the basis: or the rer County ibrts, or otfler back uP m #orma- Ppeal must be filed in wrRm9 omPamed by a St,000.00 aP ny Pertinentppissnfgre atmin be as of a check it should be hand rj (ImBoa deof CcMtr!rnlo dad "ease do not hesKath c1oeTCw+nty . theuad 10 on his mom: yy atterrtlon at you have any further q related to this inter other pertly Information e rowth MenagementQ ivtls u" Mon hie and member noted a4�e e and may b pct the sta#f b wish t0 ew the file. �`se�oD NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Kim Pokarnev, who on oath says that she serves as the Accounting Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue on September 7, 2011 Affbant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples.. in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affkant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said_lewspaper. ( Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This 12th day of September, 20111 (Signature of eotary public KAROL E KANGAS Notary Public • State of Florida we S My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 2013 O, F Commission # DO 912237 ibx r a a J Notice of Official hrterpretatiori of ": , Collier County Land DevelilvorAA Code Ordllhance . Pursuant to Division 1002.W3 'of the C69W Courity L&W 'Development Code (LDC), 04-41, as amended, public notice is hereby given of an official interpretation. RE: INtP- 2011 -PL -1238, Request for an Official`loterpretation of Section 3.5 (rabic 1) of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number. 01 -61) to de- termine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage into a-media room fPr a zero lot line dwetilrW located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125' Replat, is coniis- tent wkh the minimum front yifd setback requirement for a front entry garage. In regards to the above, referenced ordinance,, it, has been asked of the Department of Land Development Review` Manager to render an official interpretation in order to determine whether or not the conversion of a side entry garage. into a medlo room for a zero lot line dwelling located on Lot 23, Mediterra Parcel 125 R iat,'Is consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement for a bent ga- rage. The reason for this reghest is to determine if the portion of the subject II- ing shown as a "media .roam" oo kite construction' plans approved by Co let Coun- ty is consistent with the`ragWred fro'id yard setback which will allow for the contin- ued use. as a media room, and that it will not have to be converted back Into a side entry garage or that a variance is required. The most relevant r gqyuirement of the Mediterra Planned Unit Development (Se- ction'3.5 - Table 1) efines the development standards for the patio and zero lot line dwellings which' have been appliscl.4 the dwellings located on the north, side of Lucamo Way. These dwellings were all toii3tftrkied pkl me 12 fopt.froM yard setback for a side entry garage that also .exists on tR 11rg Gi"n the supporting documentation provided, it is my.opielonthat the intent of the de- veb nt standards conta(hed in the Mediterra PUD to require a larger front yard setback for a front entry garage was to be consistent w)th. the IDC tth�aatt the distance from the bade of the sidewalk to the gar5ge'door must at " 23 feet to alw room to parka vehicle on the driveway without perking over t traffic. According under my interrpprretation of development standards contained in Sec- tion 3,5 �the'Mediterra PUD, the subject structure is deemed to be consistenrwith the froift'yard setback requirements provided in Table (of the PUD "documertt. be- cause the dwelling has beken setback 23 feet, 1 inch from the back of the sidewalk to the garage deco, This is consistent with the intent of the LDC to- pnivent a'4ehl- cleparked imthe ddrriveway from blocking the sidewalk. For a copyy ppof the actual 'ltnteprapretation letter, please contact the Collier County North Horsess hoeDr'kve, NkapimIFL34M, attention #nyl one or by mail at 28�" Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected pro perty or aggrieved or adverse affected party may appeal the interpretation to . eB hoard o . Zoning rsals;V. An, ffected property owner is defined as ,Tp owner of DroDerty w' in 300 feet of the Drooertv lines of the land for which the- tnteroreta- or group of persons which Will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth managerrilmt;Plan or. LarM DeWopment Code. A request for appeal must be filed in wrtitmyy and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, eichibits, or other bade -up informa- tnon nn support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a 51,000.00 ap- plication and recessing fee. (If ant is. -in tfie form of, a cheek it shoukf made aut to ti Collier Co ty poaayrmd of Cgggtietioeiers,) 'An appeal, can be A delivered or mailed to my atteMioBn at the address proStded. Ple�e do not to contact me 4ould you have any further questions on this matter. The interpretation' file and other pertinent information related to this interpreta- tion are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division at the address listed above. Please contact the staff member noted above to,set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. _ Raymond Y. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Department of Land Development Services Se r.7. 2611 - Ne_ 1916523 161--- 4,Strict School OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SERVICES E= 5775 Osceola Trail �r Naples, Florida 34109 -0919 o (239) 377 -0036 fCoWer Cou (239) 377 -0071 FAX October 14, 2011 Honorable Dwight Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Courthouse Complex 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Dear Mr. Brock: Fiala`" Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta�� joo, A 3 BYE... r- to x _ v 0 ra Pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, shown below is a schedule reflecting the utilization of the School Impact Fees during our 2010 -2011 fiscal year: The District will continue to meet the future scheduled expenditure requirements of the ordinance by using these funds to reduce debt associated with new construction of educational facilities. If any additional data is necessary, please contact me at 377 -0036. Sincerely, Robert Spencer Executive Director of Financial Services RCS /PBM:cII ivilsc. Torres: Dade: i a\_\_1 \ 1 � Cv," W: COLLIER COUNTY CHARACTER EDUCATION TRAITS Citizenship Cooperation Honesty Kindness Patriotism Perseverance Respect Responsibility Self - Control Tolerance THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS AN EQUAL ACCESS / EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT 0 \memos811rsUmpaG Fee -Brock 10-11 Clock 2010 -2011 Balance at July 1 $ 2,585,125.28 Gross Fees $ 5,091,327.39 Collection Fees Paid ($ 31,362.89) Net Fees Collected $ 5,059,964.50 Interest Earning $ 0 Net Revenue $ 5,059,964.50 $ 5,059,964.50 Total Available $ 7,645,089.78 Debt Service Payments ($ 7,277,689.76 Balance June 30, 2011 $ 367,400.02 The District will continue to meet the future scheduled expenditure requirements of the ordinance by using these funds to reduce debt associated with new construction of educational facilities. If any additional data is necessary, please contact me at 377 -0036. Sincerely, Robert Spencer Executive Director of Financial Services RCS /PBM:cII ivilsc. Torres: Dade: i a\_\_1 \ 1 � Cv," W: COLLIER COUNTY CHARACTER EDUCATION TRAITS Citizenship Cooperation Honesty Kindness Patriotism Perseverance Respect Responsibility Self - Control Tolerance THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS AN EQUAL ACCESS / EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT 0 \memos811rsUmpaG Fee -Brock 10-11 Clock 161 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630 -4922 Fax: (561) 630 -4923 September 15, 2010 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building "L ", 6th Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Ave Maria Stewardship Community District To Whom It May Concern: By........................ Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find the Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 (October 1, 2011 — September 30, 2012) Regular Meeting Schedule for the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District as published in the Naples Daily News on September 13, 2011. If you have any questions and/or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. Ar er Enclosure Fiala •i ;er f ':.Inning Coyle Misc. Corres: DaM: \z.\ bm;t Gies to: 16 1 a 4 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2011 /2012 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District will hold Regular Meetings in the Ave Maria Master Association (office /fitness center) located at 5076 Annunciation Circle, Suite 103, Ave Maria, Florida 34142, at 9:00 a.m. on the following dates: October 4, 2011 November 1, 2011 December 6, 2011 January 3, 2012 February 7, 2012 March 6, 2012 April 3, 2012 May 1, 2012 June 5, 2012 July 3, 2012 August 7, 2012 September 4, 2012 The purpose of the meetings is to conduct any and all business coming before the Board. Meetings are open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida Law. Copies of the Agenda for any of the meetings may be obtained by contacting the District Manager at (561) 630 -4922 and/or toll free 1- 877 - 737 -4922 five (5) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. From time to time one or more Supervisors may participate by telephone; therefore a speaker telephone will be present at the meeting location so that Supervisors may be fully informed of the discussions taking place. Meetings may be continued as found necessary to a time and place specified on the record. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at these meetings, such person will need a record of the proceedings and such person may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made at his or her own expense and which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations or an interpreter to participate at any of these meetings should contact the District Manager at (561) 630 -4922 and/or toll -free 1- 877 - 737 -4922 at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT PUBLISH: NAPLES DAILY NEWS 09/13/11 {l i t� in 16--� 1 p 4 C7' - D °O9r GrY r, � m =�y�mo r 0 T 6 n wD On NA�7CC—I r 0 CD 0 O , r0 c rnN =m 0 O X 3 C3 t✓ 0 ry m C3 C3 0 C3 L✓ t✓ O PU 0 O C) CD �a� CD PCD CD r W 0 g u o " - y sy t FILE October 28, 2011 16S 1 p Z" q, R" C.F.C. Collier County Tax Collector Honorable Dwight Brock - Clerk of Courts 3315 Tamiami Trail E., Ste # 102 Naples FL 34112 -5324 V ' Dear Hon able Brock: .t p 7� w r 0 r r h-� 0 �(PIRTlMIII "� °ddddddddddo'diii Enclosed is (1) your Collier County Tax Annual Report for the 2010 -2011 fiscal year and (2) Schedule of Revenue reflecting the allocation of the unused fees for that year. This data is being mailed to all taxing districts that are recipients of these funds and to interested taxpayers. The unused fees referred to above were distributed to the Board of County Commissioners and the Independent Taxing Districts in October 2011. In your review of this data, should you desire any additional information or have any questions pertaining to it, please contact me at 252 -8171. Vefyltruly yours, Lar)". LRay;`T Collector Collier County, Fldrida Enclosures Fiala A/ Hiller ` Henning Coyle Coletta Jv 3291 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 -5758 239 -252 -8171 www.colliertax.com Misc. Cares: Dab&.. S1 Ibem 0�WA_S Cq)ies ID: COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR SCHEDULE OF REVENUE FOR YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: COUNTYWIDE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING FEES HUNTING 8 FISHING LICENSING FEES MOTOR VEHICLE FEES VESSEL REGISTRATION FEES SALES TAXES DELINQUENT TAX FEES WATER & SEWER FEES SOLID WASTE FEES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FEES OTHER REVENUE OTHER AD VALOREM FEES BCC GENERAL FUND DEPENDENT DISTRICTS TOTAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: MUNICIPALITIES: CITY OF NAPLES EVERGLADES CITY MARCO ISLAND TOTAL MUNICIPALITIES: INDEPENDENT: WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTH FLORIDA BIG CYPRESS BASIN COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL EAST NAPLES FIRE IMMOKALEE FIRE NORTH NAPLES FIRE OPERATING BIG CORKSCREW FIRE GOLDEN GATE FIRE - INDEPENDENT COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT PORT OF THE ISLES COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT LELY RESORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT KEY MARCO PELICAN MARSH HERITAGE GREENS NAPLES HERITAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIDDLERS CREEK FIDDLERS CREEK II CEDAR HAMMOCK MEDITERRA PINE AIR LAKES TUSCANY RESERVE AVE MARIA W ENTWORTH VERONA WALK QUARRY HERITAGE BAY TOTAL INDEPENDENT: REVENUE PERCENT UNUSED FROM OF FEES GOVERNMENTAL TOTAL TO BE UNITS REVENUE REMITTED $11,374,948 61.8535% $4,686,353.00 118,384 0.6437% 48,770.17 20,260 0.1102% 8,349.34 1,949,513 10.6009% 803,181.06 82,864 0.4506% 34,139.87 1,560 0.0085% 644.01 103,126 0.5608% 42,489.22 0 0.0000% 0.00 102,019 0.5547% 42,027.05 266,362 1.4484% 109,738.55 194,963 1.0602% 80,326.44 1,083,705 5.8929% 446,477.72 $15,297,704 83.1844% $6,302,496.43 946,725 5.1480% $390,040.10 $16,244,429 88.3324% $6,692,536.53 $7,236 0.0393% $2,977.58 194 0.0011% 83.34 52,606 0.2861% 21,676.47 $60,036 0.3265% $24,737.39 302,024 1.6423% $124,429.46 268,373 1.4593% 110,564.40 96,545 0.5250% 39,776.82 213,929 1.1633% 88,137.85 37,859 0.2059% 15,600.09 443,215 2.4101% 182,602.11 43,298 0.2354% 17,835.17 146,047 0.7942% 60,172.85 285 0.0015% 113.65 28,185 0.1533% 11,614.83 78,099 0.4247% 32,177.55 24,662 0.1341% 10,160.13 128,294 0.6976% 52,853.92 3,532 0.0192% 1,454.69 971 0.0053% 401.56 60,967 0.3315% 25,116.22 33,696 0.1832% 13,880.21 2,694 0.0146% 1,106.17 27,590 0.1500% 11,364.80 22,159 0.1205% 9,129.73 8,695 0.0473% 3,583.70 22,060 0.1200% 9,091.84 15,475 0.0841% 6,371.87 22,810 0.1240% 9,394.90 30,713 0.1670% 12,652.82 23,479 0.1277% 9,675.24 $2,085,656 113411% $859,262.58 GRAND TOTAL: $18,390;121 100.0000% $7,576,536.50 A 5 161 1 10 ANNUAL REPORT A 5 TAX ROLL FOR 2010 • DISTRICTS LEVIED DEDUCTIONS' ADDITIONS' NET TOTAL SCHOOL BOARD: 361,994,708 - 14,006,140 420,398 348.348,966 MUNICIPALITIES: CITY OF NAPLES 18.560.193 .677,617 17,161 17,898,737 EVERGLADES CITY 297.949 9.261 831 289,519 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND 19,955,781 468173 24,380 19211 AS TOTAL MUNICIPALITIES: 38,813,923 - 1,455,151 42.372 37.401,144 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: COUNTY WIDE 227,083,206 - 20,210,544 266,047 207,138,709 DEPENDENT 48,621.270 - 2.865,380 85,840 45321,530 TOTAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 275,704,476 - 23.075.924 331.887 252,960239 INDEPENDENT: WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTH FLORIDA 15,888.730 - 912,304 18.363 14,792,769 BIG CYPRESS BASIN 13,938,946 - 810.668 16.318 13.144,588 COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL 5.014.588 - 291,824 5,855 4.728.617 EAST NAPLES FIRE 11,199.437 - 774,598 10.172 10,445,013 IMMOKALEE FIRE 1,910,039 - 133.790 3.849 1,780.098 NORTH NAPLES FIRE OPERATING 22,977,208 - 1,306,042 21,348 21,892,512 BIG CORKSCREW FIRE 2.188,851 - 119,197 3.939 2.071,593 GOLDEN GATE FIRE - INDEPENDENT 7,537.122 - 432,009 13.768 7,118,821 COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT 14,718 -811 36 13.945 PORT OF THE ISLES COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 1,570.426 - 192,765 3,413 1,381,074 LELY RESORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 4,038,038 - 215259 4.083 3.826.862 KEY MARCO 1261,948 -59.900 6.365 1200,413 PELICAN MARSH 6.622.215 - 344.875 9,051 6286.391 HERITAGE GREENS 183.148 - 10.179 83 173.052 SOLID WASTE 18 ,874,777 - 643.131 30.792 18262,438 NAPLES HERITAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 50,337 -2,777 15 47,575 FIDDLERS CREEK 3,551,985 - 568.104 3.490 2,987,371 FIDDLERS CREEK II 2,812,204 - 1,166,032 4,916 1,651,086 CEDAR HAMMOCK 139.825 - 7,828 26 132.023 MEDITERRA 2.011,054 - 660,997 1,833 1,351,890 PINE AIR LAKES 1,137,215 - 58,129 61703 1,085.789 TUSCANY RESERVE 440,409 - 14.774 440 426.075 AVE MARIA 1,126,451 - 45,670 175 1.080.956 WENTWORTH 405.254 - 19.956 372,974 756272 VERONA WALK 1,177,609 - 60,881 963 1,117,691 QUARRY 1.603,519 -99 ,899 1.328 1.504,948 HERITAGE BAY 1216.025 - 66,077 514 1.150,462 TOTAL INDEPENDENT: 128,888,074 - 9.018,534 550.814 120.220,354 GRAND TOTAL: 805201,181 - 47,615,749 1,346,271 758,930.703 ADDITIONS AND DEDUCTIONS TO THE TAX ROLL FOR 2010 'Items compo" he'Deductions'rotals above an as indicaled In the foaowklp cokimns marked - •Imms composing Me'AddWons'tetals above are as Indicated In ft foliowinp columns marked -TAXES -LESS -LESS -LESS -LESS -LESS ®PLUS ®PLUS DISTRICTS LESS THAN ADJUSTMENT DISCOUNT COUNTY HELD WARRANTS FEES PENALTIES ADDITIONS 55.00 TO TAX ROLL ALLOWED CERTIFICATES ISSUED DEDUCTED COLLECTED TO TAX ROLL TOTAL SCHOOL BOARD: -4,109 - 1,030,691 - 12,300,675 -9,221 - 721,444 0 420,353 45 MUNICIPALITIES: CITY OF NAPLES -32 - 17,163 -638,362 -2 - 21,034 -1,024 17,161 0 EVERGLADES CITY •11 0 -8236 0 -1,014 0 831 0 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND -27 - 26,059 - 874,738 •1 - 19.680 -47,768 24,360 0 TOTAL MUNICIPALITIES: -70 -43222 - 1,321.338 •3 - 41,728 -48,792 42,372 0 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: COUNTY WIDE - 2,661 - 652,484 - 7,706,776 -5,969 -487,705 - 11,374,949 266,018 29 DEPENDENT -1,199 - 165,585 •1,633,593 -2,699 - 112,579 - 946.725 65,833 7 TOTAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: •3.860 - 821,069 9.340.369 •8.888 - 580284 - 12.321,674 331,651 36 INDEPENDENT: WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTH FLORIDA -195 -45,008 - 532,396 -412 -32269 •302,024 18,351 2 BIG CYPRESS BASIN •155 39,994 473.106 -366 - 28.674 - 268.373 16.316 2 COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL -53 - 14,478 •170277 -113 - 10.358 - 96.545 5,854 1 EAST NAPLES FIRE •237 - 150,608 - 365277 -1,118 -43,097 - 213.929 20,761 11 IMMOKALEE FIRE -61 - 15.744 •59,808 -298 - 20,022 - 37,859 3.847 2 NORTH NAPLES FIRE OPERATING -254 - 24,981 - 789,992 -6 -47,594 443.215 21,348 0 BIG CORKSCREW FIRE -28 -157 -69282 _66 -6,366 -43,298 1939 0 GOLDEN GATE FIRE • INDEPENDENT -126 - 16.361 - 250.110 -406 •19,019 - 146,047 13.768 0 COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT 0 0 •526 0 0 •285 38 0 PORT OF THE ISLES COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 0 •119.627 43,655 -1.299 0 - 28.184 3.413 0 LELY RESORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 0 -1,253 - 135,907 0 0 - 78.099 4.083 0 KEY MARCO 0 0 -35238 0 0 •24,662 61365 0 PELICAN MARSH 0 -3,314 - 213267 0 0 - 126294 9,051 0 HERITAGE GREENS 0 0 -6.648 0 0 •3,531 83 0 SOLID WASTE 0 - 7,468 - 635,821 42 0 0 30.792 0 NAPLES HERITAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 0 •1,806 0 0 971 15 0 FIDDLERS CREEK 0 -413,045 - 94,092 0 0 - 60.967 3.490 0 FIDDLERS CREEK II 0 -1,078.234 - 54.102 0 0 •33,696 4,916 0 CEDAR HAMMOCK 0 0 -5,134 0 0 •2,694 26 0 MEDITERRA 0 1588,545 43,662 0 0 - 27,590 1,833 0 PINE AIR LAKES 0 -1 - 35,969 0 0 - 22.159 6.703 0 TUSCANY RESERVE 0 0 -6,079 0 0 -81695 440 0 AVE MARIA 0 0 - 23,610 0 0 - 22,060 175 0 WENTWORTH 0 0 4,481 0 0 - 15,475 13,972 359,002 VERONA WALK 0 0 - 38,071 0 0 - 22,810 963 0 QUARRY 0 •25,727 43,459 0 0 - 30.713 1,328 0 HERITAGE BAY 0 0 - 42,598 0 0 - 23,479 514 0 TOTAL INDEPENDENT: -1,109 - 2,545,545 -4,174.371 4,456 - 207,399 - 2,085 ,854 191,794 359,020 GRAND TOTAL: - 9148 4.440,527 - 27,136,751 - 22,348 - 1,550.855 - 14.456,120 986,170 359.101 165-,A 01 9 October 27, 2011 I a� Honorable Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Board of County Commissioners = �- 3301 Tamiarni Trail East c° Naples, FL 34112 co ; n Re: Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Surplus Funds 'o c C' Z P7 Dear Chairman Coyle: _ Enclosed please find Sheriff's Office check #172566 in the amount of $1,079,595.00. This` rk' represents the excess funds that were not expended from the fiscal 2011 budget. I request that these excess funds be credited to debt service for the Special Operations building or to other future capital projects for the Sheriff's Office. In addition to excess funds, we returned $165,940.11 in interest earned during fiscal year 2011 to the Board. We are able to return these funds to the Board through careful agency -wide participation in cost control efforts. Operating within the budget approved for the next fiscal year will present quite a challenge to local governments and law enforcement. We will strive to meet the expectations of Collier County citizens by providing the highest level of law enforcement services at the lowest possible cost. Respectfully, Ken J. ambosk, Sheriff Collier unty, Florida 19:7M cc: /Board of County Commissioners ,/Constitutional Officers Leo Ochs, Jr., County Manager Mark Isackson, County Corporate Financial & Management Services Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director Andrea Marsh, CCSO Finance Director Lee-Charlotte- Collier FSA Office _USDA United States PRSRT STD Fort ort Hancock Bridge Pkwy., #209C ��,�._ Department of U.S. Postage Paid F Myers, FL 33903 Agriculture Kansas City MO RECEIVED Permit #no 2324 NOV 0 4 2011 o , onim a rd of County Cissioners z �\A 6 inlininln�iln�linl�l�i��il�in�lin�ulilin +,,.Jllnhi ** * * * *** *AUTO * *SCH 3 -DIGIT 339 X, COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 03 0165 �� 3301 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES FL 34112 -4961 Misc. Cones: Dak: \4 \-, -b \\ \ fbin t %\..a T I vyto C:,9ies to: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta G NOTICE TO HISPANIC AND /OR WOMEN FARMERS AND Using GovDelivery for News RANCHERS - If you are a female farmer or rancher or a Hispanic farmer or and eNewsietter Distribution rancher and you believe that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Tom4ssue of the County Office improperly denied farm loan benefits to you for certain time periods between 1981 Newsletter will be the last paper and 2000 because you are a female, or because you are Hispanic, you may be newsletter mailed before we switch over eligible to apply for compensation, the USDA State Food & Agriculture Council to the new GovDelivery system. Please (SFAC) in Florida announced in a joint news release. You might be eligible if you contact the County Office and provide us sought a farm loan or farm -loan servicing from USDA during that period; and the with your email address to stay informed loan was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested, and current about FSA programs and approved with restrictive conditions, or USDA failed to provide an appropriate loan deadlines. Coming soon, all important service; and you believe these actions occurred because you are female or Hispanic. announcements, news releases, If you want to register your name to receive a claims package in the female and newsletters and public correspondence Hispanic farmers claims process, you can call the Farmer and Rancher Call Center from the State and County FSA Office at 1- 888 - 5084429 or access the Website: www.farmerclaims.gov. This will be delivered via email. announcement follows the Obama Administration's settlement of litigation brought Special Accommodations _ � - by- =dative American farmers and ranchers and African American farmers. Any Reasonable accommodations will be made, Native American farmer or rancher who was denied a Farm Loan or Loan Servicing by the USDA between Jan. 1, 1981 and Nov. 24, 1999, may be eligible upon request, for individuals with vision impairment, hearing for benefits from a Class Action Settlement. To request a Claims Package or for impairment at more information, call 1- 888 - 233 -5506 or visit www.IndianFarmClass.com. impairment to attend or participate e meetings or events sponsored by the Farm African- American farmers who submitted a request to file a late claim on or S between October 13, 1999 and June 18, 2008 under the 1999 settlement in the Service Agency. If you require special earlier class action known as Pigford v. Glickman ( "Pigford ") and who did not accommodations to attend participate in receive a merits determination of their discrimination claim should call 1- 866 -950- one our events, please call l the FSA 5547 or 1- 866 - 472 -7826 or visit www.blackfannercase.com. county office and we will be happy to make any needed arrangements. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance programs. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202 - 720 -2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250 -9410 or call toll-free at (866) 632 -9992 (English) or (800) 877- 8339 (TDD) or (866) 377 -8642 (English Federal- relay) or (800) 845 -6136 (Spanish Federal- relay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 1(_1 NAP Application Deadlines NAP is a federally funded program that provides coverage to producers for non - insurable crops when low yields, loss of inventory or prevented planting occurs due to natural disasters. Crops eligible for NAP coverage are those for which crop insurance is not available, including fruits and vegetables, aquaculture, pecans, turf grass and forage crops just to name a few. NAP applications for coverage must be filed using Form CCC -471 and paying the applicable service fees by the sales closing date. Application closing dates vary by crop. More information about NAP can be found on the FSA website: www.fsa.usda.gov NAP APPLICATION CLOSING DATES BY CROP' Date NURSERY May 1 BEANS - ALL TYPES; PEPPERS - ALL TYPES; BROCCOLI; July 31 CAULIFLOWER; CORN; CUCUMBERS; HERBS - ALL TYPES; LETTUCE; SQUASH - ALL TYPES; TOMATOES —ALL TYPES to adverse weather. CABBAGE August 15th STRAWBERRIES August 31" CRUSTACEAN; FINFISH ; FLOWERS; MOLLUSK (CLAMS) ; September 1` GRASS (for SOD) Provided emergency relief GRASS (PASTURES) ; MIX FORAGE; POTATOES (Irish, red, September 30" russet, white, yellow); SUGARCANE to producers of livestock, BLUEBERRIES; PEACHES, November 20 CANTALOUPE; TROPICAL FRUIT CROPS (mango, longan, November 30 lychee, papaya, banana, etc.); WATERMELON; (HONEY - 12/1) *If you don't see your crop listed above- call the County Office for a complete listing. Livestock Forage Program (LFP) Available for Collier & Lee County Collier and Lee County cattle producers are eligible for LFP Assistance due to drought conditions for improved and native pastures. The Collier County drought index qualified eligible producers for the D3b level of assistance (3 months payment). Lee County qualified for D2 (1 month payment). Please contact the FSA office for additional LFP information and to schedule an appt. to file FSA -925. Interested applicants must submit a completed application and all required supporting records no later than 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar year in which the grazing loss occurred (for the eligible 2011 drought period the deadline will be January 30, 2012). Additional Cattle and Livestock Program application dates and deadlines can be found on the chart below. For specific program eligibility requirements and details please contact the County FSA Office. NAP RODUCTION NAP participants are required to certify acreage and production regardless of the occurrence of crop loss. Producers failing to timely certify unit acreage and production risk ineligibility for NAP assistance or reduced approved yields. For each crop you selected NAP coverage for on CCC -471 you must certify production of acreage after harvest of the specific crop acreage is complete but no later than the subsequent year's acreage reporting date (for instance 2010 NAP crops must submit that year's production by no later thaA201 I's acreage reporting deadline — June 3& for most crops). NAP production records must (1) be submitted summarizing all the production for the crop(s) acreage and by planting period if applicable, (2) provided in a manner that can be easily understood by the County Committee, (3) by the production reporting date, (4) be retained for 3 crop years after the crop year is initially certified (5) if selected for spot check, supporting evidence will be required for acreage and production on the current crop year. Program Description Notice of Loss Must be Filed Final date to file Application for payment LIP Provides benefits for Earlier of January 30, 2012 livestock death losses due . 30 calendar days of when the loss of to adverse weather. livestock is apparent • December 29, 2011 ELAP Provided emergency relief Earlier of: January 30, 2012 to producers of livestock, . 30 calendar days of when the loss is honey bees, and farm- apparent OR raised fish. . For: death losses, December 29, 2011 • For: grazing, feed losses, honey bee and fish losses, January 30,,2012 LFP Provides benefits for NSA — eligibility determined by U S Drought January 30, 2012 grazing land affected by Monitor. However, for CY 2011 only losses drought occurring on or before September 30, 2011 are covered. The F.- Senie a Ag—y OfGN is located m NorthFoat &kNws ak - A4A4 Ha wk BdAg. PL y, Sma 2090 -Feet Mre,.e, FL 339W, Crop (Acreage) Reporting Deadlines The annual requirement of reporting to the FSA office can be referred to as crop reporting, acreage reporting, or crop certification. Filing an accurate and timely report for all crops and land uses, including failed acreage, can prevent loss of benefits for a variety of Farm Service Agency programs. Acreage reporting time is here. Please remember that filing an accurate acreage report for all crops and land uses, including failed acreage and prevented planting acreage, can prevent the loss of benefits for a variety of programs. Acreage reports are required if you want to maintain eligibility for Farm Service Agency programs. For crops other than NAP (Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program) purposes, acreage reports are to be certified by June 30. Acreage reports on crops for which NAP assistance have been purchased are due in the county office by the earlier of June 30 or within 15 calendar days after the completion of planting for Spring and Fall vegetables. The final reporting date for value loss crops (i.e. clams, nurseries, and floriculture) is September 30 for the ensuing crop year. The final reporting date for honey is January 2 for the calendar year ending December 31. In some cases we may accept late -filed crop acreage reports from those of you who forgot to certify before the deadline. There will be a nominal late -filing fee for late -filed acreage reports. Please call the office for an appointment to file your acreage reports. LEE - CHARLOTTE- COLLIER 2011 COUNTY COMMITTTEE ELECTIONS (Cont.) The following candidates have been nominated in LAA #3- Collier County, to serve as COC member for a 3 -year term beginning January 1, 2012. The individual who receives the most votes will become the next COC member and the individuals with the next highest votes will serve as I' and 2nd Alternate in the order of their number of votes. Tied votes will be settled by lot. Candidate Bios: Juan G. Sanchez- Owns and operates S Bar 7 Corp. a cattle operation based out of Naples, FL. Has been in the cattle business for 15 years and is a member of both the Florida Cattlemen's Association and National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Robert D. Starkweather — Owns and operates Star Farms in Immokalee, FL since 2001 producing vegetable, melons and citrus. Also runs cattle in Manatee County, FL. Currently serves as the FSA COC Vice - Chairperson representing LAA3 - Collier County. John D. Williams — Owns and operates J &S Cattle Co. LLC out of Immokalee, FL. Has been actively farming and ranching for over 15 years on his family's beef cattle and citrus grove - Williams Farms of Immokalee Inc. He's also a member the Florida Cattlemen's Association. Each candidate resides in LAA3 (Collier County) and has indicated their willingness to serve if elected. Don't Miss Out on Voting Ballots will be mailed to voters by Nov. 4, 2011, and must be returned to the FSA county office or postmarked by Dec. 5, 2011. Eligible voters must contact their local FSA county office before the final date if they did not receive a ballot. All returned ballots will be counted on December 8d' at 9:30 am at the Fort Myers USDA Service Center Conference Room. The public is welcomed to attend the official ballot counting. For More Information For more information about FSA county committees, visit the local FSA or USDA Service Center or the Web site at http: / /www.fsa.usda.gov /elections. OTE Make a difference. 16 p 614 :� NEWSLETTER Fort Myers, FL USDA Service Center Lee - Charlotte - Collier County FSA Office 3434 Hancock Bridge Pkwy. Suite 209C Fort Myers, FL 33903 (239) 997 -7331 ext.2 phone (239) 997 -7557 fax Hours Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Closed on weekends and all Federal holidays. County Office Staff Michael Nordlund, County Executive Director Anita Johnson, Program Technician Bob Brandenburg, Farm Loan Manager (HQ- Palm Beach County) Bryan Rogers, Florida District 4 Director (HQ- Palm Beach County) County Committee Michael Jamerson, Chairperson Robert Starkweather, Vice - Chairperson Jay Chastain, Member Vicki Maisog, Minority Advisor Website www.fsa.usda.gov Lee - Charlotte - Collier FSA OCTOBER 2011 Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments- 2010 SURE The Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE) provides benefits for farm revenue losses due to natural disaster through Sept. 30, 2011. To be eligible for SURE payments, a producer is required to obtain crop insurance on all crops in all counties or, if crop insurance is not available, to participate in the Non - Insured Assistance Program (NAP). Grazed acreage is not eligible for the SURE program. Crop insurance or NAP coverage is no longer required for crops that are not of economic significance or those where the administrative fee required to buy NAP coverage exceeds 10 percent of the value of the coverage. Eligible farmers and ranchers who meet the definition of socially disadvantaged, limited resource, or beginning farmer or rancher are exempt from the risk management purchase requirement. There are certain conditions that trigger SURE payments. For details and clarification call the local FSA office. The 2010 SURE sign up period begins on November 14, 2011 and ends June 1, 2012. 2011 COUNTY COMMITTTEE ELECTIONS — COLLIER The election of agricultural producers to Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committees is important to ALL farmers and ranchers, whether beginning or long - established with large or small operations. It is crucial that every eligible producer participate in these elections because FSA county committees are a link between the agricultural community and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). County Committee members are a critical component of the operations of FSA. They help deliver FSA farm programs at the local level. Farmers and ranchers who serve on county committees help with the decisions necessary to administer the programs in their counties. They work to make FSA agricultural programs serve the needs of local producers. Election Period Important Dates: Nov. 4, 2011 — Ballots mailed to eligible voters Dec. 5, 2011 —Last day to return voted ballots to the USDA Service Center. December 8, 2011— Eligible COC ballots returned or postmarked by 12 -5 -11 will be counted at the USDA Service Center Jan. 2, 2012 —Newly elected county committee members and alternates take office. Who Can Vote Agricultural producers of legal voting age may be eligible to vote if they participate or cooperate in any FSA program. A person who is not of legal voting age but supervises and conducts the farming operations of an entire farm also may be eligible to vote. Members of American Indian tribes holding agricultural land are eligible to vote if voting requirements are met. More information about voting eligibility requirements can be found in the FSA fact sheet titled "FSA County Committee Election Eligibility to Vote and Hold Office as a County Committee Member." Producers may contact their local USDA Service for more information. 161 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES December 13, 2011 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes of 5/2/11; 6/6/11; 8/1/11 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 7/19/11; 9/20/11 3) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6/1/11 4) Bayshore/Gatewgy Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of 2/1/11; 4/5/11; 5/3/11; 6/7/11 5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6/9/11; 9/8/11 6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 7/28/11; 8/5/11 (Special Magistrate); 8/25/11; 9/2/11 (Special Magistrate); 9/21/11 (Special Magistrate); 10/7/11 (Special Magistrate) 7) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 9/1/11 Minutes of 8/18/11; 9/1/11; 9/15/11 8) Consumer Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/15/11 9) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 7/20/11; 9/21/11 10) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/3/11; 9/7/11 11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 08/19/11 161 2 12) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 8/3/11 13) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8/10/11 Minutes of 3/25/11; 7/13/11 14) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 7/12/11 Minutes of 7/12/11; 8/9/11 15) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of 6/6/11; 6/21 /11 Minutes of 6/6/11; 6/21/11; 7/5/11; 8/29/11 16) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of 10/12/11 17) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/24/11; 4/28/11; 5/26/11 18) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 6/8/11; 8/17/11 19) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of 7/20/11 Minutes of 7/20/11; 09/21 /11 20) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 8/17/11 Minutes of 7/20/11; 9/21/11 21) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/8/11 22) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 9/15/11 Minutes of 7/21/11; 9/15/11 23) Librga Advisory Board: Minutes of 6/29/11; 8/17/11 24) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/8/11 161 2 25) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 9/7/11 Minutes of 9/7/11 26) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8/2/11; 9/12/11; 10 /10 /11 Minutes of 5/17/11; 8/1/11; 9/12/11 Ilia Meeting Minutes Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board Meeting Marco Island Executive Airport 2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida May 2, 2011 16 I 2A �Ii�RII�AE� 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, James Murray, Byron Meade, Frank Secrest, and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: Richard Rice, David Gardner, and Michael Klein. Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Thomas Vergo, and Robert Tweedie Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. 3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board. 4. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 5. Approval of Minutes. Action: Mr. Meade mode a motion to approve the minutes for the April 11, 2011 meeting. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 6. Public Comments. None. 7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information. Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board action is requested. • MKY Taxiway Groundbreaking The groundbreaking ceremony for the Marco Island Taxiway Project is on Thursday, May 5 at 10:00 a.m. • USDA Building Groundbreaking The groundbreaking ceremony for the USDA Immokalee Airport will be on Wednesday, June 1. Fiala _ Hiller G Henning F}- 1 of 3 Coyle we Coletta J,:- Manufacturing Building at the iMsc. Corres: Date:_ V *2-\ item d C: gies to: 1 • Fletcher Flying Service complaint against the Airport Authority Advisory. ►. Board members were provided a copy of the Fletcher Flying Service Inc. complaint filed with the FAA regarding the fuel flowage fee at the Immokalee Airport. • Naples Daily News Articles Advisory Board members were provided a copy of a recent Naples Daily News article about the taxiway project at the Marco Island airport. 8. Director's Report. Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda. • Revised Advisory Board Schedule Staff proposed that the monthly Advisory Board meetings be conducted on the first Monday of each month rather than the second Monday, and provided a proposed revised schedule for the remainder of 2011. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion that the revised Advisory Board meeting schedule be approved. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. • John Swasey's Lease Agreement at IMM Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed t- hangar lease agreement with John Swasey of Exec. Air, Inc. of Naples, and High Soaring, Inc., and Aircraft Maintenance of Southwest Florida. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. • Financial Requirements The Executive Director provided Board Members with a hard copy of the proposed financial requirements for businesses seeking to build on the airport or enter into long -terms agreements with the Airport Authority that was previously sent to each Board member via email. Action: The Advisory Board reiterated that the financial records of businesses proposing to build on the County airports or enter into long -term agreements with the Authority need to be reviewed by only the Advisory Board Chairman and the Executive Director. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the requirements as proposed by the Executive Director. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 9. Finance Report — Month ended February 28 2011. Fuel sales are on track to be better than last year. Avgas sales are about thirty percent higher than last year. The Airport Manager at the Immokalee Airport indicated that they have received numerous positive remarks from transient aircraft particularly about the customer service and the facilities, runways, taxiways, and ramp area at the Immokalee Airport. Additionally, quite a few individuals have flown in to visit the Casino and /or the 2 of 3 161 2 5 Farmers' Market. Staff has had regular, on -going meetings with the Casino looking +,y various ways in which we can collaborate to our mutual benefit. Mr. Murray made a motion that the March finance report be accepted as presented. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 10. Public Comments. Mr. Courtright inquired as to whether the agreement with Mr. Swayse would be the same as the one he has, and indicated that he would like the option to have his modified to be the same if necessary. Mr. Shepard stated that they are moving forward with his lease agreement, and are awaiting a determination from the FAA as to whether his operations should be classified as aeronautical or non - aeronautical. 11. Next Meeting. The next Advisory Board meeting is Monday, June 6, 2011 at the Immokalee Airport. 12. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. without objection. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA &,-t a - /3,L.1 Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman 3of3 r' Airpt Advisory Board May 2, 2011 Name Public Sign -In Sheet E -mail / Affiliation Phone # 161 2. pi 7 O wr Meeting Minutes Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board Meeting Marco Island Executive Airport 2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida June 6, 2011 161 2 ��FCEIVijji I ll 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, James Murray, Byron Meade, Dick Rice and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: David Gardner, Frank Secrest, and Michael Klein. Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Robert Tweedie, Thomas Vergo, and Tiffany Mendoza Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. 3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board. 4. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 5. Approval of Minutes. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 2, 2011 meeting. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 6. Public Comments. None. 7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information. Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board action is requested. • News Articles Board members were provided copies of recent news articles regarding the groundbreaking ceremonies at the Marco Island Executive Airport for the Taxiway Project and the Immokalee Regional Airport for the USDA -CCAA Manufacturing Facility, as well customer comments about the Everglades Airpark. Mr. Byerhof noted that all are favorable. Fiala Date: \Z.. \ \3\ Hiller 1 of 3 Henning Item $ \%s7X— --)- IT, n"I_am Who Coyle Coletta C dies to: n 8. 161 2. • FAA Response to Fletcher Flying Service Complaint The FAA dismissed a complaint filed by Fletcher Flying Service, Inc. without prejudice as incomplete, and recommended that the complainant engage in informal resolution with the Airport Authority prior to refiling a complaint. • FAA Determination of Aeronautical Versus Non - Aeronautical Use Mr. Curry requested the FAA provide an opinion as to whether Mr. Gregory Shepard's and Mr. Mayhood's operations at the Immokalee Regional Airport should be considered aeronautical or non - aeronautical uses. The FAA determined that based on the grant assurance to be as self- sustaining as possible, it is appropriate for the Airport Authority to charge non - aeronautical use rates for both Mr. Shepard's and Mr. Mayhood's hangars. Mr. Meade disagreed with the FAA's determination. He inquired as to whether Mr. Curry asked Ms. Ritchey to declare Mr. Shepard's use non - aeronautical and stated that there appears to be a lot of harassment going on. Mr. Meade also indicated that he was going to contact Ms. Ritchey at the FAA and her boss, and that he would report to the Advisory Board. Advisory Board members expressed concern as to why they were not informed that the FAA was going to be at the airport. • Dirt Bike Track at Immokalee Airport Proposal Airport Authority Management has received inquiries about the possibility of leasing about eight to ten acres at the Immokalee Airport for a dirt bike track. The track would not be constructed on property designated for aeronautical use. The Advisory Board expressed support for type of activity. Director's Reoort. Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda. • Tie -Down Agreement Action: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve and authorize the Airport Authority's Executive Director to execute the proposed standard tie - down agreements. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. • Marco Aviation Agreement at MKY Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed concessionaire agreement with Marco Aviation, Inc. for Specialized Aviation Service Operations at the Marco Island Airport. 2 of 3 Al 161 Z r i • Self - Fueling Permit Board members discussed the qualification that a self - fueling permit be required only if a person dispenses over 1,000 gallons of fuel annually in their aircraft. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion that this item be tabled until customers have an opportunity to review it and provide comments. Mr. Crews seconded the motions, and it passed by a 3 -2 vote. 9. Finance Report — Month ended February 28, 2011. The Advisory Board indicated that it would be useful to have the previous years' financials to compare to. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion that the Advisory Board be given a financial report that shows the amount that has been spent and the amount of income to date, compared with last year at this time. Mr. Meade seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 10. Public Comments. Mr. Courtright talked about the MOU regarding the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department. He also stated that in his conversation with the FAA, the FAA indicated that it had no plans now or in the near future to come to Immokalee. Mr. Fletcher stated that he has a federal hot fueling permit. He discussed the process for hot fueling his aircraft and why it is not practical to shut the engines on and off on these aircraft. Mr. Parker shared his experience with self - fueling permits, stating that it has been his experience that a permit is required regardless of the number of gallons that will be dispensed in order to prevent pilots such as him from bringing on five - gallon jugs. 11. Next Meeting. The next Advisory Board meeting is Monday, August 1, 2011 at the Marco Island Executive Airport. 12. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. without objection. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman 3of3 Al r Airport Advisory Board 3� June 6, 2011 Public Sign -In Sheet Name E -mail / Affiliation %4 � tai /� �c7 �� 2 ?F2. ► � Jf ,% A Phone # 161 2 pl M PAR k'C 23C) - 961 3 7 _922 -5 Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board Meeting "• Marco Island Executive Airport 2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida August 1, 2011 Meeting Minutes 161 ,2A �(�f�IItHl�j� 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Byron Meade, Dick Rice, Dave Gardner, and Michael Klein. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: Jim Murray and Floyd Crews. Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Robert Tweedie, and Thomas Vergo. Others Present: Bill Garret, Steve Fletcher, Mark Minor, Marvin Courtright, Greg Shepard, and Andres Gutierrez. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. 3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board. 4. Adoption of the Agenda. FAA update from Mr. Meade regarding aeronautical uses versus non - aeronautical uses was added to the Agenda as item 8.A. Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. S. Approval of Minutes. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to approve the minutes for the June 6, 2011 meeting. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 6. Acknowledgement of Airport Information. Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board action is requested. • News Articles Board members were provided a copy of a recent news article regarding the potential of building a dirt bike track and the Immokalee Regional Airport. • September Meeting Cancelled The Airport Advisory Board meeting scheduled for September 6, 2011 is cancelled because there will not be a quorum. Three Advisory Board members' terms expire on August 10, and a replacement has not yet been named for Rowkabmwst. Fiala —j) `/ Date: V2A \'3\\\ Hiller G 1 of 3 item #: \Lc=. '2—\,=% S Henning / Coyle Vol Coletta ^�' ""' `a 161 • Update on the USDA building at IMM PIP The building is expected to be 95% complete by the end of August 1, 2011 week. It is anticipated that The Certificate of Occupancy will be received by August 15, 2011. The Airport Authority is considering building out the facility, including installing restrooms, HVAC for the office(s), enhanced lighting, and enhanced flooring. The USDA has indicated that this would be included in the scope of the grant. • Update on the MKY taxiway project The project is on schedule and on budget. Thus far, 13.5 acres have been cleared and grubbed of a total of 31.6 acres to be cleared and grubbed. Approximately one mile of turbidity barrier has been installed. Over 7,000,000 pounds of cement has been put into the ground in order to convert the swamp into a suitable sub -grade to build upon. The Airport Authority anticipates saving almost $4,500 by purchasing the electrical fixtures and cables for the lighting directly from the supplier. • Update on Bud's Sod The County Attorney's office sent a letter to Bud's Sod indicating they need to clean up the area they previously sub - leased at the Immokalee Airport for vegetable farming. The area has not yet been cleaned up to the Airport Authority's satisfaction, and the County Attorney's office recently sent another letter. • Aviation Fuel Request for Proposal A meeting is scheduled for August 15, 2011 to review the Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide aviation fuel for the County airports. RFP's have been received from Hiller (Chevron), BP, Shell and Avgas. * Aviation Day at Immokalee Regional Airport Mr. Curry is working with the superintendent of schools to schedule an Aviation Day for schoolchildren at the Immokalee Airport, which will likely be held in October 2011. • Hot Air Balloon Event at Immokalee Airport The Immokalee Seminole Casino is planning a hot air balloon event for March 2012. 7. Director's Report. Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda. • Recommend three applicants for the Airport Advisory Board The Advisory Board unanimously agreed that all four applicants are qualified to serve on the Airport Advisory Board. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC appoint Lloyd Byerhof, Jim Murray, and Frank Halas to the Airport Advisory Board. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion, and it passed by a vote of 4 -1. • Recommendation that the BCC approve the attached proposed Leasing Manual +. 2 of 3 2. A7 16I01�2 Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed Leasing Manual. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. • Recommendation that the BCC approve and sign the attached Sub -Lease Agreements with Greg Shepard Mr. Shepard stated that he is not content with the terms of the proposed agreements, and indicated that he wants the sub -lease to be assumable. Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC not approve the proposed Sub -Lease Agreements with Greg Shepard. Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by a vote of 4 -1. Recommendation that the BCC approve the proposed Self - Fueling Permit Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed Self- Fueling Permit. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion, and it passed by a vote of 4 -1. • Recommendation to have the October 3 Advisory Board meeting at the Marco Island Executive Airport The Board unanimously agreed to hold the October 3 meeting at the Marco Airport. 8. Finance Report — Month ended May 31 2011 and Quarter Ended June 30, 2011 The Advisory Board reiterated that it would like have the previous years' financials in order to compare last year's operating costs with this year's operating costs. 8A. Update from Mr. Meade regarding FAA comments. Mr. Meade indicated that he spoke with the FAA regarding aeronautical use versus non - aeronautical uses, and stated that we should be receiving another letter from the FAA regarding this issue. 9. Public Comments. None. 10. Next Meeting. The next Advisory Board meeting is on Monday, October 3, 2011 at the Marco Island Executive Airport. 11. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. without objection. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman 3of3 AI D 161 2 July 19, 11 BY: ....................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COM IITT Naples, Florida, July 19, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Fiala �� VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Rich Hiller %�� Marjorie Bloom (excused) Henning Dr. Ruth Eisele Coyle Coletta J.T — Sergeant David Estes (exci Tom Kepp, Jr. Dan Martin ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Manager Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistant IMim Cones: DO: '% -JA\3k \ Ilem t ALT. 2�A2 Copies to: July 19, 1.011 I. Call to Order Chairman Marcia Breithaupt called the meeting to order at 6:31 P. M. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Jim Rich moved to approve the agenda. Second by Dan Martin. ADD: to Old Business: Item C. Legislation re: Sale of Mill -Bred Cats and Jim Rich revised his motion to approve the Agenda, adding item C. Legh Regarding the Sale of Mill -Bred Cats and Dogs. Revised Second by Dan Carried unanimously, 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2011 Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to approve the Minutes of June 21, 2011, as Second by Dan Martin. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report Amanda Townsend provided a summary of the happenings at DAS sinc last meeting: • Take a Dog to Work Day: County and City employees participated. shelter dogs were taken to work, resulting in two being adopted. • Employee evaluations, multi -page detailed reports for each employe( consumed most of the past three weeks. • Three qualified Animal Control Officers were hired; training to begin August 8, 2011. • At DASAB's request, Attorney Colleen Greene agreed to attend the September meeting. Questions for her are to be sent to her by the ens August to allow time for any necessary research. • FWC Cats in the House brochures are being included in adoption pac • Meeting with Collier County Veterinarian Association to renew com] information and State requirements to forward rabies certificates to E The Association expressed interest in Emergency Preparedness partic • FAC upcoming meeting agenda item will address legislation regardir the use a five dollar surcharge on citations for spay and neuter as wel ACO training. • Continued partnership with DAS's dog adoption kennel at Humane S • Public Information Specialist position interviews will take place next • Acknowledged Stephen Wright for working with the FDOT regarding possible curb cut into DAS when Davis Blvd. is four - laned. • Photographer sessions were being explored through a referral by Teri • Fencing plans will move forward due to cost savings in the budget foil J ., A2' 161 W-A Z July 19, $P11 holding pens and the pasture; and security gates in adoption kennels. Everyone was invited- - July 27 at Spm at Fred's Diner--A nimal Welfare Professionals networking event will meet, coordinated by Amanda Towr and Pallas Dias. Nan Gerhardt talked about: 1. Attending the Lee County Cell Dog graduation program with Kathl Drew. A Canine Good Citizen Test took place. Representatives frc Collier County Sheriff's Office attended and were interested in star the same program in Collier County. 2. At the Shelter, still seeking a home for the mare and 2 pigmy goats. Macaw and 5 cats were adopted. 3. A complete soaking of the whole shelter area for tics as the worst e, infestation had appeared this year. Preventic Collars and Vectra we discussed. The County Entomologist may need to be consulted. Kathlene Drew noted: 1. Volunteer Orientation took place with many students in the Bright Futures Scholarship program using the opportunity to add to their 75 hours of community service requirement. 2. Monthly volunteer newsletters will be e- mailed the first part of each onth. 3. "Tank", a badly injured dog, was adopted after 8 weeks convalescin with 4 more weeks to go. Both DAS staff and the new owners were extre ly pleased with the outcome. 1. Mandatory Spay and Neuter Laws (handout) Amanda Townsend reported speaking to Brenda Barnett, Director of the Los Angeles Animal Services, where mandatory spay & neuter laws had been enacted. In Ms Barnett's opinion they were not the most enforceab laws; but, the benefit of that type of legislation was its educational value Jim Rich had researched the topic and provided copies of the ASPCA's Position Statement, which basically supported Ms Barnett's opinion. Bc concluded intake and euthanasia numbers were not significantly reduced under mandatory spay and neuter laws. Jim read excerpts from the Posit Statement for the record. A lengthy, lively discussion followed on community involvement, enforce issues and affordable spay and neuter programs. oe*ol "'4 Jim Rich moved to table further discussion on Mandatory Spay and Neuter Law . Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele Discussion ensued Dan Martin expressed the need for DASAB to make a stand for a law. Dr. Ruth Eisele disagreed stating most people want to spay & neuter, b cannot afford the cost and saw the Cat Coalition program was working. Tom Kepp stated no law works without an enforcement mechanism in p Marcia Breithaupt preferred a free spay & neuter program. The motion carried 4 to 1, Dan Martin voting against. 6� 2A� N I July 19, 2 11 2. DTF Survey Responses Amanda Townsend noted a correction in prior statements regarding air conditioning in the shelter. Research was done and a new system of l constantly returning fresh -air circulation was checked out. Nan Gerhardt had spoken to the architect who designed the shelter. ThT cost from design to finish, at $40 per square foot, would be $538,400. Discussion followed on ways to fund the project including DTF, Grants id local group fundraising campaigns. V1. New Business A. Refocusing on our Mission (Jim Rich) Jim Rich spoke about defining one's role on the DASAB, quoting the jc description and expressing concern over the slow progress in accomplisl goals. He put forth several questions. (What is our purpose? How does t public view us? How can we improve ?). His concern was the lack of pro and inability to speak or work with fellow Board Members between mee due to the Sunshine Laws. Items he would like to see the Board to take a • Illegal to drive with animals in open pick -up trucks or on a driver's 1; • Stricter penalties and consequences -- existing Iaws enforced • Spay and neuter free for limited income people • Lobby the County to stop a private community from ignoring existin; • Address backyard breeder problem — breeder registration • Non registered breeders must spay /neuter prior to adoption r • Handling of micro - chipped animals when owner can } He urged the DASAB to pick something to tackle and to work on it until was accomplished. He suggested each Board Member submit a list of tt choice of items to work on to DAS. At the September meeting the Boarc will vote on prioritizing the listed items for implementation. Amanda Townsend announced the DASAB had basically accomplished the 10 items on the last Projected Projects List. She stated a workshop or sub - committees to address specific issues such breeding and spay /neuter issues was an option. She mentioned the Florin Animal Friend Grant license plates and networking with working groups strategize on ways to bring funds into the county for spay /neuter assistan B. Maddie Shelter Fund Program This item was moved to the September meeting's Directors Report. C. Legislation on Sale of Mill -Bred Cats and Dogs (handout) Amanda Townsend reviewed with the DASAB her conversation with h Barnett regarding Los Angeles City Councilman's direction to draft new policies regarding the prohibition of mill -bred pet operations. A few obstacles noted were: Definitions of "mill- bred "; interference with small businesses; enforcemi and banning may encourage reverting to the internet. Marcia Breithaupt read excerpts from similar statutes in El Paso and Albuquerque. Comments and discussion re: breeding and spay /neuter issues followed. on: Of 161 Z July 19, VII. Public Comment — NONE VIII. (A) Topic (TBA (open Discussion) NONE IX. (B) Individual Comments Michele Antonia offered the following for consideration: • Immokalee Interagency maintains lists of many non - profits and suggeste getting on their e-mail list • Recent news advertisement regarding free solar panels for non - profits (s] will locate and send to DAS) • Naples Photography Club offers free photos to non - profits • Taking care to determine true abandonment; avoid "he said she said" sce • Backyard Breeders need health certificate and vaccines. Call ads in pap( check that out to initiate contact. • She offered, for those who cannot afford spay /neuter fee, Animal Compa will pay for one dog a month. Other groups also could do one a month. asked to be contacted if needed and she will coordinate with that group. • She appealed for heat for the Immokalee shelter and to work on building new shelter, for which, she would join in on any,fundraising efforts. Amanda responded clear panels were being priced. She noted the land was and a state -of -the -art shelter could be built for approximately one million do X. Advisory Board Member Comments Dr. Ruth Eisele will drop off two information articles to DAS on items di; She agreed with Jim's objective in setting up a list of goal to work toward. Dan Martin had two points to mention: 1. He cautioned DAS to consider monthly electrical costs in budgeting f the A/C project; and questioned if the County would go along with it. 2. He also spoke about tying fines to car and boat licenses and had writt( the legislature on the subject. The response from one was -- a Collier County staff member deemed it too complicated, unenforceable and n good idea - -. He stated that was an example of needing a mind -set the He noted the difficulty in dealing with the County whose attitude seer to be- "We can't do anything." Tom Kepp agreed with Dan. His main concern - cut the euthanasia rate he stated, had barely changed. He stressed enforcement or free spay and was the only way to end the cycle. Jim Rich pointed out the entire Board going after an issue and presenting recommendations to the BCC would have more clout. He encouraged the Members to send their list by the 15th of August. Chairman Marcia Breithaupt announced Animal Magnetism in the Mall closing. She asked for discussion of having a Workshop on the September Amanda responded she would help facilitate subcommittee formations, folb the Board's direction, once the project list was developed. I1 a I! A2 6 2A' July 19, 11 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:30 P.M. The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for September 20, 20L Collier County Domestic Animal Marcia Breithaupt These miqutep were approved by the Board/Committee on LI I2 U as present , or as amended 6 V. p I�Q��IId� MINUTES OF THE MEETINU` QF'Cl7ET;TE1L COUNTY DO ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 20, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal S Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted met on this date at 6:37 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Jim Rich Biala Marjorie Bloom Hiliar Dr. Ruth Eisele Henning Sergeant David Estes (excused) Coyle Coletta Tom Kepp Jr. Dan Martin ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, DAS Director Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Manager Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistant Mir— Comes: Copies b. 2 20, 2011 TIC herein, present: 2A 2 Septe lber 20, 2011 CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Please be seated. This meeting is called to order. (6: PM) Good evening everyone. We would like to have everyone to adhere to our rules, so please hold our comments until the end. We have established a quorum. Everyone sign the time sheet? MS. TOWNSEND: I just talked to Sergeant Estes today; his absence is excus o . Approval of Agenda CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Can I have a motion to approve the agenda, please? MR. RICH: I'd like make my motion to delete Public Comment A. topic to be cipen discussion because most of the people here today are here for the same reason. And those at discussion will come out with individual comments, so because of time I am making the m tion to delete. DR. EISELE: I second that motion. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All those in favor. MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Nay. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Motion passed. Approval of Minutes: July 19, 2011 Aye. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Has everyone read the MS. TOWNSEND: If you give us just a seconc overhead so they may be reviewed if they were not reviewE unless all members have review the minutes prior to the m CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Can I have a motion tl MR. RICH: I have corrections to that meeting. i table further discussion on Mandatory Spay and Neuter Lai actually stated as indefinitely, not until the next meeting. MR. MARTIN: Well, if that's the case, then your MR. RICH: I'm sorry? MR. MARTIN: Your motion would have been MS. TOWNSEND: Excuse me, minute taker c4 MS. FLYNN: I am actually trying to find out '1 MS. TOWNSEND: Bottom of page 3. MR. RICH: Page 3. MS. FLYNN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Jim is saying his intention indefinitely rather than until the next meeting and Dan has out of order. Dan, can you please explain why the motion MR. MARTIN: The motion is out of order bec Board to limit discussion on the floor. We have an open a whatever they want and whenever the want as long as they !i a couple of Members of the Board to limit the discussion f� blatantly unfair. i minutes for the July 19t` mee ' , ? so Ekna can bring those minut up on the d prior to the meeting. Unless y members, ► approve the minutes? Under Old Business section V. vs until the next meeting, and tl ion was out of order. it of order. you help us with the matter c ;re the correction was. What as for that motion to table the ought up a point of order that Auld be out of order. se it is not the function of the ida, and people on the Board it within Roberts Rules; and something they don't want to moved to t was motion is L bring up limit the -- k abou4.jX1 Sit 16 1 I ?A 2 Septe ber 20, 2011 MS. TOWNSEND: Can you provide guidance? Was the motion out of order? MS. FLYNN: Well, a motion can be made and can be seconded. If you meant 1 o say indefinitely, it should have been that way because is says on here, the next meeting -- CHAIR BREITHAUPT: No, we are talking about 2 different things. DR. EISELE: It wasn't the open discussion part of it, we objected to, it was fa that there were going to be so many individual comments. i MS. TOWNSEND: No, I'm sorry we're talking about the minutes. DR. EISELE: That's not what Dan is -- MR. MARTIN: Yes, that is exactly what Dan is talking about. �! DR. EISELE: The minutes from the July 20a'? r MR. MARTIN: Well Jim wants to change it, as it is written it is tabled to the t meeting. Well he is saying now it's indefinite. rTX MR. RICH: No, no, no. That was stated, it was written incorrectly. I did not soy -- MS. FLYNN: I can check the minutes. MR. RICH: If you would. MS. FLYNN: I mean the recording and get back to you. I don't have them at t I a moment. MR. RICH: Tabled indefinitely. Does any of the Board remember? Anyone? MR. MARTIN: Well that doesn't change the fact that it is still out of order. Yi i a can't limit the agenda just because you don't want to talk about it. MR. RICH: What are we not talking about? MR. KEPP: The bottom line is we're going to talk about every item on the age a. I thought what we were saying is in an open discussion everyone would get to say what the anted but not at the podium. MS. TOWNSEND: Different topic, different topic. Marcia called for someonel o make a motion to approve the minutes of the prior meeting. MR. KEPP: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Jim voiced that he had a correction to the minutes of the or meeting because in the minutes of the prior meeting it states that Jim Rich moved to table further d1cussion on Mandatory Spay and Neuter Laws until the next meeting. Jim asked for that correction bed tuse his intention was to table that topic indefinitely. Dan has brought up the point that it limits di s: ssion among the Board members and has said that if that was indeed was Jim's motion than that otion was out of order. I guess what we need is clarification from the individual Board Members. H did you understand the motion? Did you know what you were voting on? DR. EISELE: My understanding was on (inaudible) meeting, we voted on havi ig open discussion, where everybody just talked and we voted to have, instead, just the individual c comments and let everyone get up and say a timed piece. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. That part has already been done. DR. EISELE: Isn't that what you were saying? 1� MS. TOWNSEND: No. DR. EISELE: No. Okay, okay. MS. TOWNSEND: No. Dan is saying if in July, what Jim wants corrected is i fact what Jim said in July, then Jim's motion was out of order in July. And what I want to know is what as the intention of the Board? When Jim made the motion; how did you understand it and what d 41 you think you were voting on? N MS. FLYNN: I think you need to wait to hear what the tape says... MR. KEPP: I did vote for not to discuss spay and neuter. a CHAIR BREITHAUPT: That's what we vote on, indefinitely. 4 ` Septe ber 20, 2011 MS. TOWNSEND: It would be the pleasure of the Board at any time the Boar I wishes to request at anytime the mandatory spay and neuter be put on the agenda, we will put it on I& agenda, it won't be put on the agenda until that request is made. MR. MARTIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. Just until the request is made. It doesn't limit an ng. MR. RICH: My second correction is under the New Business section VI on o mission is the last bullet that says handling of micro - chipped animals when owner can't be found, and w t I said was, mandatory micro- chipping for all legal adoption groups, that's on page 4. I know with the ecording that can be checked. I found my original notes. (Inaudible) I have no further corrections. MS. TOWNSEND: Jim, I'm sorry, I'm just a step behind you. MS. FLYNN: Last bullet. MS. TOWNSEND: Last bullet, I got it now, for adoption groups. Got it. Mail am Chair, you need a motion to accept minutes as amended. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Can I have a motion to accept the minutes as amend ? DR. EISLE: I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as amended. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Second? MR. KEPP: I'll second. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye. t MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Motion passed. Old Business. Old Business Directors Report: Introduction — Daniel Christenbua MS. TOWNSEND: Alright, first and foremost, after many, many months of d cussions both at these meetings and internally here at DAS and with County Management Staff, I'm very, very proud to say that we now have on board, our own DAS dedicated Public Information Specialist. Ar c I his name is Daniel Christenbury, he is with us tonight. Please welcome Daniel. He comes to us from i TV news background which we have found has been successful for us. I don't know if anybody re es, but our previous Public Information Officer, that work with us at the division level, was also had a revious career in TV news. We find that someone who has been on the other side of the media; knows wl it is interesting to the media, is able to garner our interest and support in what we are doing. W are really excited about Daniel. Daniel, can you give us a thumbnail sketch about who you are besid what I covered and sort of where you want to be headed in this position. MR. CHRISTENBURY: Well, I am very excited to be here at the DAS and to ork with Amanda and the rest of the Staff. Like she said, I come from a background of news and so I am ready to take DAS in a direction of new things. You're going to see great new things for this divisi . I am excited to meet all of you and I am really looking forward to working here. (Applause.) MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you Daniel... and like I said, we are just so excited You know, we have concentrated on positive media exposure and marketing and website improvement; and entering in the arena of social media. That has been... I know there are a lot of people here that wh don't regularly come to these meetings but for those of you that do, this has been a common the in the last year. We lost our public relation person last summer. It has been over a year since there h been anyone Septe iber 20, 2011 who has been dedicated to doing any positive media relations and marketing in this dep ent. So we are just thrilled, just thrilled. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the budgets are ti in County government... so I am sure your question someone might be asked... how in the heck did u get a new employee... well I gave up support Staff. Ekna Guevara is my Administrative Assistant she also use to be our Fiscal Technician. Because Ekna is so competent we were able to roll those 2 jo in to 1 and that is how we were able to free up what we call an FDE, a full time equivalent or a positi , to bring Daniel on board. So we're very, very excited about that. 3'rd Quarter Statistical Report Second item on the Director Report is the 3`d Quarter Statistical Report. I Ulieve that this was provided to the Advisory Board members at the last meeting however it was left off ofthe agenda. So, if you are interested in review and asking questions, talking about this item, we can. It has been provided to you for informational purposes; it is the pleasure of the Board. MR. MARTIN: I have a question. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. MR. MARTIN: On the medical, on the euthanasia on the medical. I know ove have talked about this before but can you remind me when are suppose to start breaking it down according to the Asilomar Reports. MS. TOWNSEND: Well, my original hope was that we could do that for d start of the fiscal year, October 1St. I will have to talk to Nan Gerhardt, she is not in the room; she is Shelter Operations Manager. We have had an incredible busy summer. We have been extremely rt staffed. I do not know whether we have had time to appropriately train Staff to be using the Asilom ppropriately. fe It is still in my work plan and is something really important to me. It's going to bring the lter in to the realm of the big shelters that do desk management practices. Saying that we can impleme t by October 0 which was my goal, is areal stretch right now. I just can't promise it. I can't. MR. MARTIN: So anyway by at least by the first of the year. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Well... MR. MARTIN: Etch it in stone. MS. TOWNSEND: We're going to set a new goal for the first of the year. MR. MARTIN: I don't think this was mention. Did I mention about the ind vidual comment requirements' about having to sign up? Does everybody know that in order tom i ce individual comments at this meeting you have to sign up in advance? MS. TOWNSEND: There are slips at the end of the podium, if you can, wii I out to terribly much disruption, fill out a comment slip and if you give it to our minute taker. We 1 make sure it gets to the Chair if you would like to make individual comments at the end. Thank you, an. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: I have a question on the euthanasia for Time and 1k pace? MS. TOWNSEND: We don't distinguish between, I consider Time and SpE i a the same thing. We don't have enough time and space to properly care for the animals. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: 3 animals? MS. TOWNSEND: Does that answer your question or no or? We have tall d about this a lot and there are people -- CHAIR BREITHAUPT: (inaudible) in the old days -- MS. TOWNSEND: There are people who feel we should report everythind Time and Space because every euthanasia ultimately is for time and space. Had we infinite time and nite space, we would care for all of the animals indefinitely. So the fact of the matter is we use Time d Space when there is not other reason, when it is simply and we are forced into this decision based on t' and space. 1 I 2A 2- Sep te ber 20, 2011 If there is another reason, we prefer to use it because frankly it is more interesting. You w, we can learn more about our operations and how to improve things and do better by gathering sta tics aside sometimes. i; MR. KEPP: But it hasn't changed. You've been doing it for -- I have bee since 04. You've been doing it that way and it hasn't changed anything, euthanasia rate is adoption rate is down. (Inaudible) No. So try something else. I'm in favor of putting it u Space and letting the public know that is why you are killing the animals and your right th beating it to a... I don't want to... (Inaudible) The bottom line is, we've had this discussic MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely MR. KEPP: And I mean you aren't changing anything until somebody mal MS. TOWNSEND: The community... MR. KEPP: And we can't make you. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: (Inaudible) euthanize. MS. TOWNSEND: And as Dan rightly pointed out it will have a new face implement the Asilomar Accord. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: What? MS. TOWNSEND: I said, as Dan rightly pointed out this will have a new J we implement the Asilomar Accord. The Asilomar Accords are a standard reporting tool t basically nationwide by shelters to report shelter in -take and out - comes. It standardizes it: everybody is working from the same page. MR. KEPP: When is that going to happen? MS. TOWNSEND: Dan was just asking that question. The best -- the soor that happen right now is the first of the year. Any other questions about the Asilomar Acci move on? Okay. A couple of things, I included a frequently questions document in yc packet. I put that in there for your informational purposes regarding what happen with the I did that because all of that happened subsequent to our last meeting in July, a lot of media I sort of wanted to get the whole background and story out for you. Interestingly enough, happened. Well one thing happened on the Board of County Commissioners agenda on the may open some opportunities up for us. It is completely unrelated to Perkins. But I think I you all the link and I don't know if you could see the public petition. But a gentleman narr Delaney came to the Board on public petition because he has an opened Code Enforcement regarding the fact that he has 6 dogs; which in accordance with LDC, the Land Developme; violation in residential areas and that comes from the definition of kenneling in the Land D Code. The Board was sympathetic to Mr. Delaney and was interested in seeing what could resolve his code case... in so doing gave direction to the Code Enforcement Department to' kenneling provision in the LDC. I know this is a little apples and oranges but you will see i how this is going to work together and really work towards what I think everybody in the v interested in. So there is going to be an item on... I believe the September 27th agenda who Enforcement is asking for a stay on enforcement on the 3 dog limit and proposing future an' the Land Development Code to remove the 3 dog limit in residential areas. That item furthj Domestic Animal Services may bring forward new language, new restrictions, etc. to be e Animal Control Ordinance. This is a fabulous opportunity for us. This is wonderful. This opportunity to redefine how multiple dogs can be housed in a household, and I think that is everybody in the room is interested in. And I am really excited that you're here, because NN help. I don't know how language can be crafted. It's going to take some time, it's going t� research, it's going to take a lot of debate and a lot of people won't disagree but it is very e the Board same, Time and i, we are :s you... n it when we I on it when is used �tionwide so Est I can make •d before we r agenda 'erkins dogs. coverage, so things I P that Forwarded d David �ase t Code is a done to vise the I'm talking n is in Code idments to says that )died in the our need your ake some itine and b imeA Z Septe ber 20, 2011 that door has been opened for us. It's kind of a neat thing. On one hand, we are kind of hi i ding in our hands right now, 2 things at once. One is Perkins and the other is Delaney and we have th e 2 different animal owners and can we write a law that does what we need to address both and to acco odate what the standards that the Community want to bare out with. I am fairly excited about that. 7m Perkins Dogs Information Item f MS. TOWNSEND: As far as Perkins goes -- the rest of it was provided in ur packet for informational purposes. I! MR. RICH: What is the status of the Delaney situation now then? MS. TOWNSEND: Like I said Code Enforcement will move forward with stay on enforcement for anyone falling under the 3 dog limit. I believe that also goes with ... umm . and there is special magistrate ruling on Delany. So I am sure there is some formal action that has to taken to sort of correct that and or remove that in arrears and that is something Code handles. It soundshke they are going to find him in fully in compliance. All of his animals are licensed and they are all sl tyed and neutered as well. Don't know if everybody is micro - chipped. Interestingly enough, I was 31eased to be able to say we have never had a complaint about Mr. Delaney, never a barking dog compli int, never a sanitary nuisance compliant, never a running at -large -- anything. I was surprised to see item come up because he was completely off of our radar screen 100 %. p One other thing I want to tell you about that was something that happened the Board meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, because it became a 2 day meeting... but it was an i we had before the Board and so I thought I'd bring up again for informational purposes... and that: s a case we have with Abigail and Lola; who are the Duren' dogs. Abigail and Lola have been at the A elter since June of 2009. They are declared dangerous dogs and their owners have exercised original their right to fight that dangerous declaration at the time we had the 3 person panel who upheld their gerous declaration and then they appealed that to County court and that case has been in County ever since. Now the Animal Control Ordinance has a provision that says the DAS can elect to d impound an animal during the course of an investigation if the owner shows they are either unwillin or unable to contain the animals. In this case, that was so, we have had a past history with the Durens. en they lost their home, they were homeless, who they were living with did not want the dogs to bc rcept inside, and this is kind of going on and on for over 2 years now. And the Durens have refused to q op their case. We've been offering them the ability to settle their case, accept the dangerous declar ion, take their dogs home, etc. for over a year and they just last month decided they were interested doing so. So in the meantime, because we have been caring for the dogs for 2 years and 4 months, 8 days to be precise, they had racked up quite a impound bill. And to be honest I was so highly motivai e d to settle the case, I did something fairly unusual, and I asked the Board of County Commissioners t waive all of their fees should they accept the declaration and take the dogs home. Also important to no e, that the Durens have moved to Dixie County. So they are accepting the declaration and moving th dogs out of County. The Board expressed concern over the waiving of the fees. They recognized the 1 1 due of the care we provided for the dogs for 800 and, at that point, 821 days. They asked if I had bee able to develop hard costs; that is the cost of medicine and drugs and feeding the dogs for that ti which was $ 991.74 and the Board offered the Durens a settlement of that amount should they re im the dogs within 14 days. So, we are waiting the outcome of that and we'll see if the Durens are abl o payback the money and reclaim the dogs. Dixie County knows the dogs have been declared danger and they are coming their way, they know they have to register and all of that. So we will see how at comes out. Interesting enough, I asked the motion maker, who was Commissioner Coyle to clari the motion and if the Durens were not able to meet the terms of the settlement, could we determine th ogs were t � Septe ber 20, 2011 dangerous — or -- I'm sorry, we've already done that, could we determine the dogs were D S property so they could be humanly euthanized. And Commissioner Coyle was not willing to concei b that and asked us to return to the Board of County Commissioners for further direction should the I prens not reclaim their dogs. COLLEEN MACALISTER: Excuse me but there were a couple of things I lat were inaccurate in that statement. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Excuse me. Hold your comments to the end ple MS. TOWNSEND: So that is where we are on that one. I just wanted to bi ing you up to speed because it was BCC action and what not. That is pretty much what I have for a Direptor Report. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Moving on to New Business. j; New Business Animal Law Ouestions MS. TOWNSEND: Please allow me to introduce Assistant County Attorn . Colleen Green who is just invaluable to this department in her guidance and insight in animal relatc d law. For those folks who weren't here quite previously, Jim Rich asked that a County Attorney com.4 to a meeting. The Advisory Board members were welcome to submit questions to Colleen prior so that s a could prepare some answers and do some research and she has the results of that inquiry now. MS. GREENE: Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Colleen Greene. I only re dived 3 questions from the Advisory Board. If you have additional questions, of course, I can take em today, jot them down and we can provide follow up responses as necessary and you can reach me ugh Amanda and the DAS staff anytime but the 3- questions I got -- # 1 is -- How can we have off -site adoptions that relieve the County of liabi I ty? Will an assigned waiver be adequate? And yes, the answer is yes. You can have off -site adoption , we can have written waiver. We can enter into an agreement with the adoption site. In the event of a re t fil host or a for profit business, we would ask to be added their insurance policy as an additional insure I for the duration of the event. The follow -up question is -- Can we have a foster program that can relieve te County of liability? The answer is yes. Again, we would need to put together a written document w h would include a waiver and release for the Board of County Commissioners and an agreement by a adoption or the foster family or foster program that would indemnify the County from their own negli ce. Both of these two programs, if the Board is interested in researching these o programs and having written documents provided, we can follow up with that but that would be a dei I sion between your Director and your Advisory Board whether you want to go forward with these prograi r S. MS. TOWNSEND: Can I interrupt you for just a second? MS. GREENE: Yes. MS. TOWNSEND: And let you know, previously Risk Management had a audible) fostering program... anyone doing fostering would fall under the County workers compens ation because they would be considered volunteers so that... MS. GREEN: Right. We talked about that with Risk Management. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay, so that has been resolved. MS. GREEN: Should we go forward with this program and creating the do ents, Risk Management will have to be involved and any parameters that need to be based on the proi rain will be included. MS. TOWNSEND: Great. MS. GREENE: And we will see what groups would qualify as appropriate ster groups to avoid any liability for the County because volunteers do fall under Workers Comp. 9 S r, � 6 Septe ber 20, 2011 MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. h MS. GREENE: And then the 3rd question that was asked is... the question provides: Can private communities receiving County tax dollars for infrastructure etc. refuse to abide by ounty laws? And the sample provided is Ave Maria. Ave Maria is a stewardship community district w ch is created by local law and State law. This is an independent district with its own independent gove g board. However, Ave Maria is still subject to the County laws and ordinances pertaining to anim . The law provides that if a municipality or another local governing board has a law that applies to als then the more strict law would apply because Ave Maria has no laws regarding animals of which I aware... Collier County Ordinances prevail. And should Ave Maria seek an exemption, which is n4 clear to me that they have, we would like them to make a demand on the County to say they are exeml i for the following reasons because I have reviewed both their ordinance and their statues and I can i find a reason they would be exempt from our laws. I hope that answers your question. Those are the on, y 3 questions I received. So again if you think of any others, feel free to email Amanda, she'll forward to a and we'll try to get a response back to you. MR. RICH: Thank you very much. MS. GREENE: You're welcome. MR. KEPP: In the past Colleen, you and I have talked on the phone before MS. GREENE: Yes I remember. �! MR. KEPP: I'm not going to go into it any more than I have to but we've b Jen fighting about this discussion for years. We have no ability to collect fines. It is the most idiotic th Lag in the world to have ordinances and fines when you have no method to collect them. (Applause.) And we've having this discussion for, oh I don't know, for 5 or 6 years and I've asked you en the phone... MS. GREENE: Yes. MR. KEPP: and I have asked Amanda ... we're going to check with the att i mey and we've been checking and discussing this for many years. MS. GREENE: Yes. MR. KEPP: And I still have not gotten an answer and we still do not have g way to collect fines and I don't get that. Do you have any explanation. at all on how to change th I mean I'm asking the question for years. MS. GREENE: Are you talking about when we issue an ordinance violatio or a citation and we are unable to collect from the -- MR. KEPP: When someone takes an ordinance and accesses a fine (inaudi J e) when we give, well we don't do give them but when we do give tickets, there use to be a magistrate. I've read it but still according to Amanda, we don't even do that anymore. And I asked that specifically, i you go back in the minutes not long ago and I specifically asked, I don't know -- 5 or 6 meetings ago, Am Lada, do we have a method on collecting fines -- and you said no we don't. MS. TOWNSEND: But we still go to Magistrate though. That is kind of two different things. MR. KEPP: The bottom line is, by the way, when was the last time we wen t to Magistrate to collect the fines? We really don't do it. MS. GREENE: Well that I don't know. When was the last time you went t i rough the Magistrate. I don't know. I am only asked to attend Magistrate Hearings if there is an atto pey at the other side and that is how my involvement comes forth in Magistrate Hearings. In terms ofcollections, we've worked with Code Enforcement. I know Code Enforcement has hired collection ag Gies to assist with their collections. DAS has explored working with the same collection agency. MS. TOWNSEND: We do. 10 11 i> 2A 2 ptet ber 20, 2011 MS. GREENE: This is a countywide problem in terms of collecting fines research things, like whether we can suspend a drivers' license for failure to pay. That is in Florida law for this type of a citation. MR. KEPP: So basically there is no law. MS. GREENE: It is something that is always on ... MR. KEPP: Yes or no? Yes or no? MS. GREENE: Something always being researched but with no specific ai MR. KEPP: There won't be one, trust me. MS. TOWNSEND: Colleen, can you clarify, because I am hearing someth said that I think was a little bit confusing and that is, the relationship between requiring a r appearance before the Special Magistrate and being able to collect on a citation. Can you that relationship? MS. GREENE: Let me see, what is the question? What is the question Mr MR. KEPP: The question is, if you give me a ticket for $100 and I throw it can, what are you going to do about? That's it in a real nutshell. I mean, do you have a in with this? MS. GREENE: You know, Mr. Kepp we've talked about this. I know in 1 the last couple of years and I would have to go back to the drawing board to be perfectly h, I have not been involved in the process in a good year and I would have to go back to the c and we can certainly do that and bring it back to this Board and have this discussion. But mechanics are not in place for us to find another way to collect the fines. MR. KEPP: That's the answer. We don't have a method. Thank you. DR. EISELE: Are you saying though, that in order to get a method, we woi have to get a law passed in Tallahassee? MS. GREENE: At this point, I think the answer is yes. DR. EISELE: There is not a Collier County law that would do the task? MS. TOWNSEND: Based on all my research, that is correct. MR. KEPP: Why couldn't the law enforcement officers... because it's a lal ordinance? MS. GREENE: Well it goes back to a statute and then there is authority in 1 what to do with those people who fail to pay the fine. And so, there are examples where y suspend a driver's license for failure to pay a court order, for example, but in this case it do' back to the dog laws, to animal control laws either in our ordinance or in the state statutes. i to do that. MR. MARTIN: Okay, my understanding is that you're coming back with ai MS. GREENE: We can put together a report for you so you can understan clearly. I can't say I am coming back with the answer but I would like to put pen to pape you able to understand it better. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. RICH: Colleen, while you're on, you were the one that brought up A MS. GREENE: Yes. MR. RICH: In particular it was regarding TNR cats. MS. GREENE: Yes. MR. RICH: When the community first started there they had no feral cats. MS. GREENE: Okay. MR. RICH: There was hope that this might be one community that might problem along with the rest of the County. Now there is one group in particular that went 11 we have provided for wer today. g that Tom indatory >mment on Kepp? n the trash hod to deal e past, over nest with you. awing board fight now, the d actually not an .e statute on t can sn't tie Mechanism t more and make Maria. have the re twice to A b P r ?A Septe 20, 2011 talk to the Director; hoping that they would allow them to go and trap any other cats to sp and neuter the cats and would even do it for free. Their Director says under no uncertain terms they v� uld allow on the property. It is private property and they believe in the rights to life and that's where y question came from. MS. GREENE: I did not realize it had that angle on it. That was not the w* it was conveyed to me but my understanding after reading their Ordinance and the Statute, the la s of Florida that created Ave Marie independent district is that there is not specific exemption that app s. If they feel there is an exemption that applies, I would have to ask them to provide it to me becau based on my research, I don't find it. MR. RICH: So, we can... MS. GREENE: They are required to comply with our County Animal Ordii iance. MS. TOWNSEND: The only thing I can add to that Jim though is the Anin Control Ordinance specifies feral cat colonies are permitted when they are registered with the Coal I ion etc. etc. etc... but it doesn't say they're required. MR. RICH: That is true. MS. TOWNSEND: So -- MR. RICH: It's kind of gr Y right t there. � MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, yes. MR. RICH: Thank you. r MS. TOWNSEND: Madam Chair, are we ready to move on to the next item. E, G DASAB Work Plan/Priorities Project CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Jim MR. RICH: Oh, it's me. Hopefully I'll make this motion correctly. I am a4tually going to make a motion to postpone this discussion but I'd like an opportunity to give you an up to at this point and tell you why I am making the motion to postpone this. Is that alright? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Alright. G MR. RICH: Okay. The current suggestion list, and by the way, for all of yc out there, we are trying to create a priority list of objectives for the Board and DAS to hopefully impm ve the life, the quality of life for the animals and community and whatever. And we did this a couple 4 ifyears ago and it was very effective. We completed just about everything on that list and we thought ' was about time we put a new list together. So I asked all these Board Members and Amanda to put a st of the 10 top items together that we could then kind of hash out and see what was really important what wasn't so important so we could really try to focus in on these particular items and be very objecti m about them and actually try to accomplish something and be productive. So the current suggestic r list I have now contains 35 items. The subject range, I am not going to go through them, anywhere fr , the top one I had was spay /neuter and medical expense assistance for pets due to financial hardshi o things like trimming the bushes out here and doing dog runs so it was really going to be full organ . Of the 7 Board Members only 5 responded and Amanda and of those responses there anywhere fron 3 to 12 suggestions on each of those. So, the reason I'd like to postpone this discussion is incase ti re was a misunderstanding. I wanted to give all the Board Members an opportunity to send in recon nendations because we certainly value all of your opinions and the more opinions we have the more su., cessfal I think we will be in this. I'd like you to do some out -of -the -box thinking too. May I ask ho P r many Board Members have been out to the Immokalee? The Immokalee Shelter? Okay, I was never there. I made it a point last week to go because I had heard all kinds of things about the shelter.. I e to admit I was actually pleasantly surprised with what they were able to accomplish with so little. I basically a building no bigger than this and a little but next to it. The animals have 6 or 8 metal cages at when 12 i 2A2_ Septe ber 20, 2011 someone needs to surrender a dog or a cat or a rabbit, whatever, they open these up, stick em in there and then they leave. And then they have to wait until an Officer come and take these anixi L fls out and they are usually put in the main building there or brought over here. The problem is they not have a full time person, so there is not always someone there all the time. Like the day I went ou ere one of the Officers... I happened to run in to him, he was terrific, he explained everything to me. When it is over 90 degrees or under 40 degrees and an Officer can't get out there at an opportune tim it's probably going to be a little uncomfortable for those animals in those metals. I will say the place is tremely clean. Everything was mowed when I was there. They all had buckets of fresh water. I ki bw it was only a snapshot in time but at least for what I saw I was really impressed with what they hi A I to work with. You know, when I asked him what their biggest problem was there and he said staff He said if we had a full time person here, it would just be great. And he said and the animals being c 1 tside. We are always looking at priorities, I mean, very quickly, like a Tedd's sheds for $4,000 and a i air conditioner/heater combination for $10,000. You could move those units into one of thosc sheds and those animals would be safe and secure until someone got there. It is pretty inexpensive f i the comfort of those animals. So I just brought that up incase you haven't been there it might be wort lz our trip before you add on to this. Or even if you hadn't (inaudible) out there, envision what I am ying and maybe add to your priority list. I think really inexpensively, you can really help those am is out there. MS. TOWNSEND: Jim, can I interrupt you for a second? I do want to bri , out that we do, under normal circumstances; we do have a 40 hour staff person assigned to the Immok dee Shelter. She works half days Saturday and Sunday to accommodate that. She is off on Thursdays, which time we send someone from the Naples Shelter to man the Immokalee Shelter. So although we on't have the kind of 9 to 6 open to the public hours; that we do here. I wouldn't want anyone to get I he impression that we didn't do our routine sanitation and our 2 meals a day in Immokalee. MR. RICH: No. no. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. MR. RICH: I want to tell you, the place when I was out there the place was 'stine. I have to admit I was very impressed with it. And it is difficult to do this type of agenda in oup like this. We really need to concentrate and come up with the right decision and usually we have some many other subjects going on and frankly we're tired and can't focus to make the right decisions. So I would really like to do a workshop on this. Think it would really help us. The way I want it, I eni i sioned this... I mention this to Amanda and I'll tell you how I would like to do it. Is when we hac Dur company, we use to do something called storyboarding. And this is used by Disney for a tical analysis workshop. It is a phenomenal way of getting things done. We used to have a big and like that, there was a monitor there, and you just keep putting any ideas you can think of and, y just keep putting them up the ideas on the board, maybe 40 or 50 of them, with the idea; no idea is a ad idea. Then you start eliminating some; your looking for 10 or 15 items... is this one really impo int, is this one really important and you just keep tossing to the ground until you're down to 10 or 15 idthenyou prioritize; assign tasks and deadlines and it goes so smoothly. The only person I knew wh as been very, very good at that because of our company... was my wife and I didn't want to use a f i mily member so I talked to Amanda and she contacted Teri Wides, am I saying that right? MS. TOWNSEND: Teri Wides MS. GREENE: Teri Wides MR. RICH: Wides, who is a County Training Manager, who has 25 years i the private industry before she started working for the County and she has a Masters of Education and certified as a Facilitator. Her system is very similar. Basically it looks at the mission statement (inau le); which we should all be focusing on when we make these selections. And the purpose is prioritiz otential workshop; work projects, the agenda is to brainstorm and list 15 to 20 potential projects an then multi 13 ,' h 2A2 A .6.1. Septe „ ber 20, 2011 vote until you select 10 projects that you feel are most important. So it is basically the sai4c time, it goes really quickly and really keeps you focused. So I guess getting back to my motion. fy first motion would be to postpone the Priority Project and establish a date for a workshop. DR. EISELE: Are you talking workshop in place of the meeting? MR. RICH: Well I guess we can discuss that or let me ask Amanda if the E16ard decides not to take another date can they use one of our meetings as a workshop? 'I MS. TOWNSEND: That would be the pleasure of the Board. MR. RICH: Okay. So I guess. DR. EISELE: I think that is more important. p' MR. RICH: Okay. For our, let me make this motion, for our next meeting i October... MS. TOWNSEND: We need a second. MR. RICH: I'm sorry. Yeah, the motion I wanted to make is for the next workshop, our next meeting in October. MS. FLYNN: You have one on the floor to postpone. 1, MS. TOWNSEND: I think he had a half of motion. I think.! MS. FLYNN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Can you start again from the beginning? MR. RICH: Shut my mouth. The real motion is for the October meeting I uld like to make the motion to use that as a workshop for our priority list. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Can the public have input into that? MR. RICH: (Inaudible) may not be here. DR. EISELE: Then we have to advertise it and everything. MS. TOWNSEND: We, yes; which is administrative and we can handle. e also need to find out the availability of Ms. Wides, so we might not be able to determine a date for meeting right now. But we can certainly do that in linear communications and get that established the future. MR. RICH: Can we say a future meeting then? I do want to mention... I 1w; no one suppose to talk but if we have 30 -40 people in here, putting input, it gets a little confusing. at I would recommend is for anyone to give me any ideas for anything. I will be more than hal py to include in that meeting. And then; can the public observe, can they come in and watch? MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely. They must be allowed to because it is the ature of the Sunshine Law. l MR. RICH: Okay so. DR. EISELE: Finish your motion. MR. RICH: Alright. Let's try this once more. I would like to make a motioll that a future meeting when all the Board Members are all going to be here and we can get Ms. Wj des, that we use that as a workshop for our priority list DR. EISELE: I second the motion. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye. MR. KEPP: Out of respect for Jim and because I appreciate is hard work or s. I will vote yes. I will vote for the workshop but I am going to tell you, until you the enforcement issue settled, we've done these workshops for 100 years and w come up (Applause.) It doesn't matter; you can put in your programs. (More Applau .) (Inaudible) That will be my main focus. That is what I care about. But I v e yes for the workshop because I do (inaudible) MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. a� 14 A 1 L A2 Septe ber 20, 2011 MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Motion passed. DR. EISELE: Yes, I would also like to say that I agree with you on enforce Absolutely but that doesn't mean we can't make life in Immokalee better and we can't (ins animals. MR. KEPP: But I don't want to happen like it has happened forever, is we these things and it just gets (Inaudible) MR. RICH: Okay, my second motion then is to extend the deadline for the Members responses until... 8:00 pm tonight... nah... until October 1 St. Is that okay with e,. (Inaudible) I need a second. It's an opportunity if you want to change or redo or whatever And then the 3`d motion, did we vote on that or no? October 1St. I need a second. MR. KEPP: I second. MR. RICH: Okay. The 3`d motion I have is MS. TOWNSEND: You want to vote. MR. RICH: I'm sorry. MS. TOWNSEND: You had a motion and 2 "d. You need to vote. i CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye j MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye.I MS. TOWNSEND: Any opposed. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Any opposed? (no response.) MR. RICH: The 3`d motion would be to approve Teri Wides as the facilitat DR. EISELE: Second. 11 CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye. (I MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. j MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. RICH: I would like to say one thing. Tom, I completely agree with y wasn't for being on this Board... the DAS can only do so much according to the law. But have to be proactive with the BCC and maybe on things we decide, go in there to a Board say we are on the Board and we want some results because they can only do so much. MR. KEPP: In my closing argument tonight, I was going to point out that this Board, since the beginning, I only time I can remember ever going to the County Co directly is when Michele was in Office and that is the only time. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: That's not true. MR. KEPP: When have we, when have we gone to the Board? When have MS. TOWNSEND: Oh, I remember Budget 2010. MR. KEPP: I'm not talking about when we did the budget thing, and they A know how many trips we had, how many fines we had. I am not blaming you. I am blami back. We went in front of the Board of the County Commissioners one time that I can rem . Maybe I'm wrong. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: (Inaudible) for adoption. Didn't we? 15 off on tit's there. If it ink we tins and only time gone? nted to all the way bi ►-jZa 20, 2011 MR. KEPP: Not as a Board, I don't believe. Bottom line that is what we ed to do. MR. RICH: We have the ability to make that happen. MR. KEPP: And that's what we need to do. MR. RICH: Thank you. If CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Do not adopt policy Do Not Adopt Polic MS. TOWNSEND: This is a policy that needed cleaning up, came partly o of of the Perkins case that I started to look at reasons we deny adoptions. And I what I found was a that was a hold -over from the days when Staff was angry with the public and took out their fru ration with the responsible animal owners in a willy -nilly fashion on whoever happened to be standin 'n front of them at the time. What I found, was a report on who was indicated as... Do Not Adopt th was extremely inconsistent and had not had supervisory reviews. So I took corrective action, ed up a policy, its been reviewed by The County Attorney's Office and the County Attorney has s gested some additions to that policy. And actually the County Attorney is also saying the policy will n d to be reviewed by the BCC. I am sorry I did not bring with me tonight the additions that just c e through yesterday. If you want to see all that, I can either try to bring up on the overhead or we c postpone this or based on what you saw, they're all sort of the same flavor. The County Attorney o ice did some review of do not adopt by other agencies and suggested additions consistent with other ag cies. So you can take those on good faith and/or give me feed back or whatever you want to do. MR. MARTIN: Well, I move to table this until next month until you can g I the (completed form ?). CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Did he make a motion? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, he made a motion. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Second... any second? li MS. TOWNSEND: There is a motion to table. We're waiting for a second MS. BLOOM: Second. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Marjorie. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay, Marjorie will second. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Any opposed? MS. TOWNSEND: No, you have to take a vote first. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye. MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. RICH: Aye.j MS. BLOOM: Aye. j DR. EISELE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay, we will put it on the agenda for next month and mu will see an absolutely final version. I'm sorry I just did not have time to collate the County Attorn4y response with my draft in time for the meeting, so we'll move it to next month. Surrendered Livestock Policy MS TOWNSEND: There is nothing included in your packet for the next itt in on the agenda. It's a Surrendered Livestock Policy because if there were, it would be a one liner. We are recommending at this time to not accept surrendered livestock. The reasons for that are; li stock 16 obviously takes intensive time to care for, poses additional risk to our staff in terms of inji additional expense to care for and there is always an outlet for unwanted livestock in the f auction. So anyone who has an animal - livestock who can't keep anymore is more than v attempt re -home it or take it to an auction and those are the exact same things we would di We work very hard not to accept surrendered livestock. And we're very, very good about livestock prior to a desperate situation where it needs to be impounded. We will certainly with a customer who needs to re -home but ultimately the auction is always an option and expense, limited staffing time and also the in creditable risk for caring for large animals w recommending this Board support us in a policy where we don't accept surrendered livest MR. MARTIN: Would you define livestock? MS. GREENE: It's defined in the Ordinance. MS. TOWNSEND: It is defined in the Ordinance. Thank you. MS. GERHARDT: It's typically put -- livestock that they're talking about also include, for example the emu. MS. TOWNSEND: Defined in the Ordinance as all animals; exline, bovin class including sheep goat and other grazing animals. DR. EISELE: How often does that actually come up? Surrender. MS. TOWNSEND: Nan? MS. GERHARDT: Well right now. We've adopted out our horse, Bethan; months by the way, that was very exciting. We have a cow right now ... nice (inaudible), N sheep, we adopted out 2 goats. We got an emu in yesterday. None of these were surrende Amanda pointed out, when we have people and, they are typically going to be horses. Tht arrive and the horses are in questionable condition and the people usually start... well yo em. You know what that costs us. That's crazy. So we work really hard with rescue org; with the livestock in particular with the horses out in the field so often a rescue organizal dealing with the individuals rather than us. How often does it happen? Not very much bei pushing full -time back. MS. TOWNSEND: And how often do you get inquiries? MS. GERHARDT: Inquiries? Almost daily. MS. TOWNSEND: Almost daily. MS. GERHARDT: Almost daily. I get people calling, can you find a hom, horse. I -- MS. TOWNSEND: And I'm really serious about the employee injury thing MS. GERHARDT: Oh yeah. MS. TOWNSEND: I have a 15 year veteran in this department who in 15 3 never been injured except by livestock, Anna Petroloff. Anna Petroloff is our supervisor. dangerous and then that costs us more money in workmen's compensation benefits and wY DR. EISELE: What happens with stray livestock? MS. TOWNSEND: Stray livestock is still our duty to -- DR. EISELE: Then I don't see any reason not to. MS. TOWNSEND: And confiscated animals, as well. You know... MS. GERHARDT: Yeah. MS. TOWNSEND: And if it is a real cruelty case. You know, we aren't g4 away from our responsibilities but what we're asking is that livestock owners not shy awai MS. GERHARDT: Yeah, that is basically what, that's what, thank you. W livestock owners not to be responsible for their livestock. They end up, I get calls all the ti people you have horses with injuries, big injuries and they want us to come and get it and i 17 20, 2011 and n of the .come to s an agency. - homing the ways work due to but they >r slime after 4 have a d. As )fficers guys take izations ,n ends up use I am or my irs has is really have you. rig to shy :rom theirs. are asking ie from it and stuff 11- like that. We have been really lucky. I would say lucky but also we have a staff that worl nobody's business trying not to bring them in and trying to work with people in the field. MR. MARTIN: So that would not include chickens? MS. GERHARDT: Chickens we can just adopt them out. MR. RICH: Or eat em. MS. TOWNSEND: Oh no. MS. GERHARDT: That was a Board Member not Staff that said that. Are Dan, because of the big impounds we've done in the past? MR. MARTIN: Yeah, the big fighting roosters and everything like that. MS. GERHARDT: Yeah... MS. TOWNSEND: And no because that's going to be a confiscation anyv `know... that's going to be a confiscation. That's not going to be if somebody calls me any like to surrender their fighting chickens. The first person I'm going to call is _ -- and s just admitted to being a . So it doesn't really apply. MS. GERHARDT: It stays the same for a stray. The cow was a stray. Ob can't turn that away. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Do you need a motion for that? MS. TOWNSEND: I'd love a motion. MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to alter the Livestock Policy as explained. DR. EISELE: I Second it. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: All in favor. Aye. MR. KEPP: Aye. MR. RICH: Aye. MS. BLOOM: Aye. DR. EISELE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. Thank you. DR. EISELE: And now, we'd like you to get some fines for us. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: I think you're going to get some ideas next from' ready? Policv & Procedures of DAS Enforcement & Citations MR. KEPP: I'm ready. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: You're on here. MR. KEPP: Oh, do you want to talk about Perkins and the policies? Are that? On the Policies and Procedures of DAS Enforcement Citations we started this pro( the best way to start would be policies and the lack of following our performances and pi comes to that. Through this report, I'll try to say something really basic, is from what I know, this has been going on since 05 and through this whole report, even on the questic which I am going to use. Just the very simple thing of licensing and shots. When he dec surrendered these dogs, he had 20 adult dogs (inaudible) as far as I can figure. And I for we implemented the -- what has it been, 3 years since we put in the $60 license for a non animal? Is that the right number I'm - -? DR. EISELE: It's only been 2 years. MS. TOWNSEND: January 2009. 18 511 2A2 ber 20, 2011 like asking... . You tys they'd this guy we Are you ready for and I guess es when it tell -- you end answers, Ito what year A2 Septe t er 20, 2011 MR. KEPP: So whatever it is and so I mean, for not having a license there a fine... and this goes all the way back 6 visits, and everyone knows what I'm talking about. 6 visi in 05, and it says... owner made a reasonable effort to come into compliance. That was in 05. Then 6 sits in 09... DAS advised owner to compliance with vaccinations and licenses. Then 6 visits in April, d well April and about that time, he gave the dogs up for whatever the hell. My point is, our Officers supposively trained, well they are trained and we spend money to training them to recognize abuse and eglect which is a fine line. You know, nobody has yet to show me -- here is a, these are the licenses. I sume, I really haven't been able to figure this out, but I assume these are the licenses he's pulled o r the last year last 5 or 6 years. There are 14 of them. Is that? MS. TOWNSEND: I don't know what you have Tom. MR. KEPP: These are the ones you sent us. MS. TOWNSEND: I sent to whom? MR. KEPP: This is — textile. Ummm. -- MS. TOWNSEND: Do you want to enter those in the record? And if so wl at is the source of the documents? MS. KEPP: No. These are what were sent to us. Supposively, the licenses I hat have been pulled with him. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay, okay. MR. KEPP: Did you send those to somebody or me or? MS. TOWNSEND: No sir, no sir, I did not. MR. KEPP: Huh? MS. TOWNSEND: No sir I did not. MR. KEPP: Are they our records? MS. TOWNSEND: They do appear to be community records. MR. KEPP: Somebody sent those. Okay, they are records. MS. GREENE: There was a public record request. MS. TOWNSEND: There was a public record request. MR. KEPP: Pardon me? MS. GREENE: There was a public record requested that we responded to. MR. KEPP: Okay. Then those came from the public record request. Supf cosively then, that is all the licenses he has ever pulled, these Officers went out all these years and those i re the only licenses out of 6 years that he's ever pulled. The other thing about those, you know where it says status on that and it starts out with -- gave away -- and then it goes dead — dead — dead -- dead an I then about half way through it goes expired. Does that mean they're dead? MS. TOWNSEND: No. I think that means the license is expired. MR. KEPP: Well but it is under the same thing, status. You know where itsays -- MS. TOWNSEND: You know, Tom, I would have to look at where the fie is in the data base to tell you for sure. MR. KEPP: Well, I'm looking at it. Like these licenses are, the bottom lin is, here again, if you read some of the dogs' years of age. Where it says status, and again, this is o ir system and we don't even know it. It says dead — dead — dead — dead; out of 14 animals, some of the -- 1 of them was 17, some of them were 9, some of them were 7. That man was breeding animals. I w what he was doing, when they got out of breeding age he would kill them and that's why it says de Ion there. I can't prove that but my point is; these officers that went out there, they could have shut ' down just for a simple reason, he never had a license. (Applause.) None of these have licenses. (App use.) And then if this report is true and I'm reading it properly, where it says dead — dead; as an Offi r, I would have to look at these things over the years and say, this man has had a lot of dogs and they ave died but 19 \ /fit Septe er 20, 2011 there is a pattern here. They're all dead and they all didn't live to be 13, 14, 15 years old. seems like 7 to 11 is about the year they all -- expired. If that's what that means. MS. TOWNSEND: No, expired means the license expired. I'm sure. MR. KEPP: I hope so, and the reason, go through there. How come half o 1hem say dead, does that mean the license is dead? Now I'm right on this one. MS. TOWNSEND: Alright Tom, I'm good, I'm good. MR. KEPP: I'm not saying you're not right but half of them say dead and I f of them say expired. Now when did we, what... MS. TOWNSEND: The association would be that the meaning of the two 1 fings would be different. MR. KEPP: It's under status. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. I understand. MR. KEPP: It's under the exact same place in the report. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. So that would mean the two words have differeni neanings. MR. KEPP: So some place it changes. MS. TOWNSEND: Expired does not equal dead, Tom. Expired means lic se is expired. DR. EISELE: Tom, I have an excellent theory on why (Inaudible) MS. TOWNSEND: Right. Yes, Nan has rightly pointed... DR. EISELE: It's no longer the license of a dog is dead or the dog is alive 1 'th an expired license. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Correct. There is another status in here that says' enewed. MS. GERHARDT: A status that says renewed. DR. EISELE: That's what I think it means. a MR. KEPP: Well you think but we don't know. DR. EISELE: No, but it made sense, a dog is not licensed until he's dead. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. Please continue. 1 MR. KEPP: But the fact is the dogs are still dead. DR. EISELE: Right. MR. KEPP: Right. No matter how you cut it. DR. EISELE: Right. No matter how you cut it. a MR. KEPP: Okay, so no matter how you cut it all of those dogs have died d a lot of them have ages on them and they weren't like really old. M point is, it looks like a patte ere, when you go out there and you see this guy breeding animals, then you look at the report and yo see nobody is licensed except for a few over the years. There is a problem and if they had paid attenti . This comes under the policy and procedure and ordinance. I am telling you there is no way to plain this; except for somebody didn't do their job. Now, on the other side, I am going to back you because you have told us many times at this meeting, because I have asked it as a direct question. It's ty the order of the County Commissions that you do a, what do you call? MS. TOWNSEND: Voluntary compliance. MR. KEPP: Voluntary enforcement, hazard enforcement. We've have had any conversations on this over the years. So if the County Commissioners are directing that gmup and I've had discussions with Marla Ramsey, who is your immediate boss, at the County Commiss n meeting, out in the hall, you remember that day ... and the reaction from her backed you up and she dwell what do you want to do about it Tom? I've had discussions with Tom Henning. He knows wh the enforcement issue is like it is because I have been to his office to talk to him. So I believe 3o with the changes, we need to go to the County Commissioners and explain to them as a, were as twWayers we are 20 1 i n 2A 21 Se pte er 20, 2011 - paying the Officers to go out on these things but they are not right, they are not doing them ob through the direction of whoever. (Applause.) MS. TOWNSEND: I just want to bring up two things for you to consider a I I I don't feel strongly either way. We work at the will of the Board and we will do what the Board dire d with the resources we have available to us. However, I wanted to kind of talk two things out on the ble. One is Tom and I discussed this prior to the meeting and the last time an enbrcement issue came before the Board of County Commissioners at a policy level, was when we pas ed Anti - Chaining. So I reviewed the minutes of that meeting. I found an instance where I said we a always going to out and educate first. I found an instance where Commissioner Coletta said we le ourselves in Collier County over, in compliance over enforcement. Commissioner Coletta was ad nt when we passed Anti - Chaining; that we give the people, specifically in his district, is who he was icern about, time to come in to compliance. That we have an implementation plan associated with An Chaining. It was passed in January and he asked that we do a big media push, which we did and stay hard enforcement until May, which we did. So there is Board direction for what you talking ab t; be it right or wrong and if the community wants to see that change; we'll work with you to make it pen with the resources that we have. No problem. So I just want to throw out one other thing. This is really dangerous and it going to make everybody in the room gasp and what have you, but I just kind of want you think ab t something. And it's almost a be careful what you wish for kind of thing. We had a call; we had two c is this spring for check conditions in local sanctuaries. We went out; the Officers did extensive reports. onditions were more than acceptable in both sanctuaries. However, the animals in those sanctuaries vere not licensed. Is it appropriate to require licensure of every one of those animals in the sanct es? They are owned by non - profits that are caring for them. DR. EISELE: That's a non - profit. MS. TOWNSEND: It's just a question I'm kind of throwing out there beca se as we move forward. MR. KEPP: I don't -- MS. TOWNSEND: As we move forward -- MR. KEPP: That clouds the issue. MS. TOWNSEND: As we move forward we are going need to address thiE tuff. So, I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants or anything. I don't think it is appropriate for all those E nimals be licensed but as we work to refine the Animal Control Ordinance we are going to need to tA a all those kind of things into consideration. DR. EISELE: Can I say something about that whole Perkins mess? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Yes. DR. EISELE: I'm I up now? Are you done Tom, for now? MR. KEPP: For now. DR. EISELE: Alright. I'm I correct in thinking that he was not in complim a with kenneling laws to begin with? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. DR. EISELE: So it was within your purview to shut that down (inaudible) MS. TOWNSEND: What would have been in our purview would be to, ani I here is where we going to get into that same kind of issue, should all the animals be... (Interrupti4 P, 7 by audience) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Quiet. DR. EISELE: No. We are talking about a breeding (inaudible) 21 AP. Septe I er 20, 2011 MS. TOWNSEND: Yes Ma'am. Yes Ma'am. I am trying to address your What DAS could have elected to do; would be to refer that case to Code. That would have and a Zoning issue. We don't have purview to enforce the LDC about kenneling or occup licensing or anything else; but we could refer that case to Code. However, here again, we dangerous territory. Why do I want to, if I refer that case to Code; am I also compelled to say, Mr. Delaney to Code? And that's where we get in to some dangerous territory. I war want to meet the community expectations. However, it is going to be really important that come up with a new set of rules, which we are going to do and I hope we are going to wor do that. That set of rules can be applied to everyone and it's fair to everyone. I know that of the public who care about animals; say well you're suppose to get the bad guy and take good guy. And in an ideal world, that's wonderful but we do have to apply the law fairly 1 So, where we are now? We have to roll up our sleeves and we have to write a law that wo everyone. DR. EISELE: Like my only disagreement with that, I understand that, that is that Mr. Delaney has not been on anyone's list. MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely. That was in Code Enforcement. Absolute DR. EISELE: So where would you have found out about him to report hirr been brought up over and over and over repeatedly. MS. TOWNSEND: Sure, absolutely, although we certainly respond to oth4 service of barking and whatever at dogs at homes. DR. EISELE: No. I'm just saying Mr. Delaney doesn't really fit. They ar and all licensed. The other thing that has been bothered me a little bit about this. Is being veterinarian community, I frequently hear from you that veterinarian's aren't doing there f licensing and not rabies and I'm sort of getting a little bit of out of this. MS. TOWNSEND: A point well taken. I'll accept that from you. DR. EISELE: Okay. You got to start from home. Some of us do actually money for licensing, as much as we do. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. DR. EISELE: Okay. MR. KEPP: The Perkins issue is in my opinion, you say that (Inaudible) bi look in traffic. They give them warnings all the time. They have the discretion and they c the biggest fine, sometimes they do. You know, you all are supposed to do the same thing at it this guy, you know, like I said our Officers are trained in cruelty, abuse, neglect. The this case wasn't in my opinion and I think a lot of people that are out there agree that there neglect in this case. And it was never brought out in 5 or 6 years. You know, maybe the 1 were, maybe he didn't kick the dogs and this type of thing but there was neglect. I mean a it but they don't have to go, it's like when we did the chaining law. And the Staff and a fe came up with this, well what about the poor little old lady that has the dog out while she is laundry out and if the phone rings and she has to run in for 5 minutes. We have to give he you don't. No you don't. You can use that as an excuse and to not cover -- to not pass a 1 make sure everybody is protected but we don't have to do it this time. You don't have to ; ticket. The law will work. You have to go after the guy that chains up a dog up to a tree a It's no different then this; you can put a law in place and when you see a case like this whi neglect. He was selling animals. He was selling them and there is no shots, no licenses aY have a kennel permit. He's on less than 5 acres, not on 20. And it just goes on and on anc the guy you focus on. Or the guy that has his dog runs out and they attacked another dog continually get out and harass whatever, you've been there 3 or 4 times and you still haves 22 a Code ter into fer, let's :o fix this. I then we together to t members ire of the everyone. s for reasonable: This has calls for X11 spayed i the r share of end a lot of when you ft just write If you look is no way vasn't a least ys intentions I I guarantee people uts the i ticket. No V so you ve her a I leaves. there is he didn't �n. That's they cited them. g 161 2A2-' Septe er 20, 2011 That's the guy you put your time and effort into. You know, that's how you do it. You m; have to take warnings to people. You could mail warnings. There is a lot of ways to save and time and go after the guy that is truly, truly causing the problems. And you talk about rate. You know our adoption, since we put the word in adoption in, the rate has actually g That is not going to solve this problem. And this guy is a perfect example, I don't even kn someone in here could though, figure out how many animals over the years he has put out community in the last 5 or 6 years. (Audience: and how many died ofparvo ?) A lot. I'm general, this guy has contributed to this problem hugely and should have been stopped a lc And that's the guy you need to, you don't need, you want to pass some more laws; that's g theory, you don't have to write more laws, just use the ones we have in process. Thank yo (Applause.) Public Comments CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Has everyone turned in there speaker slips? DR. EISELE: How many do we have? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: There are 10. So it's the pleasure of the Board to a person to speak for 5 minutes or you can speak individually. DR. EISELE: Everyone? MS. TOWNSEND: You want 3 or 5? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: 3. Do you all want to speak? Raise your hands ii speak. MR. MARTIN: Let's get started. MS. TOWNSEND: And if each person would state your name for the reco: CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Please state your name for the recorder. Karen G Karen Gudknecht. (Name called several times) Kimball McIlvaine MS. TOWNSEND: Marcia. Marcia, you can call the speaker and who they followed by and that will kind of free you up (inaudible) KIMBALL MCILVAINE: My name is Kimball McIlvanie and I am the foi 2 golden's presently that I have had for 6 weeks and had 3 of the labs. All I want to say W man should have been shut down due to enforcement. There are 2 cruelties. One is active is a chaining, that is beating or something destructive to an animal. Then there is passive q, Perkins falls under and that is an act of omission and what all they need to say passive crud by cases of neglect where the crime is a lack of inaction rather than action. 4 of these pups puppies died. And I'm going to another case, last year the woman that passed away this p� Tina. I can't pronounce her last name, had 70 horses on her property. I own one horse an the nicest place in Naples and I spend 2 hours a day grooming one horse. This woman hac 15 horses died because they didn't take these horses away. That is hoarding. That is passi of omission. (Applause.) NANCY WOODBURY: I'm Nancy Woodbury and I mostly want to say to say. I don't understand how there were 21 documented visits to this man, to this prop was ever done about the licensing and maybe vaccinations. And I also have a real proble that they gave this poor dog knowingly to a family that should not have taken him home ai made it home with him and somebody had to honor some commitment which is just a bun me. And this dog is gone. (Applause.) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Chuck CHUCK DANIELIAN: I'm relinquishing my time to Kelly Fox. 23 you don't adoption down. but I bet the t saying in time ago. t. But in her appoint �u want to please. rnecht... ill be -r parent of .y is that this -uelty; that ielty; which y is typified -s died, 14 red year, t stays in 0 horses. cruelty act it Tom had and nothing vith the fact he never of crap to Ar, 2 Septa er 20, 2011 CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Kelly Fox followed by Mary Ellen Metro. KELLY FOX: My name is Kelly Fox. First of all I just want to say that I month this many people were in this room at these Advisory Board meetings. (Applause.) Second of all, I am disappointed that the Open Discussion was eliminated. Discussion at previous meetings has more or less been a question and answer type portion, supposed to be for comments only. I feel that everyone that was here tonight deserves and they have questions to have their questions answered tonight, not just make a comment any questions at a next, you know at another meeting. (Applause.) The Mission Statement on the DAS website: To ensure compliance with loo animal - related laws; to return strays to their owners and promote the adoption of homeless new families; and to work toward ending the community problem of pet overpopulation. 7. case is extremely sad. It should never have happened. We have Ordinances, local Ordinai should have been enforced. There was kenneling issues, licensing issues, as everybody kn for vaccine. I want to know what is going to change, how it's going to change and when ii change. And since when are local Ordinances and State laws voluntary? If the police dep worked on voluntary compliance, could you imagine the chaos we'd have. (Applause.) S, explanation of what voluntary compliance is and why you follow that procedure. If you sf voluntarily let them come in to compliance, are you saying that 5 years is enough? I mean you consider voluntary compliance; you allow somebody 5 years to come into compliance are basically dying and suffering and people are buying animals that are dying and there ai diseases as far as; parvo, heartworm, hookworm. So am I getting an answer tonight or... I I'm I getting an answer tonight or do I have to get the answer at another meeting for this q Hello. DR. EISELE: Are you asking me? KELLY FOX: I'm asking anyone who will answer me. MS. TOWNSEND: Well Kelly, it's your 3 minutes. KELLY FOX: No but I'm asking. It's my 3 minutes but I am asking a q would like an answer. MR. KEPP: What is the question? KELLY FOX: My question is; what is voluntary compliance? Is that how to continue operating? In voluntary compliance? MR. KEPP: Unless we go to the County Commission; yes because obvious these years I've had this discussion and that is exactly what's going to happen until we go Commission. I'll answer that question. KELLY FOX: Okay, so when are we going to go to, when are we going to Commissioners? What's the plan? I want an answer of when and how this is going to be i this doesn't happen again. MR. KEPP: Well I'm hoping -- CHAIR BREITHAUPT: I think you need to work with us instead of attack KELLY FOX: No, I'm not attacking. Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, I am not I'm not attacking, I am asking a question. We're here to help and we want to make change asking you. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: You need work with us — so -- KELLY FOX: No, but if they have questions they should get answers. Thi taxpayers. That is exactly what I am doing so I need an answer. DR. EISELE: What I'd like to say it is a procedure to get to the BCC and i it again, we need to come up with a plan. 24 that every is is e right if ave their and State imals to Perkins s that rs and also going to ['d like an that you > that what chile animals contagious okworm... ion and I ,AS is going after all the County o to the solved so ig us. tracking you. so I'm are order to do 4 z It 2A 2 Se! , r 20, 2011 KELLY FOX: Okay; so when are when are you going up with a plan? Now r 5 weeks from now? DR. EISELE: Now, just us? No. We want input from you. We want you t � tell us what you like to see as well and so we know what -- KELLY FOX: I would like you, I would like DAS to enforce, do their jobs. Enforce -- DR. EISELE: Enforce the existing laws? KELLY FOX: Okay, so if they are not going to enforce the existing laws w are the here then? If they can't enforce this; what is their job then? DR. EISELE: But then it was the whole thing with the Delaneys and we we trying to get that change so -- KELLY FOX: No, no, no, no. He didn't have any complaints, okay. There a whole stack of complaints. They gone out there, they didn't issue any citations for any violations hatsoever. They must have been having a tea party out there. They went out there and saw what was rong and just drove away and nothing happened. DR. EISELE: I'm agreeing with you, what I'm saying is, if we go to the MC with the existing laws and get them through and then we go back a year later because we want to ar icnd the existing laws. I'm just thinking -- KELLY FOX: Okay, so. Okay so why? DR. EISELE: They haven't proven to be overly sympathetic in Florida, in neral, to animal cases. Tallahassee is very unfriendly. KELLY FOX: Right but we have something here; we have local ordinance that are to be enforced. DR. EISELE: So you what you'd like the Board to do, would be to go to Board of Collier County Commissioners and ask only that the existing laws be enforced. KELLY FOX: Not only the existing (Inaudible) exactly. That's a start. W have something that's being enforced but the problem, it doesn't need to go to the BCC -- I mea it has to go to the BCC but what I'm saying is right now they have something to enforce, okay and the are not doing that so... DR. EISELE: Then it has to go to the BCC. There is no reason that... KELLY FOX: So the BCC has to tell them what job they need to do? DR. EISELE: Apparently (Inaudible) No. KELLY FOX: So the BCC has to tell them they have to enforce these law;.. They don't already know that? That's not their job already? DR. EISELE: No. They know what their job is, all I'm saying is... KELLY FOX: Okay. So what is their job? Okay, so someone tell me, whd is your job? What is your job? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Times up. DR. EISELE: Yes. KELLY FOX: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Will someone please volunteer theft time tome? Thank you. Okay add 3 more minutes please. I just want an answer, we're hereto get an., wers, we want change. We want things to improve in our community. That's why we're here. (Applause.) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: (Inaudible) KELLY FOX: What's that? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Are you their spoke person? KELLY FOX: No, I would like, if they have questions, they should have m answered. They are taxpayers, they should have their questions answered. This is a public meeting. 'm just trying 041 1 6 12 Sep ten er 20, 2011 to get some answers and just know what direction we can move in. They have a job to do i they're obviously not doing it. This has been more than 5 years of complaints and issues. { MR. KEPP: (Inaudible) I'm on your side, I am answering. They've been, a cording to Amanda they have been directed by the County Commissioners to basically try to educate ople. KELLY FOX: Okay. Okay, educate, so when they go out here, how are th# educating them? Do they have these people take a class? MR. KEPP: I'm on your side. j KELLY FOX: Or do the just say -- what? MR. KEPP: And so, if she is correct and she is getting this from them, ther need to, as a Board; we need to vote... to go ourselves as a Board to the County Commissioners an I say we want a direct order from you to Marla Ramsey, to Amanda that we want these Ordinances enfor d in full. KELLY FOX: You're saying BCC is telling them not to enforce these. MR. KEPP: I'm telling you according to Amanda; that is the direction the oard has given us. I don't know what was said between them, the whole thing. I'm telling you acc ding to Amanda and if I take her word for that, I can just tell you this... sitting in this room and ta ing to Amanda about this, you're wasting your time. What we need to do is go to the County Co; 'ssioners, because if, and I am giving Amanda the benefit of the doubt... that this is their direction so if is their direction, then Amanda can not change it. I'm not taking her part in it. You know every igle meeting for 5 years, at the end of the meeting; I've gone to Amanda about this whole thing. So I not -- KELLY FOX: So basically what you are saying. MR. KEPP: I'm saying that -- KELLY FOX: Until the BCC says they have to enforce these it is going to be a free -for- all. So anyone can do anything they want in this community. MR. KEPP: Until the County Commissioners standup there and say Aman I a we want these enforced and let me tell you... KELLY FOX Wait. So right now there is now nobody enforcing anythin ecause the BCC says not to. MR. KEPP: Basically. Basically. KELLY FOX: So none of us in here have to do anything with our animals We can chain them up. We can... not vaccinate them; we can do whatever we want and -- MR. KEPP: Just about. KELLY FOX: That's (inaudible) MR. KEPP: I wouldn't go that far but I (Applause.) (Inaudible) We need to go to the Board of County Commissioners. That is the answer. (Applause.) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: (Inaudible) Time. Judy Wilson... (Inaudible) M i ry Ellen Metro MARY ELLEN METRO: Could you please pass this out to everybody? he Rescue of Rose flyer) Well you all talked about laws and what could have happen on that property did happen on that property, here she is. I rescued this girl in 2003. This girl had two eyes, one eye is pushed so far back in her head and we had to remove it. He let that dog live on his property for 4 y irs like that. So he has started back in the 1990s. She was bred every 6 months. She had an eye that w 19 pushed back in her head. She lived like that. She, this is my dog now, she's got scars all over he ace; she got scars in her ears from not being cared for. She had no coat; her stomach was down on the gTound. She couldn't walk. She came up to me with her head down and her tail tucked. And he had t ick her up and put her in my car. To note that if I was not out there by 12 noon on that day when 1 si the free ad in the paper, he told me — quote -- I am going to destroy her because I can not afford to pa and take care of her because she is not a good mom anymore. Okay. Well I'm just saying we are king about 26 _ .y 1 ! � t 2A2 Sente er 20, 2011 neglect, abuse, his attitude about his dogs. I don't call that love of his dogs. I don't call tha Mr. Perkins loved his dogs because he wanted to destroy her. That was my first indication that he, this reeder was not what we would think to be a kind advocate. Yes, he could make money off his dogs, all know everybody that does this -- the dogs. He was not really the channel we wanted. He as not a kind caring animal advocate. Let me also explain what the property was like. We all went ack there after he left. It was like a concentration camp when I went back there after he left. It was i ore like a dog fighting compound after he left. When I was there in 2003, the dogs had green water ' drink. The dogs were tied with maybe a small bowl. The dogs were in kennels and the puppies were kennels... they were not cleaned. There were various stages of pregnancy with his female dogs. He Id me that many go off and get killed by the snakes. He didn't care; he didn't care about any of that. was overgrown; their home was the bush. Overgrown, their home was the bush and he was pr d to tell me they like lying in the bushes and they are comfortable in the bushes. There were feces eve here. It was despicable, it was horrifying, it was sickening. This is back in 2003 so these lists all way up to 1999 and back to 99. This has been going on for how many years, over 10 years, over 12 ears. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Okay. Did you complain to DAS on this at the ti e? MARY ELLEN METRO: Oh, let me just tell you. I did complain to DAS. I would not be able to walk away without complaining to DAS. Nothing was done about it. I was not ontacted about it. I had doctors that went out there to get dogs. I had doctors that went out and bo t puppies and they would complain to DAS about what they saw. Nothing was ever followed throu We've had recent complaints... recent, recent complaints about that property and what the dogs were oing through. Nothing has been done. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Ma'am your 3 minutes is up. MARY ELLEN METRO: Well I am sorry. You know what. This is, this what you need to see because none of you people saw this. DR. EISELE: Yes we did. We saw it. MARY ELLEN METRO: Did you? Did you see her? Did you see all the ogs? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Yes I did. MARY ELLEN METRO: Let me say just one thing. I'm sorry... CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Okay. Judy Wilson MARY ELLEN METRO: Let me just tell. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Well we do have rules and regulations. MARY ELLEN METRO: Would somebody else like to offer.... I just hav a little bit more to say, just a little bit more because it's really important. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Ma'am MARY ELLEN METRO: What are you going to do; put me in jail? Oka I'm going to keep going. Rose was not the only one. She was set free. There were other dogs that we escued. Some that couldn't crawl; couldn't move. There were other dogs that couldn't even stand p. These are dogs that were put for free in the paper and our rescue went to get them. Every dog we h e gotten out of there hung their head and they were fearful and they were afraid of him. And To w you said You didn't know if he kicked the dogs, I saw him kick dogs. You see I can put a place an words to what you say and I can put experiences to words. Alright, 8 years later, she's with me. S remains a special needs dog. I have spent a fortune. My husband and I have spent a fortune on her keep her healthy. She is not 12 '/2 she still holds the scars. Every week, every month I'm at the ve 'th her. He never took care of her, he neglected her, he abused her. That eye was pushed so far back i i her head; my vet said there had to been strong trauma to her. So -- MR. RICH: Excuse me. Do you somehow view us as the enemy here? 04A 6 �tert er 20, 2 1 MARY ELLEN METRO: No. I am telling you because how many of you I ve been out there to see these dogs? How many have you been out there? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: We saw the video. MARY ELLEN METRO: All I'm trying to do is tell my story of Rose but un also trying to tell everybody else that has had to deal with Perkins their story. Do you unders ? It's not just Rose. It's all the other, Willie... where the hell is he? You know, because of neglige e. MR. RICH: Do you think we have never (inaudible) animals (inaudible)? MARY ELLEN METRO: Well if you did, then why weren't you out there osing him down? MR. RICH: Because I'm not a part of DAS (inaudible) and I don't have th authority to do that. � MARY ELLEN METRO: Then why? 1 MR. RICH: We are... MARY ELLEN METRO: Excuse me? MR. RICH: We are supposed to a liaison between you and the Board, if yo a have a problem, I mention this, if all of you would have been here because month after month aft month instead of having 2 people here and wanted to get input to us; we would have the ability to ake things happen more between the Board and the Board of County Commissioners. And somehow 1 his is our fault. (Inaudible) We don't even know what's going on. MARY ELLEN METRO: What? KELLY FOX: Nothing happens, that's the problem, nothing changes, it sU rs the same. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: You guys, instead of fighting with us you need to !work with us. KELLY FOX: We've tried Marcia. How many months have I been here? ow many months have we all sat here and nothing changes? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Did you go to the Board of County Commissione -S yourself? (Inaudible) MARY ELLEN METRO: Nobody is an enemy in this. What we are tryin4 to do is stop this... stop it, stop it, stop it. (Public person shouted, if you don't know what you're doin find something else to do) (Applause) Stop it. And Rose will probably be gone before anythi is ever done in this County to make sure this never ever happens again. But I want to make sure that s never happens to golden's to, I don't care, shiatsus or to any breed of dogs any animal. This c iot happen again ever, 10 years, 12 years. This can not happen to all those animals. MR. RICH: We all agree with you. We do agree with you. We have some of the most egregious laws in the Country in this State for animal welfare. (Inaudible) Wisconsin... MARY ELLEN METRO: So change them MR. RICH: We don't personally have the ability to do it. (Inaudible) MARY ELLEN METRO: We are going to follow through. We are going r follow through. MR. RICH: And you just stand up there and... MARY ELLEN METRO: No. I'm just telling my story. DR. EISELE: I would like to say that one of the biggest things we got thrO L gh was the Anti- chaining and it was because of the work of these people. MARY ELLEN METRO: That's right but he still chained. He still chaine I those dogs. DR. EISELE: I'm sorry we can't monitor him. You call and we try to get done. That's not our job. Out job is to take your input. MARY ELLEN METRO: Then that's their job. That's their job. Alright that's her job. That's DAS's job and that's all the animal control officers that are supposed to go th a and care. 28 � 16,E I -� 2A2' 1A Septenj er 20, 2011 DR. EISELE: We are not animal control officers. MARY ELLEN METRO: I'm not arguing with you about that. DR. EISELE: (Inaudible) MARY ELLEN METRO: And I understand that Doctor DR. EISELE: I love the fact that you've got this little old lady in a carri MARY ELLEN METRO: I love that Doctor that is very nice but please sure this never happens again. DR. EISELE: Yes. This is something we need to do. We need to talk al happened. I agree. Everyone is outraged by it but we need to at least come up with sor constructive. MARY ELLEN METRO: Why isn't this side of table saying anything? CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Can we go to the next speaker please before we someone? MS. GREENE: Yes. And for the minute keeper it's very important. Exci minute keeper, it's very important. If you're going to cede your time; I need you to stand name for the record and say I'm ceding my time. That is up to the discretion of the Chair people to cede their time. We need to keep a clean record. So please help the minute kee person speaking at a time. Thank you. MARY ELLEN METRO: Mary Ellen Metro, of Golden Rescue of Naple: She (Rose) says goodbye. (Applause.) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Judy Wilson JUDY WILSON: My name is Judy Wilson and I responded to an ad in Al friend of mine and I went out to pick up this dog that was described as fit and old and a fe was chained behind the house. He had to go behind the house to get her unchained. He ti Meanwhile I was looking at two other dogs that where chained. And she came out, she h., collar that was probably inch long link that had been on her a long time. Her teeth were d nerves, we can only apotheosize that it was from trying to chew the chain off. Her nails v over; she had tumors, an extremely bad ear infection, that's just her. While we were there of the dogs had open wounds and scars with flies on them. And we were kind of shooing she asked if he was going to do anything -- no -- their okay - -their okay. So yeah, we hav there too. Mellow has since lost all her front; all of her front teeth have been extracted. I now been cut and she is able walk again. That's just part of it. I didn't even go into that i DAS to report this. I didn't go into all the neglect that we saw because I was going by th saw two dogs tethered. One we know was tethered behind the house because he had to gc So, there's a tethering law. This was in April. And the other thing was, I had forgotten tc we were there when her last rabbi shot was. So I called him up. I said when was her last he said oh, I had a vet out here 4 or 5 years ago. That was his response. Okay, that's one weeks later; I'm out there rescuing another dog. I didn't even go on the property that tim( so disgusted with it. And I have to admit that, with this whole debacle with the Perkins do DAS and that as a taxpayer who has to pay for all this too. I couldn't understand when th these rescue organizations willing and already able to take all these dogs and foster them on to them and did a lot of... these dogs all have issues. They've never been socialized. ' like this one; every time we clap, it's scared to death. I just couldn't understand that. The and the golden rescues were all there and DAS held on to them. As a taxpayer, that cost i money and I don't understand that. So, besides the neglect, I am with everybody else. I see this ever happen again after seeing the conditions out there. Thank you. (Applause.) 29 not make to call me. For the , state your a to allow by one Thank you. . And a rle. Mellow I us that. on a chain m to the e curled ,e saw most .m off and he neglect nails have en I called aws. I said I ad undo her. ;k him when )bi shot, and ,g. Two ecause I was coming to were all 1 DAS held u know... :) rescues a lot of i't want to :. 2 A2 . ' Septenl� er 20, 2011 CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Bibi Barrett BIBI BARRETT: Bibi Barrett. All that I basically have to say is I am not re to fight with you, or you. I just want to put you on point, everybody in this room on point; we are We to to the Board Commission, if that's mg to make hat we need things change one way or another. are going go to do, whatever it is. Okay but we have got to do something. That is disgusting, inexcusat le and should have never happen again. Should have never been allowed to happen. I can't understand I ow or why it was ever even was allowed to go on since 1990 something. I mean, whatever, long story s iort, the gloves are off. Let's fix it. We can sit here and scream at each other day in and day out. 1hat is not going make Rose feel any better and it is not going to prevent any other thing from happe g like this. I am tired of fighting with you and I am tired of fighting with you and everybody else. So is just ' make it happen, whatever it is, let's just step up and do it because the time has come. And 's too late for them but let's save somebody else from being in those shoes. (Applause.) i CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Colleen MacAlister COLLEEN MACALISTER: My name is Colleen MacAlister. I'll skip th xplanation on the Duren' dogs because that will go back before the County Commission in October s I won't bother to correct that record. With respect to your question about enforcement; Florida S to 828.27... I'm speaking fast because you've given me only 3 minutes, 828.27 Act states specifically at you can file. The County Magistrate can find a party in contempt. The idea of that the Contempt tute is meaningless, means that the Legislator made a meaningless statute and they don't do that. kttached to any finding of contempt are the legal mechanisms to enforce contempt, which include a it of Bodily Attachment or jail, in other words, they include cohesive daily fines and the only requirerr dnt of the Magistrate is that she include a civil purged vision, which means you either pay the fine o s is what I am going to do to you and as long as all the requirements of due process are met. That is i I 1 the courts would care about. So I find it a little bit difficult and I; with all due respect to the County Utorney, disagree with her that there has to be anything else in that Ordinance except the will to as e Magistrate to find contempt when somebody doesn't pay a citation. Second, I would like to know; I read that FAQ or that report that was done nd it seems to me for the past 6 years the County has found that under this idea of compliance over en brcement that compliance, that he was making reasonable efforts. I would like to know when DAS cons. Jers efforts of compliance unreasonable -- 7 years -- 8 years -- 10 years. When does it become unreason le? I would like to know why anyone that took an adult Perkins' dog should have to buy a license. U ss the County can show me where they enforced the license provisions against Mr. Perkins for tl ose dogs; why should any new owner have to buy a license and in fact, it kind of, after this discussion to y, I have to say that quite frankly... anyone in Collier County that buys a license is foolish. (Applause:) I don't think that this County has the ability to enforce any license requiren Lents. Ms. Townsend herself said they want to apply the law fairly to everyone. Well if the law was plied fairly to Mr. Perkins and no licenses were required. Then the law should be applied fairly to evo i yone that adopted one of those dogs and no license should be required similarly. The last thing I wE to say was CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Colleen this is over 3 minutes COLLEEN MACALISTER: The last thing I want to say is; I'm sorry but on't understand if you've been bringing up compliance for years why DAS didn't go and ask f the authority to enforce a long time ago. They had to know what was going on this property. ey should have gone to, that's their job. Their mission statement starts with enforcing Collier Count Ordinance. . Either the County Commission passed Ordinances (Applause.) either the Collier County mmission passed Ordinances that are meaningless, and if so, then please tell me which Ordinances y do consider meaningful. So I know which ones I have to obey and which ones I can ignore they intended for it to be enforced and if the is some back room chit chat; that says we don't re ly want you 30 � t ii 4 2 er 2 2011 A2- Septer > to comply with these Ordinances. Then I think that needs to be made in the light of day an I quite frankly, if that was the conversation then they violated the Sunshine Law because I can fin nothing in any discussion anywhere between the County Commission and DAS where they said wed 't want you to enforce these Ordinances. So somewhere then members of the County Commission an DAS were violating Florida State Law. That's all I have to say. (Applause.) MS. GERHARDT: There are 2- vehicles that are parked in front of our gate out front, the side gate. Does this sound familiar to anybody? We have a van out there with animals to download and can't get in. One is a little BMW and the other one is -- they are both backed up to our gatc. MR. RICH: Are you an attorney? You would make a wonderful represent ve for this (Inaudible) and I for one would (inaudible) COLLEEN MACALISTER: I would be happy to help in any way. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Cindy Harrold. Janice is next. CINDY HARROLD: My name is Cindy Harrold and everybody has done i pretty good job on hitting most of the points that we probably all are feeling. I guess the only thing I v ould say to you all from DAS here is in a word... accountability. Where is the accountability? Who las it? You didn't know he was violating land use code because no one called you. Nobody called Co e because you didn't call them. This was a property you that knew had diseased animals on it; not v good for the citizens of Collier County. This was non - licensed. Violations were rampant there but obody is accountable. I mean, I feel like it is the Federal Government but it isn't. I'm paying taxes ere; I want you guys to be accountable for your job. I've read every statute local and State. I saw no ords that said voluntary compliance. I don't know what that means either. Nobody seems to know hat it means. You know, if I had a job or in my job and I wasn't accountable for every aspect that went , I'd be fired. And I just don't get why everyone passes the buck. And notice I'm looking at them ind not you guys because it is your job to know and it is your job to talk to your bosses and it is your j to say... this property really sucks out here and this guy is a breeder. He's got diseased — dead — itever -- animals out here but you have to care to be accountable. (Applause.) JANICE RUDOLPH: The Board, the 3 people I know very, very well on Board, they care. Their problem is and it's not even necessarily Amanda, she's screwed because she c i 't get anything to the County Manager. If you check the Board of Commissioners' website it sa 3 on it... they serve on the behest of the County employees. That is not true, we elect them, they serve a the behest of you. The only way the County Commissioners will listen to anything, you can go to the n cetings until your blue in the face. Been there, done that. I've known Nan for 15 years, nothing ever hibp ens. You have to drag it through the paper and you have to get them voted out. You can meet with em independently, separately like Mr. Kepp does. I've met with all of them over the years. d they sit and have a nice lunch with you and they agree with everything you say. They hear you, y pay attention to you, they understand it and they all get up there and vote at whatever the Co y Manager and Amanda's higher ups tell them. MS. FLYNN: Please state your name. JANICE RUDOLPH: Oh. Janice Rudolph. And the first one, I know To said the complaint started in 2005, Lisa Morelli and I and Mary Ellen Metro were complaining in 00 and 2001 when Pet Smart of Naples first opened and everyone was coming to me to help them pay r Arthur Perkin's parvo dogs. Many of them died; parvo treatment has gotten better. He's had n arous law suits against him from these adopters. And Amanda could have shut him down without County Commissioner. This was her fault and I think she'll own up to it. When Fred Coyle said mpliance first, that's fine; everyone needs a warning or two. You go to an abused child's home, y don't take the kid away the first day, you work with them, you give them a chance, you give them a w months. Maybe Mr. Coyle and Amanda need to put a little side thing in there, not a law, just a pol t change that 31 r- w ol Septe ber 20, 2011 They will give these people 6 month chance to comply, if they haven't complied in 6 mon s they lose the privilege of doing their business. The other people you have to go up against is the C rity Attorneys' Office because their attitude is... and when you talk to them about an mandato y spay /neuter law ... you can't tell people what to do with there animals because they're just property. U it you let your grass get higher than 6 inches and then they'll sure as hell will fine you and those fin you have to pay. You may not have to pay a fine, although I know people who get a 7 day notice to re i ew the license or show proof of rabies. I believe that is still the law. If they don't do it they get 1. E rassed to pay the fine. Perkins slipped through the cracks and he didn't really. This was long before Ax i anda got here. Lisa and I have filed complaints back then. Everyone who has ever bought a dog fri o him, he used to charge $1200 in the early 2000s. And shame on the vets, who shall remain namehis, Dr. Ruth knows who they are, who cut Mr. Perkins a $25 discount. And shame on every vet in this town who was giving discounts to breeders but not to animal shelters. Okay. Harborside -- DR. EISELE: I hate when you say that. JANICE RUDOLPH: No because there are very few clinics that will cut b aks any more for us shelters, the Coalition, the Pet Coalition, some of the rescue groups. Some of L s have found our vets, and by the same token, those vets that we have found will not cut discounts to br ders. The other thing is, the last meeting, I think was here about 18 months ago. We had all the repill able dog and cat breeders in town. We had a big thing that was presented urging Amanda to institute a censing law that everyone who wanted to breed had to get a County permit. The reputable dealers weii here at the meeting. They have all said they would pay $100 a year or $200 a year and if nothing els4 this will at least shut down the backyard breeders. Arthur Perkins was a backyard puppy mill; if he h id been required to have a license he would have been required to be out there every year. Not on that, there is a lemon law; a state lemon law that Amanda could have enforced. And some of the vets, 1 here is a vet who shall remain nameless, from the best clinic in town; who will not report a cat mill th is breaking the lemon law. So we need the vets to report it so there is enough blame to go around. Where is the Breeders' Law? We want everyone to put in Collier County, hen they have puppies for sale... I'm getting them. They breed; they have 10 boxes in a litter. The ast one... Animal Control had 2 of them, pure breed pit bulls, he sold 8, couldn't sell the other 2, bral ight them to me. They had names; I said just get a skin- scrape so I know what I'm dealing with. He b ught them here. They were probably put down because they're not in good shape. But he's allowed breed, if he would have had to put an ad in the newspaper like a plumber or an electrician and had to 1 1 it his Collier County License, then everyone else, the backyard breeders, like this douche bag, he would have been reported. And Amanda does have enough volunteers and I'm pretty sure even Kathy coul scan the classifieds once a day. It would take her 5 minutes to scan for the dogs and cats for sale i4 Collier County and see the breeders' license. And if there wasn't; someone can phone. Okay, no Jack will tell you, he has been up against the Board of Commissioners forever, since back in his Hu rhan Society days. I've been dealing with this since 96 when I started volunteering here. The other thi ig, when Fred Coyle says to Amanda... do everything you can in compliance first. Set a six month thin on it. Speak to the County Commissioners, Amanda. It doesn't have to go before the Board. Say we' going to give everyone a chance, we are going to put a time limit on it and if they haven't complie in 6 months they lose the privilege. Owning a dog or a cat is not a right it is a privilege and if you do t follow the laws and she has rabies law in place. She doesn't have to deal with Code Enforcement. he has rabies laws in place -- DR. EISELE: Judy, where are you on your list because no body else is goi rig interrupt you? (Inaudible) JANICE RUDOLPH: Okay. But wait a minute, when you are dealing wit the comment; that well if we come down hard on Arthur Perkins; then we have to follow the une law for 32 ji 20, 2011 Delaney or whatever his name is. You don't have to because there are gray areas. If Dela y, if you've been to his house and every thing is beautiful and immaculate; like Jim said the Immokaled Shelter was. If it's well fed and clean; then enough said. It's handled. Do a surprise visit. If it's fine, Is fine. Non - profits are different. We are under FACTA Laws and the Florida Anij rial Control Association. There are a lot of laws we do not have to abide by. There are several that w o have to abide by. We can have more animals per square foot then any law; we are allowed to bre that law that way. There are very few laws in place for us. We all follow them and if you find one of not doing what we are supposed to be doing; you can report them as I've done. Nothing has happen J. There is a rescue group in Lee County that is letting all the animals go. Nd a of them are fixed and that is against the State law for non - profit animal shelters. Okay. And the other thing is, I don't know why you need a legal status to - fuse adopters. We get people in Pet Smart and all the other groups will tell you; if they don't 1 e the person; if you ask the child what happen to your last kitty... and well dad crushed it in the lazy when he was watching football, then you say no, well you're not going to get another cat from us. o you do have the right and it is not a legal thing. If you are afraid of, you know the ACLU and all at; you'll win that case because you'll have enough of us there to make a statement. The other thing since I've been coming; well I don't come anymore becaug I feel like we're beating our heads against the wall. You don't blame these people. They doing the best they can. They care. I've seen them cry. They're devastated but they go up against Amanda. Ama a is not a heartless person; she wants to do right. This is all a moot point. Dr. Heidi Ward, the can r specialist on this coast said to me the other day, why are we even doing this, a mandatory spay /neu law and this is all a moot point. It's a moot point. There would be no killing with the mandatory spay, euter law. And do you know what; within 2 months Fort Myers, Lee County is going to have it. Mami n County which is as poor as Polk County has 2 -spay trucks and a mandatory spay /neuter law and t1ey are so poor they don't have a pot to piss in. So don't tell us -- Oh. They're all upset about Willie going to a home; were you had the righ to refuse them because they were already blacklisted. We've look up on our black list because I ha oe a variety of people doing adoptions for me and sometimes they don't look through the black list. I've gone back to their house to repossess the animal and say, on our certificate it says we own the cat for 30 days or the dog for 30 days. It remains our property. We can pay the vet bills, we can help them witl shots, we can help them do all that but we can repossess the animal and if someone has gotten it from oi blacklist and we go and do not like the situation. We normally blacklist for a reason. There is a Do Nc I Adopt List for Southwest Florida that Amanda can have her people listed on it. The Human Society ould be on it, we all put our blacklist on it and they may not be illegal reasons. Crushing a cat in a lazy oy is not illegal but I don't want them to have another cat of mine. And for Arthur Perkins killing the dogs when they are 4 years old and he's red them enough and doesn't want to breed them. He is perfectly allowed to kill them. He is not awed to let them lay there and suffer in pain because that is neglect and then that's Amanda's proble she can assert that but he is allowed. He can take any perfectly healthy pet to a vet and have it eu anized. MR. RICH: Thank you Janice. (Applause.) 1! JANICE RUDOLPH: Only 2 meaningful laws to us rescuers in the last 2 3 cars, the TNR Law and the Chain Dog Law, nothing else makes a difference to the animals' lives that th have passed here. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Michele MICHELE ANTONIA: I don't want to. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: She passes. Advisory Board Comments. 33 1h 2A Septe er 20, 2011 Advisory Board Member Comments CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Tom, do you have anything? MR. RICH: Tom. DR. EISELE: Tom. MR. KEPP: That pretty much says it all. But you know, I will make a poii I here, I mean, again I've already told Amanda what I think and I've said it for every meeting. The oard knows how I feel at every meeting. It is our responsibility and, and I'll take the blame on (inaudi e) I haven't said it before, we have to go to the County Commission but we should. We're on your si I mean, we've all have lives and we come here every month and spend a lot of other time outside here on these things, believe me. I can only speak for myself. I've been here since the first mon f 04 and have been here every month. I bet I haven't missed 4 meetings. See I'm going there with point. In 04 according to the newspaper -- the citizens need to push for a countywide spay/ neuter pro and submit to the County Commission to pass for public funding. The Human Society offere 100,000 to buy a spay /neuter bus and we wanted the County to fund it for 5, 10 years but we would s le for 5. Randy Eisle was the President of this Board. Myself and one other person voted for it an e got enough people to vote it down so it wouldn't go to the County Commission. That was in and... MS. TOWNSEND: The CCVA is a waste of time. Sorry Dr. Ruth. MR. KEPP: That was my point. But then in 06 it said in the newspaper -- ou need to cut back on animal cruelty. And it said one way to cut back on animal cruelty would be t cut back on the number of animals out there -- me and the other Board Members want to see the Coun y move forward with a mobile spay /neuter service. That never happened. Then it goes back to yo a can't adopt your way out of it all. In 07 -- it says citizens have to push for a countywide spay /neuter F tograrn to ask the County Commissioners to pass this program and fund it. It didn't happen. My point is this is not the first time we've had these conversations. I know of 3 different events, I can't name them all, one had the word adoption in the front of the program and o a was the TNR that we have had crowds here. Here again, this was in 06 and the County, the paper a out and said (inaudible) members of the Domestic Animal Service said the animal lovers (inaudib ), we want them to stay angry. They don't want anger directed at them. We want them to stay anger t over population of animals. No one from the public has been at these meetings for months, an dvisory Board member counted over 25 people in the audience. Then this cat thing came up. 5 pe ople showed up and those people keep coming to future meetings when there not so controversial issue to set on. And you know what -- after everyone of these meetings about 2 months later, we have 6 ple sitting in the audience. JANICE RUDOLPH: Because nothing gets done. MR. KEPP: Wait a minute. Well, they don't get done because people don 1 go, here again, how many people know who their County Commissioner is? JANICE RUDOLPH: We all know. MR. KEPP: Okay, I know. JANICE RUDOLPH: It's got to be dragged though the paper. They don't dare. MR. KEPP: Okay, that's fine but if you just quit it doesn't happen. Andilyougohome tonight and tomorrow and next week and you don't keep coming, doing this and keep hou iding the County Commissioner it ain't going to happen. JANICE RUDOLPH: Well, you got to go hound the County Attorney's of ce for 15 years they say they won't do a spay /neuter law. MR. KEPP: Then you are informing me of something. Then I agree with u. Whoever it be, the bottom line is -- 34 .w 1 A Sept ber 20, 2011 CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Tom MR. KEPP: Yes. Just a minute. I agree ith ee you but m y y point is, I just h a conversation with the guy that is running for Henning's seat. I called him, I said, what do 5,ou think of this -- and he goes -- well Tom, you know you really can't get on peoples -- you know -- i 's a fine line. There is no fine line. I want an answer before I vote the next election. Do you support en breement of Ordinances or not. I'm just saying you all just can't go home and then expect us to chan it because we can't. We've tried. You got to; maybe you should write the County Attorney. JANICE RUDOLPH: You know what. If Lee County can do it. She can it. (Inaudible) It's doable you just need to do it. MR. KEPP: You need to stay with it. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Dan MR. MARTIN: Oh. Is it my turn? MR. RICH: We'll make it your turn. MR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Finally, my turn. First of all, I w to apologize to the audience here. The Public Open Discussion should never have been taken off the a da. (Applause.) I've got the Frequently Asked Questions here and I have a couple of questi s myself. What happened with Willie? Barbara Dunshee put in an application for adoption. Do you ow the date that she responded, that she applied to adopt the dog? MS. TOWNSEND: I can look it up. I don't know it off the top of my head MR. MARTIN: Well okay. The next statement here; it was approved. Do you know the date it was approved? MS. TOWNSEND: Again, I can look it up. MR. MARTIN: Okay but now; the error belongs to DAS and the decision v made to honor the adoption. I take issue with that. The error was compounded (Applause) The err was compounded by honoring the adoption. The dog should have just been taken back; should ve never been surrendered to those people. That's why we have a do not adopt laws. Okay and co you get me those dates please? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Now the laws as applied to both Per ' and what was the other gentleman's name, Delaney. Okay, well I think the law worked very well the ay everything came up. The Delaney's appealed. The appeal carried in their favor. I think th 's a great outcome and the only thing missing is, that something that he who remains nameless, is mei tioned for the past 20 years, is the enforcement. We have no enforcement. This lady here says the fn can be collected. Now that's a conflict. I hope when the County Attorney comes back with a mec sm; she'll include that. Okay, there were 45 dogs. Okay. Do you know how many are alive today? (Audience shouts 49) Do you know how many are alive today? MS. TOWNSEND: I would have to check with the Human Society Naples. I know that of the 12 DAS retained ownership of either 10 or 11 are alive today. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Could you get those numbers for me? MR. TOWNSEND: I have to get the numbers from the Human Society and I can do that. MR. MARTIN: Okay. I would like to propose that; because this has been al over the map. I mean you got a lot of emotions, a lot of people talking, a lot of people screaming an we need to draft a specific proposal to the County Commissioners because that is what the deal with. T ley deal in specifics. I mean, people don't want to hear it but that is the way they do business. You rea J their 35 . -�J 1 A2 Septe er 20, 2011 agenda and they stick to it religiously. We need to draft a specific proposal with specific il ms and get that put on the agenda and then go as a Board. Lady from the Audience: Why? But I say why Daniel... put that on the DA ,website and allow for public... CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Ma'am. Ma'am. MR. MARTIN: Pardon me. � Lady from the Audience: Could I suggest we put that specific proposal on e DAS website and allow for input from the public? r CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Dan, this is just for your comments. MR. MARTIN: Absolutely. I encourage comments from anybody. You c contact me. You can contact me through Amanda as well. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Dan MR. MARTIN: What? What? No, you can contact me through Amanda a d I'll listen anyway to whatever anyone has to say and I think that's it. Okay. Well, do you have to g, 7e notice when you go to inspect the premises of the breeders? Or do you go surprise them? MS. TOWNSEND: Generally speaking, we send a letter right before the f 3t of October. They'll send us their application and a check and then. Are you talking about inspecting f permits of a pet shop, , etc? MR. MARTIN: No. I mean inspecting the premises. MS. TOWNSEND: If we receive any call for service, we just show up. MR. MARTIN: You just show up? MS. TOWNSEND: But also if we are doing our inspection service for a p shops, , etc, no we do not. Unless the Officer has been out 3 times and they can't make contact or they can't access the property. Then we (Inaudible) we're wasting our gas here (Inaudible) but othe an that; no we do not. MR. MARTIN: My last comment is; well after 21 trips I think someone s uld have noticed that something was off with that and carried on the investigation for the next step. JANICE RUDOLPH: And before Amanda got here too. 1; MR. MARTIN: Thank you. CINDY HARROLD: I just have one question. I know Amanda you have be, because of the rules you've been mute tonight but I wonder if anybody has ever asked you what y vision of DAS would be? What do you want to see happen here? i' MS. TOWNSEND: Thanks for asking. I'm not sure I can not keep you a4 here all night. CINDY HARROLD: I didn't actually expect an answer but tonight -- bec se I thought you'd be -- (Inaudible) 1 MS. TOWNSEND: You know, to a certain extent if you look at, if you a nd a workshop where we talk about 10 priority projects, you're going to get an idea of what's ' nportant to me. The other part of it is, to a certain extent, I'm a public servant. The Community sets a standard and my job is to carry out their will and what is confounding is that then there are these la r rrs of bureaucracy between us. You know, I'm going to apologize publicly right now; for not Ic 3king at the speakers. I am looking at my Advisory Board and I'm taking, I'm kind of taking their inp it, this is their meeting. I've learned over the time to not to look at the speakers because they will zone d right on me and this is a process that involves the Advisory Board and the public and the Board of Coi hty Commissioners. I work for the County Manager. The Board of County Commissioners c i a not give me direction. They give the County Manager direction to direct me; that's part of the County anagers Ordinance. Its bureaucratic and complicated, I respect everything that everyone has said. It is important 36 Septen�j er 20, 2011 to me. I do care. I take your comments to heart. Part of the reason I can't look at you as a peaker is because I take your comments too much to heart. So I just want to get that out on the table End thank you for asking. But ultimately I am a public servant. My vision is carrying out the standar, of the community center. (Inaudible) That becomes difficult. MS. GERHARDT: We can't direct you to go. It doesn't work like that. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you for asking Cindy. Madam Chair. MadaniChair. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Dr. Ruth DR. EISELE: Yes. I think I feel more for the animals then any person. (In dible) CHAIR BREITHAUPT: and Jim DR. EISELE: But I also think that any time there is a hot button issue, we a climb on board and then we all sort of fade away into the sunset, and there has only been a couple o# hings we've have accomplished as a Community and a Board that have gone through. And we have to ve help from the Community and I think the lady that spoke, the lawyer would make an excellent Dkesman for the community at large and anything you guys come up with to present it, email it to Jim, is organizational, he will get it all organized. f The other thing I'd like to say is, I've been frustrated in the almost 4 years I v e been here by the laws and the rules that govern government. And it's very frustrating. There is no re' ison in my mind why you can just have a god damn but no, you have to go through all these 'ever steps and it is very, very frustrating. I remember the person before me and what DAS was like aj i d I am sure a lot of people in here do. And even though we have our differences on things I would like say this is most receptive DAS community at large I feel in years and I... (Applause.) ti CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Are you done? DR. EISELE: Yes. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Jim MR. RICH: Alright. Janice, had you been here 2 months ago, we're talkin bout priorities, I basically ran the entire meeting for an hour berating the Board (inaudible) beca se we had not accomplished anything other than the leash law, the chaining law and TNR. In my fru ations questioned whether I even wanted to be on the Board anymore because I've been so frustr d trying to accomplish anything. j JANICE RUDOLPH: I wouldn't want to be on the Board. MR. RICH: Okay, having said that, we did get those 2 things passed and 4 said its time to. JANICE RUDOLPH: A year for each thing. MR. RICH: Which is why we started -- CHAIR BREITHAUPT: But we don't, we can't talk to each other ever. MR. RICH: So for all of you the 3 top items of the work plan at this point; Spay /neuter for families in jeopardy of losing their pets through financial hardships this wc d include free and low costs assistance on an individual case. That was the #1 pick. #2 was air cond ion the kennels, fund raise through community cookbooks, etc. and #3 was the backyard breeders, required license, vaccines, (inaudible) spay /neuter (inaudible). So as it stands these are our 3 main I rgets which one way or another I am going to try as a Board Member try to get through this year. In terms of... I'll take the responsibility for this. We made a decision not t iave an open discussion, I shouldn't say that, not to open a can of worms and I will tell you why. Every ie here was very hostile when they first came in here, with good reason. The last time we had even 20 eople here, not just some of you that were here whatever and we had open discussion. We talked almc t n hour and a half and accomplished nothing. There was a dart throwing and screaming back and and it iuld was completely unproductive. The conversation we're just having now, if we had it now, be all 37 a 4 � l k2A2 --�' Septent r 20, 2011 for it but that is the only reason. It's not like we are trying to shut anyone out and I though y at least having individual comments everyone gets an opportunity to say what they wanted to say. at's all I have to say. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: That's kind of why I let you ask your questions b use (inaudible) Anyway, I hope you guys will all come back, if you would. We're only as goo as you are. Yes. SUSAN MEHAS: I just want to ask one question. I'm sorry I did not sign properly. I know most of you on the Board, I don't know this lady. I certainly agree with Tom and ev hing he said. The one thing Amanda, that bothered me more than anything was what Dan read, wh ti that person made that adoption for Willie and it was found out that they were not a good person i o adopt. You had a window of time that you could have said, I'm sorry and that dog would be alive i0day. And that is the same as if a person went to adopt a child and during the investigation they found' cout he was a pedophile, he would not have gotten that child. You had every right and authority to say staff person made an error... you can't have that dog period... and that dog would be alive today. You've got to promise us you will never let that happen again ever. DR. EISELE: She can't speak. SUSAN MEHAS: Yes she can. JANICE RUDOLPH: She can not. SUSAN MEHAS: Obvious that is something that is in place right now bec se an error was made, a staff member made an error. The dog went where it shouldn't have gone and a don't know where he is. So you can make sure it never happens again. JANICE RUDOLPH: With this public pressure and I know Amanda well, h heart is in the right place. If I know Amanda it will never happen again. SUSAN MEHAS: Because you have the right and authority and say no, an ody. JANICE RUDOLPH: She was trying to be nice. CHAIR BREITHAUPT: Meeting adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourn by the order of the Chair at 9:04 P.M. Tf, Collier Co Domestic Animal Services V- 1-tl � Chairman Marcia Breithaupt These minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on / 0//S/// as presented, or as amended I/ 38 Requested Changes to the Minutes of the DASA13 September 20; 2011 meeting Submitted by Amanda Townsend, Director of Domestic Animal Services 16ti Page 2, line 19: Add "Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney" to list of ALSO PRESENT Page 6, line 6: Change "FDE" to "FTE" Page 6, line 23: Change "desk" to "best" Page 16, line 10: Change "the responsible" to irresponsible" Page 17, Fine 15: Change "exiine" to "equine" and "slime" to "swine" Page 17, line 36: Change "Anna Petroloff. Anna Petroloff is our supervisor" to "an Animal and an Animal Control Officer supervisor" Page 17, line 46: Delete "not" or include em dash between "not" and "to" Page 18, line 13: Missing word should be "Dave Estes" Page 18, line 14: Missing word should be "cockfighter" Page 19, line 24: Change "community" to "Chameleon" Page 20, line 9: Change "association" to "assumption" Page 22, line 24: Missing text should be "do as I say not as 1 do" Page 34, line 17: Should be attributed to JANICE RUDOLPH, not MS. TOWNSEND Page 36, line 18: Missing word should be "groomers" Page 36, line 22: Missing work should be "groomers" Officer s Fiala Hiller -- Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta 161 JZ A3 o ��i�IIdi� D BY:...... ................. 13AYSHORE BEAUMCATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 01, 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: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, and Maurice Gutierrez. Absent: Dwight Oakley, 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: Mr. Buck. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 5 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the May 4, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 5 -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: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 5 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project will be moving forward to construction. He informed the committee that the bids have been received on May 31St. He presented the bid sheets to the committee. Mr. Messmer requested information about the firms that provided bids. Mr. Buchheit explained that all of the firms that provided bids were well qualified to do the construction of this project. Mr. Buck made a motion to go with Quality Enterprises. A second was made by Mrs. Cochrane. The motion passed 5 -0. Mr. Buchheit then explained that the light fixtures for the project were selected during the early phases of the project, anoi y were going to be installed in the same color as the ones on Bayshore Drive, unless the committee requested that they be painted a new color. ffAvre was discussion►2-\%3t%1 June 01, 2011 item t. \U-= 2 �t3 Cz -pies to: 161 2 � p3 amount the committee. Mr. Messmer expressed concerns with not having a uniform look throughout the area. Mrs. Dugan agreed, but didn't want the color to be forced upon the side streets. Mrs. Cochrane asked about the various colors that could be selected. Mr. Buchheit explained that they poles could be painted nearly any color. Mr. Messmer asked if there was a cost difference associated with different colors. Mr. Buchheit explained that there was a cost difference if a custom color is used. Mr. Buck suggested that the committee consider going with black as the color of the light poles. The committee had some discussion about the color black and how it would wear. Mr. Buck then made a motion that the color of the light poles be black for all poles installed on Bayshore Drive, Bayshore Drive South, Thomasson Drive, and Hamilton Avenue. A second to the motion was made by Mrs. Cochrane. The motion passed 5 -0. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff is proceeding with the stormwater improvement plan. d. David Buchheit informed the committee that staff has received approval from Federal Highway, and is waiting for approval from Collier County to complete the bicycle lane painting. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that a public workshop was held on May 17 at the East Naples Community Park. Mr. Buck asked if the committee had the final say in what improvements were going to be made. Mr. Jackson explained that the committee provides the final recommendation for all projects that they fund. Mr. Buck then suggested that the committee evaluate the light poles. He suggested that the light poles remain the same design, but be replaced with 12 foot poles. Mr. Messmer asked why they needed to be replaced with 12 foot poles. Mr. Buchheit explained that the existing light poles are being hit by box trucks, delivery vehicle, and buses due to the size of the poles. Mr. Messmer then said that he agrees with Mr. Buck, and that he likes the existing style of light and pole. Mr. Gutierrez said that he would like to keep the existing style the same. Mr. Buck then made a motion that the style of the light poles not be changed, and that all light poles to be installed on Bayshore Drive, Bayshore Drive South, Thomasson Drive, and Hamilton Avenue maintain the existing style, But that they be painted black per his previous motion. Mrs. Cochrane seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: a. Mr. Buchheit explained that the committee could make changes to the existing mission statement or to any of the goals. Mr. Buck made a motion that the existing mission statement and goals remain unchanged, and that the June 01, 2011 161 ;2 A3 committee not entertain the idea of changing the goals until July 2012 at the earliest. Mr. Messmer seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0. 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. The Committee decided to take the summer off from regular meetings. They will however continue to have workshops. The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on September 7 at 5:00 PM. The mopting adjourned at 6:05. , Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. June 01, 2011 *A 16 1 f2' THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT .AGENCY 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 341t2 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Bruce Preble, Lindsey Thomas, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, and Chuck Gunther (arrived at 6:07). Excused: Jill Barry. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone, Project Managers, and Ashley Caserta, Grants Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas stated that he had one change to the agenda and asked to delete Item 7a: Consideration of a Marketing Center Building, and asked if there were any other additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda as amended: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0 (Mr. Gunther absent). 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the December 7, 2010 minutes. Mr. Dvorak stated that his name was left off the attendance list. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the January 4, 2011 meeting minutes as amended: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Preble. Approved 7 -0 (Mr. Gunther absent). Executive Director's Report: Hiller a. Pro ct Updates. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a Henning cts update memo. As a further update, he handed out the January 12, 2011 Coyle CRA and CRA -AB Workshop power point. Ms. Jourdan gave an update on the Colette Jaauary 29 -30, 2011 Bayshore Festival of the Arts event and Mr. Gutierrez gave an update on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Master Plan project. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment of Services. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve payment of CRA work order invoices: RWA - CRA Overlays in the amount of $3,600; Q. Grady Minor & Associates in the amounts of $15,130 and $5,475.20; and HSA Engineers and Scientists in the amount of $1,832.89. Motion to approve Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 8 -0. 6. New Business: a. CRA TIF Grant - Site Improvement Grant SIG 02 -2011. Ms. Caserta presented the residential improvement grant request form Richard, Janet and Eric Woodruff for 2525 A &B Linwood Avenue roof replacement in the amount of $2,739.00 for a $8,300.00 project. Motion to approve Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 8 -0. b. . Modification - HSA Engineers & Scientists. Mr. Jackson delivered a o u er'Action letter from FDEP for the Bevins Welding Site environmental cl og -krAe try Be letter stated th D t� Via* , ' ered sufficiently February 1, 2011 Cun-446r�tesZ,Ay �l� Page 1 Copies to: BY: ....................... cleaned and no further actions were required by the CRA except for proper abandonment of the monitoring wells. He presented a quote from HSA to properly abandon the wells in accordance with FDEP and Federal rules in the amount of $4,400. Motion to approve a Work Order Modification for HSA to abandon the monitor wells in the amount of $4,400: Mr. Dvorak. Second Mr. Ingram. Approved 8 -0. c. Consideration of Public Art Mural on Bayshore. Mr. Jackson introduced Ms. Michelle Tricca, a local professional photographer that approached the CRA to consider supporting a photographic wall mural on a local commercial building on Bayshore Drive. The CRA would support the project through liaison with County Permitting, as required, and assist in advertising the photographic "shoot" to the local residents and business owners. Ms. Tricca stated that the project would free and she would carry the costs of the camera, printers, film, glue and assistance to install the photos. A local business owner had been contacted and he had agreed to the project provided there was no cost to him and that his building would be restored to its original condition after the mural permit expired. Motion to approve: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Beatty. In discussion the Board asked several question about materials, timing to complete and purpose of her proposal. Approved 8 -0. d. Consideration of Shadowlawn Drive improvement Design Cost -Share Proposal. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on a joint workshop between County Transportation Planners and CRA staff about improving Shadowlawn Drive corridor. County staff developed five (5) proposed improvement plans with cost estimates for each design. Originally the County asked the CRA to pay for the entire design and construction improvements; however, Ms. Trone successfully negotiated a 50 % -50% cost share in the design and permitting cost of the "to be selected" roadway design. The cost of construction will be determined at a later date. A fully- designed road project (shovel ready) enables projects to respond quickly to Federal and State FDOT road grants, and increases their likelihood of approval /funding. Motion for CRA staff to move forward and conduct public meetings with County Transportation staff to select an improvement design and cost estimate, and return to the CRA -AB for review and approval: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 8 -0. e. Consideration of Transfer of County Surplus Real Estate Property to the CRA. Mr. Jackson presented the details on a County foreclosure case on three (3) residential lots on Karen Drive (3000, 3152, 3205 Karen Drive). On February 16, 2011 the parcels were to be auctioned on the Court House steps, and that if the County acquired them to recover their hard costs, property back -taxes due and fines, would the CRA -AB be interested in the transfer of the lots to them to be put into the CRA's residential infill program in accordance with the CRA Master Plan. Motion for staff to take all actions necessary to secure the transfer title of the parcels to the CRA, if acquired by the County, to include expending CRA TIF Funds for hard costs, taxes, title and closing costs: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Ingram. Approved 8 -0. f. Consideration of a Lease of 1991 Tamiami Trail East. Mr. Jackson delivered two (2) lease letters of intent from separate commercial businesses to lease 1991 Tamiami Trail East, a vacant CRA -owned building. The CRA -AB discussed the February 1, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 16 I r2rA 4 proposals and concurred that Green Effex, Inc. was the best proposal to accept. Mr. Thomas asked if Captain Suggy's Seafood business could be CRA staff assisted to locate another building still in the CRA. Mr. Jackson stated that they would make every effort to assist Captain Suggy's owners. Motion to accept Green Effex's letter and for staff to forward all necessary information to the County Attorney's office for review and ultimate lease approval by the CRA Board: Mr. Ingram. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 8 -0. g. Consideration of Temporary Use of 1991 Tamiami Trail East. Mr. Jackson stated that this item was mute since the CRA -AB had approved the lease to Green Effex, and that there was not action for the CRA -AB. 7. Citizen Comments. Mr. Thomas asked if there were any comments from the audience. Mr. John Hayter expressed the results of his work with the Marketing Team and that the survey they conducted at the Bayshore Festival of the Arts event was a success. He added that the Marketing Team would be scheduling a future workshop with CRA staff to discuss next steps. 8. Advisory Board General Communications. Mr. Jackson asked the CRA -AB if they wished to reconsider the purchase of the CRA office building now that the Bank of Naples has completed foreclosure. Motion for staff to offer a "take it or leave it" offer of $235,000: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Ingram. Approved 8 -0. 9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:52pm. p oved and aided by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. February 1, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 3 i 161 2A4 THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAYSHO.RE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE APRIL 5, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Maurice Gutierrez, Lindsey Thomas, Jill Barry, Chuck Gunther, and Karen Beatty. Absent: Peter Dvorak. Absent: Bruce Preble and Steve Main. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit, and Sue Trone, Project Managers, Ashley Caserta, Grants Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked to add one item to New Business: CDBG Grant Application Resolution. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the agenda as amended: Motion: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the March 1, 2011 minutes. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the March 1, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Ingram. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. Proiect Updates. Mr, Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a projects update memo. As a further update, he asked Ms. Jourdan to come before the Board and receive recognition from Chairman Thomas as Collier Fiala wJ� r/ County's Employee of the Month of March 2011. The Board and audience gave -K--� :nd of applause. David Buchheit gave a short power point presentation of Hiller LQpCRA's updated web site that will be launched in the summer. Mr. Jackson Henning ; � the - introduced Ms. Michelle Tricca, the wall art photographer that completed an Coyle .� - artistic photo mural on a commercial building on Bayshore Drive. Ms. Tricca Colette -_ essed great pleasure in the support she received from everyone, and had more pictures than she anticipated and was continuing the mural on the north facing wall. The Board and audience gave her kudos and congratulations. Mr. Gunther made a motion to give Ms. Tricca some sort of recognition like a plaque or certificate. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Gunther also asked for staff to look at creating some sort of incentive or recognition program for existing and future creative artists working in the area. Mr. Gutierrez gave an update on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Master Plan project b. Presentations: Ms. Jourdan introduced Chris Scott and Patrick Vanasse of RWA Misc. Corres: as presenters of the status of the CRA Overlay update. Mr. Scott gave a short power point presentation that outlined the purpose of the Overlay, what RWA's Date: 12.\ \'b\ work has been to date, and some of the critical changes or improvements to the 12-AA Overlay language had been. Mr. Ingram asked if the Overlay would affect Item current planned or permitted sites, and Mr. Scott explained that the land's underlying zoning and uses would not be affe ted. ,pies to: p �a13 9W19 r. April 5, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 ey:...................... 6 1 2 Aq 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment of Services. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve payment of CRA work order invoices:RWA — CRA Overlay s in the amount of $720.00; Pizzuti Solutions, LLC - 17 acre MPUD rezone in the amount of $8,331.99; Q. Grady Minor & Associates - Triangle Tertiary Stormwater construction documents in the amount of $893.10; and HSA Engineers and Scientists — Bevins site monitoring well abandonment. Motion to approve Ms. Barry. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. b. Linwood Way Repaving — Quote Amendment. Mr. Jackson asked the Board to reconsider last month's motion to award Better Roads quote through the County Roads & Bridges Department to repave Linwood Way. The work order had been issued to complete the work in April; however, due to the delay in the completion date of the stormwater pond pump and pipe project, the repaving would be delayed. Mr. Jackson reiterated that with oil prices fluctuating and the time delay may cause the actual price to increase; therefore he asked for the Board to authorize a Not -To- Exceed amount of $20,000 to complete the work. The motion would allow the Executive Director to act quickly if the on -site situation changed. Motion to authorize Linwood Way repaving and the Executive Director to authorize the notice to proceed at a Not -To- Exceed amount of $20,000: Mr. Gunther. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 7 -0. c. RFP Residential Lots for Sale. Ms Jourdan reminded the Board that they had previously approved the staff to issue an RFP to build houses on CRA -owned lots; however when the Commissioners were approached, they felt that the timing wasn't right. In view of better economic times and additional data on two homes build on mobile home lots, staff felt a good case could be made to the CRA Board to approve the RFP. Motion to move forward with the RFP to sell land and build houses on CRA -owned lots: Mr. Thomas. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. d. Reconsideration of LIG 01 -2010 Funding. Mr. Jackson asked if there were any questions concerning the information presented in the Board memo explaining the reason for the funding consideration of the 2010 Landscape Improvement Grant (LIG). Motion to approve the reconsideration and forward the invoices and paid receipts to Clerk of Courts Finance for payment: Mr. Gunther. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 7 -0. 6. New Business: a. CRA TIF Grant — SEG 01 -2011. Mr. Jackson asked if there were any questions concerning the information presented in the Board memo explaining the Sweat Equity Grant (SEG) presented today for Ms. Spry's home in the Triangle area of the CRA. Motion to approve SEG 01 -2011 up to $1,000 for materials to make improvements to Ms. Spry's home at 3180 Caledonia Avenue: Mr. Gunther. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. b. Consideration of Bayshore CAPA Letter of Intent. Mr. Jackson explained that when the agenda was published there was a Letter of Intent from Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center, Inc. (CAPA) requesting consideration of a future purchase, lease or use of the CRA -owned 17 acre parcel. Mr. Jackson explained that since that initial letter, there was a coordination meeting called and hosted by Commissioner Fiala that included the Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney, Steve Kutler, President of CAPA, and April 5, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 },A lo" 16I 2 p� CAPA Directors Bill Drackett and Chick Heithaus. As a result of that meeting, the County Attorney agreed to draft a `first right of refusal' letter and forward it to CAP to see if it served their objectives. The draft First Right of Refusal letter had been with the CAPA members since March 25th and CRA staff nor the County Attorney's office had received a CAPA response. A copy of the letter was in the Board agenda packet. Mr. Kutler stated that he was not sure if there had been any conversation between the two attorneys and that CAPA was not ready for this item to be approved by the CRA Advisory Board. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any rush to take action tonight, and Mr. Jackson said no but that would put a 30 day delay on the action; however would allow time for the attorneys to work on the document. Mr. Thomas asked the Board if anyone had a problem with delaying action until the May 2011 meeting. Hearing none he directed staff to continue to work with CAPA and return in May. c. Palm Beach Show Group Leasing Request. Mr. Jackson summarized a request letter in the Board agenda packet that requested the use of CRA -owned land on Davis Blvd for parking in 2012 for Palm Beach Show Group's annual antique show. Mr. Thomas asked if the group would provide insurance, security and shuttle service to their event site. Mr. Jackson stated they would in accordance with Collier County Risk management requirements, and a lease agreement would be executed also. Motion recommend to the CRA Board the execution of a 30 -day lease with Palm Beach Show Group for 30 or more days at the rate of $1,000 per month: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. d. CRA Advisory Board Applicant Interviews. Mr. Thomas stated that since there was only one applicant for two CRA Categories, he motioned to recommend to the CRA Board reappointment of Larry Ingram, Tamiami Trail Business owner, and Stephen Main, Bayshore Drive Business Owner. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Thomas recognized Mr. Michael Fernandez as one of two applicants for the CRA At Large Category and asked Mr. Fernandez to introduce himself and gave him the floor. Mr. Fernandez gave a brief background of his business and relationship to the CRA, and he answered questions from the Advisory Board. Mr. Thomas said than you and asked Mr. Jackson about the second applicant. Jackson stated that Ms. Vicki Tracy had a professional business conflict and could not attend in person; however she did come in to the office and did a video interview for the Board. After the Board viewed the video, Mr. Jackson handed out voting slips, instructed the members to check the box of one applicant and sign the ballot. The ballots were counted and the vote was Mr. Fernandez 4 votes and Ms. Tracy 3 votes. Mr. Jackson stated that the ballots were available for viewing by anyone interested and that they would be made a part of the staff files. e. Marketing Book Sole Source Contract. Mr. Jackson presented an offer by Florida Real Estate Journal to produce a marketing magazine for the CRA that was partially supported by advertisement sales. Mr. Jackson pointed out the CRA/MSTU 2010 Annual Report that was produced in house and printed by a local company. 3500 copies were printed and mailed for $6,000. The CRA staff April 5, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 3 1 ,?, p� could replicate this effort in -house again, and offer local businesses advertisement spots at a significantly reduced rate than the Florida Real Estate Journal. Mr. Jackson asked for the Boards permission to proceed with the project with a target date of November- December 2011 so the magazine would be distributed when the tourists are returning. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any objection from the members, hearing none he asked staff to proceed and report on status. CDBG Grant Application Resolution. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that there had been to house fires in two months of which in one a life was lost. He pointed out that the fires had brought focus on the lack of fire hydrants in many of the CRA area neighborhoods, and that home owners took notice and have asked the CRA to assist if able. Investigation revealed that there was an opportunity to apply for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that had an application deadline of April 15th. The CRA staff could accelerate the internal application process, hire a consultant to get cost estimates, contact the City of Naples Public Utilities Department and East Naples Fire Department to apply for CDBG funds to survey, study, plan, design improvements and install fire hydrant and piping systems upgrades. Motion for the CRA to apply for a CDBG grant: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Ingram. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Jackson asked the Board to approve the attached CRA -AB Resolution that was required to be submitted in the CDBG application package and authorize Mr. Thomas to sign. Motion to approve: Ms. Barry. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. 7. Advisory Board General Communications None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:18pm. r ed and fo ed by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. April S, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 4 161 le A q THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAYsHoRE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.111.5 FAx 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE MAY 3, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Jill Barry, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Lindsey Thomas, Chuck Gunther, and Karen Beatty. Absent: Bruce Preble and Peter Dvorak. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone, Project Managers, Ashley Caserta, Grants Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Gutierrez. Approved 6 -0. Ms. Barry absent. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the April 5, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Gutierrez. Second:. Mr. Main. Approved 6 -0. Ms. Barry Absent. 4. Executive Director's Report: Fiala ✓ 'ect Updates. Mr. Jackson advised the CRA -AB that staff withdrew the Hiller _r-gBG Grant application for fire hydrants and will continue to work on the Henning aplication for the December 2011 application cycle. Mr. Jackson advised that Coyle the CRA Board had selected Ms. Tracy over the CRA -AB's recommendation to Coletta appoint Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Gutierrez gave an update on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Master Plan project. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: a. Consideration of CRA TIF Grant — C -BIG 06 -2011 for 3969 Bayshore Drive. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on the remaining amount of CRA TIF grant funds remaining for this fiscal year. He introduced the owner, project manager and Misc. Cones: architect for the newly purchased 3969 Bayshore Drive where Sea Tech Marine Electronics store will move into. The business is going through its Site Development Plan process and upon approval will apply for a C -BIG grant to 2 renovate the exterior and interior of the building. Due to the small amount of TIF Item :��,��,+� Grant Funds remaining, the owner was asking the CRA -AB to set aside up to $50,000 for his project, pending CRA -AB and County Attorney review. Motion to C�niesto: set aside up to $50,000 in CRA TIF Grant Funds for the Sea Tech Electronics project pending full review and approvals: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. b. CRA TIF Grant — LIG 02 -2011 — 2705 Storter Avenue. Ms. Caserta briefed the Board on a landscape grant for Mr. Andrew Dolwick for 2705 Storter Avenue to remove exotic plants. Ms. Caserta stated that there were sufficient funds to fund May 3, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes A Page 1 - O BY: ....................... 161 2 A. this grant, and that there was one remaining step that the applicant had to complete — meet with a Master Gardner from the Extension Service. Motion to approve LIG 02 -2011 in the amount of $550.00 and forward to the CRA Board for approval: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 6 -0 with Mr. Main abstaining because he was Mr. Dolwick's employer (Form 8B completed). c. Consideration of Bayshore CAPA Right of First Refusal Agreement. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that in April the CAPA group came to the Board with a request to execute a letter of intent to purchase the CRA -owner 17 acre parcel. The item was tabled until meeting with the County Attorney. The results was the Right of First Refusal Agreement that is contained in the Board's packet. Also included was a Right of Entry Agreement that should also be executed when and if the Right of First Refusal is approved. Motion to forward the Bayshore CAPA Center's Right of First Refusal Agreement and Right of Entry Agreement to the CRA Board for action: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0.. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:25pm. prove arded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman, May 3, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 A 16i A THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAYSMORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Jill Barry, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Lindsey Thomas, Chuck Gunther, Vicki Tracy and Karen Beatty. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit and Sue Trone, Project Managers, Ashley Caserta, Grants Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked for Item 6f be added: "Authorize CRA Training & Education Travel — FRA Conference October 19 -21, 2011. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the agenda as amended: Motion: Ms. Barry. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 9 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the May 3, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Ms. Barry. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 9 -0. Fiala 4 Executive Director's Report: 1Z I Hiller �- — a. cognition of Bruce Preble's Service to CRA. Mr. Jackson advised the CRA- Coyle ,i that Mr. Preble was not in attendance. Mr. Thomas stated that staff should Coyle tact Mr. Preble and get his plaque to him. b. Icome Ms. Vicki Tracv New CRA-AB Member. Mr. Thomas recognized Ms. Tracy and everyone welcomed her to the Board. c. Recognition of Michelle Tricca for Face in the Crowd Mural. Mr. Thomas recognized Ms. Tricca and called her forward to receive the Bill Neal Award for Art and Mr. Jackson read a letter of appreciation from the Bill Neal family. Ms. Tricca thanked the Board for the recognition. Misc. Corres: d. Project Updates. i. Mr. Jackson briefly reviewed the updates in the Board's packet and Date: added informational sheets on CRA web site hits, and CRA -owned �taz ILA" land spreadsheet. Item #: ii. Mr. Gutierrez gave an update on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Master Plan project and recent Place Making Workshop. A large power pies to: point presentation used at the Workshop was delivered to the Board members. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment: Ms. Barry made a motion to pay Pizzuti Solutions, LLC in the amount of $2,000 for MPUD work surveying wading birds on the 17 acre project, and Q. Grady Minor and Associates invoices in the amounts of $7,778.80 (fire hydrant surrey) and $3,836.50 (Triangle construction documents). Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 9 -0. '53aTIIW1B June 7, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 BY: ....................... 161 t,2 Aq11 b. Consideration of Modification to C -BIG 02 -2011. Ms. Caserta briefed the Board on the request by Mr. Allan Crum to modify and increase his grant by $20,000 to include interior improvements. He originally applied for exterior improvements only; however, during the permitting process, County codes required him to upgrade the interior bathrooms, electrical system and raise the floor level to meet FEMA flood requirements. Motion to approve: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 8 -1, Mr. Ingram dissenting. 6. New Business: a. FY2012 Budget. Mr. Jackson guided the Board through the information in their Board packets that detailed the historical fall of property values and CRA TIF revenues. The CRA's property values decreased 11.65% that equated to a revenue decrease of $313,600 from last fiscal year. Mr. Jackson stepped the Board through the budget line -item adjustments that he was recommending for approval. Several questions were answered as to the reasoning for the adjustments over last year. Motion to recommend approval to the CRA Board: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 9 -0. b. Consideration of New FY2012 TIF Grants. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on the remaining amount of CRA TIF grant funds remaining for this fiscal year. He introduced the recommended grant program and application updates that staff would present to the CRA Board for approval in September 2011 for FY2012. The Landscape Grant would be updated to include a wider set of options for the applicant to make homeowner improvements. As an added means to attract and assist potential investors to vacant and eyesore properties, staff envisioned an addition to the commercial TIF Grant called the C- BIG -TIP (Commercial - Building Improvement Grant - Targeted Improvement Program). There would be a "pre - approved" set of vacant and highly visible buildings targeted for extra financial incentives if it was renovated and placed back into commercial use. The C -BIG TIP would allocate and additional $20,000 above and beyond the $50,000 C- BIG provided the applicant met all the requirements for the $50,000. The extra $20,000 would be an incentive for the investor to redevelop the site. The funds would not be used for new construction. Mr. Dvorak asked if the program would come back the CRA -AB for review prior to going to the CRA Board. Mr. Jackson stated yes. Mr. Ingram explained his desire to have all grant applications provide financial statements and mortgage information. The majority of the members did not agree. Motion to develop the programs and return to the CRA -AB for review in September 2011: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 9 -0. c. Mobile Gas Station US41 & Bayshore Drive — Discussion. Mr. Jackson opened the discussion with two options for the Board to consider: First: eventually building an CRA/MSTU office on 4315 Bayshore Drive or Second: Negotiating a land owner's build to suit and lease back to the CRA/MSTU and office °building at the intersection of US41 and Bayshore Drive (the former Mobile Oil station). Mr. Jackson had been in contact with the owner's agent and he was in the audience to hear the discussion and answer questions. Mr. Jackson Introduced Shai Moschowits, Isram Realty Holdings. The Board discussed options and asked Mr. Moschowits questions about the type of building, access and egress on US41 and shared parking with the Gulf Gate Shopping Center. Mr. Gunther pointed out that the location is more central to the Bayshore and Triangle sections of the CRA as a whole. Motion to move forward with discussions and June 7, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 161IP2A4 return with definitive results for the CRA -AB to consider: Ms Barry. Second: Mr. Gunther. In discussion, Mr. Gutierrez pointed out that with the assistance of the MSTU, the site would be a great entry point with great signage for the Garden and when the CRA sunsets in 19 years, the MSTU would still be in existence to stay in the building. Approved: 9 -0. d. CRA Executive Director Contract Extension — Discussion. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board that his 4 -year contract would expire September 30, 2011 and asked if the Board would consider another 4 -year extension. Mr. Thomas stated that he would be willing to meet with Commissioners (CRA Board) if needed to assist in contract negotiations. Motion by Mr. Gunther for the CRA -AB Chair to meet with the CRA Board to discuss a 4 -year extension to Mr. Jackson's contract. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 9 -0. e. Bayshore CAPA Signage on CRA Property. Mr. Jackson stated that the CRA had a proposal from the Bayshore CAPA Center to place a sign in the location of the CRA's current sign. The sign would assist the group's efforts to find co- tenants and aid in site recognition. Mr. Jackson asked that if the CRA -AB approved, that the motion maker include that CAPA's sign contractor would re- locate the CRA sign to 4315 Bayshore Drive at their expense since the cost should not be burdened by the CRA for their interest. Motion to approve the CAPA sign and for CAPA to relocate the CRA sign at CAPA's expense: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 9 -0. CRA Training & Education Travel — FRA Conference October 19 -21, 2011. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that annually the CRA -AB authorizes the CRA staff and available CRA -AB members to attend the annual FRA Conference. He asked for a motion to approve and with approval he would make a formal travel request to the CRA Board. Mr. Ingram asked where the Conference was held (Orlando), and Mr. Dvorak asked about the cost per individual (approximately $500). Motion to approve CRA staff and CRA -AB travel to the FRA Annual Conference: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 9 -0. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm. ved an arded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. June 7, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 3 61 2 une 9, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 9, 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: RECEIVED SEP 0 8 2011 Board of Gomy CcmmL -sign= Fiala _ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ►�- ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel (Excused) Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Corres: 1 Date:% -2- \\ 3\ \ \ item #: I. \A S A5 161 tZ A5 June 9, 2011 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Moreland moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 7— 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 12, 2011 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 4, paragraph 7, line 3 — from "Carried unanimously 7 "yes — 1 "no." to "Motion carried 7 "yes" —1 "no." Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. " The Committee directed staff to prepare a sensitivity analysis for the purposes of analyzing revenue reductions ( -10 %, -20% and — 30 %) for the department and place it on the agenda for their review. VII. Staff Reports Mr. Burke arrived at 1:10 p. m. 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2010 — 2011 " updated through May, 2011. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201012011 TDC Category A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through June 1, 2011. VIII. New Business The Committee determined to hear Items in the order as 4, S, 2, 3 and 1. OA 61 2 A5 une 9, 2011 4. Clam Bay Markers a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the coastal 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" dated June 9, 2011. The Executive Summary contained 4 options for the installation and maintenance of the proposed markers in Clam Pass /Bay. He noted Ernest Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association has submitted an email dated June 9, 2011 with related attachments on the Item— "Subject: Clam Bay Markers at today's CAC meeting" which has been distributed to the Committee. Speakers Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Resident. Ernie Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association. Jeff Fridkin, Attorney for Seagate, Homeowners Association. Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation. Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Mr. Burke moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners implement Option #I for the installation and marking of the system: (as follows). 1. Develop a written agreement between the four key stakeholders of Clam PassBay. 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 PassBay 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. 3 161 2A5 June 9, 2011 • Installation and maintenance of the 12 new markers in Outer/Lower Clam PassBay 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. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Rios voted "no. " Mr. Pires stated he supports the Pelican Bay Services MSTU as the permittee. Mr. Rios opposed on "principle. " 5. Wiggins Pass a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award 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" dated June 9, 2011. Mr. Moreland, Chairman of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee provided an overview on the economic impact the pass has on County properties values and related tax revenue. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award 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 in the amount of $177,489" dated June 9, 2011. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 7 `yes" —I "no." Mr. Pires voted "no. " Break: 2: 30 p. m. Reconvened: 2:42 p. m. 2. H &M - Inlets Annual Monitoring Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Humiston & Moore Engineers proposal for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2011 and 2012 under Contract #08 -5124 for a not to exceed amount of $183,367.50" dated June 9, 2011. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney requested the Coastal Advisory Committee recommend the contract be approved subject to approval by the County 4 I, 2A5 June 1 02011 Attorney's Office and Board of County Commissioners on its conformance with any County Purchasing Policies or other legal requirements. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Humiston & Moore Engineers proposal for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2011 and 2012 under Contract #08 -5124 for a not to exceed amount of $183,367.50 subject to Ms. Greene's above request. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 3. Conceptual Design Update - Coastal Engineering -Marco South Beaches Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Provide the CAC with a conceptual design update for Marco South beach along with the Emergency Dredging at Collier Creek" dated June 9, 2011 copy of the slideshows "Collier Bay Entrance Channel Emergency Dredging Update — Coastal Advisory Committee " and "Marco Island South Beach Update — Coastal Advisory Committee " dated June 9, 2011 and provided an update on the projects. 1. Conceptual Design Update CP &E - Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches a. Conceptual Engineering Report Gary McAlpin presented the document "Draft Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis" for information purposes. Steve Keehn, P. E., Coastal Planning and Engineering presented a slideshow "Collier County Conceptual Engineering Report" for information purposes. He noted page 9 of 19 of the "Collier County Conceptual Engineering Report" outlines 4 alternatives (Alt. 1, 2, 2A and 3) for major renourishment of the beaches. The Committee determined Alternative 2A or 3 would be the most optimal for consideration. IX. Old Business 1. Beach Funding Update Chairman Sorey stressed the importance of maintaining beaches to a high quality as visitor responses to questionnaires indicate a major reason people visit the area is due to the high quality of the beaches. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location August 11, 2011— Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor A5 June ,2011 o. 2 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:50 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ohn Sorey, III, C irman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented V or as amended 2 106erl3,2011 VII -1 Staff Reports 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 8, 2011 D II LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advis,6y. 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: c� Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle —.. Coletta J� CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios (Excused) Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Comes: Item "' ,)ie to: CAC Jb63, I!, 1 2A 5 VII -1 Staff Reports 2 of 8 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 1:00 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. Waldack moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • New Business to be heard after Item VI. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7- 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 12, 2011 Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to review and re- approve the May 12, 2011 CAC Minutes with revisions" dated September 8, 2011. Mr. Pires moved to re- approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 4- 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance — the motion for Grant approval for "Beach Tilling" was listed twice. Deletion of the duplicate approval. • Page 4 — 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance - addition of the motion "Mr. Pires moved to approve a Grant Request in the amount of $30,000 for the "Biological Monitoring Collier County 90033. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8-0.99 Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. 2. June 9, 2011 Mr. Waldack moved to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee meeting. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7— 0. VIII. New Business 1. Collier Bay Dredging Approval Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award Bid No. 11-5763 to Energy Resources, Inc in the amount of $262, 000 for the emergency 16 1t C CAC October 13, 2011 A VII -1 Staff Reports 3 of 8 dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval" dated September 8, 2011. Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. I1 -5763 to Energy Resources, Inc. in the amount of $262,000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 4 "yes" — 3 "no." Chairman Sorey, Mr. Hendel and Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires stated his "no" vote was predicated on purchasing policy and bid evaluation concerns (he recognized the work is required and should be completed). Mr. Burke arrived at 1:23 p.m. 2. Conceptual Plan Approval — Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval of the conceptual design and program approach to the Marco South Beach Renourishment project" dated September 8, 2011. Staff recommends the current approach for completing the project be modified due to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funding concerns. Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided the Slideshow "Marco Island Beach Alternatives Analysis — CAC, September 8, 2011. " The Committee requested Staff to place an item on a future meeting Agenda outlining the process involved for the establishment of Municipal Service Taxing Districts (MSTU's). Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $146,000 for completion of the engineering work for the southern part of Marco Island Beach. The intent of the motion was to complete Items #2 and #3 as listed in the Executive Summary. The Committee directed Staff to contact FEMA and request an extension of the funding deadline. Without a second, the motion was not considered. 3. Category "A" Ordinance Changes Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve and authorize Staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended. Amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities, (2) incorporating into the ordinance the Category "A " Funding Policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and directing that the Funding Policy be CAC 1153,11, 2A 5 VII -1 Staff Reports 4of8 included in the Collier County Administrative Code, (3) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5)(A)1, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C " funds for museums, and (4) removing expired provisions pertaining to the use of certain revenues for tourism destination marketing" dated September 8, 2011. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney reported the Tourist Development Council recommended only proposed Amendment #1 be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve proposed Amendment #1 as outlined in the Executive Summary subject to the following change: • Ordinance Section 4b, Administrative Costs, line 2/3 —to read "...shall not exceed 15% of Category "A" Tourist Tax revenues." Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 4. RFP Engineering Consultants Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary (dated September 8, 2011) "Obtain a recommendation of approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to solicit an RFP for Engineering Consultants as required to provide: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South Beach The Committee recommended the Scope of Work include a provision for recommendations to modify any conceptual plans related to the locations as necessary. Mr. Moreland moved to approve Staffs request to solicit a RFP for Engineering Consultants to provide: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South Beach. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 5. CEC Proposal for Marco South Beach Renoursshment Design/Permitting Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award a $126, 000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit" dated September 8, 2011. No action was taken by the Committee. See Item VIII.2. 6. CEC Proposal for Construction, Administration Collier Creek - $18,650 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project" dated September 8, 2011. lbi CAC October 13, 201 �- A VII -1 Staff Reports 5of8 Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 7. CEC Proposal for Processing JCP Application for Marco South Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award an $20, 000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants develop and submit the JCP permit application to FDEP for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project" dated September 8, 2011. No action was taken by the Committee. See Item VIII 2. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2010 — 2011 " updated through August, 2011. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 2010/2011 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through August 29, 2011. 3. Clam Bay Marker Permit Update — USACE Letter Gary McAlpin presented a letter from the Chief Enforcement Officer of the US Army Corps of Engineers — Jacksonville District dated July 25, 2011 outlining the status of the Clam Bay Marker permits. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group 4. Beach Easement Executive Summary Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property Owners requiring the Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property dated September 8, 2011 for information purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 5. Report on Clam Bay Water Quality a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an easement agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property Aber 11, 2011 VII -1 Staff Reports 6 of 8 Owners requiring the property owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property" dated September 8, 2011. Chairman Sorey reported it would be an "update" item with the Consultants requested to be in attendance at a future meeting to provide comment as necessary. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Break: 3: 01 p.m. Reconvened: 3:12 p.m. 6. Long Range Fund Requests with FDEP Gary McAlpin presented the document "FY 2012 -13 Local Government Funding Request" - Project Name: Collier County Beach Nourishment Project dated September 8, 2011 for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 7. Captiva /Collier Combination Project a. Additional Backup Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011 - Subject: CAC meeting 9 -8 -2011 Staff reports - Item 47 for information purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 8. Critical Erosion Designation for Clam Pass Gary McAlpin presented the document "Critical Erosion Area Evaluation for Clam Pass Park and North Shore, Collier County, August 18, 2011." Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida No action was taken by the Committee. 9. Lee County Renourishment — Update Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011- Subject: CAC meeting 9 -8 -2011 Staff reports -Item #9 Florida Dock and Dredge - Ft. Myers Beach for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. CA1o6 1312011 VII -1 Staff Reports 7 of 8 10. Wiggins Pass Straightening — Update Gary McAlpin presented the document "Scope of Work for preparation of Inlet Management Plan, County Environmental Impact Statement and geotechnical investigation for design and permitting of Wiggins Pass improvements for Contract #10- 5572 - May 2011 (revise August 31, 2011) " for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 11. Fund 195 Spending Analysis Gary McAlpin presented the document "195 Spending /Budget Analysis for Fiscal Year 200812009 through 2011/2012" for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 12. FEMA Fay Update and Revision Timing Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011- Subject: CAC meeting 9 -8 -2011 Staff reports -Item #12 FEMA -TS. Fay update /timing for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 13. Sensitivity Analysis Gary McAlpin presented the document "TDC Funds Sensitivity Analysis " dated September 8, 2011 for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements 1. Mr. Pires 10 Year Service Award Gary McAlpin reported Mr. Pires was recognized for his ten years of service to the Coastal Advisory Committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location October 13,2011 — 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 3:52 P.M. 161 2 CAC October 13, 2011 VII -1 Staff Reports 8 of 8 Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, man These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on Oc l— 3 as presented or as amended X 161 2�1 A6 July 28, Zoi i TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 28, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Dean Ronald Doino Tony Marino (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Misc. man Rawson, Attorney for CEB Dade: k?- \ � -1 N N item * kLaT 2 VA to Copies to: Page 1 pgcE ED SEP 2 6 2011 Board of county coin° "wMem 161 :20 A6 July 28, 2oii CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, all. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- order. It's been a rough morning -- for July 28, 2011. Notice: The respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean. MR. DEAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino. MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance and Mr. Tony Marino Page 2 16I Z' A6 July 28, 2011 both have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Given the fact that we have two absences, Ron, our alternate, will have full voting ability today. Next, any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under motions, Letter A -- No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A. motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition. This will be Renee Zafra, Jr., and Maria Zafra, Case CESD20090008252. We will also be adding a section for motion for continuance, and we have four additions under motion for continuance. The first will be Case CESD20100007042, Kirk N. Sanders. Number 2 will be Case CEV20110000842, Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell. Number 3 will be Case CENA20110000844, Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell. Number 4 will be Case CESD20100008638, Agniel and Susan Marques. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have six stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100017164, Alexander R. Garland Trust, Joseph A. Garland Trust, and 1999 Land Trust. Number 2 will be Case CESD20100017160, Alexander R. Garland Trust, Joseph A. Garland, Trust, and 1999 Land Trust. Number 3 will be Case CESD20100005205, Bruce A. Blocker. Number 4 will be Case CEPM20100020710, Ivy Nebus, Judy Ann Blake, and Betty Jo Robertson. Number 5 will be Case 2007090878, Jon R. and Denise T.C. Brimmer. Number 6 will be Case CESD20110000679, Maderline and Edileydis Gonzalez. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Case CESD20090016590, Mark G. Martin, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20110001130, Luke and Jennifer J. Werner has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CESD2010000913 5, Opera Naples, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 15, Case CEPM20110001268, Homesales, Inc., has been Page 3 16 I '2 ' A6 July 28, 2011 withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20110000314, Homesales, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 22, Case CESD20110002004, Charles and Laurie Flaum has been withdrawn. Number 23, Case CESD20110002294, Charles and Laurie Flaum, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Case CE -- I'm sorry. Under imposition of fines, No. 2, Case CESD20110000255, Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll accept a motion for acceptance of the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Moving on to the approval of minute from the June 23, 2011, hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 4 1614o&", A6 July Zs, zoi i MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And one abstention, due to absence last month. So it does carry, and I'm the exception. Now moving on to public hearing, motions. Motions A, extension for time. First case is Crescencio Garcia, CESD20100005204. Is the respondent here? Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the request for extension of time? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. Has the $80.29 been paid? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has. MR. KAUFMAN: And this was a stip for 180 days that becomes due on August 6th; is that correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the -- is that occupied or not occupied? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He removed all the people recently, because they were staying in the mobile home. He pulled the demolition Page 5 16 1 2 6 July 2201 permits for both the mobile homes. So he said that he was going to start working on those if they gave him the extension, because he had first left out of the country, then came back. Then he was short on money. So I said, well, you've got the demo already. You need to go ahead and remove them. So he said he was going to try to do it this coming week. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a difficult demo? Is it -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: There are just two mobile homes. It's just trying to get someone to pull them out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any questions? MR. DEAN: I just had one question. It said soon to submit, like "soon" means? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The permits for the mobile home demos are -- they're in. MR. DEAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: They've already been picked up. It's just to hire someone to remove them out. MR. DEAN: Okay. We're talking about the remaining permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The remaining permit -- the engineer that was working on it has been working on it for a while, but there is no submittal for those -- MR. DEAN: So we really don't have a time frame? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. MR. DEAN: You know what I mean? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The letter requests 60 to 90 days. Have you had any communication with the respondent as to which one would be more appropriate? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I did speak to him. I don't think that the 90 days -- that's a little extending it. I would only -- my opinion, 60 days would be good. I think that if we give him a little bit more than 60 days, he's not going to move on it. 16I 2�� 6 July Zs, Zoi CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend for 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposition, Mr. Dean, and the motion does carry -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- for the request for extension of time. Thank you. Next case is Enrique and Maria Ruiz. Are the respondents here? (No response.) (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Would you like to state your name for the record. MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Weldon, do you know -- do you know if the county has any opposition to the request for extension? MR. WALKER: No, we don't. Actually, she has been working diligently to abate that violation. Her limitation was getting some engineering designs back. She did get those. She was working with permitting on Tuesday. Page 7 161 2 � A 6,1 July 28, 2011 As far as we understand, she should be able to get her permits and we should be able to move forward to abate that violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The request is for 30 days. Do you think 30 days is sufficient enough time to not only get the permits, but make sure she gets the CO's as well? MR. WALKER: Yes, because she's doing the designs, from what I understand, are designs that are permitted by affidavit designs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. WALKER: And once they submit them and issue the permit, then it should suffice. So 30 days should be able to do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we already gave a 90 -day extension, so I think we should keep her feet to the fire. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the $80.57 been paid? MR. WALKER: Yes, it has. MR. KAUFMAN: It's paid. And the stipulation originally was in November for nine months. MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: My question would be, if the respondent was here, what's been done in nine months? MR. WALKER: Originally the limitation was dollars, and she actually had to pay close to, I think it was, 1,800 just to get her engineering designs, and they just didn't have the money. She did get the engineering designs. We've seen those. Again, permitting looked at those engineering designs, and they said that there should be no problems with regards to her getting her permits. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there anything in the shed now? MR. WALKER: No, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion, but not for 90 days. 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The request is 30. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty? Thirty days' extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Next case is going to be Renee and Maria Zafara. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record. MS. POTTER: Yes. Janis Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have any objection to the request for extension? MS. POTTER: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you think 60 days would be sufficient enough time for them to complete the work and get the CO's? 0-M-11 161 z A6 July 28, zoi i MS. POTTER: I believe so. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with them? MS. POTTER: Yes, I have spoken to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to extend 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. POTTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I think that concludes our motions. Now we're moving to continuances. Number 1 is going to be Sanders, Kirk Sanders. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to state your name for the record. MS. BOTTS: Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Again, do you have any -- does the county have any issues with a continuance? MS. BOTTS: We will leave that to the board's decision. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the board have any questions? Page 10 16 I 2 C A 6 July Zs, Zoi i MR. KAUFMAN: I do. In the email that was sent, it says -- this is from the respondent. He will not be available until after August 14th, "Therefore, any meetings must be delayed until my return." I think that's up to the board, not up to his email. This thing started in June of 2010. It's been going on quite a while. I'm not in favor of extending any more time on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, is this the first time we'd be hearing this case? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They haven't been before us before, correct? MS. BOTTS: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think, personally, it would be probably better to allow the respondent to appear. Are we able to get him on next month's docket? MS. BAKER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just an opinion. Any other comments? MR. DEAN: I have a question. We have twelve mobile homes, correct, all hooked up with plumbing, electrical? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. Actually, I believe there is -- the actual count will be 13 mobile homes. MR. DEAN: Okay. And people are living in them? MS. BOTTS: That is correct, sir. MR. DEAN: I don't buy it. You know, telling us he'll be back on the 14th, and if you have a problem with a fire or something, here we are approving something. It's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. MS. BOTTS: Just to elaborate on that, sir, that is one of the ways this case was brought about was when the mobile homes did catch on fire, which was reported to us by Captain Hunt with the East Naples Fire Department. MR. DEAN: As -- I as a board member cannot approve anything like this. Say you have another fire. I mean, it already proves the Page 11 161 V1 ?�A6 r�y2s,aoii electrical's not right. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to deny. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. We'll go ahead and retain this in its position on the normal agenda, and we don't need any type of approval. We've got it. So thank you. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next request for continuance is Campbell. There was a letter that was placed at your desk this morning that refers to both cases. We'll take the first case, CEV20110000842. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record, please. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any issues with the continuance? MR. BALDWIN: No, I do not. No, we do not, sir. Page 12 16 I 20� A 6 July as, zoi i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is anybody living in the converted garage? MR. BALDWIN: The converted garage is not the violation. The violation is for litter and unlicensed vehicles on this property. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Because attached to the letter it says, description, garage converted to living space without permits. MS. BAKER: That's probably a different case. MR. BALDWIN: It's a different case. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh. You just put the paper clip, okay. I have no questions then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing that, I'll entertain a motion. We're just going to continue this to the next board meeting, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MS. BAKER: And that's for both cases, correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was just the first one. MS. BAKER: Just the first one. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I make a motion. Page 13 161 21. A 6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, two separate ones. MR. LEFEBVRE: If -- similar circumstances on the second case? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue also. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. The last case under continuances is going to be Agniel and Susan Marques. Are the respondents here? MS. BAKER: And I have a letter as well that they provided to us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you like to come over to this podium over here, sir. And we'll have the court reporter swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: I believe she's going to be translating, correct? THE INTERPRETER: Correct. THE COURT REPORTER: Let me swear you in first. Page 14 161 2 A6 July aa, aoi i (The interpreter was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. The request for continuance was brought by you, so if you'd like -- if you'd like to explain why you would like the continuance, that would be great, and then we'd also like just a moment to read this letter, because I think it's brand new, correct? We don't have it in our packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Based on this letter -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'd make -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- make -- we going to co- this? I make a motion that we continue. Do we need a continuance? Is that probably the best thing to do to make sure they get the -- MS. BAKER: Yeah. You continue it to whatever date you would like to. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue to next hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. If I can, let me just ask, could you ask if one month is enough time to get the inspections that he needs. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 15 16 (JulY 4 A6 g, 211 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion's accepted, and it is continued. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: If for some reason you can't get it done -- if you can't get it done within 30 days, come back and request additional time. MR. MARQUEZ: I don't need that 30 days. Today is the final inspection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, good, great. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. B OTTS : Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our continuances. Now we're moving onto stipulations. Number 1 -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we have one addition to stipulations as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, you want to put it in now? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This will be No. 7. MS. BAKER: Yes. And it's Case CELU20100019844, Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 16 161 L July 28, Zoi� 6 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the agenda has been amended. Okay. The first case and the second case stipulations are going to be Garland Land Trust. If you'd like to come on up, and we'll get you sworn in. Also, I'd like to publicly disclose that I do know the Garlands; however, I don't have any business dealings with them. They're just a long- standing business -- had a long standing business in the community, and I know them through friends and associates. No need to recuse. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name for the record and then read in the stipulation. MR. BOX: Yes. Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. The stipulation is as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $82 incurred in the prosecution in this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of completion or occupancy or, alternatively, obtain a demolition permit through inspections to certificate of completion within 90 days, or a fine in the amount of $150 will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by use of the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 17 1 6JiY 28, 20'11 6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOX: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? ALEX GARLAND: Yeah. Oh, yeah. We've talked about it, and everything's fine. THE COURT REPORTER: Could I get your name? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. Could you state your name for the record. ALEX GARLAND: Alex Garland. JOSEPH GARLAND: Joseph Garland. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do you feel 90 days will be enough time? ALEX GARLAND: I think it should be. JOSEPH GARLAND: Yes, I think. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion carries. Now, that was Page 18 16 2" A b �July 289 2011 for CESD71 -- the last four digits will be 7164. Now for the next one, is it a separate stip? MR. BOX: Yes. The last four on that's -- or I'm sorry, last five's 17160. And the stipulation reads as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $82.58 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of completion and occupancy or, alternatively, obtain a demolition permit through inspections to certificate of completion within 90 days, or a fine in the amount of $150 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must have notify the Collier County Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by use of the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And, again, any issues with the stipulation? ALEX GARLAND: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 19 161 2 Ab July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. If you have any problems, let us know ahead of time to extend it for you again. Good, thank you. ALEX GARLAND: Thank you. MR. BOX: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Can you hear okay? Okay. The next case is going to be Bruce Blocker, CESD20100005205. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read (sic) your name into the record and then read the stipulation. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion, occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the Page 20 161 Z A6 July 28, 2011 provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, can you state your name. MR. LOSKANO: Chris Lascano on behalf of Bruce Blocker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, if you would, please state that Mr. Blocker has given you authority to speak on his behalf today. MR. LOSKANO: Yeah. He's written a letter stating -- because he's out of town right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like that letter? Do you mind handing that in? You won't get it back, unfortunately, but -- is it okay? MR. LOSKANO: Yeah, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: As Mr. Blocker's representative, do you understand and agree to everything that was signed? MR. LOSKANO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Page 21 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 Thank you, sir. MR. LOSKANO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next stipulation is going to be Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake, and Betty Jo Robertson, respondents. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Would you like to state your name and read in the stipulation. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy, and restore all structures being used for occupation to a permitted state consistent with the property maintenance code within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues; or, Two, obtain all required Collier County demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion and remove the structures and debris to an area intended for such use within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues; or, Three, designate structures as part of the approved recycling junkyard business and board them up so as not to be used for any occupation or habitation, including storage, within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. Four, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Five, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county Page 22 161 k6 ? July 8, 2011 may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. Could you state your name for the record. MR. CADENHEAD: Robert Cadenhead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And your relation to the parties? MR. CADENHEAD: I'm the brother to the three sisters. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And can you state for the record, please, that you have the authority to speak on their behalf? MR. CADENHEAD: I have the authority. He has a notarized letter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Do you need anything else? MS. BAKER: We have it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Do you understand and agree to everything that was read? MR. CADENHEAD: We worked out everything yesterday, so it's all done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 23 161 Z A6 July is, Zoi i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. CADENHEAD : Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving onto the next case is going to be Jon and Denise Brimmer. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name and read it in. MR. AMBACH: Yes. Good morning. Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion, occupancy within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation with the use of -- may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case -- or the first time the violation was observed was September 2, 2007? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. Page 24 161 � A6 July , 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Nearly four years ago. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why has this case dragged on? MR. AMBACH: This case started -- went through a few different investigators and through records check, came back as an active case, and then was handed over to me. MS. BRIMMER: If I may, we thought this was handled in 2007. We hired a contractor, an architect, and a cam drawer to handle this. We paid them over $2,500. We had to leave the state. My brother -in -law fell off an I -beam and was run over by a dump truck. So we didn't hear anything. We just assumed it was handled, until we got the notice that Chris left on the front of the lawn that our dog sitter -- my husband is out and I'm representing both of us. His mother had surgery last night, and is ICU. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BRIMMER: Since we heard about this, we have gotten the permit for affidavit, we have the drawings redone, and this is within two weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you state your name for the record. MS. BRIMMER: Denise Brimmer. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. Do you have any issues with the 120 day time frame? MS. BRIMMER: I think that's more than ample. I'm assuming -- I mean, I'm -- from here I'm going to ask where I need to go to, A, pay the fine, B, go and take the drawings, the affidavit, and the surveys so I can get that submitted today. We want this off our plate. We didn't know it was there, so we were dumbfounded. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to the stipulated -- accept the stipulated agreement. Page 25 16 I 2i. A 6 July Zs, Zoi i MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Good luck. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you need any more time, let us know. MS. BRIMMER: Hopefully not. Where do I pay this? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, if you have a check -- MS. BRIMMER: I have cash. MR. DEAN: This is America. We don't use cash any more. MS. BAKER: There's a young lady that just walked out; she'll be able to help you. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next stipulation is going to be Gonzalez, CESD20110000679. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to state your name and read it in. MS. BOTTS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. Would you like to read it in? Page 26 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MS. BOTTS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your name? MS. BOTTS: Azure Botts, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by: The respondent must obtain all required building permits or demolition permit, the required inspections, a certificate of occupancy /completion within 180 days of this hearing or a $200 - per -day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your names for the record, please. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Edileydis Gonzalez. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: And Maderline Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MADERLINE GONZALEZ: Yes, we do, but we have a little concern about the time frame because we don't have enough money to finish in 180 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the board have any suggestions or questions about the time frame of 180 days? MR. KAUFMAN: Don't we have to redo the stipulation since it's a change in the stipulation? MS. BOTTS: Yes, we would. And I did explain to them that Page 27 16I 2 1. July Zs, Zoi i you -- as the board you would have the ability to do that if you so chose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From what I understand, it's just a gazebo? MS. BOTTS: Actually, it's a gazebo type structure, and there is a large concrete pad that's been poured with plumbing. That's ultimately what the complaint was about and why we were out there. And then right beside it is a gazebo type structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Was the slab ever permitted? MS. BOTTS: No, it was not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's a rough plumbing and a raw, concrete slab with nothing else done? MS. BOTTS: That is correct, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Why was there a complaint about a slab; do you have any idea? MS. BOTTS: This case was actually from Investigator Reggie Smith and, from my understanding, it was an anonymous complaint, and it just states that adding two bedrooms and a bath without permits and using unlicensed contractors. Contractor licensing did go out with code enforcement, and they confirmed that a contractor did not do the work; the property owner, in fact, did it themselves. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So either finish it or demo it within six months is basically what we're saying. MS. BOTTS: That is correct. We spoke in length out in the hallway. They have submitted a permit already for the addition. What they're trying to do is add a master bedroom, bathroom, enclosed porch and remove the gazebo type structure, is what the permit actually reads as a description. They submitted the permits in March, and it has been through the review process but had several rejections given. The latest rejection as of right now is the Health Department is declining until they increase their septic system. So this is obviously Page 28 16 ? A 6 July 28, 2011 another issue that they will have to address by engineer drawing, submitting another permit, getting the approval of that, and also the cost factor involved. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They haven't opened up the existing structure at all, have they? MS. BOTTS: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you don't see any electrical that's been tampered with? MS. BOTTS: No, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the respondents. How much time do you think you need to gather the funds required to do this? EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Like, about a year, because we have some money saved but not enough to finish everything by, you know, that time. MS. BOTTS: Gentlemen, if I may, if I could also explain -- I'm sure you read through your statement of violations. And on the statement of violation it indicates that there is a mobile home that is on the property and is unpermitted. Again, this was done by another investigator. And upon reviewing the photographs and being out there yesterday, not on the property, but in the right -of -way and seeing what's on the property, the mobile home -- it is not actually a mobile home. It is travel trailer. I do have a picture, if you'd like to see it. But it is a travel trailer, not a mobile home. It would not be required to be permitted, so I removed it from the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Up to the board what you'd like to do. Accept at 180, or we have the right to extend. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the 180 and, just a side note to the respondents, that if you find yourself 150 days from now requiring some more time, then come back, let us Page 29 16I 2 � AE July 28, 2011 know your progress as to either accumulating the funds or work that's been done on it to bring it into compliance. We certainly would like to hear that at that time. So my motion is to accept the 180 -days' stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The stipulation's been accepted at 180 days. And like Mr. Kaufman said, please feel free to come back to us and request more time if you need it. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Thank you. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And that's all for stipulations, correct? MS. BAKER: No. We had the addition of Juan Sanchez Olvera. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, okay. What is the case number on that? MS. BAKER: It's CELU20100019844, Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Page 30 161 21 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name and read it in, please. MR. WALKER: Yes. For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion within 180 days of the hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. Respondent must notify Collier County -- respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that the respondent -- that if the respondent were to fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, can you state your name for the record. MR. FREEMAN: Yes. My name is Ernest Freeman. I am a contractor that's representing Mr. Sanchez in the matter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you mind stating for the record that you have the authority to speak on his behalf. MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. I have the letter that's notarized. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. I thought you looked familiar. Helping out a few people out there. MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: On Mr. Sanchez's behalf, do you agree to Page 31 161 2t�' A6 July Zs, aoii everything that was just read? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, yes, and I'd also like to add that I do have a permit for the demo. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think actually Gerald beat you to it. I'm sorry. Gerald seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That should conclude all of our stipulations. Moving on now to public hearings, C, Case No. 1, Fidel and Esperanza Alviar. MR. ALVIAR: Alviar. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, sir. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section Page 32 16I V2A6 July is, aoi i 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted additions and sheds without building permits. Location address where violation exists: 519 Adams Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio No. 63857240005. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Fidel and Esperanza Alviar Jr., 519 Adams Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34112 (sic). Date violation first observed: January 5, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: March 28, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 25, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 6, 2011. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. MR. WALKER: Yes, good morning. Weldon J. Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No., again, CESD20110000036 dealing with the violation of an unpermitted addition/shed without permits. Again, the location is 119 Adams West -- Adam Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida. And, again, the folio is 63857240005. Service was given on 03/27/2011 in the form of personal service to the property owner. The case was initiated as an anonymous complaint on 1/4/2011. On site I observed what appeared to be a single - family home with possible additions. There were also identified two shed -type structures to the rear of the property. Property appraisers revealed that the property structure changed in 1995, and aerials revealed that the property -- excuse me. And aerials revealed that the property structure changed between 1995 and 2002. The property ID card reflects several changes occurring, two additions, which were remodels in 1982, there was three changes in Page 33 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 the porch in 1990, and a slab in 1999, an aluminum screened porch, which appeared in 2004. Further research of the old permit books, WHIPPS, and CD -Plus identified several permits. One was an '81 permit for a 12 -by -12 den, which was CO'ed; an'89 permit for alteration to the remodel that was CO'ed, also to a fence reroof and a driveway, which were all CO'ed. There were no preceding permits. I have spoken with the property owner, Fidel Alviar, by phone, who indicated that the property would soon be in foreclosure and that there was -- there wasn't sufficient financial -- there was sufficient -- he was suffering, excuse me, financial hardship and would be losing their home. Stated that a code case at that time was the least of his concerns. Made several routine checks concerning abatements, and condition remained unchanged. I would like to present the following as evidence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion to accept? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? Page 34 16-1 2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good question. Jen -- Jen, has the respondent -- have you seen these pictures? MR. ALVIAR: No. But I know what he's talking about, because I know it's there, because I had -- when I bought the house, it was there. I'm wondering, why wasn't it caught when we actually signed the paperwork? Everything has to be record. Why wasn't it caught then? Because I didn't do any of it. I mean, this is the way I bought the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. ALVIAR: So -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, you're not alone. We've had a number of people come in front of us with the exact same situation. The last year and a half, I believe, they actually passed a little agreement stating that any home that's in foreclosure will get this extra inspection where they will run through this department in order to see if there was unpermitted structures. Unfortunately, when you bought it, that wasn't in place. And, unfortunately, to other people throughout the county, there's nothing in place for general sales. It's only on foreclosures, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KAUFMAN: No, it's on all sales. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is on all sales? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Which is great. It will help prevent situations like this. But, unfortunately, it wasn't in place when you purchased it. MR. ALVIAR: Well, this is actually the straw that broke the camel's back. I have two full time jobs. I pay probably around 6,000 a month. I'm trying to love my country, but it's really hard when you're looking for a lifeline and they kind of push your head under the water, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. Page 35 16I o2 A61 July 28, 2011 MR. ALVIAR: -- like I said, I'm just going to be another statistic. But you know what, I come from nothing, and I'll survive. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good attitude. All right. So no problem with the pictures then? MR. ALVIAR: No, they're all there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ALVIAR: Like I said, I'll be moving in with my son as soon as they kick me out. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I wish you the best of luck. MR. WALKER: Yeah. What we identified there is the actual rear structure or part of it actually to the rear. It's a screened -in lanai that exists there. Next, that one's a little bit darker, but it shows the actual extent and the length of it. It's quite a -- quite a long screened -in lanai, and it wraps around the back. And there you can see it probably a little bit better with that picture in color. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the lanai the part of the building that has not been permitted? MR. WALKER: That's the part of the building that was -- no indication that permits were ever applied for or obtained. MR. KAUFMAN: That's the slab, the roof over the screen enclosure? MR. WALKER: That's correct, sir. That's a shed that's there. Again, there was no indications that permits were ever acquired for that as well. And, again, there's another structure that represents a shed type structure that -- MR. ALVIAR: Yeah, that was actually a playhouse. MR. WALKER: Yeah. There were no permits for it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all the photos? MR. WALKER: That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from Page 36 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Have you gotten any estimates on what it would cost to bring the property into compliance? MR. ALVIAR: There's actually two credit cards I'm not paying because -- there is no money. I mean, it's, you know -- but like I said, up to January I was current on most of my payments, but like I said, this is, you know -- there's not much I can do. I don't have the extra funds. I get four hours of sleep at night, and after this, I get maybe two. So after today, you know, I'll be out. MR. KAUFMAN: How many years have you owned the property? MR. ALVIAR: I've been there about 12 years, maybe. MR. KAUFMAN: So a lot of the permits that the code enforcement officer read out you had pulled at one time? MR. ALVIAR: No, no. That's the way I bought it. MR. KAUFMAN: That was before you -- MR. ALVIAR: The shed was there. The only thing I brought in was that little playhouse, but I don't have any more kids, so I really don't have use for it. But like I said, since -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm a little perplexed. The two sheds, this shed looks like it's in somewhat a state of disrepair, the other shed looked like a metal shed, and the lanai, they don't seem like -- it seems like this could be -- the two sheds could be removed relatively easy and probably be removed by the homeowner, correct? MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that would -- almost zero cost there. Hold on, hold on. And it seems that it would be labor -- more labor intensive than a cost. Because I've had permits pulled, and they're relatively inexpensive. So I'm not sure -- I'm not really understanding -- you're saying this is going to break your back. A lanai, if I'm not mistaken, won't require impact fees, correct? Page 37 16 I �2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's not livable space. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the impact fees typically are the huge cost. I just don't see a huge cost here. MR. ALVIAR: Well, the cost comes in, because after I got this, I actually quit paying since January, which is when I got the letter. So I'm actually seven months behind on my line of credit and my mortgage, probably $10,000 that I actually don't have. Like I said, I started a business. That was my biggest downfall. I thought I could make it. I have a 401(x), 90,000, borrowed half a million. Guess what? The economy took a nosedive two years later; I went right along with it. So that's why I had to get that second job just to try to stay afloat. But this was actually the one that said, you know what -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But -- MR. ALVIAR: Well, it's just a fact of losing sleep over -- you already struggling. You don't get enough -- and it's -- see, because I've done -- been through this once before with the county. I did put a roof over a trailer once a while back ago. I did have to come in. The only reason I did it, because I could not get a permit because I didn't live in it, even though I had done it in the past. I rectified that problem, cost me almost $8,000 that I didn't have. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just don't see this being an $8,000 problem. I see it to be a very minor problem. But now you're peeling an onion back and you're telling me that you haven't paid since January so now you owe $10,000. So this case isn't what predicated you not paying. So I'm not buying that that -- that story. That's all I have to say. MR. ALVIAR: No. What the issue was, just having to come deal with it was the issue, because I was already struggling. You just don't need somebody else just -- because I had nothing to do with the actual -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. 161 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 MR. ALVIAR: None of it. I don't understand why it wasn't caught in the court system when we actually filed all our paperwork when we initially bought it. That's my problem. Why should I have to fix something that I had nothing to do with? MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately, any violations run with the property. And code enforcement has worked with the Board of Realtors, local Board of Realtors, and has heightened the awareness. The Board of Realtors, their awareness has been heightened. And we do -- I'm a Realtor. We do provide documentation to buyers and sellers -- I provide it to every single buyer and seller I have -- stating that there may be violations and to look into an inspection for those violations. MR. ALVIAR: And you're probably one of the exceptions. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately, that wasn't in place in'99, but it's in place -- been in place for about two years now? MR. WALKER: That's correct. MR. ALVIAR: If I understand, it falls back on the owner, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. ALVIAR: So being that I'll be foreclosed on soon -- so it falls back on the bank? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ALVIAR: Because there's not much I can do. I'm going to be honest. I can't, you know. So I just want to say my peace. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property in lis pendens, yet? MR. ALVIAR: Sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property in lis pendens? MR. LEFEBVRE: Where they first file for foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Did they first file a foreclosure at all? MR. ALVIAR: I've been getting letters. I know there's a backup. I'm just going to wait till they knock on my door and say, sir, you've got 30 days to move out. I'm going to pack everything, and I'm Page 39 161 kl2A6 July Zs, 2011 going to move out. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have a recommendation? MR. WALKER: Yes, we do. The Code Enforcement Board to order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining -- must obtain a Collier County building or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion, occupancy within the number of days, as determined, of this hearing, or a fine, also to be determined, will be imposed. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Somebody like to take a shot at Page 40 16I 2 A6 July 28, 2011 filling in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you want to put the blanks up on the screen? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Who's doing it? I'm doing it. It's -- I recommend $150 -a -day fine commencing after 120 days, and the costs of -- what is it, 80 dollars and -- MR. WALKER: Fifty -seven cents. MR. DEAN: Fifty -seven cents. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and fifty -seven cents be paid within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second. It doesn't really matter what amount of days it is. MR. DEAN: It doesn't? MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't at all. It's going to be going to foreclosure, so I second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a second. Do we have any further discussion? You sure? MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just as a reminder, when a -- the shorter time frame -- when a bank is going to take a property, it prevents them from selling the property and passing this on with the shorter time frame. MR. DEAN: So I'd like to amend the motion to 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you -- MR. KAUFMAN: I will amend the motion for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So, Gerald, you'll amend your second? Page 41 161 ,y 222oA 6 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion now. It's 30 days, everything else stays- the same fine wise and everything. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Jean, did you get all that? MS. RAWSON: I did. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. So basically what's going to happen is we have 30 days to rectify the situation since it's going into foreclosure anyways. What the board did is shorten that time frame so that hopefully the next person doesn't unsuspectingly inherit this problem. If it -- if there's an actual lien against the property, it'll hit public records, and we know for sure at least the buyer will know about the issues going in. MR. ALVIAR: I'm happy to hear that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We try to stop someone from being in your position. MR. ALVIAR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ALVIAR: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We wish you luck. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to do another case then take a Page 42 16 I ' 2 A& July 28, Zoi i break? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Robles. MR. KAUFMAN: Who's it going to be? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Bernadita Robles? No? Mr. Baldwin? MR. BALDWIN: No, they're not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Description of violation: Expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single family, one -story modular home. Location address where violation exists: 4015 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 41048360004. Name and address issues of owner /person in charge of violation location: Edelmiro and Bernadita Robles, 144 Royal Palm Drive, Suite 218, Marco Island, Florida, 34145. Date violation first observed: July 16, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 111 2010 (sic). Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 10, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 16, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference to Case No. CESD20100009519 dealing with the violation of an expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single family, one story modular home located at 4015 16th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio Number 41048360004. Service was given on April 11, 2011. 1 would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit. One photo taken yesterday, July 27, Page 43 161 ►2 A 6 July 28, 2011 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photo. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BALDWIN: Okay. I first observed the violation on July 16, 2010. I then transferred the case to our foreclosure team, and we simultaneously worked the case together. Both the foreclosure team and myself did not have any contact from the owner or the bank. There was a lis pendens that was filed on July 29, 2009. That lis pendens was actually dismissed on June 6, 2011. Still no contact from the owner. So we are here today. MR. KAUFMAN: Looks like the lawn needs to be cut. The property, you said, was dismissed to lis pendens? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, it was. On June 6, 2011, it was recorded. MR. KAUFMAN: So does that mean that the bank doesn't want anything to do with this property? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Bank doesn't want it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Kind of. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 44 16 I t 2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I do. That the CEB orders the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the -- incurred -- of $80.86 that -- incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: You have been unable to contact the owners of the property? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. No contact. MR. KAUFMAN: And their record of -- their address is, I think you said, Marco? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Royal whatever. You would think since the Page 45 161k2A6 July 28, 2011 lis pendens was dismissed that these folks might have an asset on their hands instead of a liability. Is there any way to make another attempt before we fill out the blanks on the violation to contact them again to let them know? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I'll try my best. I've been trying for over a year. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. I'll just fill in the blanks, within 30 days or $150 per day. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You're going to accept the stipulated agreement, 30 days, $150 per day, and the op costs 80.86 within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you need a. THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) Break? We'll do a couple more then. Next case. It's going to be Carlos Hernandez and Maria Carranza. - wo 16I July 28, 2011 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), Section 4.06.05(J)(2), and Section 4.06.01(D). Description of violation: Presence of prohibited exotic vegetation on the property and the presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle. Location address where violation exists: 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 35766880005. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Carlos I. Hernandez and Maria A. Carranza, 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: November 29, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 15, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 21, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 24, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. KELLY: Good morning. For the record, my name is Andrew Kelly with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20100021320 dealing with the violation of the presence of prohibited exotic vegetation and the presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle located at 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples; Folio No. 35766880005. Service was given on December 15, 2010. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. There will be four exhibits. There will be a photo of the Brazilian pepper landscape vegetation within the site design triangle dated November 29, 2010. A second photo will be of the Brazilian pepper and landscape vegetation within the site design triangle dated yesterday, July 27, Page 47 161 �1b July 28, 2011 2011. There will be an aerial photo. It's a GIS map schematic of the site design triangle, and Exhibit 4 will be another GIS map of the vegetation needed to be removed to avoid the site design triangle impedance. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the four photographs. MR. DEAN: And exhibits. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KELLY: For the record, I'm also going to just present the case with the details at this time. November 24, 2010, Collier County received a complaint for trees overgrowing into the street and blocking the view of traffic. Record shows the current owner. November 24, 2010, I conducted an on -site inspection, observed that the landscape vegetation and the Brazilian pepper were impeding the site design triangle. On December 15, 2010, I conducted another site inspection. There was no change in the vegetation. I then posted the Notice of Violation. February 2, 2011 -- I'm not going too fast? THE COURT REPORTER: You're okay. 16 It 2A6 Jury Zs, zoi i MR. KELLY: February 2, 2011, Code Enforcement Foreclosure Team reviewed the property, as the property was a foreclosure. February 16, 2011, I conducted a site inspection. No change; violation remained. March 4, 2011, Code Enforcement Foreclosure Team completed the investigation. Bank of America no longer had a legal interest in the property. July 12, 2011, I conducted a site inspection. No change; violation remains. Posted the property and courthouse for notice of hearing. July 14, 2011, the notice of hearing was mailed certified and regular mail. July 27th, yesterday, 2011, I conducted a site inspection prior to the CEB hearing; violation remains unchanged. And I'd like to go ahead and present the photos for you. The photo shown in here is at the corner of 18th and 42nd in Golden Gate City. The property structure is behind the vegetation, you see at that intersection, and this is dated November 29, 2011. This is the photo that's dated July 27, 2011, yesterday, just to show that the condition still remained as seen. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you identified what vegetation that is? MR. KELLY: The larger vegetation -- excuse me. The larger vegetation located right here is the Brazilian pepper. The shrubbery that goes around are ficus hedges. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any of that in the county's right -of -way and responsible by the county, or is it all property owner's responsibility? MR. KELLY: This does go a proportion into the right -of -way, but it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the vegetation at this location. MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, too, the first photo was on November 29, 2010. MR. KELLY: This is the GIS schematic. It's an aerial photo 0 =_ • ' 16 Ira �2A A6 July 28, 2011 showing the location of the site design triangle. The area along here and along here is the shrub hedge. This area right here is the general location of the Brazilian pepper mixed in with the shrubbery. As you see, that you have the stop sign over here. There's a location along this area. There's a grassed portion of the property that is within the right -of -way. This line here represents the property boundary right -of -way line. The triangle is shown as specified in the Land Development Code, according to its design. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The diagram and the feet marking numbers, the captions, were those added? MR. KELLY: Those were added by me. This is done off the geographical information system. It gives me the ability to put in a polygon that has a measuring ability that I was able to follow the property lines out into the right -of -way coming up to the intersection, which is the point at the right triangle portion of that triangle. Once you come to that intersection, you measure back 30 feet in both directions. Once you come to the end point of those two lines, you do a line going diagonal, which is the 42 and a half feet line, and that's their site design triangle. And all vegetation within that site design triangle, which is going to be this photo, this is -- I'll give you a little bit closer up. Everything that shows in that hatched line is a violation of the site design triangle for the vegetation blocking the view of the individuals at that intersection. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in touch with the owner of the property at all? MR. KELLY: No, sir. I have not been able to make any contact with the owner. The current records, both through the tax office and the property appraiser's, still shows the owner located at this address. MR. KAUFMAN: Then there's nobody living in that address? MR. KELLY: No, sir. Page 50 161 �2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: The property that was diagonally from this property showed some trees on the last photo. Would that be in violation also? MR. KELLY: I did not look at that property, honestly. I cannot say. Part of the site design triangle is that you have -- the vegetation has to be between 30 inches and 8 feet clear of the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I know that I have driven down that road. It did not impede my visual -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: -- area, but I did not specifically look at that piece of property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just wondering. MR. KAUFMAN: This is more of an obstruction to line of sight from a traffic perspective than it is exotic; doesn't matter what's growing there if you can't see through it. MR. KELLY: That's correct. I went ahead and put the exotics, since it is present, and the house was built after 1998, which, you know, our regulations require them to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: You said -- and this is in foreclosure? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. The -- there was a -- I'll find that information for you. MR. KAUFMAN: It is released by Bank of America. Was it picked up by another bank? MR. KELLY: According to the notes that I have, yes, it was picked up by another bank, but I do not know who that bank is at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd make a motion that we find it in violation. MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 51 16112A6 July as, zoi i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your choice. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Dean. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. KELLY: My recommendation? The recommendation, that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $85.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, removing all prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day dollars will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Two, prune landscape vegetation and maintaining the vegetation in a way that provides unobstructed visibility at a level between 30 inches and 8 feet above the crown of the adjacent roadway within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Page 52 16 Ir . 2A6 July 28, 2011 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at filling in the blanks; 85.72 paid within 30 days, $200 -a -day fine, completed within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. KELLY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much -- just a question. How much of a hazard -- I mean, is this a very serious hazard where the county should come in after -- if it's not rectified within 30 days? Due to lack of funding -- MR. KELLY: It does pose a hazard for those coming down 42nd onto 18th looking on the right on that intersection, that in order to safely get out, you have to keep moving your vehicle slowly into the intersection so you can see something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Plus there's a crosswalk. There's bicyclists that could be riding down, and they have to impede into that crosswalk for them to see. So if someone's riding down on a bike, it could be dangerous. Page 53 161t2A6 July 28, 2011 We can't direct county, but this, I feel, would be a case where county should come in and rectify the problem -- MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- after the 30 days. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. We will immediately, after 30 days, do another inspection, then bid it out for -- to be abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, we'd like to recess for 12 minutes. We'll be back at 10:30. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, and thank the guys downstairs for getting us water. We really appreciate it. The next case is going to be Jason Strickland, Sarah Beth Strickland, and Susan Willis. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). Description of violation: Industrial storage container in front yard. Location address where violation exists: 2370 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 40290960004. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Jason H. Strickland, Sarah Beth Strickland, and Susan M. Willis, 2370 22nd Ave Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: January 19, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: January 24, 2011. Date on by which violation to be corrected: February 24, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 15, 2011. Page 54 161 2 Ab July Zs, aoi i Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU2011000777, a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). The location of violation is 2370 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 40290960004. Notice of Violation posted on January 24, 2011. I'd like to enter two photographs as evidence. First taken January 13, 2011. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the photographs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have you seen these photos? MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you don't have any issue with us seeing them, correct? MS. STRICKLAND: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MS. POTTER: A second photograph as well, taken -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Jim. MS. POTTER: -- July 27th. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 55 161 A010 July 28 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MS. POTTER: Okay. Violation is for a personal storage container that was first observed on January 19, 2011. The property was posted on January 24, 2011, with the correction date to be February 24, 2011. The property owner requested a review by our zoning services and building review; as such an additional 30 days were granted for compliance. On March 21, 20115 the decision was the storage container could not remain on the property and could not be permitted. At that time the compliance date was extended to April 25, 2011. Subsequently on April 26, 2011, the property owner requested additional time to abate the violation. On May 24, 2011, the property owner advised that they were not sure as to the date on which this violation could be resolved. At that time the case was set up for a hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you clarify what the zoning department said about these type of containers? MS. POTTER: I have a memo dated July 6th -- July 3rd of 2006 regarding personal storage containers on residential property. Shall I admit this into evidence? Okay. The containers are to be treated in essentially the same way as industrial storage containers, so they cannot be on residential property. MR. KAUFMAN: Do they differ from dumpsters? MS. BAKER: Do you want us to put this on the screen and enter it into evidence? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that -- it was part of your initial packet? MS. BAKER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, okay. Then we need another Page 56 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good question. This is -- MS. STRICKLAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. We're okay then. Okay. The next question is, how does this situation change because the property's in Golden Gate Estates? If it was behind the eaves of the home, would it be any different? MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Cristina Perez. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. In reviewing this memo with the current Zoning Manager, Mr. Ray Bellows, he concurred with the prior interpretation that you see up there from Ms. Istenes. And the beginning of this subject talks about on residential property. And what he clarified for us as part of our conversation with Ms. Strickland was that the residential property meant the use of the properties being Page 57 16 I 2 Ab July 28, 2011 used as residential so, therefore, it would include Estates -zoned property which primary use is as residential. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But doesn't the Estates Zoned Property get certain exceptions, and storage being one of them? MS. PEREZ: Not for these -- not for these structures. Storage is still not allowed on an Estates -zoned property, you know, to store, like, outside storage of vehicles and, you know, and so on. So part of this memo here would -- includes the Estates not being allowed to permit these structures on the property. The permitting department also clarified that they could not issue any type of permit. Ms. Strickland had said, well, if I can get somebody to tie it down or do, you know, more to it to get this permitted -- we reviewed that with the building officials, and they, again, said, no, that it did not meet the requirements as specified in the Florida Building Code as a structure to be allowed to permit it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next question. After the hurricanes, when FEMA declared the area a natural disaster area, they allowed the storage of these type structures so that people could keep their contents safe until they were to, I guess, rehabilitate their structure that was damaged and whatnot. What was the time frame on that, and does that apply? MS. PEREZ: If we read in the memo, there is a section where it says that we use -- there's a -- it would be like a case -by -case basis, you know. So code enforcement would -- primarily in this subject here, in this memo it talks about when somebody's moving in or moving out, you know, of a dwelling unit that we use a case -by -case basis to be able to allow someone to keep it as a temporary basis. Again, there's no permits of any type that can be issued, even on the temporary basis. In Ms. Strickland's situation, this structure has been there since two thousand -- or the pod has been there since 2009, according to a memo that she provided us. And aerial photos do suggest that it's Page 58 July 28, 2011 been there for a long period of time. And as part of her testimony, she could explain as to why, you know, she, you know, purchased the rental of this unit to begin with. So it has nothing to do with any type of issues in the home, you know, remodeling or anything of that sort, as to why she needs this storage. She's got other reasons as to why she needs the unit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the last question is, can you define what temporary is in terms of days or months or years? MS. PEREZ: I probably cannot. You know, it's more of like -- you know, that last -- the last paragraph in that memo, you know, just kind of talks about a case -by -case basis, you know, if someone's, you know, more in the sense of moving or, you know, coming in or coming out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did the zoning manager talk about what this particular case would be as far as temporary time frame? MS. PEREZ: No, we didn't talk about, you know, if her situation would constitute for any type of a temporary -- MR. KAUFMAN: This letter says a week at most. I have a question. That pod is a big metal box. A dumpster is a big metal box without a top. And when there is construction going on in a home, regardless of if it's in the Estates or not in the Estates, that sits there for some period of time while the construction is going on. So someplace in the Land Development Code it must specify when and how long you can have a dumpster used, which I would think would be similar to this. Is there any rule on -- can you have a dumpster if you're not doing construction on a house? Is that a legitimate use, since you brought up construction? MS. PEREZ: Well, this in itself has nothing to do with construction as to why -- her reason for having the pod on the property. We would have taken that into consideration and, perhaps, followed up with the zoning department on that -- you know, that scenario if that was the case, but it's not the case here. There's no type Page 59 16 I� 2A 6 July Zs, Zoi i of permit or construction activities on this property in itself. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any comment on when you can use a dumpster? MS. PEREZ: The dumpster, I know there's a section in the Land Development Code where it talks -- or the Code of Laws when it talks about storage of litter, you know, reference to construction sites. So, you know, perhaps that's where that information can be found. MR. DEAN: I had just a quick question. When PODS first came out, that was for people that were going to move, and they stored stuff in it in front of their home. When it got full, then they'd call a truck and they took it away. That was a company that provided that service, and it was an enclosed container. So does PODS allow their containers to be bought and sold, or is that still a business? MS. PEREZ: I still see -- you know, from time to time we do see, when people are moving out, the white boxes that say the word, red, Pods, yeah. MR. DEAN: Right, that's what I thought. MS. PEREZ: And these are, you know, kind of similar in the sense where there's some type of a personal container. Industrial containers is somewhat what you see here. And then, like you said, the pods, you know, or the smaller ones that tend to say the big word "POD" right up in the front. And that's more of what this memo in the last section refers to, when someone's moving in or moving out, you know, say someone's going to college or somebody just bought a new home, you know, and they're bringing these items in little by little, you know, putting them in the home, but it's on a case -by -case basis. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any more presentation from the county? MS. POTTER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Ma'am, feel free -- you're the first person that we've really had the chance to talk to about this, so speak Page 60 16 i, 2A6 Jury Zs, aoi i freely. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, just kind of tell your side, and we may have some questions for you. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Back in 2008 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, one more thing. Can you pull the microphone right down to your mouth. That will help the court reporter hear you better. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Back in 2008 we got a violation for my husband's '77 Ford that he's redoing for it being out on our front slab in front of our garage, and in order to resolve that violation, in order to put it in our garage, we had to get everything out of our garage for it to fit in our garage. In order to do that, the only thing we had a choice to do was rent a storage clear in town, or I looked into the Mobile Mini. Prior to getting this, I called permitting, I called code enforcement, to make sure, because they have you sign a paper stating that you've contacted your code enforcement with the county permitting and everything like that. That's what I did. And then -- when was it? This year is when they noticed -- you know, when they came back, or when Janis came out and saw the pod on our property. And the whole reason we have the pod is we tried to fix one violation for my husband, who is remodeling his truck, to -- we can't have it on the slab. Where else are we -- you know, where else can we put it? In order for him to work on it to remodel it, to re- -- he's redoing the whole thing. So in order to do that, right now -- as you can see, one of the pictures she has is the frame in our garage, which had to be sand- -- it had to be, you know, grinded down, repainted, for him to restore it. So that's what we were trying to do. And I gave her a memo from Mobile Mini which states when we Page 61 1 �u�Yz8,Z A6 received the pod originally, how much the pod weighs, which is 6,240 pounds, and it's made out of 16 -gauge steel. It's a heavy container. I mean, it weighs more than my vehicle does. It's not -- there's no way it's going to blow away. To resolve this I even said, you know, I will have them come back out, and maybe we can move the container into the back of the yard, but I guess it can't even be on the property period. But my husband lost his job back in '09 for a half a year. We have three kids. You know, we can't fork out all this money to just go buy a shed and put it on our property, so that's why we reverted to this. It was cheaper. We could have it on our property where we can get to our stuff, and it would be much easier than driving clear into town every weekend for him to get tools out of it for him to work on his truck. He's in the A/C business. His busiest time is from March till October. He can't even take vacation in that time. He's not allowed. So it's really hard for him to work on it, to actually have time to sit there and physically work on it day to day to day. So I'm, you know, trying to see if we can get -- I mean, I don't know what else we can do to get more time. MR. KAUFMAN: When was it delivered in 2009? MS. STRICKLAND: October 12th is when it was delivered. MR. DEAN: 2009. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. So it's been there -- MR. DEAN: I thought it said 8. MS. STRICKLAND: Almost three years. MR. KAUFMAN: --three years. MS. STRICKLAND: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: 19, ' 109 111. MR. LEFEBVRE: 2008 or 2009? MS. STRICKLAND: 2009. We got the first violation in 2008 for the truck being out on our slab, him working on it. And we live, Page 62 July 28, 2011 like I said -- like she said, we live way out in Golden Gate Estates. We're the second to the last house out end of the road. Our neighbors don't even care that it's there, you know. They have -- they could care less. They -- you know, it's just the fact that, you know, we need more time to work on it. I mean, it took ten grown men to pick up the -- or the cab of the truck to get it off the frame in order for him to start working on it. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea when that's going to be -- well, we shouldn't even discuss this unless a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In my mind, that's a big "if." I think this interpretation by the zoning department is completely irrelevant. One week at most seems absurd in any situation, especially in this one. And being in the construction industry, I would certainly want more than a week to allow a dumpster or storage container. As a resident who lives in Golden Gate Estates, I certainly would believe there was some kind of additional provision that allows Estates -zoned property to have a commercial type apparatus such as this to help with storing commercial supplies and equipment in order to operate a business as long as it doesn't increase traffic or increase the right -of -way. So if it was up to me, I'd throw out this interpretation as irrelevant. I would love to hear more opinions from the rest. MR. KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. DEAN: Well, let me throw out one question. If they sold the house next week and a new buyer comes in, he's got a problem, right? It goes with the land. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, they probably would take that pod off the property. MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah, we would have to. I rent the pod as of right now. I rent it. MR. DEAN: It's a rental. You don't own it, right? MS. STRICKLAND: No. But I can lease to own it if I choose. MR. DEAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you bought it. Page 63 161 2 A-6 July Zs, Zoi i MR. KAUFMAN: I think what you're bringing up, "Estates," but according to this letter, if you had this in Autumn Woods -- that's probably a -- that's a bad -- let's say in the Moorings and someone put one of these pods in their backyard there, I think that the neighbors might object to that, that -- it being an eyesore or whatever. So I think you have to separate whether it's way out in the Estates where the properties are all 1.4 acres or greater, or not in the Estates, which this does not provide, the letter doesn't provide. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question. Is that property well or septic? MS. STRICKLAND: Well. Septic, yes. MR. DEAN: See, in all parts of the country that I see, if you're in town in a residential neighborhood lot, you have all these restrictions. When you're out where you have more land and property and you're on well and septic, it is not a city- improved lot, you can go along with these things. And it's allowed in, I know, several places. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can respond to that. In our packet we weren't given any of the additional zoning changes that sort of refer to the separation between, you know, improved areas in town and the Estates -zoned properties, but there is definitely a difference. We've seen it in prior cases. If we had that, we might be able to make a better distinction. But in my mind at this point I can't find that there's a violation. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, we can withdraw the case. They do have correspondence specifying the Estates zoned property, that it's not allowed. But what we can do is withdraw it and bring it back next month and provide that correspondence. MR. KAUFMAN: One comment. How long do you think it will be until the truck is finished? MS. STRICKLAND: It really all depends on time and money with my husband. I mean, I'm the one who painted the frame because he had no time. So I'm the one -- I mean, it just all depends on -- Page 64 161 �2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: How far along are you on it? MS. STRICKLAND: I mean, we have all the parts to do it. It's the fact of putting it back together. The motor's out of it. I don't know if you could put that one picture up, Janis, of the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But the motor's been rebuilt? It's ready to be MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah. The motor's sitting on a stand, transmission -- everything's out of the truck. It's all ready to be put back in. It's just literally him getting time. Last week he worked over 40 hours not being on call, and every third week he's on call. So it all just depends on -- I mean, I can't go out there and do it myself; otherwise I would to get it done and over with, trust me. I would love it to be done and finished myself just so it could be out of my garage. MR. KAUFMAN: I go along with the county. I have a problem. You said your neighbors don't mind. If I was living next to you and someone put a big black box out in the middle of my yard, I would complain. So I'd like the county to bring it back next month, and let's see where we go. We have no idea of when it will be done. It could be done in a month. It could be done in a year or more. MS. STRICKLAND: Correct. And can I say something real quick? Like Janis said, I even offered to move it to the back of my yard if -- you know, if that's what it would take. I've offered to get a permit on it, like a storage shed. I would love -- I would tie it down. I would do anything it would take, because I'm not going to drive in town, out of town, in town to get stuff out of the storage. And it's cheaper to rent one of these than it is a storage in town. MR. KAUFMAN: Your property is, what, 1.14 acres? MS. STRICKLAND: Yes, it's an acre and a quarter. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's 75 by 660 deep? MS. STRICKLAND: Yes, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And the pod is sitting -- Page 65 July 28, 2011 MS. STRICKLAND: In the front yard. MR. KAUFMAN: -- in the front yard. MS. STRICKLAND: I can have the pod moved. That's not the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think that's the issue. I think it says "on residential property." It doesn't distinguish -- I guess we have to look at the LDC and see, does it distinguish where, or does it just flatly, it's not allowed. If it's not allowed, it doesn't matter where it is. So I think maybe we should just continue this case until next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can. If the county wishes to withdraw, we can't stop that, even if it's in mid case; however, I would caution the county in doing so at this point, because it may look to the public that the county didn't form a strong enough case and is wanting to withdraw it in order to find more evidence, and that might be, in a sense, almost like a double trial, and that doesn't look so good. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like the county to withdraw it so we can get some definitive answer rather than -- it goes the other way, too, if somebody makes a motion that we find them in violation. So I think that would be the fairer way and would be the way to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any objection with us postponing this and coming back at a later date? MS. STRICKLAND: That means I'd have to take off work again. I mean, I can ask my boss. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You have the right to object. MS. BAKER: If we could just put the notice of violation up, it does reference the LDC, so you can kind of get an idea. You have it in your packet as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do, but the LDC isn't specific to these -- this isn't the specific Estates zoned area. This is one of those gray areas, because it's kind of a temporary structure, and if you look at construction of the structure, it's not much different than a Ted's Shed, maybe even just a little stronger. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it's not tied down or anything. 16 I 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, but then -- it said in the letter that they aren't even able to permit it. But if it was, you know, something that was built off site, brought on site, and if it was anchored correctly, shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't permit it. It's a shed, a storage shed. And I can attest to their sturdiness. MS. PEREZ: In the notice of violation, Section 2.02.03, it says, "Any use or structure not specifically identified in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or accessory use shall be prohibited in such a zoning district." And again, from the memo, you know, noted and the communication with the zoning manager, he concurred, you know, that this particular property -- he was provided the location, that it was on an Estates -zoned property, and he concurred with the memo that you see up there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But yet he would allow a shed to be permitted there. MS. PEREZ: And it wouldn't -- in reviewing this with the zoning department manager, plan reviewer, and inspections, Ms. Tatiana Gust, she says that the shed in -- the pod in itself, the Florida Building Code does allow for temporary buildings or sheds exclusive with construction of process -- you know, processes on the property. And she, again, concurred with the same memo that you saw earlier. She says, a definition of a structure in the Florida Building Code, it says, "That which is built or constructed." So the inspectors can perform the inspections for the structures in accordance with the Florida Building Code regulations. And she says the only units that are allowed to be manufactured and dropped off at a specific site are structures approved by the DCA and insigna with the proof of inspections that have been previously performed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And storage sheds fall into that category? MS. PEREZ: And she said the pod shown does not meet the Page 67 161 12 A6 � July 28, 2011 criteria, you know, furthermore, in the email message that she provided. She says that the pod shown, which I provided them a picture of what was there, does not meet either criteria, therefore cannot be permitted. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It seems to me like it wouldn't be any different than a regular shed that was built in North Fort Myers and trucked in. MR. PERRY: And the question was posed to the building department when Mrs. Strickland said, well, you know, I'll move it to the back to meet setbacks because, you know, it wouldn't meet setbacks even if it was able to be permitted as it is now. And she says, I'll get a permit or whatnot, so that's when the information -- the question was posed to the Building Department, would this structure be able to be tied down of some sort and blueprints provided or something. They said it doesn't meet the criteria of something that can be remanufactured and dropped off. MS. FLAGG: I would just remind the board, it's not -- it's not for us to agree with the code. We just have to apply the code as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's where my issue is. I don't think that what we're being presented with is talking about that specific structure. I believe that, you know, they're considering those plastic pods, and this is a steel shed -type container. MS. FLAGG: I will tell you that in the Land Development Code it's the Zoning Director. The Zoning Manager, that when there is a specific case, that they take this case to them, have them review it, and per the Land Development Code, they're the ones that make the decision on whether it is a violation or not. And in this case, they clearly indicated that it was a violation. And if you look on the notice of violation, it specifies zoning district E, which is Estates. So they were, throughout, notified that it was an Estates zoning when they issued the letter saying, yes, it is a violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And they were also told about the 161 2A6 y July 28, 2011 opportunity to move it to the rear of the property? MS. FLAGG: It's -- right. If you read the Land Development Code, it specifies the property. It doesn't give them dispensation to move it to the rear of the property. It's on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you still like to withdraw it, or do you want us to continue it? MS. FLAGG: The only other thing that we would provide is just the emails back and forth. You have the official letter from the zoning manager; you have the statement of the Land Development Code where it specifically states it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. PEREZ: If the board feels -- we do have one other memo that we've also provided to Mrs. Strickland. It's a 2003 memo also by Ms. Susan Murray Istenes, and this also specifies -- you know, I hear going back and forth as far as what pods would be, and this specifies industrial containers, if this is more of what it's seen as. And the memo also specifies that it's for nonresidential site, you know, uses -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. PEREZ: -- if you'd like us to submit that into evidence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm okay. You guys want to continue on? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll continue then, if that's okay? All right. Any more questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions for the respondent? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. 0-M. 161 Q A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any nays? (Raises hand.) One. Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: We do. Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, No. 1, removing industrial storage container from Estates zoned property within the determined — to be determined number of days of this hearing or a fine of to be determined amount number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated and, No. 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to see if I can fill in the blanks. The 81.15 to be paid within 30 days, a fine of $150 per day, and 12 months to resolve your situation. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? Page 70 161 12 A6 July as> 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 12 -- go ahead. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 12 months is extremely excessive. You know, it's been there for almost two years already, and I think 12 months is extreme. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. It seems way beyond reason. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ron? No issues? MR. DOINO: No issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'll go to a vote, or you can amend. I think you've got one, two, three, four with you. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason -- let me just give you my reason on that. I know there's been some contention here, and I know that if you're in the air conditioning business, it's going to take you a while till times slow down. So if we're in July, that gives us August, September, October, let's say even to November, one, two, three, four, five -- I could go for six months, and if you have a problem within six months come back to the board. I could amend it, if that would make my other board members more comfortable. MR. DEAN: I'm still happy with my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I like a year, too. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Leave it. Call the question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, let's see how it falls then. In that case, all in favor for the 12 months, signify by saying aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) Page 71 16I 2 A6 July is, Zoi i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two opposed, so that means it carries. Okay. Just like Mr. Kaufman had said, it's going to be one year or a fine of $150 per day. There's an operational cost of $81.15. That does need to be paid within 30 days. That's something we don't control and we have no control over, so you'll have to pay county directly for their time. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we wish you the best of luck. Hopefully it works out for you. MS. STRICKLAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Thank you. MS. POTTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case. It's going to be AAAA Homes, Incorporated. Is there a representative here? MR. BALDWIN: No, sir. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Description of violation: Expired Permits Nos. 2001110145 for a fence, 2008050699 for a Ted shed type structure, 2008050702 for a pole barn storage shed, 2008050704 for a pump shed. Location address where violation exists: 581 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 371 10800008. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: AAAA Homes, Inc., care of registered agent Abel Alvarez, 671 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: 9/12/2007. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: May 4, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 31, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 16, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 72 161 ►2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. 2007090283 dealing with the violation of expired Permit Nos. 2001110145 for a fence, 2008050699 for a Ted shed type structure, 2008050702 for a pole barn storage shed, 2008050704 for a pump shed. This violation -- these violations are located at 581 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37110800008. Service was given on May 4, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following four photos dated September 12, 2007, and two photos taken July 27, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it carries. MR. BALDWIN: I'd like to present the following case details: On September 12, 2007, I responded to a complaint by Domestic Animal Services and the Collier County Sheriffs Department. There were many unpermitted structures on the property and many violations. Mr. Alvarez did remove several of the unpermitted structures, and he did abate all the other violations on the property. He then applied for four permits. He obtained a permit for one of the Page 73 161 12 A6 July as, aoi i structures on the property. Still today three remaining structures on the property that were applied for remain unpermitted. The reason for this, there are many extenuating and personal circumstances why the permits expired. On seven, two thousand -- I'm sorry. On July 2, 2010, I spoke with Mr. Alvarez, and he said he was going to abate the violation. I then met with Mr. Alvarez early June of this year, 2011, and he stated that he was also going to abate the violations, but still, since then, the violations still remain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: On those last dates you said June of 2010 and -- or July -- MR. BALDWIN: I said July of 2010 I spoke with Mr. Alvarez, and then on June of 2011, two months ago -- or I'm sorry -- last month I met with Mr. Alvarez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically a whole year -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- in addition? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any questions for Mr. Baldwin? MR. KAUFMAN: We have to accept. MR. BALDWIN: The first photo was taken on September 12, 2007. That's the pole barn slash -- the permit that he applied for, the pole barn/storage shed, there was electricity at the time. Mr. Alvarez stated to me that he has removed the electricity. So -- and the permit, I don't believe, is for electricity. So I have not gained access to this property again since 2007, so I don't know. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that structure abutting a house? MR. BALDWIN: No. It's behind the house. That's still that same structure. That is the Ted - shed -type structure that he did apply for -- a permit for, and that's still the same pole barn structure coming up next. Now, since then I have not been able to gain access to the Page 74 161 2 A6 July as> aoi i property. They have stated that they did not want me on the back of the property, so I could only take a photo from the street. If you look through the trees and past the fence there, you can see that structure still remains there, and then the other structure that he applied for that was permitted was there, and the other structure, if you look closely, is there as well. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final Page 75 1b1, 2A6 July 28, 2011 inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would someone like to take a shot at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot; 80.57 paid within 30 days, fine of $200 a day starting 90 days from today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have second by, who was that? MR. KAUFMAN: Gerald. CHAIRMAN KELLY: By Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, if I'm not mistake, is Valorie Loj ewski and Carol Nelson. Are the respondents here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: I'm sorry. If I could just interject real quick. For the record, again, Investigator Chris Ambach, code enforcement. Page 76 16 1 t�i2A6 July zs, 2011 The owners are not here, but I do have a tenant that's present to see the outcome of the case in the audience. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would the tenant like to speak at all at any time during the hearing? MR. SCOTT: Only if I need to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you think you might, we'd just as soon swear you in now. And, you know, if you want to come on up and be a part, that would be great. MR. SCOTT: If you have any questions. I'm not the owner, but I can answer questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. As a member of the public, if you have any testimony that you'd like to add to the case, you have that right, too. MR. SCOTT: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) . Description of violation: Detached garage Permit No. 910012418 expired without getting certificate of completion. Location address where violation exists: 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37220800008. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Valorie K. Lojewski and Carol E. Nelson, 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 8, 2008. Date owner, person in charge given notice of violation: October 31, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 30, 2008. Results of -- date of reinspection: June 21, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: This case is in reference to Case No. Page 77 6 1 V A6 July 28, Z61 r CESD20080014926 dealing with the violation of a detached garage, Permit No. 910012418, expired without obtaining a certificate of completion located at 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 37220800008. Service was given on October 31, 2008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have four photographs, one dated March 9, 2011, and three dated July 26, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint on October 8, 2008, for an unpermitted garage with an office located at the rear of the property. Research found Permit No. 910012418 had been applied for; however, no inspections or a certificate of completion was obtained to satisfy the permit. The property was in foreclosure and transferred to the foreclosure team. After receiving this case on October 11, 2010, I made a site visit and spoke with the tenant. He advised me the owners had moved away, and I was given contact information. I had -- I spoke with owner Carol Nelson since then, who has advised me she purchased the home and didn't know the violation existed, had attempted to rectify the situation; however -- she stated, however, due to the economy, the property has fallen into foreclosure, Page 78 16 11,,-12#16 July 289 2 and she has no plans to correct the violations at this time. As of today the violations remain. This is the structure located at the rear of the property here. It's being used for storage only at this point. This is to the right of the storage unit. It's basically a garage; tools and motorcycle and some other odds and ends are being stored in there. This is all the same structure, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the first picture when you get a chance. Is there electric there? MR. AMBACH: There is. MR. KAUFMAN: Plumbing, any plumbing? MR. AMBACH: I'm not -- I don't think there's any plumbing in there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You said that there was a permit pulled. Were there any inspections on that? MR. AMBACH: Never an inspection done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Sir, as a member of the public, would your testimony change what we're doing right now about a violation existing? MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If I can then, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 79 16 .2 ab, July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Now we have a recommendation from the county, and we'd love to hear what you have to say about it as well if you'd like to comment on anything. MR. SCOTT: Bill Scott, William Scott. We moved into that property at the end of March 2010, was tagged on the gate by Inspector Ambach, I'm going to guess, roughly May -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in May of 2010. I called him, asked him what the situation was, because I was unaware of any of it. So I asked him to come back out if he wanted to talk about it and tell me what's going on so I could be aware. We had leased the property knowing it was in foreclosure. We're watching it to see what's going to happen with Chase Manhattan. I don't know how it's going to play out. My family -- I have a wife and three kids; we live there. We do use that unit for storage. Inspector Ambach identified that that was one of the structures that was under permit violation. I asked what I could do and, of course, as the -- as not being an owner, there isn't anything I can do but let this play out. So that's what I'm trying to do is watch each hurdle and see what happens, see what Chase does. She's already identified she has no interest in the property, to do anything with it, so I just have to wait. Meanwhile, I continue to pay her a lease payment on a property that's in foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll -- you'll see in a moment here when we come up with our final order that usually when these properties are in foreclosure we try to shorten the time frame to make sure that an unsuspecting buyer doesn't fall trap to absorb, you know, this violation thinking that they've got a property worth more than it is. MR. SCOTT: Well, in this case it's probably a little different July 28, 2011 because now you have somebody who's interested in the property who understands that it's going to be fined, it's going to be penalized, it's going to end up probably with the bank who may have a lis pendens and just forget the property altogether if the fines accrue. She has no interest in repairing them, so they will. They can run forever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In these cases, if something was to happen, let's say a scenario as such, that it was to go into foreclosure, nothing was fixed, fines were to accrue, and you were to come back to the board and say, listen, I fixed it -- I bought the house, I fixed it up, you know, the fines were accrued from, you know, back when. MR. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You have the option to ask us to reduce or maybe even completely abate those fines. We're interested in just making sure the structure is permitted and up to code. MR. SCOTT: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know it's difficult. MR. SCOTT: I know everything has to stay with the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know it will be difficult because you'll have to rectify the situation, most likely, before you'll be able to get a loan on the property -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- but there is a possibility here. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, did you want to comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the property currently for sale? MR. SCOTT: No, it's not. I've asked her about short sale, I've asked her what she did. She just clearly identifies that she has an attorney, and they're just -- and she's playing it out with Chase. But as far as I know, none of that exists. It's all verbal. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this gone to the foreclosure team? MR. AMBACH: It has gone to the foreclosure team, and it was Page 81 16 I aA 6 t July 28, 2011 given back to me. It was -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: So Chase doesn't want to do anything with it? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Why don't we go through the recommendation. MR. AMBACH: Okay. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank a day will be imposed until the violation is abated and, No. 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a comment. This is probably one of the easier ones to rectify. I'm surprised that they haven't looked at it. If they pulled a building permit and they paid their impact fees -- MR. LEFEBVRE: There wouldn't be impact fees. MR. KAUFMAN: There wouldn't be any impact fees. It's not living space anyhow -- that -- I'm surprised that they're just -- if you'll pardon the expression, "walking away" when it's a property that's probably viable. You're obviously living there. Justify my comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think the issue is the violation. I think the issue is the mortgage. That's why. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From outsiders looking in at just a couple of photos, what we see here is a reapp. of a permit, which gives Page 82 July 28, 2011 you a date at which that building needs to be installed (sic) to -- at a prior code. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you wouldn't even need to bring up to today's codes, which, in probability, the structure's fine as it is. It just needs an inspector to come out and say, yeah, it looks good -- MR. SCOTT: That's what I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- or an engineer -- MR. SCOTT: I believe exactly that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- you know, to -- MR. SCOTT: Do I have the right to do that, as not being the owner? I mean, that's a question that you have to ask. I don't have that right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Nope. MR. SCOTT: So I've got to let this play out, let the fines go, and just ride each wave and see what my time frame is, ride the next wave and just see what happens. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unless the owner, you know, signs an affidavit giving you power of attorney for -- to pull a permit or hires a contractor to pull in her behalf, or his behalf, there's not much you can do. I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Intelligence tells me that's not a practical thing to do. I have to be careful. I'm maintaining the property in order so that I don't have a dangerous living situation with my children there, but realistically for me to make improvements for her to be able to sell it for whatever, until I have -- I mean, I don't have a first right of refusal, and you know as well as I do that's not worth the paper it's printed on. So she's going to go for the highest price, whatever she can do. Doesn't make much sense for me, financially or otherwise, to improve the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know when she purchased this Page 83 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 property? MR. SCOTT: My understanding is about 1998. Would you -- Inspector, would you verify? Do you know that? MR. AMBACH: I'm not sure -- MR. LEFEBVRE: '04. MR. AMBACH: -- the exact -- MR. KAUFMAN: '04? MR. SCOTT: No. I think there's a'98 purchase. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maybe that's a refl. MR. SCOTT: There's two houses. There's two houses. You're going to -- you'll find this out later. But there's two houses. And I think '04 was the documentation for the secondary house, for the guesthouse. But the original purchase on the property, my understanding, was in the late '90s. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gotcha. Well, if you find yourself curious, you could go down to the Horseshoe Drive community services building, ask what it would cost to reapp. this, ask how much the permit inspection fees would be, and then maybe offer to her. Say, listen, you know, I won't pay you $500 in my lease payment, and I'll take care of this for you. Maybe she'll do it for you. MR. SCOTT: Oh, I would love that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyways, let's go ahead and come up with something. That's not advice. That's just an opinion. MR. DEAN: I'm glad. MR. SCOTT: I know. It's a weird situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Does anybody want to take a shot at this? MR. LEFEBVRE: Simply 30 days to correct the violation or a $200 -a -day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DEAN: And operational costs of 81.15. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct, yes. 16 I 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that your second, Larry? MR. DEAN: Second, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Good luck. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're going to go to Sanders, correct? Is that the next one? That was the motion for continuance that was denied. So Kirk Sanders. And, Azure, if you want to come back up. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105. 1, Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 2.02.03. Description of violation: Approximately 12 mobile homes were installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roof overs, and living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining all required building permits. Location address where violation exists: 2280 Pineland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34110; Folio Nos. 5615020005 (sic) and Page 85 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 56150520002. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Kirk N. Sanders, PO Box 2481, Naples, Florida, 34106. Date violation first observed: June 8, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given notice of violation: September 1, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: September 29, 2010. Date of reinspection: May 17, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MS. BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CSD20100007042 pertaining to the violations of prohibited land use, unpermitted mobile homes, additions, carports, porches, roof overs, living space below flood with electrical and plumbing located at 2280 Pineland Avenue, 34112; Folio 56150200005 and 56150520002. Proof of service was received on September 1, 2010. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 17 photos dated July 27, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) Any opposed? July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We can see them. MR. KAUFMAN: We could make a movie out of it. MS. BOTTS: As mentioned in the hearing for the continuance, the complaint was actually made by two different resources (sic). The Bayshore Community Redevelopment had made a complaint asking -- or expressing concerns about this property. Approximately three days later I received an email from Marlene Serrano, our operations manager, stating that she had been contacted by Captain Hunt with the East Naples Fire Department indicating that a mobile home had caught on fire and burnt to the ground, pretty much. Fortunately nobody was there, so no one was hurt. And he had many concerns with the electrical and other code violations. I made my first site visit on the 8th of June 2010. And here's where I'm going to go through the photos. And it's going to get very in -depth because there's a lot of -- it's -- to begin with, this is a legal, nonconforming property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: And so it's getting into time frames and what's been done and what's not allowed and so forth and so on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we just interrupt as we go and just ask you questions? MS. BOTTS: Absolutely. I hope you do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. MS. BOTTS: Okay. The first photos -- well, actually, all the photos are just going to be specifically of the mobile homes with -- and the additions. Some are porches, carports, roof - overs, things of that nature. If you just want to go ahead and go through them. MR. KAUFMAN: Approximately how many of them are occupied? MS. BOTTS: From my knowledge, all of them are. And the reason why I say "from my knowledge" is this is -- prior to 1975, this property was zoned MR -- or MHRP, mobile home rental park. Page 87 161 2A6. July 28, 2011 Mobile home rental parks are -- the property is usually owned by a particular individual, and they rent out spaces to owners of the mobile homes. So I have not been able to gain access into the mobile homes. I've only been able to get onto the property. There is 13 homes. I did count them. There's approx- -- there is 13 mobile homes. This one -- this picture that you're looking at right here, on June 7, 2010, the mobile home that was there was the one that had caught on fire. By the time I arrived the following morning, the mobile home had already been removed, and it was just an empty space. I explained to Mr. Sanders, who is the property owner that was on site at the time, that if he was to replace the mobile home, he would need to have permits. I was out of the office for five months for family reasons, and in that time frame he did put a mobile home back in that space without obtaining permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, so this now is -- we went down to 12 because of the fire; we're back to 13 now, correct? MS. BOTTS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Does it matter whether they have tires on them or not? MS. BOTTS: We're going to get into that. There is travel trailers on this property as well as mobile homes. Travel trailers would not be allowed unless there was a master plan submitted to the county, and it has not been -- according to the property owner, there is, but he's not been able to submit it, and I have not been able to obtain one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: Again, this is a -- this one is a mobile home with an addition and a carport. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When you say addition and carport, you mean that have not been permitted, correct? MS. BOTTS: Correct. Nothing on this has been permitted. i 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 We're going to get to aerial photos showing you where everything had changed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: The fence, as well, is erected without a permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: I'm not sure -- again, when it gets into mobile homes and trailer -- travel trailers, this one's very questionable. I would leave that up to the Building Department. It appears that the travel trailer hitch is still intact and, obviously, is covered up with skirting. But if you look at the outside of it, siding's been put on, stucco's been put on, and an addition as well. MR. DEAN: Ready to go. MS. BOTTS: Mobile home, most likely, from the looks of what I can see on the outside. Again, I would let that up to the Building Department, but that is a living space, porch that is below flood. MR. DEAN: Is that a propane gas tank there, on that last photo? Oh, here. This one. MR. KAUFMAN: On the right. MR. DEAN: That's propane gas? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It looks like it. MS. BOTTS: Behind the bushes? MR. DEAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MS. BOTTS: Yes. MR. DEAN: So is that how they heat the home? CHAIRMAN KELLY: A stove. MS. BOTTS: I can't answer that, sir. I've not been able to obtain inside. Another unit with additions that are living space below flood. This is a travel trailer or a -- actually, a recreational vehicle that has a roof over it. Obviously, that would never be permitted as such. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wouldn't it be funny to watch that go X61 2 Ab July 28, 2011 down the road, that roof thing? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MS. BOTTS: Again, living space below flood attached to a mobile home or a travel trailer. I wanted to take this photo of that -- this is the side view of that last photo you had just seen just clearly indicating that this is living space. It's got an A/C unit, enclosed walls, windows. This would be a travel trailer attached with an addition. Again, this is an addition. You can't really see it, with the foliage all planted in front of it, so it's just the side view. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a separate structure behind it, that two -story thing? MS. BOTTS: That is actually -- let me put in perspective where this property is located. The Wendy's on Tamiami Trail East, it sits between Pineland and Pelton Avenue, the building right beside Wendy's. It has the ABC Liquor in it; that's the commercial building behind it. That should be all of them. After I had made my first site visit on the 8th of June and I seen everything that had taken place, I did speak with the property owner, Mr. Sanders, explained to him about the mobile home that he removed, if he was to put one back in its place, what he needed to do, and expressed my concerns with all the other structures, mobile homes, travel trailers on the property. I told him I would need to do some research and I would get back with him after doing so. I conducted research from August 9th to -- and mind you, I know there's a big time frame here. Research took place during that whole time, but we did a lot of research with the zoning and planning department between August 9, 2010, and August 13, 2010. As I mentioned before, this property was zoned mobile home rental park in 19- -- before 1975. Towards the end of 1975, this property was rezoned to C4 commercial. It does fall in the Page 90 16 I 2 A6 July aa, Zoii Gateway/Bayshore Triangle; however, the overlay has nothing to do with what's on -- going on with the property. So I'm going to now show you some aerials that go through from 173 to '75, '85, 195, 2001, all the way to 2011. The '73 aerial, you're going to see what it looked like when it was zoned mobile home rental park. Forgive me, sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we need to enter those? CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is all part of the original exhibit package, correct? We don't need another motion for this? You said pictures and aerials when you originally -- MS. BOTTS: No. I only said pictures, but I can add the aerials. MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to accept the aerials. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just want to -- MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry. I should have done that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. MS. BOTTS: All right. The first aerial is from the City of Naples 1973 aerial image, and it shows -- it's a very small picture, unfortunately. Hopefully Ms. Baker will -- Mrs. Baker will be able to zoom in for us. As you can see Tamiami Trail clearly, and then the side streets is Page 91 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 Pineland and Pelton. In between you see multiple mobile homes, and that's what it looked like in 1973 when it was zoned mobile home rental park. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just point out to specifically which -- MR. DEAN: It's in the middle? MS. BOTTS: It's going to be from here over and down. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. Okay. MR. DEAN: Looks like Nevada. MS. BOTTS: When they -- I'm not sure of all the dates, but when they rezoned it, it looked like parcels had been divided and sold out separately, so what was remaining is what you'll see as of today. MR. KAUFMAN: Did Mr. Sanders own this in '73? MS. BOTTS: No. A family with the last name of Wainright has owned it as far back as I can track, and in 1998 it was sold to Mr. Sanders. MR. KAUFMAN: And this is the most -- the expression to use -- "relaxed" zoning as what it was in 1973, and since that time there have been zoning changes that become more restrictive? MS. BOTTS: It was definitely zoned mobile home residential park at -- before 1975. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So it was grandfathered with that? MS. BOTTS: Correct. When they decided to do the rezoning, for whatever reason that I cannot answer, it was made to be C4, and obviously since this was an existing condition, they allowed it to be legal nonconforming. It could remain, but if they was to increase structures, remove structures, things of that nature, it would break the legal nonconforming. MR. KAUFMAN: So each change in the property would require permits? If the permits weren't provided, then it would be in violation? MS. BOTTS: I'm not sure I follow you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think I got what you're saying. So in Page 92 16l►2A6 July 28, 2011 other words, they can still continue to operate as a rental mobile home park -- MS. BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- however, they couldn't expand on those mobile homes because they would require a permit, and that permit would be in violation of LDC? MS. BOTTS: Everything would require a permit no matter what, but the continued use would be allowed as long as -- and I can read off the sections that I have provided, the sections indicating that nonconforming uses may remain as long as they do not increase the structure sizes on the property or change the land use. If they do that, then it automatically goes to C4 zoning, and that's what they have to comply with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So in other words, if a trailer, let's say, for instance, had an issue and a wall rotted out and they needed a permit to repair that wall, they could easily get that permit; however, if they wanted to build an addition, they would not because that would increase the size, correct? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. Maybe I can make some clarification real quick if I read something for you. Is that -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me -- one quick point. MS. BOTTS: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: If one trailer changes, does it make the whole thing change or just the one trailer? MS. BOTTS: The one trailer. As soon as they altered that property in any way, it automatically -- it voids out their legal nonconforming. MR. KAUFMAN: On that trailer? MS. BOTTS: The whole property. MR. KAUFMAN: On the whole property. MS. BOTTS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I want to know. Page 93 16 1 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about zoning in this particular case. We're talking about additions to the mobile homes. MS. BOTTS: That is correct, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So zoning is irrelevant. MS. BOTTS: Well, not exactly, because he's also cited for prohibited land use. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So real quick. Since you're allowed to repair one of these trailers and get a permit for that, as long as you don't increase size, if one was to completely be destroyed with a fire and you were to bring another one in and it's replaced, is that considered -- MS. BOTTS: No, that would -- that would not. As long as you were putting what was already existing in place, it would not. As soon as you increase the square footage or you add more mobile homes than what was allowed, approved, in 1975 when they gave them their legal nonconforming. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: So as of right now, from my understanding from the zoning and planning department, 12 mobile homes were allowed in 1975. They have 13, but they also have travel trailers, which are not allowed. So it all kind of falls underneath the prohibited land. So that's why we're just kind of touching this so you understand why there's prohibited land use on there. MR. KAUFMAN: So the whole place is in violation then, but because of all the different changes that have occurred? MR. DEAN: I'd like you to read that, please. MS. BOTTS: Yes, I will. This is 9.03.00, nonconformities, 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 • 16 I 2 A6 14 July 28, 2011 of the Land Development Code or relevant amendment thereto by attachment on a structure -- so there would be the additions, the attachment onto a structure -- or premises of additional signs intended to be seen from off the premise or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved, except as prohibited where -- within Section 9.03.03(B)(4). If you go to that section, it talks about nonconforming structures, 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 approved (sic) of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution. So for them to do any of those things, adding additions to their mobile homes, they have to have permission from the Collier County Planning Commission and the zoning. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with Mr. Sanders? MS. BOTTS: I have, yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any reason that you know of that he's not here today? MS. BOTTS: No, sir. All I under- -- my understanding is that he was going to be out of town; however, he does feel that -- he's expressed to me that he feels that he falls underneath the state jurisdiction and not the county. I did explain to Mr. Sanders that the state jurisdiction only applies to mobile homes and that that's why they come in once a year to inspect them; however, the land use and the additions would fall underneath county. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find him in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 95 2 16 ' A 6 July 28, 2011 MR. DOINO: Second on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? You thought it was going to be a lot harder, didn't you? You thought you were going to be here for a couple hours. MS. BOTTS: I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I'm sorry -- first of all, let me apologize for making a joke. It's almost so bad you have to laugh because it's a shame that -- here we are, but there was a fire in one of these trailers, and it did burn to the ground. And we're very lucky that nobody was in it. So we don't mean to laugh, but it's like, you know, it's just blatant that you have to laugh, so -- and then also, I apologize for you putting so much time and effort into presenting such a great case. And I'm sure that we cut you off probably a quarter of the way through, but that's how effective your first part was. MS. BOTTS: Well, thank you. And I'd rather be well prepared than not prepared, so -- now if I could just find my recommendation, we'd be doing really good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's on the screen. MS. BOTTS: Okay. The county recommends Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay the operational costs Page 96 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 in the amount of -- and I have it, but I don't have it written down. MR. DEAN: Eighty one seven -two. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen -- 81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate the violations by: The respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, the required inspections, and a certificate of completion, occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing -- sorry -- of this hearing, or a two hun- -- or an X- amount - per -day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must remove the -- from the property any extra mobile homes other than what was approved in 1975 for the legal nonconforming statutes, including the recreational vehicles, within X amount of days of this hearing or an X amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails the abatement -- fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all cost of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks, if I can; 81.72 paid within 30 days of this hearing, $250 -a -day fine will begin accruing after 30 days. MR. DEAN: Number 2? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, do we need a second before -- MR. DEAN: You going to do them both or one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I was wondering if you were going to second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, Gerald. Page 97 j 16 July 28, 20716 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No second from Gerald. Any seconds? MR. DEAN: Are we just talking about Part No. 1 or Part No. 2? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want that for all of them? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. DEAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That's for each individual one. MR. DEAN: Okay. Sorry. I didn't understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a second? MR. DEAN: I will second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a second. Now we can discuss it. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days is very short, and here's a couple reasons. First of all, there's currently, from testimony, appears to be people living in there and, second of all, the owner of the property does not own the mobile homes, travel trailers, the residences themselves, so more than likely it was the actual occupants of the units that made the changes. This is very similar to the other mobile home park we had in the same area. MS. BOTTS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days -- I know that there's a health and safety factor. I think 30 days may be a little bit short. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I did 30 days is we've already had a fire where a unit burned to the ground, and I am concerned, especially with the respondent not showing up today. I want to get his attention, and I think this will do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: To bring balance to the force, the respondent did ask for a continuance because of a prior trip or something where he was going to be out of town. So not to defend anyone, but that's one. And then, two, I agree with the 30 days. If the respondent comes back and shows, you know, it wasn't possible to get it done in 30 days, we could always, you know, consider that and possibly reduce or abate the fines that were accrued. 1611 2A6 July 28, 2011 So I kind of like the shorter time frame only because I'm really concerned about, you know, health and safety. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. DEAN: I like the shorter time for the fact that he was notified on September 1, 2010, and that's been nine months or so, and he knew the violation was there. So I think I'd have made a point to come here and defend what I had to defend. MS. BOTTS: Can I -- MR. DEAN: And in light of the fire, that makes a biggie. I would -- 30 days is a lot to me, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, any more? MR. LEFEBVRE: The investigator has -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. BOTTS: I'm sorry, gentlemen. I just -- maybe to provide some clarification. Yes, it has been quite some time. He, for lack of better terms, wanted to do his own research into what I was telling him. He did make several attempts into the county. There was a citizen liaison that had helped him do research and obviously came to the same conclusion as what we had -- I had already done, and he was informed of that. For more or less hearsay, he really showed no interest in appearing today. He showed interest in basically appealing the decision of this to the Circuit Court, because he had asked me -- that's where -- he had asked me to take it to the Circuit Court, and I told him I couldn't; it had to go to the Code Enforcement Board first. MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually I err on the side of a shorter time period, but with a short time period, I think if you feel that this case is as severe as it is, a $250 a day fine is giving -- sending mixed signals. I think if that's the case, it should be higher than $250. If there's a severe health and safety factor, we should give a higher fine. I know, different case, but the case that was on County Barn Road, we gave a higher fine. And this is definitely a health and 0 •• 161` 2A6 July 28, 2011 safety. So I think it should be a higher fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct me if I am wrong. It's 250, 250, 250. That's 750. MS. BOTTS: There would be two 250s. There's one for the permits and one for the legal nonconforming uses, or illegal use at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, if you took a shot at it and before MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, no. We have a motion on the table, so I mean -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: But what would -- maybe -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. then? All right. Any other comments (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, all those in favor of Mr. Kaufinan's motion, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Good luck. I think that concludes our public hearings. Next we're going to go to old business, imposition, motion of Page 100 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 fines. The first case is actually Case No. 3, I think, is it, Fuller and Barbara Davis, Allen-Fuller and Barbara Davis; is that correct? Okay. That is Case No. CEPM20110002247. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read the motion into the record, please? MS. McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -243 and Section 22- 231(12)(1). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida; Folio 730160003. The description is missing and broken windows, missing and or unsecured exterior doors, holes in the walls, no operational sinks, tub, shower, or toilets. Past orders: On February 24, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4656, Page 2313, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of July 28, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of $500 per day for the period between March 2, 2011, and June 14, 2011, 105 days, for a total of $52,500. Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of $500 per day for the period between March 27, 2011, July 28, 2011, 124 days, for the total of $62,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 6, abatement costs of $1,744 have not been paid. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of $82.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $116,000 -- $116,325.43. Page 101 . 16 I' 2A6 July 28, 201 t MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Our chairman had to go out and get a pizza, so I'll carry on. Do we have any motions on this? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's imposed. Now same respondent, different case. The case number -- if you'd like, you can read that one in, make it easy. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22- 231(12)(1). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 730160003. Description: Mobile home with missing/broken windows and missing and/or unsecured exterior doors. Past order: On February 24, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4656, Page 2317, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of May 19, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 102 16i A 6 J�lY 28, 01 Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between March 7th and May 19, 2011, 74 days, for the total of $18,500. Order Item No. 5, abatement costs of $3,218 have not been paid. Order Item No. 5 (sic), operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $21,799.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just curious. Where was this property again? Was this the one that a child went to school and told the teacher or something? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: And the mobile home in question has been completely demolished and moved from the property. The stilt home has been completely boarded. I actually requested they board even the Page 103 161 1 2 A July as, aoi i doors that were there, so the whole property is totally secure now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, great. That's the one I thought it was. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is Olga Moreno. Would you like to come on up? MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, Mrs. Moreno speaks very little English but, as I understand, does understand some English. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BAKER: As you'll see, and as Mr. Letourneau will read at the bottom, the county is recommending to waive the fines on this case. Ms. Perez has explained all of this to her in Spanish. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BAKER: So we just want to make sure that you're under the understanding, too, of what's happening. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we'll take it slow, and it might go well anyway. So we'll see what happens. Let's get everyone sworn in first, then we can read it in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: She says she does. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cristina, are you going to translate? MS. PEREZ: Yes, for whatever. (The interpreter was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to read in the order. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Page 104 161 e JA�, July 28, 2011 Florida; Folio No. 35756320009. Violation description is a garage converted to living space without permits. Past order: On January 27, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4656, Page 583, for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 28, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4681, Page 2029, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB order as of July 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 30, 2011, to July 27, 2011, totaling 28 days, for a total amount of $5,600. Order No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date, $5,600. The county recommends full abatement of the fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 105 161 2 A6 July Zs, zoi i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. PEREZ: She says, "Thank you very much, and I appreciate that you have abated the fines." CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Okay, thank you. MS. MORENO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. I don't think there's anything that could cause a conflict there. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just a note. She came in -- normally we would arrange for an interpreter, but she came in late and didn't indicate that she required one. Since there was no cost to her and the recommendation was to abate, we made the decision to go ahead and move forward so she wouldn't have to take off work again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't think she's going to appeal that decision. MS. FLAGG: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. MR. DEAN: Thank you. I was thinking about that. I have that concern all the time when we do an interpretation, that if it's misconstrued, it could be a problem. MS. FLAGG: Right. Whenever there's a question, we -- we always bring in an interpreter if they let us know -- we ask them to let us know if they need an interpreter, and then we will provide one for them from the court system. In this case that was not provided, but since there was no cost to the respondent -- MR. DEAN: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under the consent agenda, Mark Shapiro, Attorney, Trust, Sergio, Maria Gomez and Eric and Dale Westover have all been forwarded to the County's Attorney's Office Page 106 for foreclosure. approval. July 28, 2011 That was already approved as part of our agenda Moving on to reports. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon. Since November 2008, the banks have paid $2,238,800 to abate 1,811 violations as of July 24th. For the week of July 4th through July 13th, recalling that one of that five -day week was a holiday, so really within four days 329 new code cases were opened in those four days, 872 property inspections were completed, 162 cases were closed with voluntary compliance, 163 property searches were completed, 9 of those resulted in code cases being identified to the potential buyer. And the investigators are carrying an average of 46 cases that week. The number of days from the complaint to the initial inspection average three days. At your last meeting last month you had requested some additional information in regard to the number of code cases or code issues that were identified for potential buyers. We began tracking that at your request on September 20, 2010, and within -- between September 20, 2010, to September 30, 2010, ten days, there were 13 cases identified. From the dates October 1, 2010, through June 27, 2011, 4,933 property searches were completed, again, as that -- as a result of that agreement with Naples Area Board of Realtors. And of those 4,900 cases, 321 identified code issues on the property. So that was hopefully 321 cases that you will not have to hear because property purchasers were advised that there were code issues on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is fantastic. MR. DEAN: That is wonderful. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, we still continue to see them, and it's unfortunate, but at least -- MS. FLAGG: Right. The cases that you're seeing are cases that occurred before the agreement was made with the Naples Area Board of Realtors primarily. These are older cases before that agreement Page 107 July 28, 2011 was executed. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you draft a letter to NABOR -- MS. FLAGG: We'd be happy to. MR. KAUFMAN: -- so they can put it in one of their publications? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's an impressive statistic, absolutely. We would -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We just missed the meeting -- we just missed the magazine deadline. MS. FLAGG: There's always next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next month? MR. LEFEBVRE: We do it quarterly, so it would be probably October. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the numbers will probably be stronger. MS. FLAGG: Right. We can update that for them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. The magazine, the next one -- MS. FLAGG: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Everybody in general agreement? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Good idea. MR. LEFEBVRE: The deadline for October's magazine was, I think, today. So the next deadline would be in October. But, yeah, if you can get that over, that'd be great. MS. FLAGG: Well, if the deadline's today, we can send them something over today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I mean, if it -- I'm pretty sure it's today. So -- MS. FLAGG: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be great to get that out. That would just raise more awareness, because everyone gets it at their Page 108 16I 2 A6 July 28, 2011 house. So it would be really good to have it in the magazine. MS. FLAGG: Is there a contact person you'd like it sent to? MR. KAUFMAN: Send it to Mike Richardson. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There you go. MR. KAUFMAN: He's the CEO. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know if he'll have time to spin it around and get it submitted. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's all good news. I think he would be glad to get it, and he would push to get it published as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If only you were here sooner. I mean, how many more cases, you know? How many more people would you have been able to help? MR. DEAN: I give you credit for that. You did a good job. MR. LEFEBVRE: Diane, as chair of government issues, if he has an issue, tell him that I okayed it, to put it in some space regarding government issues. MS. FLAGG: And I do have to compliment NABOR, because when we brought this issue forth, they took a very proactive approach. Once they realized the significance of the issue to our community, they really worked with us to implement this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's great. Are there any other reports? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Our next meeting date's going to be August 25, and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 109 16I k 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DEAN: That's why they keep me around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month. There you go. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:07 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. Page 110 161 pt, 2A6 August 25, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 25, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning__- Coyle CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Coletta Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino Chris Hudson (Alternate) Misc. com: Robert Kaufman Date: James Lavinski Item *\L,.7= z \A L. Gerald Lefebvre (Excused) c:.?nies to: Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: RECEIVED Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board SEP 2 6 2011 Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Board of Countycommwdonfa Colleen Crawley, Administrative Secretary Page 1 1 6 1 ° -2 A 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Miesczek? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald J. Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chris Hudson? Page 2 161 2 A61 August 25, 2011 MR. HUDSON: Here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record -- MS. BAKER: And Mr. Gerald Lefebvre is absent, excused absence today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of our absence by Gerald, our senior alternate, Ron Doino, will be voting. And of course both alternates will always have opportunity to participate in discussions. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, would you ask if we can check -- (sound interference) -- I was going to say the PA system. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is yours not working? MR. UESPERANCE: I don't hear it very well. You can hear us? MS. BAKER: Make sure that your mics are close to you as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's the speakers too. The speakers are off. MR. UESPERANCE: The speakers are not functioning. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'm not getting any music at all. MR. UESPERANCE: The muzak isn't working? We'll be okay, we'll figure it out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll get it at the break. If it becomes an issue, we'll let you know. Moving on to the approval of agenda. We have some changes? MS. BAKER: We do. Under number four, Public Hearings/Motions, letter A, Motions, Motion for Extension of Time, we have three additions. Number five will be Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez, Case CESD20100005061. Number six, James and Julia Askey, Case CESD20100008859. Number seven, Roxana Sorokoty Trust, Walter J. Sorokoty, Jr. Estate, Case CESD20090005007. Under -- we'll be adding Motion for Continuance, and we will have two additions under Motion for Continuance. The first will be Fakahatchee Trace, Case CESD20110001015. Page 3 16 1 LA6 August 25, 2011 Number two will be Bruce Lamchick, Case CESD20100022396. Under letter B, Stipulations, we have six stipulations. The first will be George and Deborah Martin, Case CESD20100021462. Number two will be Norma Ramirez, Case CESD20100007623. Number three is Waste Services of Florida, Inc., Case CESD20090002873. Number four is Harry E. Moritz, Case CESD20110006100. Number five is Juan Barnhart and Veronica Barnhart, Case CESD20100006046. Number six is Collier Realty Corp., Case CESD20100003739. Under letter C, Hearings, number nine, Case CESD20090010604, Edgar Perez, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20090010573, Edgar Perez, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion for acceptance of the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) 16I 2 A6 August zs, 201 i CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from July 28th hearing, 2011. Do we have any changes or suggestions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And motion carries. Public Hearings/Motions, letter A, extension of time. First case is Mr. 99 Cents, Incorporated. You have a letter in your packet referencing the parties -- MR. MAST: Christopher Mast, representing Mr. 99 Cents. And we are requesting an extension of time up to six months. And part of the problem that we ran into, if I may offer the mutual release of all claims, the contractor walked off the job. Currently I understand from my client as well as from code enforcement that the offending building is no longer in use, it's been emptied out. We just simply need to tear it down now. We've made one effort with one contractor, we're looking for another one at this point. I can offer what's been released from the Page 5 16I 1--2 A6 August zs, Zoi i other contractor. MS. BAKER: You have it in your packet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe we have a copy of that release, thank you. Are there any -- MR. MAST: So basically we're just asking for six months to finish this job at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are there any objections from the county? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? Sorry, go ahead. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KAUFMAN: I have. Why does it take six months to knock down a building? MR. MAST: Well, first of all, we've had a lot of problems finding contractors. A lot of the contractors are going out of business these days. The contractor we had before basically went out of business after keeping the deposit. We got $39 back. My clients are having some financial problems as well. It's just very difficult. And a lot of contractors, even the ones in Naples, won't work out in Immokalee. We just have a lot of problems with this. The other problem was raised by Maria, at least when I spoke to her earlier, there's a question as to whether the concrete has to be removed as well at this point. The original contractor was not set to remove the concrete slab. Now the county is saying that maybe the slab has to be removed as well. So at this point we can't even really enter into a contract, because we don't currently know what has to be removed at this point. We know the building, obviously, but the concrete slab has to be removed as well, so it's going to cause the cost to go up again. Page 6 161 02 A6 August as, aot i MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me when I look at this case a six months -- wasn't an extension granted in the past? MR. MAST: Yes, there have been two extensions granted, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, what's to stop it from a third one coming out? It seems like they sit back and request extension after extension. This is getting to where it's the third extension, or more. MR. MAST: That's correct, it would be the third extension, sir. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: It would have been demo'd and finished this last extension that he got. But because the contractor left and pretty much left him with the ordeal over the concrete, he hasn't gotten a definite answer as of does he need to remove it or not. Building and permitting at this point is researching to see if he is able to leave it, or he would have demo'd it if they said go ahead and demo it. But he really wants to leave it. So it's going to take probably six months by the time they research it, and if it needs to be permit by affidavit, then he's going to need to permit by affidavit. So I figured six months is enough time, sufficient time for him to C.O. the permit. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that your recommendation, to grant the six months? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make the motion that we grant six months. MR. VESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 7 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MARINO: I have to abstain from the vote. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. MR. MAST: Mr. Marino is a client of mine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Tony, what we'll need to do is get you to fill out just a little quick piece of paper saying that you're recusing yourself from this case. And the motion does carry, even with the abstention. MR. MAST: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So thanks very much, appreciate your time. Next case is going to be Maria Ramirez. There are three of them, all for the same respondent. And I believe you have a letter of request. Lionel, could you move your cell phone for me, please? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's off. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, it is? It's the cell phones too close to the speakers then. MR. UESPERANCE: It's completely off. Powered down. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The letter -- the request is for all three cases, although we will need a vote on all three of them individually. The respondent's not here? Are there any questions from the Board about the request? Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: This one was -- in May it was given a 90 -day extension of time and now we're here again for another extension? MR. MIESZCAK: And the person's not here. MR. KAUFMAN: And the person's not here. I have a problem with granting extension after extension, unless somebody can show me why. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I believe she's out in the hallway. 161 2 A16 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let's give her a second to come on in. We can finish reading the letter. (Investigator Asaro and Maria Ramirez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good morning. Does the county have any objection to the extensions? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Kaufinan was just talking about the request for extension. We'll go ahead and repeat it since you were outside. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, an extension was granted for 120 days in November of 2010. And at that time there was a stipulation that everything would be done. My first question regarding the extension is, was the $80 paid? MS. RAMIREZ: Everything was paid, yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The op. costs, were they paid? MS. BAKER: Yes, they were paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. What has changed from November of '10, which was the extension given at that time, 120 days to finish the project. What changed from then to now? MS. RAMIREZ: At this time -- first of all, at that time I had the house in foreclosure and the bank modified until this year, February. That's when I came back again and I asked for more time. We haven't been able to afford the materials. It's a big project that I need to do. I close two case, I just need two more. I don't know, do you close the other one, or -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Her demolition for the shed and other structures on the property, that's been completed. The next step is the right -of -way permit. MS. RAMIREZ: And the fence. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: And the fence. The other two for the interior modeling has been closed. So she's just got two permits for the right -of -way, for the driveway and the concrete wall. Page 9 161 12, A August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Since there's been progress made, I make a recommendation that we grant -- how much time do you think you need? MS. RAMIREZ: I don't know. MR. MIESZCAK: We need to know. MS. RAMIREZ: We want to close this, but -- MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think three months would be sufficient time? MS. RAMIREZ: It's going to be for December? It's really bad month to get jobs and -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's hard to do an extension unless we have some idea of when you think you'll be done. We don't want to drag you back and forth. MS. RAMIREZ: Yeah, I just want to come back when I finish the project. Could be for January. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then that's what I'll put forward as a motion, that we give you an extension of time until January 20 -- what's today's date, the 25th? MS. RAWSON: It would be the 22nd. MR. KAUFMAN: January 22nd is our meeting? Till January 22nd? MS. RAWSON: No, that's 150 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, 150 days? Okay. MS. RAWSON: Our meeting would be after that, I bet. MR. KAUFMAN: Then that works out fine, 150 days, which will bring us into January. So if you cant get it done, our meeting comes after your deadline to get it done, I would suggest that you come back here ahead of time before it expires. MS. RAMIREZ: I hope. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. That's my motion. MR. MIESZCAK: What is your motion, 150 days? Page 10 161 2,A6i0 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: 150 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Okay, thank you. Good luck. MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is on the first case. Since the cases are similar, we'll go ahead and vote on the second one. Which is the one that's being withdrawn because it's already been taken care of? Or was that not even in our package? We have three of them in our packet. MS. CRAWLEY: There's three cases. MR. KELLY: There is three. And they all still are active. MS. CRAWLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the second case, then, I'll just read it into the record, is Case No. CESD20090000972. MR. KAUFMAN: On that one, the cost was $79.72. Was that paid also? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, it was. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we extend this exactly the Page 11 6 1 sk.42 A August 25, Mo same as the previous one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion for a 150 -day extension. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think Ron beat you to it, Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. And the last case is the right -of -way issue. It is CEROW - 20090000973. MR. KAUFMAN: And the $80 on this one, has that been paid as well? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, it has. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then I'd make a motion that we grant the same, 150 days on this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second it. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded this time by Tony. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 12 ab lAgIst 1 25 01 , CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Okay, thank you. The next request for an extension of time is Sanchez. You have a letter that accompanies this one. Let me read the full respondents' names. Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. (Investigator Weldon Walker and Earnest Freeman were duly sworn) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Freeman. MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We got your letter here; talks about the Sanchez residence. Just want to quickly give us a synopsis as to what's going on? MR. FREEMAN: Okay. Prior to this meeting here, I came in and got taken care of one of the permits for Mr. Sanchez. And I wasn't aware that he had another case, so I got the permits for the other one. We have permits to get the demo done. And we're just requesting a 90 -day extension. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, requesting 90 days. Weldon, good morning. If you want to just -- INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, for the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from the county? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: None whatsoever, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? Page 13 6 1 6 1 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: I have one on the $80.86. Do you know whether or not that's been paid? MS. CRAWLEY: They have not been paid. MR. FREEMAN: I got a receipt for $81.15. I just don't know if that's the -- MS. CRAWLEY: This is for $80.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That may have been for the last case. MR. FREEMAN: Okay. No, that wasn't paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, does that change your recommendation at all? MR. KAUFMAN: Since it's an extension, no. We can extend this one. Ordinarily when they come before us for the imposition, which this case is, and that hasn't been paid, we generally don't grant any special things. But on this one, I make a motion that we extend it -- how long do you need on this one? MR. FREEMAN: Ninety days, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days, okay. Extension of 90 days on this one. MR. FREEMAN: And we'll get the fee taken care of today. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 14 161 2A6; August 25, 2 1 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks very much. Looks like you'll be busy out there in Immokalee. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Weldon. The last motion for extension of time is Askey. Is the respondent here? (Investigator Asaro and Trisha Paskanik were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Trisha, could you pull that microphone right down -- sorry. There you go. It's weird, because the speakers are back there. Just for the record, would you mind stating that you have the authority -- MS. PASKANIK: I am representing James and Julia Askey in this matter, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the authority to speak on their behalf? MS. PASKANIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. We have the letter, we read the letter. As just a brief synopsis, do you want to give us a little history as to what's going on, for the record? MS. PASKANIK: Well, last time I came in here I stood with you and you had maybe possibly recommended going to different organizations to try to get some type of assistance. And right now everybody is overloaded. I couldn't even find anybody that even does Page 15 16 1 2 A 6 '� August 25, 2011 that. But I mean, people -- I got the same story everywhere, that, I mean, they're trying to feed people and to try to help people do something like this is very out of their range. I'm trying to do everything I can. I mean, like I said, I have a new baby and I'm very fortunate that every month I still survive, you know, I mean, I'm keeping things going. But -- oh, we are trying to do like a little organic farm type thing there to try to make the property somewhat profitable. And the house, the structure, I mean, it's a mobile home, which is now being used for storage, you know, could be beneficial then. And it's an additional extension to have it removed anyway, so I'm trying to possibly permit it as a shed instead of a house, thinking that it might possibly help me, you know, like with the money part of it, it would be less expensive, less permits. But that's -- you know, that's where I am right now. Unfortunately I just don't have the money, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Investigator, do you want to state your name for the record? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yeah, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections from the county? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, none at all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is there electric and water in that trailer? MS. PASKANIK: There was, but it's not being used now. I mean, because it was originally -- like the letter says, I was going to have my mother living in there. But it's not being used at this time. There's no water or electric running, the breaker's turned offer. It was -- there was an existing home there. I mean, I tried to switch them to improve -- the other home was like dilapidated and I was trying to -- we're trying to get together so that we can all, you know, help each other out. And unfortunately it ended up being a lot Page 16 1August 6 l R A b 25, 2011 more problems than I was expecting, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any time frame that you think you would need to get this thing resolved? MS. PASKANIK: It's just a money thing is my problem. And like I said, I mean, I try to keep my electric paid and insurance on my car and diapers on my baby, so it's -- and I'm out of work, so it's -- whenever God decides to help me out here. I mean, I would ask for the maximum that you could grant me. And like I said, we're trying to do the organic farm thing. We're trying to get something going with that. But that's obviously a time thing. I mean, stuff has to grow. So, you know, that's -- I don't -- I mean, if, you know, I won the lottery tomorrow, I would take care of it the day after tomorrow. But right now I don't see when. I can't predict the future, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question for the county. Any chance of converting a mobile home into a shed and permitting it as such? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I think we would have to check with the building department to find out how that -- how we could do that. I don't have the answer for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Maybe -- MS. PASKANIK: And that's what I'm researching. I mean, because, I mean, if you look at like a Ted's Shed, it's basically the -- you know, it's the same thing, you know what I mean, it's just a little different shape. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MS. PASKANIK: I'm hoping -- I mean, without the electric and water -- I mean, basically that's what it is. It's a storage. I mean, there's storage all over the county, so, you know. And obviously -- I mean, I have five acres out there for equipment and stuff like that. I mean, I would need the storage available anyway. So to hopefully, you know, try to make something out of this. Page 17 16 ZA6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: This is a mobile home, it doesn't have tires or anything on it; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: You know, I can't -- you have some MS. PASKANIK: No, it's on blocks and everything. I mean, it's not moveable or -- MR. KAUFMAN: My last question is, the $80.29, do you know whether or not that's been paid? MS. CRAWLEY: They have not. MS. PASKANIK: It has not been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's hard to make a motion on this one unless we know or have some reasonable idea of how much time would be required. Although I think that it's difficult to put a time frame on it. I mean, I haven't gotten any letters from God lately to let me know, but -- MS. PASKANIK: I hear you. I mean, and I don't want to say okay, give me 90 days, because, I mean, I've been here, I heard you don't want me to come back in 90 days, you know what I mean? And I can't guarantee that in 90 days -- I mean, I am -- you know, I'm doing everything that I can, exhausting all efforts to keep everything going, food on the table, you know what I mean? And I couldn't honestly tell you I'll have it done in 90 days, because we'll be back here possibly in 90 days and you'll be mad at me because I said I'd get it done in 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: We don't get mad at you. MS. PASKANIK: Well, you know, not mad, but, you know, frustrated. MR. KAUFMAN: Anything that we can do to help, we certainly Page 18 161 1 A61 August 25, 2011 would -- certainly want to do that. How much time do you think that you would need to find out from the county whether they can be converted to a shed? MS. PASKANIK: Well, I know from the research that I've done, like I'm almost positive I'll need like an architectural thing. Like even the Ted's Sheds come with like a little diagram of everything in it. And I'm working with someone who's a friend of a friend who works with an architect and does architectural design and all that, and he said that he would be able to do it for me but they're busy right now. So it's kind of like as soon as he gets a chance. And that's an important part of it. Whether or not they'll actually let me do it as a shed, I don't see why they wouldn't, but, that -- I don't know. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would 180 days be a possible starting point for you? MS. PASKANIK: That would be a wonderful starting point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that your motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's my motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony. And discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I think I'd like just to state, we'd like to see progress. I mean, it's this ongoing -- MS. PASKANIK: There has been a lot of progress out there. MR. MIESZCAK: And that's what we're looking at. And I'm sure that's why they recommend 180 days. So I'll go along with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 19 1611ic2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: 180 days. MS. PASKANIK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. And I think it sounds pretty favorable about transferring that over to a shed use. MS. PASKANIK: Yeah, I'm hoping. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, good luck. Thank you. There is one last extension of time. My bad. That's going to be -- let's see if I can pronounce this correctly. I'm sorry if I don't. Sorokoty; is that correct? MR. MINER: My name is Bruce Miner, M- I- N -E -R. I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. I'm here on behalf of Roxana Sorokoty, and I have authorization to speak on her behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. The Board wasn't exactly paying attention. We're trying to get our packets straight. I'm sorry. Sir, could you repeat that again, please. MR. MINER: Yes. My name is Bruce Miner, I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. And I'm here on behalf of Roxana Sorokoty, the owner of the subject property. And I have authorization from Roxana to speak on her behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir. (Investigator Botts and Bruce Miner were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, we do have the letter, but if you would just briefly give us an idea of what's going on and the time frame requested. MR. MINER: Yes, sir. In January I was at this Board regarding the same situation, and was granted a six -month extension based on the fact that the unit is Page 20 161 2A6, August 25, zoi i currently vacant and there's no prospects for tenants, and the electric is shut off, so it really doesn't pose a safety issue at this time. The idea was to allow us to give a prospective tenant the option to in fact reinforce the existing mezzanine to expand his space and the utilization of the space, because we had already done some -- we had already done architectural drawings and found out what it would take to do that. However, due to the economic situation and the fact that the tenant that was originally in there moved out of the space, I was granted the six -month extension. Now, I put that on my calendar to review in June, the six months being July. And I called on June 8th to -- or e- mailed and asked for an extension, and they said that it would have to come in front of the Board and I'd have to appear. However, when I received the order to appear, it was on June -- I believe June 26th or 27th, which was during my vacation period, and I wasn't available to represent the owner. So consequently, I called just before the meeting and asked -- well, I had called to find out why it wasn't in July, because that was really the end of my six months. And I was told that because the meeting occurred after my cut -off date for the six months that it had to occur in June. And as I mentioned, I was on vacation so I wasn't able to attend. Prior to going on vacation, because of this I contacted John Varsames from Construction Managers, Incorporated, a licensed commercial GC, and he faxed a letter over to the county, indicating that he was going to apply for a permit. Now, that permit has been applied for and is currently in review with the county. And as soon as we get that -- and here again, Mr. Varsames has indicated that that would probably be in the next five days we ought to have that permit. And we're prepared to move forward and have the mezzanine removed so we can be done with this. And by the way, the property does remain vacant and the electricity is shut off, so it's of no more a safety issue now than it was Page 21 161 2A6; August Zs, aoi i four months ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you want to state your name for the record? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. I would just confirm that yes, they have submitted for a demolition permit on the 8th of August. It is going through the review process. A couple of rejections were issued, so some revisions need to be sent in, which I am sure the contractor is in the middle of taking care of that. And according to Mr. Miner, during our conversation yesterday evening, he felt very comfortable that this would be taken care of quickly after that demo permit has been issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have one question. What mezzanines there, bay nine and 10 and eight. I'm a little confused there. I mean, are they removing everything or just one of them? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe the units nine and 10 are actually together. There's not a dividing wall. This is a case that I had brought from somebody else, so I myself have not been in this building. I just reviewed the pictures. From my understanding, it's together, and the stairs and the mezzanine are on both units. MR. MIESZCAK: But see, I'm reading like bay eight is one for the permitting and nine and 10 weren't. All I'm saying is what are they tearing down here? What are we tearing down, eight, nine and 10 or just nine and 10? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I do have some photographs here, if that would help visually. I don't know if you want to get into that. MR. MIESZCAK: No, I don't need to see photos, I'm just asking the question. MR. MINER: If I may, sir? Page 22 161 2A6 #ugust zs, Zoi i MR. MIESZCAK: Please. MR. MINER: Units nine and 10 are contiguous and there is no demising wall between the two. It was utilized by an automobile repair shop. And the mezzanine is only in those units, specific to those units. And that's what's going to be removed. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. I understand now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I remember this case from I think it was a month or two months ago where we had gotten a letter saying that it was your understanding, or whoever wrote the letter, I'm not sure who wrote the letter, that time was being granted until the unit was rented. That's -- MR. MINER: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- not what the stipulation stated. And to clarify it, a certain time was given to resolve the situation, not rent it. Whether it gets rented or not is another issue between you and whoever rents it. So that's why your request for an extension the last time was denied. MR. MINER: Well, that -- I apologize, because my understanding was it was because of the vacancy and the possibility to have that reinforced to allow a new tenant to use it. And when I had asked at that meeting after six months if it's not rented what shall I do, and I was informed that I could just return to the Board and request a further extension at that point. So if that's the case, what you're stating, I misunderstood it and -- MR. KAUFMAN: I just wanted to clear that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good point. It's actually the contrary. We would prefer that the code violations were taken care of prior to a new tenant, because we don't know what kind of safety issues are resulting from that mezzanine being there. If a tenant was to move in not having this approved by code and loaded it up with a bunch of weight and there was another person underneath and it Page 23 �6u�t 25, 0 A'6 11 collapsed, that would be a health and safety issue. MR. MINER: I understand. I believe there was an addition or an addendum of some sort that indicated that I would in fact come back to the Board prior to a new tenant going in there, which gave me the assumption that it had to do with the tenancy of the property. Because it wasn't a safety hazard. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, the actual issue there was we wouldn't want a tenant to move in unless these were taken care of. Had we been notified that a tenant was planning to move in soon, it would have kind of lit a fire to get those taken care of prior to the move. MR. MINER: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you need to get this resolved now? MR. MINER: I'm hopeful that this will be resolved by your next meeting. You know, as soon as we get the permit issued, we're going to -- according to Mr. Varsames, it's probably going to be a two to three -day time period to get this thing removed. MR. KAUFMAN: So if we did a 60 -day extension, that should give you plenty of time to have this resolved? MR. MINER: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 24 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days is granted. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now that concludes the extension of time. We're moving on to motions for continuance. First case is going to be Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. MR. KAUFMAN: Number 13. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Good morning. Casey Weidenmiller, on behalf of the Respondent Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll have the others sworn in. (Chief Alan McGlaughlin and Investigator Seabasty were duly sworn.) CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: For the record, Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District, Acting Fire Marshall, 633. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: And for the record James Seabasty, Collier County Code Enforcement. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name for the record, please. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: S- E- A- B- A- S -T -Y. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I guess from the letter it says that there's been limited notice or something along those lines? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. Let me explain and answer any questions you have. I think sort of factually this is probably a little bit of a unique case. My client is the entity that owns the property. And the property is the formerly operated prison in Copeland, Florida. Page 25 X61 2A6 August 25, 2011 My clients did not do -- or authorize or contract to do any of the work and have not occupied the property. The entity that did has filed for bankruptcy. And we are still in the process of attempting to get access to the property because of the various locks and fences that are out there. There have been various legal proceedings surrounding that. I received -- I've spoken to both the gentlemen to my right. My clients want to cooperate and work very hard to take care of any issues that are there. At this point what I have to the extent of what's going on today is just a copy of the notice. I'm not sure, other than I know from speaking to these gentlemen that there are obviously concerns about the work that was done. All my clients are looking to do is get secure access to the property, determine what needs to be corrected, work with the county and the fire department to make sure that everything is corrected and hopefully avoid this becoming a long dragged -out case for you all to have to deal with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's go back just real quick. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So your clients own the property -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- but yet somebody else was working on lt. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Yes, somebody was working on it, presumably a contractor. That contractor, though, was not hired by MY clients, they were hired by someone who contended at one point that they had the right to occupy the prison. But we contest that they potentially didn't. And that entity is now declared bankruptcy, and we're sort of now dealing with the difficulties of once someone declares bankruptcy, you can't necessarily pursue them legally. But the reality that to get out there and look at it we have to be able to physically open the doors and move the fences. Page 26 161 2A6 .� August zs, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So obviously there is a statement of violation. So if you would, let's explain the violation and see where we are. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: Thank you. This is in reference to Case CESD20110001015 -- MS. BAKER: Just reason. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, in general. We're not hearing this yet. We're just wondering if we should get the extension. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: Okay. I was originally sent out to investigate a complaint of a roof repair without a permit. At that time I was not able to access the property with the property owner. But the tenant was there at that particular time -- I'm sorry, he was not there, one of his foremen was there. I could not determine whether there was a violation at that time. I tried to arrange a meeting with our building department and with the tenant so we could be on the property and see whether there were any violations. During this time period the property was cleaned up as far as there was graffiti on the building, there was some broken windows. As time progressed, I was able to see from the street, not from being on the property, that renovations were being done. There were new windows put in, there were new doors put in, you could see roof trusses. Chief McLaughlin will also testify that he actually was on the property and he had a chance to inspect it. But as this date, there are no permits for renovations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning, Chief. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning. On June 15th I happened to stop by the property. We've been driving by it, noticing that there's a lot of site work that we saw the construction starting on the building. I saw no permit boards, but attempted to make access with no success several times. The gates Page 27 A 6 lAstl 25, 11 were locked. On June 15th, they were open. I then contacted Mr. Jones who was on the property who testified that he had the authority to do the construction there. I did a walk through and I asked him for where his permit boards and his permits were. I was shown two permits: One was a permit to replace an electrical panel, and the other one was to replace electrical wiring. What I found was this abandoned prison facility had been retrofitted into a dormitory educational facility with no permits. I found no plans, no plan review from building, from fire code. I found multiple violations in building construction under the Florida fire codes. No engineered drawings for the fire alarm. And I also noticed that somebody was apparently living in the building at the time and occupying it with no occupancy. As I walked through the building, these were just the ones I noted without even -- there was no -- he could not tell me what the ceiling penetration ratings were. There had been no inspections behind any of the drywall work, the door ratings, the closures, the certifications on the windows. And this kind of went on and on without even getting into the details of depth inspections. These were walk - through. At that time I came back on June 20th and I red - tagged the project for being in violation of no permits and an illegal construction project. I then turned it over to code enforcement and advised them of what was going on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Chief. Investigator, what is your recommendation here as far as the extension? Do you see a health and safety issue? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: I do believe there is a health and safety issue because of the work that has been done. We're not sure what has been done, given the fact that electricity has been put Page 28 1b1 A6 August 25, 2011 into that building. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And I agree, there's a health and safety issue. Because we do not know anything behind what was put in there. And some of the work actually looks very substandard to today's standard, what would be required for a, quote, dormitory educational facility to occupy it in any way, shape or form, and it would be a health and safety violation to put someone in at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, do you have any rebuttal that you want to discuss? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. At this point the purpose of seeking a continuance is simply because we have no idea what has been done there, because we neither did it nor authorized it to be done. Nor have we even had the ability to access it. It's not as if we've had a key and we just haven't opened the door for 30 days. What we're very much wanting to do, and we have been in touch with various locksmiths, but unfortunately this is a slightly more complicated access issue than just changing the lock on the front of a house, we very much want to get out there in the next week or two and try to determine what specifically was done, because we don't know what it is. I guess related to that for the sort of procedural protections of the hearing, at this point I have no idea other than -- and I don't dispute anything these gentlemen are saying, it's just for the purposes of offering a defense or being able to determine what has happened. My clients, at least what they've seen, are not aware of what the violations are, other than -- I mean, we don't I guess dispute what they're saying, it's just very simply we haven't even had the opportunity to take a contractor out there and have the contractor come in and offer what specifically could be done. So I'm not sure what if any defense we could offer at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was a statement made that there Page 29 16 1 2 �6 August Zs, Zoi may have been people living on the property. Do you know if your clients have authorized anyone to take up residence there? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. The answer to that question unfortunately is complicated. My client's position is there was never a lease and there was never a contract. There have been legal disputes in both state and federal court by the group led by Mr. Jones, who was the principal for this group, which I believe ATC Tactical was the name of the entity that purported to go out and take occupancy, and I believe Mr. Jones owned and managed that company. He essentially, very frankly, moved onto the property, stopped communicating I believe with both the county and my clients, and unbeknownst to us, we got a call saying oh, hey, there's a bunch of people out there doing work. He had a lawyer. The lawyer no longer represents him. And we are in a position of only taking at the word what the county is telling us what's been done, but not actually having the opportunity for various reasons to go out to the prison and see what it is has been done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let's turn it over to the Board and see if there's questions. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a que -- so it seems that your client leased or was trying to lease this property to somebody to use as a school dormitory; is that correct? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Partially. There were discussions. And what we believed happened was before the discussions were completed and there was a lease signed or a contract, the gentleman simply moved on, changed the locks and hired contractors, unbeknownst to us. MR. KAUFMAN: So he's trespassing. MR. WEIDENMILLER: In our opinion, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been reported to the sheriff? MR. WEIDENMILLER: We have filed a lawsuit. As soon as we Page 30 X61 2,�� August 25, 20i filed the lawsuit, the entity declared bankruptcy, did not list us as a creditor in the bankruptcy and presumably has left the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the sheriff had access to the property? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not that we're aware of But from talking to Mr. Jones and having conversation with him, I will have to verify what the gentleman's saying is true, that there have been multiple problems out there. Mr. Jones approached us recently with a set of plans that are supposed to go to permit from Pelican Engineering now that weren't in existence prior to that. And I'd asked about the ownership, and it was very convoluted and obviously was skirting the issue. So I'm going to have to say that what the gentleman is saying is true, that the owners probably had no idea what was going on out there and that there was like several third parties involved in this. MR. KAUFMAN: So they have no lease? MR. WEIDENMILLER: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Then they're trespassing. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Correct. But since they -- MR. KAUFMAN: And that's a thing that would go to the sheriff. MR. WEIDENMILLER: We filed a lawsuit. His contention was that he had the right to be there. And our experience is that the sheriff does not want to get too involved with two people arguing over: You said I could lease the property; no you didn't; here's an e -mail. They typically say please go to the civil courts and have the judge make a decision. And once you have one, we will happily enforce that order or judgment. MR. KAUFMAN: But we have in the file the deed. We know who owns it. MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be my client -- I don't have a copy of what you have. MR. KAUFMAN: So we know who owns it. And if the sheriff goes out there and says you don't own it, you can't show me a lease, Page 31 161� 2A6 August 25, 2011 you're out of here. I don't understand why this gets stuck in the courts. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: If I may, the property is vacant at this time. I ride by quite a bit. And I can't get access to the property of course without the owner's permission. There is a chain with a lock on the front gate. So it does not appear that anybody has been accessing the property. When I posted for the hearing, I actually posted the property, it happened to be raining, we put it in a Baggie, we put it on the front gate. I went back and it was gone. Later I found out this morning that Mr. Jones had taken it because he thought it was his. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Which would explain why we didn't hear about this until I got a fax two days ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Not to speak for the Board, but in my own mind I just wanted to make sure that if there is someone living here that there aren't any safety issues. So I would personally -- I would err on the side of caution and would rather get an order in place today rather than extending it. And we could maybe be a little lenient on the order, knowing that there's a lot yet to settle or figure out. But that's just my opinion. I think the Board wants to make sure that we're not causing any harm. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I don't think that we would necessarily have a problem with that, very frankly. What I'd like to avoid is a long time here and having some very long drawn -out hearing when I know someone's saying that there's a deed -- I mean, literally I have no file, I have no real ability to move forward and I want to just protect my client's procedural rights to defend themselves, since I don't think anybody here disputes that we are not the -- we didn't take that off the gate, we didn't put the lock on the gate. And so I very much would simply like to either continue this or enter into some sort of order on behalf of my clients that allowed for some leniency so we could work towards getting access, which we're very much in the process of doing and correcting this over the next 60 Page 32 16 1 2116 August 25, 2011 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Typically at the end of our orders it says something -- I won't give you the exact quote -- that if we need the assistance of the sheriffs office, it would be provided. So I think that a determination from the Board, we can hear this, come up with a motion that will certainly include the sheriffs office and in essence turn the property back to its owners. Any comments on that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: What I'd like to do is just talk about procedures real quick. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Normally what happens is we create an order. If we don't give you the extension, this would be heard today and we would create an order if a violation was found. Given the testimony between both of you, it doesn't sound like there's anyone saying that there's not a violation. So the likelihood, there would be a violation and then we would give a certain time frame to correct the issues. If those issues were not corrected within that time frame, there would be a fine associated with every day thereafter that the violations remained. What Mr. Kaufman is speaking to is the bottom of our order it does say that if it is not corrected, we can -- we'll have the issue corrected for you and we'll use the Collier County Sheriff s Office to help in any way necessary to gain access or to ensure the safety of workers at that time. That's kind of the procedure. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I'm familiar with that, and I very much appreciate that. I think one of my biggest concerns and the reason I approach this as a continuance as opposed to trying to stipulate to some sort of order is because of the limited amount of materials. Essentially I don't have a copy of the packet. I'm not certain to what extent and what amount any fines were being requested, and so I simply didn't want to end up with my client Page 33 161, 2�6 August 25, 201 incurring a very quick $1,000 or more a day fine while we try to sort this out over the next 60 to 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right, I can appreciate that. And we're all public servants. I mean, we're, you know, just part of the community, so we understand that that's the way it is. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr. Kelly. Steve Williams from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Morning. MR. WILLIAMS: And I'm as new to this one as anyone here hearing it for the first time. But there's words that always scare me and those words are federal matters. And if we've got a federal bankruptcy matter, I understand it is only two and I can't necessarily use the word tenant correctly, but we'll call it the other party. And that could affect us in a myriad of ways. I understand that the bankruptcy is not Mr. Weidenmiller's client. However, even if the bankruptcy action were just as to the person we're calling the tenant, they would have certain bankruptcy protections that we would be powerless as a county to do anything to or against. And imagine the position we're going to put everyone in if we'd issue a code order that we haven't seen and we don't in violation of the bankruptcy order say we're ordering them to get out or do certain other actions and the bankruptcy judge says no action's going to be taken against them whatsoever. We'd be ordering the landowner to do something that they would be powerless to enforce under a bankruptcy stay against an alleged tenant, for lack for a better pharse. So that's the only part of this that really causes me hesitation is anything that we would do if we were to impose a condition on the landowner, or in this case we'll call it the innocent landowner, and then they would be powerless to enforce it. So I understand from a health, welfare and safety need we've got to make sure no one's living in there that shouldn't be living in there. Page 34 10 161 August 6 0l But if they're under a bankruptcy protection, there's not much we're going to be able to do. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask you a question, sir: Wouldn't they have to have a lease to be on the property to begin with? MR. WILLIAMS: No. MR. MIESZCAK: So in other words, I can just be -- camp out there and I wouldn't have to -- that doesn't make sense to me. Something's wrong with this picture. MR. WILLIAMS: You can have oral leases. They're valid. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, let me ask you -- oral lease? MR. WILLIAMS: Perfectly valid. And enforceable. I mean, over a certain period of time -- MR. MIESZCAK: Doesn't mean -- MR. WILLIAMS: -- you would want it in writing and it should be in writing, but -- MR. MIESZCAK: But you're telling me it doesn't have to be in writing to be a lease. MR. WILLIAMS: Leases do not have to be in writing. You can have an oral agreement to stay with your brother -in -law while going through your divorce, and that's fine. You can have all kinds of oral leases. Now, in a perfect business world we put them in writing, and beyond a certain period of time to be enforceable they have to be in writing, certain dollar amounts have to be in writing to satisfy the statute of fraud. But you can have an oral lease. MR. MIESZCAK: So the owner can say he didn't have an oral lease. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know what's going on civilly, but it could be asserted. And that's the only thing I would know about. But one party could have a part of the document and the other party not have it. MR. MIESZCAK: I just don't understand it in our system. I Page 35 161 2 A6 1m August 25, 2011 mean, if you want to rent a property you sign a lease. If you don't have a signed lease, you don't have nothing. MR. WILLIAMS: People still do business. You can have a handshake agreement. The law is never -- we have a statute of frauds that say certain things have to be in writing to be enforceable, but if you want to walk up to somebody and say I'll give you 2,000 a month in cash to rent out your house and they accept the 2,000 in cash, you're allowed to stay there that month. MR. MIESZCAK: Then when they deny it later, you have no grounds -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's just bad business. MR. MIESZCAK: -- either way. That doesn't make sense to me. MR. WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to make sense to be legal. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're in a position right now where we're hearing whether or not we should grant an extension -- MR. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- from hearing this today. If it's your contention that maybe the order would not be enforceable to begin with, maybe the county would want to withdraw this case or change its position and recommend the extension. MR. WILLIAMS: I am concerned as to the health, welfare and safety issues. And what we can do there, and especially if Mr. Weidenmiller's client is agreeable to having that as to the person living there, certainly, we need to get them out. As we can put it in, I just want the Board to be aware that this is one we may want to look at next month to see what the status is, not put it off very long whatsoever and maybe continue the agenda item except -- everything except as to the health, welfare and safety issue that we've got present. Because if we just don't know -- and that would also give the county time to obtain the bankruptcy records, we can pull those off of the Federal PACER System, see what's going on with the tenants, see Page 36 161 August A, 2011 ip,41 what orders are in place and see what needs to be done. I'm sure Mr. Weidenmiller can get ahold of those as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that's all -- but some of that might be beyond what we're capable of hearing or doing. MR. WILLIAMS: Which is why I don't want you to hear it. MR. KAUFMAN: Can we come up with an order that grants an extension of, let's say, 60 days, 90 days, whatever the time is, and at the same -- as part of the order require that the Sheriffs Department, if needed, make sure that nobody's living in that facility? MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be fantastic. MR. WILLIAMS: If the sheriff s willing to follow your order. You know you have no authority over the constitutional officer that -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think that's beyond -- MR. MIESZCAK: We're aware of that, yes. MS. RAWSON: This is only a motion for continuance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. And even if we had an order, I don't think we can write an order to tell someone they can or can't live in a dwelling. I think that's beyond the scope of our powers of -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to proffer a motion to continue this to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next hearing. SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record -- do you want to swear me in, please? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Gentlemen, just to make you aware, we have two entities from the county here telling you this is a health and safety issue. That's why we're here. We would not like an extension. We don't know if anybody's living there, we don't know what the circumstances are. We would not like a continuance. However, we would agree with whatever the Board would like to do. Page 37 161 ►2 A 6 if August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm with you, Kitchell, I don't want to see this extended. I would rather write the order and, you know, contest it later than to have this go on very much further and risk someone's life. It's just an opinion, not speaking for the Board. But -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility for us to commingle a continuance with the enforcement of health, safety and welfare? MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I suggested. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, but if we're going to hear this case, we're going to hear it with all its merits. I don't think we can pick and choose which part of what we're being presented. We can turn up or turn down. If we find a violation, therefore we have to write the order specifically addressing the violation or violations, plural, that are addressed in that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the county attorney recommending we don't hear the case at this time? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not going that far, I mean, to the degree that I fear what occurs when you involve matters with the greater authority than the county possess. However, I don't know what's going on in the bankruptcy proceeding. It gives me pause and hesitation. However, if we've got human lives at risk for wiring that's going in there that's never been permitted, if there truly is a risk to someone's life, from the County Attorney's Office, we don't want that either by any stretch of the imagination. My fear is we give an order that is not enforceable. Or far worse, we give an order out of this court that violates the bankruptcy stay. Now you're violating federal laws as a county and we want absolutely no part of that. However, I haven't seen the order, haven't been provided a copy of the order. I don't know to what party, if that pertains to the entity, if it's the individual filing the bankruptcy, if it's the business, if it's a Page 38 16 I ► 2 A6 �r August 25, 2011 partner. We don't possess sufficient information to be able to act. So I don't think the federal court could say we deliberately violated their order, but they really don't care about the word deliberately very much. They see very black - and - white, well, I've got a federal bankruptcy stay or I don't. I don't know that, I only know what I've heard while watching upstairs and being present here, I'm not sure if any party in the room knows what the federal bankruptcy situation is. MR. KAUFMAN: How do we know that there's a bankruptcy that's been filed? MR. WILLIAMS: I believe I heard that presented from Mr. Weidenmiller. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know for a fact that it's been filed? MR. WEIDENMILLER: ATC Tactical has filed for the protection of the Middle District of Florida bankruptcy courts. That is the entity that occupied the property. MR. DOINO: We should find out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a reminder to everybody, our orders go against the property, in this case your client, not the entity that's filed bankruptcy. So we're not engaging in any legal action against them at all, we're actually going directly to the owner of the property. MR. WILLIAMS: And what you may be doing is forcing him via your order to be in an impossible situation to fulfill. Either violate your order to get that person out or violate the bankruptcy stays order that says you can't do anything to this person because they're in bankruptcy, including whatever tenancies they may possess. So he may have an order from bankruptcy court saying don't touch this guy, he's got an order from you saying get that guy out of there, and what position have you put him in other than to come to court and try to overturn our order and name us as the defendant and now we found ourselves in court. So that's my fear. And without greater knowledge, I wish -- this is one of the few Page 39 161 2A6, .A O.4 � August 25, 2011 times you wish the Board met more often so we didn't have to wait all the way until next month. If we met every two weeks, we could address it again in two weeks and maybe have sufficient. I don't want to put health, welfare and safety aside on any contingency whatsoever. Listening to this hearing, it sounds as if the owner of the property would appreciate our assistance and would like us to order these people out of here. So from what perspective, I'm fine. Going any further than that, is -- I would caution us against going any further than at least getting the person living in there out of there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. One more caveat that I failed to mention in that procedural process. If an order was -- if we did write an order and the time frame was exceeded, let's say they weren't able to gain access quickly enough, they didn't get the improvements done fast enough and fines were to accrue against the property, after a few months those fines that start building up, come back in front of us where we actually impose them. Until that point they're kind of in a state of purgatory. Once we put them against the property, then they're an actual lien. But if during that period the violations are taken care of, they no longer exist. It has been kind of a history with this Board that if things were acted upon in a regular consistent manner and there was definite progress being made, we will either reduce or maybe even abate them completely, even though it took longer than what we originally allowed. Okay, so there is that avenue to where your clients financially may not be hurt. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I appreciate that. And I think we're understanding of that. Our concern again, I'm not going to say it for the fifth time, is -- maybe I will -- is that we simply haven't seen the specifics, it's just a practical issue. My clients, the Urbanics, who are the individuals that Page 40 1 Q A6 �r August 25, 2011 actually own the entity that owns the property are not able to be here today. They just found out about this a couple days ago. Very frankly, I'm not certain what testimony they would have since they haven't occupied the property. We would simply hope -- I think the concept of a very short continuance -- I assure you that we're going to be going out there as soon as we possibly can, and I don't think that we would be adverse to an order that required that we immediately address simply the health and safety concerns. And very frankly, I think that that might put the impetus on whatever this entity is in bankruptcy, if they think they have a right to take, they could take that. But I would agree with Mr. Williams that I think it may require a lot more work by the county and by your offices if we're put in this position of all of a sudden having lawsuits and litigation over whose orders and whose jurisdiction trumps. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. I can appreciate that too. Lionel, your motion for an extension to the next meeting was never seconded. But in all fairness, I think it's because we listened to Supervisor Snow's testimony right in between. If you'd like to make it again, you're more than welcome. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a way to have a motion continuance with the addition of a health, safety and welfare inspection by some entity of the county? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can really put that in an order. I think that this is public record, everybody has heard the concerns, and I think that Mr. Weidenmiller, as well as, you know, the Sheriff s Department and the Fire Department are going to go out there and check on it and see what's happening. You either have to hear the case or continue the case. MR. UESPERANCE: Chief? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Just as a point, the health, welfare and safety falls under the fire side for building safety and occupant safety. Page 41 16 �u�us2 5 404 44 Under 633A.J, the fire marshal or the fire chief has a right to shut down any facility -- privately owned, not state owned -- that there may be a problem with. Now, that given -- it applies to the -- not to the tenant so much as the owner of that structure. So that authority for health and safety, we've already done that inspection. And what we've determined is that you have a building in which illegal construction is taking place and has been occupied. Not to current state statute for code. So you've got to make a determination on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask you, Chief, is there a separate entity board venue that you have to actually execute your own order to shut that building down? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The next step for me would be go to the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Lionel, I don't think we have that opportunity, or Mr. Kaufman. I think we either have to continue this to next month or whenever or we have to hear the case today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the county recommending continuance? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: No, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: What are you recommending? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: The county would recommend that the respondent is to obtain Collier County building permit -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on. Right now it's just whether to extend or to hear the case today. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: We would like to hear the case today, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: The County Attorney's opinion is contrary. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't say I'd go so far as contrary. I've made you aware of the dangers of going forward. That's all I wanted to do here this morning is we have risks by going forward, you've been Page 42 161 ug 2 August I made aware of the risks, and if we have to deal with it on the back end, we'll have to deal with it on the back end. There are unique facts and circumstances. I can't say I've ever heard anything like this one before. If you go forward, you've been advised and we'll go forward. I support Mr. Seabasty's opinion, Mr. Snow's opinion, certainly Chief McLaughlin's. If they feel this is pressing enough to go forward, we should go forward. MR. KAUFMAN: Chief, you have the ability to shut that down based on if we hear that case today and we find that that is a safety and health issue? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I have currently shut that down by red - tagging the project as a stop work order. MR. KAUFMAN: So the place is shut down now? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that include anybody living there? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No one should be in the facility at this time. There is no Certificate of Occupancy for that building at this time. No one should be living in the building. The stop work order was placed under a code violation from the county that it was work done under no permitting, basically. Illegal construction. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Isn't there a way that you could check with the electric company and water companies whether that building has been occupied or any of the utilities have been used? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, the electric was turned on to the building. They have been running power in there because they've had lights on. The water's on its own private water system. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your stop work order, your red tag doesn't stop people from living in there, it just stops work from being completed, correct? Page 43 16A1 *? 44 I CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. However, there is no Certificate of Occupancy for that building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, that's a good question. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It was a vacant building that someone just took over the property and started construction and moved in. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But there was initially a CO because it was operated as a prison, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Seven or eight years ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's been vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So once these changes occurred, now you need a new C.O. -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- and nobody can occupy that. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, they've changed occupancies also. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's completely changed occupancy. This would fall under new construction at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who enforces that statute -- or that ordinance to where nobody can live inside a dwelling that does not have a C.O.? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: That is the county. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. But do you need an order from us in order to enforce that? SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may, no, we wouldn't need an order, because it doesn't have a C.O. Our main concern -- for the record, Kitchell Snow again. Our main concern is, and we understand the trepidation the Board has about should this be heard or not heard, but it's a health and safety issue now. I think if you were to continue it on the basis that we be allowed in conjunction with the property owner to go in and do Page 44 161 ,2 A6 oi August 25, 2011 an inspection as soon as they got access to make sure it wasn't occupied, I don't think that would be an issue. But that's the main concern, that there was somebody living there. The tenant was here this morning. We advised him that he didn't have any vested rights. And there's a -- that's where the contention is. There's a contention between the property owner, who is responsible, and the tenant who believes he is totally in control, which is not -- that's where your issue is. So you guys are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place, because this is a health and safety issue. There was somebody living there, we have verified that by the Chief. Is he currently living there? We don't know that. That's the health and safety issue we're talking about. If nobody is there, does that still constitute the probability of something happening? Yes, but probably not a health and safety to an individual. That's the issue at hand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When the so- called tenant was here earlier, did he say that he was living there? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I wasn't aware until conversing with the Chief and said, yeah, I recognize that guy, he's the guy that was living there. So we didn't really realize that until after he had departed. But if we were -- if you were going to continue it on the basis of doing an inspection, Counsel, would that be -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: Fantastic, yes. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm talking about -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can't put that into -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can't really put that in a motion to continue. Maybe -- how about this? Maybe Mr. Weidenmiller and the county attorney can go out in the hall and do some kind of a stipulated agreement about how it's going to be heard next week and about what's going to happen until then, and then maybe you can just Page 45 6 ,P- 2 A 6 kLSA 1 August 25, 2011 approve their stipulation. How about that? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think that's reasonable. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir? MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be acceptable to us. I don't know if for the record it might be simpler to grant potentially a continuance based on an acceptable stipulation so if we agree on one in 30 minutes we don't have to circle all the way back around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your stipulations need to be approved by us anyway. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the best thing to do is probably just go ahead and table this as a motion to continue. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: See if something's worked out. This way we don't have to hear the whole case and create separate orders on all the different violations. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: If I may, just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: -- one further thing? There was a permit pulled for electrical work. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: The electrician who did the work went beyond the scope of the actual permit. The problem is now that yes, you do have a fence around that property in the front, but it can be accessed from the back from the preserve. And many of the people down there who are the locals, that was their hunting ground. So is the building charged right now with electricity? I don't know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right, gentlemen, we'll go ahead and table this then. If you do work an agreement out, great. If 16h 2A6 ►� August 25, aol l not, we'll go ahead and rehear the motion for continuance and decide whether or not we're going to hear the actual case today or continue it to next month. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, good luck. We might have to take a medical break? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, we should take a break. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we take a 10- minute break? We have a request from a board member for medical reasons. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Sorry about the delay. We're going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. We do have a quick change in the agenda. If you'd like to -- MS. BAKER: We have two additions under stipulations. The first will be number seven, Leszek and Henryka Klim, Case CESD20100006719, and number eight will be Opera Naples, Inc., Case CESD20100009135. And under hearings, number 17, Case CESD20110007333, Erineldo Mosquera and Eddy Lunar has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the changes to the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 47 161tw2A61 August 25, 2011 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MS. BAKER: And can I just make a reminder to the Board members, please speak into your microphones when you are speaking. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any word on getting these things turned on? MR. KAUFMAN: There's a volume control on it. MR. UESPERANCE: My speaker system was unplugged in the back, the power cord. The power cord was unplugged. Mine's working now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It helps if we can hear ourselves and we know we're adequately speaking on the mics. MR. UESPERANCE: Perhaps your power cord is turned off. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the next one is going to be Lamchick. It's a motion for continuance. Is the respondent here, or representative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about the investigator? Bruce Lamchick. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, since the respondent's not here, just a recap on the letter that you received for the motion of continuance. It looks like they're trying to sell the home and they don't have the money to take care of the problems. Is that a good synopsis? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. Last time I talked to Mr. 161�eA6 �4 August as, zoi i Lamchick, he's -- they don't have the money to complete the process, the permitting process, and basically everything is on hold. He's trying to find a buyer for the property. And per our last conversation he was still looking for a buyer, but the property has not been sold. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I wouldn't want to be the one to buy a property with a code problem on it. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, I wouldn't either. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That wouldn't be fun. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Have the operational costs been paid? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I don't believe so. Have they been paid? MS. BAKER: This case hasn't been heard yet. MR. KAUFMAN: What do I see in the back here? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a continuance. They don't want us to hear this case this month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are there any health, safety and welfare issues? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, the property is not secured. There's a broken front window. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the property vacant? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is vacant, yeah. It's an incomplete structure. I can't verify if the back windows are broken, because I can't enter onto the property without consent from the property owner. And I can't see from the neighboring properties the -- I don't have the vantage point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the Board? Any comments? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a problem. If there's an outstanding case -- I mean, that was one of the things that was sent out by the Board of Realtors, the NABOR board, to have an inspection done. If Page 49 16i t2 A 6� August 25, 201 i someone did an inspection on this, this one wouldn't obviously pass. And that was the whole point of doing it, that we don't find the new owner of the property back here with violations. So I have a problem with granting this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I concur. Any motions? Or any comment, further comments? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion for continuance has been denied. We'll go ahead and hear the hearing in its regular spot on the agenda. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Okay. For the record -- MS. BAKER: No, not now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, we'll come back in its normal spot. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I jumped the gun. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, that is the last motion for continuance that we have. We're moving on now to B, stipulations. Page 50 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 First stipulation is Martin. That is Case No. CESD20100021462. (Shalonda Washington and Debra Martin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good morning. MS. WASHINGTON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, we're just going to go ahead and have the investigator read the stipulation into the record. And if you're agreed with that, we'll just have you say yes, I agree. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Heinz Box, Code Enforcement, Collier County. This is regarding Case No. CESD20100021462. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs -- I'm sorry, pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of occupancy and completion, or alternatively obtain a demolition permit through inspections to the certificate of completion within 120 days or pay a fine in the amount of $200 a day for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. That's signed by Mr. Martin on the 15th of August, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you state your name for the record, please? MS. WASHINGTON: I'm Shalonda Washington, with Reliable Permitting. I'm here today representing the Martins. And we have proceeded forward, met with Gary Harrison at the building department to look at all of our options. We have now just Page 51 161 AlgustZ3.2011 newly found out that there were two options on the table. We went to the county to look at the microfilm to see what the existing structure was, whether we could keep it, whether we needed to demo it. We just found out from the previous architect engineer that the type of construction is not a type five under today's code so we will have to resort to a demolition of the existing second floor. And we are prepared to move forward with that. And the Martins have already hired and contracted myself and the demolition company, as we will be moving forward. So all research is done and we're ready to proceed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Martin, I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have to go through this, but is 120 days agreeable time to get this all done? MRS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. So thank you very much. MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Page 52 16 I 2116 �I August 25, 201 i CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues, please let us know ahead of time before it expires. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Try to avoid any fines or anything like that. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes, we will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Thank you, Heinz. Next case is going to be Norma Ramirez, Case CESD20100007623. (Investigator Walker and Norma Ramirez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just like the last one, we'll have the investigator read in the stipulation. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference to Case No. CESD20100007623. The Respondent Norma Ramirez agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation, request that the investigator perform site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. The respondent signed it 8/18/2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You understand and agree to Page 53 161 2 A 6 41 August 25, 2011 everything that was just read? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is this conversion occupied? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it isn't. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to approve as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks very much. If you run into any problems, please let us know before it expires. MS. RAMIREZ: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the next stipulated agreement is going to be Waste Services of Florida, Incorporated. CESD20090002873. (Investigator Box, Chris Hagan and David Smith were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just have the investigator read in the stipulated. INVESTIGATOR BOX: For the record again, once again, Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. Case number in this matter CESD20090002873. Page 54 161 2 A6 August 25, ZOl l Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $82.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation or request the inspection (sic) perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and the cost of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, do you agree and understand everything? MR. HAGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the Board? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 55 16 1 2A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Good luck, gentlemen. If you have any issues, please let us know ahead of time. Thank you. Thank you, Heinz. Next case is going to be Montz. MR. MIESZCAK: Do you want to do that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, are we just going to put this after the other stips, or should we do it now? MS. BAKER: It's up to you, Chair. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll probably be through these in like eight, 10 minutes, okay? (Investigator Botts and Mr. Montz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to read it in, slowly? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the two parties that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations. Respondent must obtain all required building permits or demolition permit, the required inspections, a certificate of occupancy /completion within 60 days of this hearing or a $200 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir -- did you already get the name and Page 56 161 gUSt �, 2A 6 everything? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, do you understand and agree to everything that was just written? MR. MONTZ: I understand everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you think 60 days is going to be enough time for you? MR. MONTZ: I'm going to put priority one on this. If there is an issue or somewhat problem, I'll get back with Azure way in advance. I'm going to push on this full steam ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any disapprove? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thanks again, sir, appreciate it. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Azure. The next case is going to be Juan Barnhart and Veronica Page 57 161 2 A& August 25, 2011 Barnhart, CESD200100006046. Is the investigator available? Okay. (Investigator Rodriguez and Mr. Earnest Freeman were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100006046. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've already had the signatures by the respondents, the Barnharts themselves, but Mr. Freeman, if you'd just let them know if there's any issues, you know, let us know ahead of time and see if we can't get an extension before fines start to accrue. MR. FREEMAN: Okay. So it is a 90 -day extension is being granted at this time? CHAIRMAN KELLY: They have it as 60 days. MR. FREEMAN: Sixty days. Sixty days would be fine, because we do have the permits in place. Page 58 16I 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. FREEMAN: Do you need authorization document from them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, they signed this one directly, so no, not on this one. Thanks, Mr. Freeman. Okay, the next case is going to be Collier Realty Corp., CESD20100003739. (Investigator Walker and Mr. Earnest Freeman were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD201000003739 (sic). The respondent, Collier County Realty Corp., agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing by: Obtaining Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of Page 59 161 2 A61 August 25, 2011 completion of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Respondent's signature was signed by representative Mr. Earnest Freeman. I believe he also, as well as I, have a letter stating that he can do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Terrific. Since you're representing, everything you heard and signed is agreeable? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony this time. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 60 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Thanks again, appreciate it. Thank you, Weldon. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next case is going to be Leszek and Henryka Klim. CESD20100006719. (Investigator Botts, Leszek Klim were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Excuse me, if I can interrupt, I just want to make it known that they are going to be translating, so if you need them in as translation. (Interpreter Joanna Antoniak was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to let the investigator read the order and ask you if you agree to it. INVESTIGATOR ROUSSEAU: Good morning. For the record, Therese Rousseau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD2010006719. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.50 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations. The respondent must obtain all required building permits or demo permit, the required inspections and certificate of completion and occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a $200 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 61 611 St 222DI 161 V: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? INTERPRETER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. If you have any problems, please let us know before the time expires. Next case is going to be Opera Naples, Incorporated. Gerald Goldberg is the registered agent. CESD20100009135. (Investigator Azure Botts, Ronald Lukowiak and Thomas Smith were duly sworn.) MR. MARINO: I'm going to have to abstain from this too. They're clients of mine, so I'm going to have to say abstain from this vote also. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. It is agreed between the two -- excuse me. It is agreed between Page 62 k6lt 25,2A6 the parties that the respondent shall pay the operational cost in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations. The respondent must obtain all required building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy completion within 180 days of this hearing or a $200 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, I think you said 180 days; is that right? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a little blurry, but I want to make sure for the record. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: My apologies, handwriting is not the best. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Looks like it was changed too. MR. MIESZCAK: I can read it, it's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. SMITH: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the names? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: By chance is one of you Goldberg? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, do you mind stating that you have the authorization to speak on behalf of Opera Naples? MR. LUKOWIAK: For the record, I'm a board member of Opera Page 63 �A6 'Akust 25, X11 Naples and the chairman of the building committee, and I'm authorized to speak on behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the county. 180 days, is there that much work that needs to be done that would require 180 days, six months? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm going to try to keep this separated. I'm speaking directly of the code enforcement violations. However, there is, after the -- there is other matters that would, after this, would be taken care of that might convolute what we are trying to do. Long story short, they have done some work without permits. They acknowledge that. They are most willing and have been very cooperative in trying to obtain those permits. However, we're afraid that once these permits go through review process, there might be some rejections given and other things required of them because the building and other issues that are in the building. The fire department is also involved in this. However, we're keeping them separate. We have code enforcement and then we have the fire issues and they're addressing their issues. But the two hand -in -hand could be involved when it comes to the permitting department. MR. LUKOWIAK: Additionally, if I might add. To execute on all the work that we anticipate is going to need to take place once we will get -- submit for permit, is going to require significant funds, and we're a nonprofit, and we're in the process of raising those funds. And six months should give us adequate time to get funds in place to proceed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're just concerned that six months is a long time when we see electrical being changed without permits or inspectors approving it. You know, was it somebody as a part of the Page 64 16 1 Z A61 August 25, 2011 organization that was helping out or did you hire a contractor and just he didn't pull a permit? MR. LUKOWIAK: It was some volunteers doing some work that moved some things. Nothing was disconnected. It was a matter of a junction box was moved. No electrical work was done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, gentlemen. Thanks. Good luck and let us know if you run into problems. MR. LUKOWIAK: We certainly will. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Azure. Okay, we'll go ahead and amend the agenda now. We'll bring in the stipulation for the Fakahatchee property. I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 65 161 2A6i August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Able to work something out? MR. WILLIAMS: We were. Again, Steve Williams, on behalf of Collier County Attorney's Office. I'd like to report to you we were able to work out a stipulation agreement. If you'd like, I can read it into the record so we have it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. MR. WILLIAMS: It is therefore agreed between the parties that the respondent, Fakahatchee Trace, LLC shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by allowing the county -- it should read any and all access to the property located at 2021 State Road 29, Naples, Florida, 34137. Three: Access shall also be granted to the Collier County Sheriffs Department and Ochopee Fire Control District. Four: Said access shall be for any and all lawful purposes. Five: Respondent shall be granted a 30 -day continuation from the August 25th, 2011 Code Enforcement Board hearing in the matter and shall be placed on the September 22nd, 2011 agenda for consideration. Six: Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Page 66 f� ib � 2�A augUSc Zs, oil Seven: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation as stated above in paragraph two, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance 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. As signed by Counsel Casey Weidenmiller for the respondent and signed by myself, on behalf of Diane Flagg, Director for the Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the stipulation is really to gain access. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. We're granting it to code staff, which would be paragraph two, and then also the Sheriff s Department, if we need it and the Fire District Chief McLaughlin if he needs it, paragraph three. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Perfect. Now you have something official. MR. WILLIAMS: And that should keep everyone -- and if the bankruptcy judge has a question with it and we've got an alleged person living in an unpermitted building and health, welfare and safety, I'll take my chances. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Any other discussion from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Chief is gone? MR. WILLIAMS: Chief s already headed out. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept the stipulation as agreed. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 67 16I�2A6 augUSc zs, Zoi i MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks again. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry it took so long, but -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: No problem. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- it was a good resolution. And that does take care of all of our stipulated agreements, correct? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a yes coming from the Jen camp? MS. BAKER: Yes. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Moving on to C, hearings. The first hearing case is going to be McKinney. (Investigator Patterson was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CES20110001989. Violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 5.06.11(A)(1), 5.06.06(A)(4). Description of violation: Roof sign installed without required permit. Location/address where violation exists: 298 Capris Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Tarpon Bay General Store. Folio No. 52503080009. 161 August 25, 2e R Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: K. Guengerich McKinney, 298 Capris Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: March 8th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 30th, 2011. Day on/by which violation to be corrected: April 24th, 2011. Date of reinspection: April 25th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Notice of hearing was posted at the property and courthouse August 12th, 2011 and sent certified mail on August 11th, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We don't have a respondent so if you want to tell us about the case. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Okay. Well, as stated, it's a roof sign installed without a required permit located at 298 Capris Boulevard in Naples. Service was given on March 30th, 2011. I met with the owner, provided personal service. I have a couple of photographs that I would like to present as evidence in the case. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 69 161 2 A 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: The photos were taken on the same day, which would be March 8th, 2011. The first photo shows the unpermitted sign as a closeup and the other one was taken a little farther away. I contacted the property owner, K. Guengerich McKinney on February 23rd, 2011, and I explained that code enforcement had received a complaint that the Tarpon Bay General Store roof sign had been installed without a permit. I advised that my research and investigation had concluded the same. The owner was advised that any person who wishes to install a sign in Collier County must first obtain the required building permit prior to the installation. The county at that time respectfully requested that the owner obtain the permit, if attainable, or the sign was to be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the sign. On March 30th, 2011 it was confirmed that no attempt had been made to obtain the said permit and a notice of violation was issued. As stated previously, a personal service was provided and the notice was accepted and signed by owner K. Guengerich McKinney. The compliance date on the notice was April 24th, 2011. A site reinspection performed the following day confirmed that the sign was still present and that no permit had been obtained. I did a pre- hearing site inspection yesterday, August 24th, and it concluded the same, the sign still remains without a permit. MR. MIESZCAK: Now, is that one sign there or two? I'm looking at the fish and the sign. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: It's just one sign. MR. MIESZCAK: Just the Tarpon Bay thing? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Right. MR. MIESZCAK: And the other thing is okay? The fish. Page 70 161 2 A 6 t �5, Zo Au INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Yeah, it's basically one sign. The fish is actually mounted on that board there. MR. KAUFMAN: What does the owner say? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Well, the property -- I tried to contact the owner just yesterday, and apparently she is living in North Carolina. Somebody else is in the store, running the store. It was a previous business that was over on Manatee Road. It's now Capri Produce. They're working out of the store and selling produce. So through my investigation, I do understand that the property is in lis pendens, so, you know, there may be an issue there with why, you know, we're not getting compliance. MR. KAUFMAN: So the property owner is not the one that did the sign, it's the person who has the business there? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: The property owner is the responsible party for the sign. She used to run the store as Tarpon Bay General Store and it was her sign. But from what I understand now, she has let another business move in there, Capri Produce, and they just left the sign up there. So that's where we're at today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. MIESZCAK: There's a for sale sign there too. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 71 16 A6 August�5, 2 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Yes, we do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all the violations by obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy, if attainable, or the sign shall be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the sign within "X" amount of days or "X" amount per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would somebody like to accept that recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks. Sixty days to have the violation addressed and a fine of $200 a day after that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 72 161 2 10 1�46 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Sherry. The next case, CESD20 -- hang on, I'm reading the wrong case. CESD2011000697I, Henry and Jan Holzkamper. I'm going to recuse myself due to a business conflict and let Mr. Vice Chair go. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would request that you stay in the room, because I now have an expert witness. (Investigator Botts and Mr. Holzkamper were duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD20110006971. Violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Description of violation: Drywall has been removed and replaced in the east building's bottom east unit A, and the stairs on the front of the east building have been repaired to include but not limited to handrails, steps and supports without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3230 Thommason Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 52600440005. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Henry and Jan Holzkamper, 12887 Valewood Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2010. Page 73 161 2 41, A6 August 25, 2011 Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 2nd, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 24th, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 30th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Botts. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Excuse me. I have an objection in the request. I know your procedure is for the inspector to present her case first. I respectfully request that I make my case first, because it will put what she says in perspective. MR. KAUFMAN: You'll have a chance to do that after she goes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: So you are not accepting my -- MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110006971, pertaining to the violations of Drywall, has been removed and replaced, and exterior stairs have been repaired to include handrails, steps and supports. Located at 3230 Thommason Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 5260044005. Service was given on June 2nd, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Seven pictures dated August 16th, 2010. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Yes, he has. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a motion to accept, I have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 74 16 I 2 Ab August 25, 2(Tll MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: On August 16th, 2010, I made my initial site visit. I had observed in unit A on the east building that drywall was removed, leaving the electrical and plumbing exposed. This picture is a wall that is -- where the washer and dryer would be, they removed all the drywall around this wall. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is a residential building? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: This is multi- family residential, correct. Rental units. This is a wall that would be -- I would consider the dining room area. It's right beside the kitchen. Standing in the front room trying to show the wall and the wall behind where all the drywall had been removed. Upon leaving the property, I had observed wood on the stairs, indicating that they had replaced several support steps and handrails. These stairs are exterior. They lead up to the second floor where there are two more units. I spoke with -- I believe the gentleman's name is Rick. He was the property maintenance person that met me on -site right that day on the 16th. I had spoken with a couple gentlemen that were there. They provided Rick's number. I called him, he met me on -site. I explained to him that there was a complaint that had been made and from what I had observed there was violations which would consisting of work without permits. I had also spoken with Mr. Holzkamper and informed him the same. That was by phone I had spoken with him. Page 75 161 Aug�t 25, ZaA 6 Between October 4th and the beginning of December, the property owner, Mr. Holzkamper, had been working with the building department. He was speaking with the building official, Mr. Harrison, trying to get a -- making sure that everybody was clear on what had been done, what would need to be done to make sure everything was correct. With that being said, an inspector had been sent out by Mr. Harrison to inspect the stairs. He did go out and I was not there at the time. However, Mr. Holzkamper did inform me that he in fact inspected the wrong stairs, it was the stairs on the other building. I proceeded yesterday just to make clarification with Mr. Harrison. I took the photos that you just observed back to Mr. Harrison, and with the pictures alone Mr. Harrison has clearly indicated that permits would be needed to replace anything on those steps, as well as a permit by affidavit would be needed for the drywall replacement. Because the drywall has been put back -- new drywall has been put back in place in unit A and is being occupied. So a permit by affidavit would be required for that. Mr. Holzkamper has been very cooperative. He's a very nice gentleman. He takes very good care of his property. However, I can't determine the building code, that comes from Mr. Harrison. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. HOLZKAMPER: A little history is required to put all of this in perspective. I came to Naples 14 years ago. Moved north to Naples from the Virgin Islands. I was the victim of a hurricane, we lost everything and started over. And in buying little properties and being a one -man show, I was very proud of everything I did. And as a matter of fact, for every property, I took before and after pictures, including I have before pictures of this particular property. So these properties are almost like our little babies. My wife answers the phone 24 /seven, and we really try to do a good job. And Page 76 161 Ast 25, 202 we do, we do. So why are we here? Well, this isn't some property that's been neglected, this is eight units and in impeccable condition and really beautiful. We were very successful as property owners until 2007. In 2007, between January and November we went from normal occupancy of basically 98 percent collections to 25 percent vacant on all of our several hundred units. Not sustainable. I wrote letters to all of our mortgage holders, asking for forbearance or a change in the mortgage. And most of them did that. And because the normal expenses and the maintenance, the taxes, the insurance, you've got to pay that. The mortgage is the only place where something can give. Most of our lenders gave us some forbearance. This particular lender was Washington mutual, and they -- the P and I on this property was 3,200 a month, which we had paid for for years, it was just fine. But with two out of the eight units vacant, there was barely enough -- well, there wasn't enough to pay the mortgage. After basically, I don't know, a year of trying to get some forbearance that they wanted to foreclose, I said we're out of money. Because by that time we had lost our home. We're renting today, even though I own several hundred apartments. I mean, it's really, really bad out there. It really is. So they said they wanted to appoint a receiver, and that was April of 2009. In May the receiver took over. Now, there were two vacant apartments, beautiful, ready to go, and six other occupied apartments. By September, the property was vacant. The receiver did nothing, they didn't even do the lawn, so everybody moved out. And the apartment in question, I had rented to that tenant and they had lived there for many years. And they had kids that were destructive. But they moved out. The property was -- I said in April I turned it over to the receiver. Page 77 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 The following spring, Washington Mutual put it on the market and sold it. And the person who bought it realized shortly he should never have bought it. I owned other property in the area and I was able to make a good deal to buy the property back. And I have two photographs. This was the property -- if you would, please? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to accept the photos. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, at this point should the gentleman be responding to the county's allegations? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I see no problem in seeing the pictures. Anybody have a problem with it? MR. LAVINSKI: No. Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: That's the property before the receiver took it over in 2008. I'm very proud of my properties and I take pictures. When I got the property back, or bought it back in 2010, I immediately told my employees, two of them, to do whatever was necessary on the property to fix it up. And they are excellent employees, long -term with high skills, so I don't have to tell them what to do. Page 78 161 2 ,l"I A6 August 25, 2011 And Rubin, who was really an excellent carpenter, and a drywall person was in this one apartment which had a lot of damage because I said, this lady had lived there with her children. So there were holes in the drywall. Many people would just fix the hole here or fix the hole there. When we make repairs on the properties we own, everything is long term. We want to do it right because it's cheaper in the long term and you want a good product. Reuben took it upon himself not to fix the hole or fix the hole, he just took things down. And then the entire area of putting up large pieces of drywall is almost easier than repairing it with small pieces. If -- I did not know in my 14 years here that you had to have a permit to replace a piece of drywall. If we had to get a permit to replace a piece of drywall every time a tenant put a hole in it or something, to get an architect, to make the drawings, to get the permit, I mean, it's a three -week process and costs hundreds of dollars. I mean, it's not practical. I'll do it in the future, because now I know if you replace a piece of drywall, you have to get a permit. So anyway, Reuben took it upon himself to do the demolition, which you see, and then we replaced everything. We didn't do anything electrical, we didn't move a stud, we didn't do any carpentry, we took off drywall and we made it perfect. I have a picture here of the perfect drywall. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the picture. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 79 161 2 0 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. HOLZKAMPER: Our apartments are beautiful. Then when it came to the stairway -- and you can see what the stairways looked like in 2008, I showed you that picture -- again, Reuben took it upon himself to replace I guess the two uprights, and then in the landing area replace some boards in the landing, with the proper work. And I would use the inspector's photo of the work completed, that if you look at it, it's done perfectly, it's beautiful. I did not know that if you replaced a piece of wood, and this is the law now, if you replace one tread on a stairway, you have to get a building permit, according to the law. This is crazy to some extent. But on the other hand I understand that where do you draw the line between somebody who replaces a piece of wood and then they do more wood and they do railings and they don't do it right, so I understand the reason for the law. And with what code enforcement has to do, they are not given the ability to use a rule of reason. A piece of wood is done, you need a permit, that's it. And at some point that becomes ludicrous. So the purpose of my being here today -- oh, here is a photo. This is a beautiful property. This is the stairway in question. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: If you submit this in evidence, you're not going to get them back. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Okay. I've got them in. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. �i 161 2s2#*A6 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Some weeks or months ago when the code enforcement was not satisfied with the work or the pictures or everything else, because they're not given that leeway. They say, do you have a permit? You know, one piece of wood, you get a permit. So I hired Packard Construction, Tim Packard. He builds luxury homes, he also does other remodeling things. And I said, go to the building department, get the permits, do whatever is necessary. Make this right. Even though the work was done and it was beautiful. I have a letter -- and he did go to the building department. He was very frustrated because the work had been done. Anyway, he was very frustrated. I have a letter here that I would like to submit into evidence from Packard Construction. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the letter. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I'll read the letter because -- MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. Page 81 6 1 2 �oA 6 August MR. HOLZKAMPER: The letter says -- it's very brief so I'll read it to you. Dear sir /madam. I have inspected the property at 3270 Thommason Drive, unit A and found it to be structurally sufficient and compliant with FBC. I don't know what that means. If you have any questions, please call Tim Packard Construction, et cetera. So the issue, Mr. Harrison, Harrolson -- INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Harrison. MR. HOLZKAMPER: When I spoke to him, he said I'm not concerned about the drywall. You took down the drywall, you put it up. He said, I'll sign off on that. That's what he verbally told me. He said, but with the steps, when you replace one tread, you have to have a building permit. And you must bring it into compliance. Now, in the 25 years since these steps were put there, the law for steps has changed. And the change is that the bannister, if you will, has to be about two or three inches higher than previous. So to bring this into compliance you would have to tear down the whole top part of the stairs. And basically Tim said it would be cheaper just to tear down the whole stairs, if I had to do it, if that's what it comes to, and build all new stairs. Thousands of dollars. Which is ludicrous to take something that's perfectly usable and in great condition and -- excellent condition and have to tear it down. Now, code enforcement has no ability to alter this. They have the law and they follow the rules. And Azure has done a good job, and I applaud her for, you know, the work that she does. But she has no discretion. You men have the discretion to say let's let common sense prevail. The property is in good condition, best efforts were made, the contractor says it's good, let's just dismiss the case and let this gentleman get on with being a good landlord. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I break this into two parts? MR. HOLZKAMPER: Yes. Page 82 161 2 1.* August 25,'O 0 MR. KAUFMAN: The sheet rock, is that in compliance now? MR. HOLZKAMPER: Yes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Incorrect. I think there's some confusion. Mr. Harrison stated he would sign off on the drywall with a permit by affidavit. Since the drywall had been ripped off and then replaced, a permit by affidavit is something that's submitted for something that's been completed and is unable to be inspected by the building inspector, so an engineer signing off saying that it meets the Florida Building Code is what would be required. And then obviously that would pass by Mr. Harrison's desk and he would sign off on it at that time. MR. KAUFMAN: So just the drywall now, is there any problem getting that done? MR. HOLZKAMPER: No, that's a piece of paper and that's just MR. KAUFMAN: So the answer to that is no there's no problem, I can get that done. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I guess Mr. Packard, Tim Packard could do that, I would assume. That's a simple procedure. It's paperwork, right? MR. KAUFMAN: Now we're to the stairs. Unfortunately, we're just the same as Code Enforcement. We don't have any authority to change any of the rules. I have no idea in the world why they changed the rules on the height of a railing, but you're telling me that they have. There's nothing that we can do to change the statutes that exist today. So that is a problem. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Can it not be grandfathered in? MR. KAUFMAN: That would be something that you'd have to go to the building department, unless I'm wrong, to have that done. We don't grandfather in front of the board. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That would be correct, the permitting department would be the individuals he would need to Page 83 161 2 1 iOA6 August 25, 2 speak with regarding that, if it could be done, and what the process would be for that. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible for you to go back to the county and ask them to grandfather in -- I mean, the pictures are self - explanatory, the place looks gorgeous. And we here will either find that there is a violation that exists or there isn't. And based on that, we will come up with a remedy, if there is one that is required. So I'd look to the Board to give me an idea. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I think a violation exists on the steps themselves. That's a safety issue. You can't replace steps. I mean, this Board, I know we're keyed and all geared up for safety issues, very important to us. And when you talk about steps, well, yeah, you can replace one or two. But if somebody tripped on that one or two, that's a bad thing. So I think I see a safety issue and it's a violation. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I don't know, we're discussing it. I didn't make a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody else? MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would appreciate it if any of you gentlemen would speak up about it, so I could take this to Mr. -- whoever, about the, you know, the reasonableness of all of this. And it's something like, well, you know, if we could do this, this looks reasonable but, you know, we have to follow the law. MR. MIESZCAK: All right, I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor -- any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: That's the time to get discussion. Anybody want to discuss that? (No response.) 161 A6t, angUSC 25, 2 MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, we found you in violation. That's obvious, you violated the statute by not getting a building permit for that. Now what's the remedy? And in the remedy is the part that I think that you're interested in most. The amount of time that's given to rectify the situation and any fine above that time to get it done. So I'm open for discussion on what we can do. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the county recommending? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I can read my recommendation if you'd like, but we obviously leave the days and fines for you to discuss. The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: The respondent must obtain all required county -- Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, the required inspections and a certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 85 161 �August zs,�� " If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to discuss this, come up with some idea of -- MR. HOLZKAMPER: I do. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm sure you do. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion that within 60 days and a fine of $100 a day. Pay operational costs, $81.15. MR. HOLZKAMPER: May I speak to that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: May I speak to that? MR. KAUFMAN: Not once it's before the Board. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: So you have two months, 60 days, to get the required affidavit and all permits. And the fine after that 60 days would be $100 a day. If you can't meet that time frame for whatever reason, you certainly can come back to the Board and we will can be glad to hear anything you have to say about what's going on with the situation. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would like to ask for 90 days. And the reason is, this permitting and the nature of the thing and tearing down 0000 16 2 , 16 t, August 25, 2011 the stairs and rebuilding the stairs, you just don't do that quickly. And then there's the issue of the tenants upstairs who own the upstairs. It's not a simple matter. So I'm asking for 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Would you like to amend your motion, Mr. Dean? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I have no problem doing that. MR. KAUFMAN: And the second? MR. LAVINSKI: No problem. MR. MIESZCAK: You want to negate that motion that we already voted on? MR. UESPERANCE: No, we're just amending it. MR. KAUFMAN: We're amending it, okay. MR. MIESZCAK: All right, I'll amend my motion to 90 days. MR. LAVINSKI: And the second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: So you have 90 days. And probably if you put in an elevator, it would probably resolved the problems. I'm only kidding. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I had a thought. I appreciate what you gentlemen do, and I was sitting here thinking that if boredom affected longevity, you guys would all be in trouble. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, thank you. Welcome back, Chair. 16I 2 , A6 augUSc as, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MIESZCAK: Did you invite him back? You didn't give him the gavel. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm taking it over. Okay, the next case is going to be -- is it Rudy -- number five? Oh, yeah, because we didn't -- thank you. Next case is Bruce Lamchick. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CESD20100022396. Violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: An incomplete single- family home with expired Permit No. 2005092527. Location/address where violation exists: 4320 62nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 38726920009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Bruce Lamchick Trust, 9200 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 518, Miami, Florida, 33156. Date violation first observed: December 30th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: May I lth, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 9th, 2011. Date of reinspection: August 4th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I'd like to introduce Investigator Asaro. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Asaro. It's okay. For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100022396 pertaining to an incomplete single - family home with an expired permit No. 2005092527, located at 4320 62nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 38726920009. .. 161 2 A 6 August 25, 2011 On May 11th, Notice of Violation was posted on the property. At this time I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photo dated January 4th, 2010. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: That's an outline. MR. UESPERANCE: Very nice picture. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It didn't come out too bright. MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like Irene went over that. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It's a house. County's recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board order -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that's it for the county? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion that a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: One question. So this house was started way back when, 2005? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yeah, 2005. MR. KAUFMAN: And never got a C.O. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Right. M=_ I • 161 2 A 6 August Zs, Zoi i MR. KAUFMAN: Is it occupied or not occupied? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It's not occupied. MR. KAUFMAN: Was it ever occupied? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No; not to my knowledge. MR. UESPERANCE: Is it secure? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is not secure. Some broken windows in the front. MR. UESPERANCE: Golden Gate Estates area? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Golden Gate Estates area. MR. UESPERANCE: Pool? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I don't -- there's no pool in the back. MR. UESPERANCE: Is there is any pool on any part of the property? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can tell by looking at the picture that it doesn't look like the stucco's been finished. And we'll take your testimony for word. But in these type of situations, I think I'd love to see the investigators bring a copy of the permit records from the county and enter those. I mean, that then it's definitive. Then a violation is just -- MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any inspections done over the course of -- I realize it's expired, but back in 2005? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Can you repeat that again? MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any inspections done? Slab, 101, 102? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: At this time I don't know. I'd have to go rereview the permit. I don't have a copy of the permit with me. MR. KAUFMAN: I think we have enough to make a motion that we find that in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 90 16 I August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, what is your recommendation? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Securing the property by obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate prior to obtaining Collier County building permits, or a Collier County demolition permit, request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the structure within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" per days will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the homeowner at all? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I have. Page 91 � i 16 2 gust 25, A16 MR. KAUFMAN: And what do they say? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, according to Bruce, that due to the decline in -- due to the economy, they've lost value in the property, him and his investors, and they basically don't have the money right now to continue with the permitting process. He's now -- last conversation I had with him, he's in the process of selling the property. But he hasn't -- he doesn't have any buyers yet. It's going to be a hard sell, I guess. MR. KAUFMAN: That's a problem for -- one of the main problems that we had before the Board is you sell it to somebody else who gets hit with that. So we need to make sure that that does not happen. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Absolutely. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if you want, I'll try to fill in the blanks on this one. That they get all required permits, as you stated here, within 60 days or a $200 a day fine. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one thing. How do we ensure that this house -- I guess it wouldn't clear title inspection if there's a lien on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that was going to be my discussion. It might help answer that question. I don't want to see 60 days. The respondent's own request for a continuance stated that he's trying to quickly sell this house and get away from this headache. Well, like you said, I don't want to see some unknowing buyer walk into what he thinks is a good deal only to inherit all these issues. I'd rather see a 30 -day time frame, and this way we know it will quickly get to the point where a lien is filed against the property and there's no way that someone will close on this without knowing of the problems. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to amend my motion. I agree. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? Page 92 16I 2 � A6 1 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: We amended it to 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Thirty days, $200 per day. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks, Tony. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, just for the record as well, once this is order is recorded on the public record, if a potential buyer did a lien search, that would be reported to them as an open code case and that there's a pending order on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Next case is going to be Rudy Orantes. Probably not saying that right. Sorry. Colleen? (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD20090015117. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Shed built on the rear of the property without Collier County building permits. Page 93 161.2► A 6� August 25, 2011 Location/address where violation exists: 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 53263000069. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Rudy Orantes, 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: September 17th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: December 31st, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 28th, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 19th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Baldwin. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning still. For the record, Patrick Baldwin Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090015117, dealing with the violation of a shed built on the rear of the property without Collier County building permits. Located at 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 53263000069. Service was given on December 31 st, 2010 via posting. Now I'd like to present evidence in the following exhibit: One photo taken yesterday, August 24th, 2011. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 94 16 I oP2 Ab August 25, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present case details on the following. The violation was first observed on September 17th, 2009 by Investigator Scavone. The case was transferred to the foreclosure team because of the fact there was a lis pendens filed on the property by BAC Home Loans and Countrywide Bank. After determining that the bank was not going to abate the violation, the case was transferred over to me. On January 26th, 2011 the owner's brother spoke with my supervisor, Christina Perez, and he stated of that the brother did not have the money to abate the violation, via getting a permit for it, or to remove the shed. And we're here today, the violation still exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property occupied? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: At one time a few months ago it Page 95 161i 2A6 August 25, 2011 was occupied. Right now currently it is vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sure. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Applying for and obtaining or a Collier County building permit or a Collier County demolition permit. Obtain all related inspections and certificate of occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the homeowner? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I have not had any contact. It was January 26th of this year, 2011, my supervisor had contact from the owner's brother and he stated that he was not going to abate the violation. MR. KAUFMAN: So this has been a violation for over two years? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. Thirty days, $200 a day. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. We're going to accept the county's recommendation, op. cost 81.72 within 30 days, $200 per day, and they have 30 days to abate the violation. We have a second. Any discussion? Page 96 161 2, A6 August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thanks, Investigator Baldwin. Next case is Planning Development, Incorporated. (Investigator Crowley was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CES20100019879. Violation of Ordinance, Section 5.06.06(B) and Section 5.06.10(D) and (E), Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended. Description of violation: Two concrete monument ground signs for Bayshore Club Apartments remaining after all buildings have been removed, pursuant to demolition permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4580 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61836480008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Planning Development, Incorporated, Theresa F. Fernandez as registered agent, 3560 Craft Road, Suite 301, Naples, Florida, 34105. Date violation first observed: October 8th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: November 16th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10, 2010. Date of reinspection: July 22nd, 2011. Page 97 161 6 August 25, � Result of reinspection: Violation remains. Both signs still in place. And now I'd like to introduce Investigator Crowley. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michele Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to the case number as stated dealing with a violation of twos concrete monument signs for what you used to know as the Bayshore Club Apartments located at 4580 Bayshore Road in Collier County. Personal service was given to the president of the planning development, the current owner of the property, by myself in our offices on November 16th, 2010 with a compliance date of December the 10th, 2010. 1 would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: Consisting of three photographs showing the two signs. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: These photos were taken by myself yesterday, August the 24th, 2011. This first sign shows that -- there are two signs. This is the larger sign that fronts Bayshore Road. This is the northern facing sign of the sign. .0M 6.2�6w August zs, Oil CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that the demo permit hanging? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, that's the notice of hearing that I posted on the property several weeks ago. But it was still there, still in the Baggie. This is the reverse side of the sign, the south side, also on Bayshore Drive. And as you can see or know from the ordinance, it requires that the sign be removed, plus its supporting structure. So that would include the concrete foundation that's now overgrown around the sign. The third photograph is the smaller sign that fronts on Thommason Drive. Only one side is visible because of weeds and overgrown shrubbery, so this is the sign that faces Thommason Drive. County ordinance requires the removal of what's known as abandoned signs. And it includes, as I said, the entire concrete supporting structure. A conforming sign, which this is, it did have a permit years ago, the conforming sign shall be considered a conforming abandoned sign or sign structure 90 days after the business ceases operation at that location. Section 5.06.10(E), the owner or person in charge of a vacant property, no buildings, that has a sign or sign structure shall be required to remove all signs and sign structures within 30 days after notice is given. The notice has been given, more than 30 days have elapsed. The signs remain as of 1:00 p.m. yesterday. The Bayshore Club Apartments were demolished by the county after an agreement with the previous owner of the property after significant in excess of $3 million in fines had accumulated on the property because of orders of the special magistrate. There was then reimbursement by the FDIC to the county after the buildings were demolished. So at this time there are no buildings on the 37 -acre parcel, and all that really much remains is a couple of concrete slabs and weeds and these two signs. Page 99 161 U? 25A 61 k� I have spoken both in person, on the phone and via e -mail with Mr. Fernandez. I frankly expected him to be here today. And his position is is that he doesn't want to spend any more money on this property that he purchased at a foreclosure sale, the foreclosure sale. And so he as himself a lienholder against the previous owner, Arboretum Development, now owns the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When the county came in to remove all the structures, why didn't the county remove the signs? MR. MARINO: I was going to ask the same question. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I can answer that question. It was not done. Demolition permits were obtained by the contractor for the removal of the buildings. There is no demolition permit that's required to remove these particular signs, because there's no electric. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility of finding out the scope of work required under that process, please? And that being said, should we continue this until next month? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: We've already obtained bids for it. I don't know if that's what you mean by the -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: No, the scope of work for the original demolition of the property, I'm just wondering if it included the signs. MS. BAKER: Do you want to swear me in. (Jennifer Baker was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: At the original time of these violations the buildings were considered one separate case and the sign was considered another issue because it deals with a different code. And that's the way that we do our cases. Assigned case is a completely different code that's cited than the building issue. The signs were not included in the scope of work in the original demo of the structure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: And technically the signs themselves are not in violation until the parcel becomes vacant without buildings and/or the business ceases operation. Page 100 161 2 A 0 w August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thirty days afterwards. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: If there were buildings on there, it would actually be 90 days, both of which have now elapsed, so it doesn't make any difference. MR. MARINO: Michele, that is definitely a concrete sign? It's not one of those faux signs? Because they were doing faux signs for a while instead of concrete. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, it's been there for more than a decade. No, this is definitely concrete signs. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county have a lien on this property now; do you know? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, the liens were forgiven. Two code enforcement liens were forgiven, as well as the accumulating fines, is my understanding. MS. BAKER: Right. The FDIC reimbursed the county for the abatement costs, and then the Board of Commissioners then forgave the fines, due to payment of all the hard costs on the property. Because the FDIC was the one taking care of the issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you let the current owner know that since he's a lienholder to the previous owner, I guess, he can add this to the list. Get him to go after them civilly. But unfortunately we'll have to rule the current property owner today. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: He's aware of that. He understands that there's approximately a $35 million mortgage still on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find him in violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 101 161 2 A 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your recommendation, please. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Recommendation would be that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, removing the two concrete monument ground signs for the former Bayshore Club Apartments, including both the sign copy and the entire concrete supporting structure upon which the sign copy is placed within "X" number of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" dollars will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter. As I indicated, no demolition permit is necessary since there is no electric service. Number two: That the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Take a shot at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. I'll fill in the -- the cost will be, what was it 80 -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: $80.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. Sixty days to abate the Page 102 161 2 A6 � August 25, 2011 removal of the signs, and $200 a day thereafter. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks for your recommendation. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is going to be Jennifer Samuels. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD200900006619 violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Canceled Permit No. 2008040049 for single - family home with carport shutters, and Permit No. 2008040055 for guesthouse. Location/address where violation exists: 4320 14th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 39602680006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Jennifer Carolyn Samuels, 4836 Northwest 91st Terrace, Sunrise, Florida, 33351. Date violation first observed: January 7th, 2009. Page 103 16 I 2 A6 0 August Zs, aoi i Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: April 25th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 13th, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 6th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Asaro. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090000 -- excuse me, 90000661, pertaining to a vacant secured single - family home located at 4320 14th Street Northeast, Folio No. 39602680006, with violations consisting of: Canceled Collier County building Permit No. 2008040049 for the main structure, the carport and shutters, and canceled Permit No. 2008040055 for a guesthouse. On April 25th, 2011 a Notice of Violation was posted on the property. At this time I would like to present case evidence: Two photos dated January 14th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 104 161 20- i A b August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: After several attempts to contact the property owner by correspondence and several site visits, the violations remain with no contact from the property owner. There is no pool on the property either. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Interesting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that the main house or guesthouse? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That is the guesthouse, and that's a carport. MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like a prison. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other pictures? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find him in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I do. Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Page 105 161 Augu? z5, 2� 6 6 Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this in lis pendens? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, it is. MR. KAUFMAN: And the -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: As far as I know today it's in lis pendens. MR. KAUFMAN: The cost of this is 80 dollars and? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: $81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll give it a shot. Sixty days, 81.15 paid within 30 days. Sixty days violation abated or $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Got that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 106 16 1 2 Ab w August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Thank you, Tony. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be -- oh, the next one's withdrawn, which would have been Lunar. Now we're moving on to Campbell, and there are two cases with the same respondent. The first case -- go ahead. MS. BAKER: We would like to present -- the testimony is the same for both cases, so he would like to present testimony for both the cases, and then if you want to do separate orders, we'll read the statement of violation off for each case. But then his testimony will be the same for both. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Colleen, if you want to read both of them, that would be great. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CENA20110000844, violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54 -181. Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household items, et cetera. Location/address where violation exists: 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Robert D. Campbell, Jr. and Nina M. Campbell, 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: January 20th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: April Page 107 161 August st 25A o61 15th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 10th, 2011. Date of reinspection: July 7th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Second case is CEV20110000842, violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 3, Chapter 130, Section 130 -95. Description of violation: Unlicensed vehicles on the Estates zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 2331 Eighth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Robert D. Campbell, Jr. and Nina M. Campbell, 2331 Eighth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: January 20th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 15th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 11th, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 26th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. And I'd like to introduce Investigator Baldwin. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good afternoon now. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to two cases: Case No. CENA20110000844, dealing with litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household goods, et cetera. And Case No. CEV20010000842, dealing with unlicensed vehicles on an Estates zoned property located at 2331 Eighth Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Service was given on April 15th, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken July 27th, 2011, and two photos taken yesterday, Page 108 A6 04 16 I Au? t 25, 2011 August 24th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present the following case details: On January 20th, 20111 observed several unlicensed vehicles and litter on the Estates zoned property. I met with the owner Robert Campbell on March 24th, 2011. He asked for a one -month extension. I granted him that extension. The violation still wasn't abated, so I think prepared the case for last month's CEB hearing. The owners, Nina and Robert Campbell, requested a continuance. It was granted by the Board last CEB. I met with the owners a day before the last board hearing and they stated that the violation would be abated so we would not be able to come here today to this hearing. As of yesterday the violations still were not abated. In this photo here, that photo I believe was taken yesterday. That photo yesterday, you can still see the delapidated appeared to be a mobile home or structure in the back of the property, a mobile home or campers. And that was still the unlicensed vehicle that I observed previously on January 20th, 2011. Page 109 161 2 A6 04 August Zs, aoi i MR. L'ESPERANCE: The respondents live at this property? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other presentation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, that's final. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. The first case, for the litter, that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, removing all litter to a site intended for final disposal or store desired items within a completely enclosed structure within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 110 16 1 August b 'A ll If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks. On the litter, they pay the operational fee of -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: $80.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. $100 a day after seven days for the litter. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? Any public discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, all in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. That, just for the record, Jean, to make sure you have it, was CENA20110000844. Now, your recommendation for the next case? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Recommendation for Case No. CEV20110000842, that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all Page 111 16i 2 A6 M August 25, 2011 violations by, one: Obtaining and affixing a valid license plate for each vehicle /trailer, repair defects so that the vehicles /trailers are immediately operable, or store vehicles /trailers within the confines of a completely enclosed permanent structure within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Somebody want to take this one? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a whirl. Eighty dollars and -- MR. MIESZCAK: Fifty- seven. MR. KAUFMAN: 80.57 within 30 days. Violation needs to be abated within three days or a $50 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by -- was that Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 112 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you, Investigator. Was there a problem with the seven day? MS. BAKER: No. MR. MIESZCAK: That was three. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I think that concludes our public hearings. We're about to move to old business here. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Five minutes? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Five minutes? No problem, we'll do a five - minute break and then come right back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. We're moving on to five, old business. Motion for imposition of fines. The first one's going to be Richard and Jeffrey -- Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer. MS. BAKER: The county is requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it's been withdrawn. In that case we'll move to our next case, which is going to be Close -Up Creatures, Incorporated, doing business as Ngala. MR. MARINO: And I'm going to go sit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, Mr. Marino's recused himself from this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm Donovan Smith, representing Ngala Wildlife Preserve. (Supervisor Letourneau and Mr. Donovan Smith were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a violation of Collier County Ordinance 91 -102, as Page 113 161 2 A6 N August 25, 2011 amended. Codified as the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.8.3, subsection 3, Section 3.11.3.1 and Section 3.11.3.2 and 3.93. Location of violation is 2755 Ynez Road Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 033500005. Description: It's a parcel of 10 acres or more cleared without vegetation permit, and improved with a storage barn, exotic animal barn and pen. Permanent tent and toilet facilities without an Environmental Impact Statement being submitted and approved or the area surveyed for possible presence of endangered species. Past order: On February 27th, 2003, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 3244, Page 0056 for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of May 3rd, 2011. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between August 9th, 2009 and May 3rd, 2011, totaling 632 days for the total fine amount of $63,200. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have been paved. Total amount due today, $63,200. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we abate the fine. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. Page 114 161 2A6 r August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. BAKER: And just for the record, I would just like to make a comment to -- there was an additional case which was Case 2002080974, or otherwise known as CEB Case 2003 -008. This case has also been closed. This case was withdrawn from the hearing agenda at the same time as the case that we were just speaking of now, pending the outcome of what happened with that case. Both cases have been taken care of. We will -- that case has been closed, we will not be moving forward with that case. So I just want to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sorry to make you sit around all day, but -- MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- thanks for taking care of it. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, for 63,000, I'd sit around. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case is J & C Francois family, limited partnership. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case CESD20110003690, the violations of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.13, subsection F. Location of the violation is 5349 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 36319960009. Violation description is annual monitoring report has not been Page 115 161 2 A6 August as, 2011 turned in. The past order. On May 26th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4690, Page 267 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of August 25th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between July 26th, 2011 and August 25th, 2011, for 31 days for the total fine amount of $3,100. The fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount due today: $3,181.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will be imposed. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you, gentlemen. Page 116 161 2 Ab #4 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That concludes all of our old business. Is there any new business? MS. BAKER: No. MR. UESPERANCE: Yes, I have a question. Would it be possible for the county staff to look into the feasibility, possibility of perhaps electronically presenting this to us instead of in a paper fashion? MR. KELLY: I -Pads would be nice. MR. UESPERANCE: I didn't say that, but that would be nice. But I didn't say that. MS. BAKER: We can look into it. The only problem is trying to e -mail a document that is that large. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could it be presented on these screens here? I'm just wondering. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can FTP it and then you can just show us here on these screens. MS. BAKER: We can look into it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just talking about possibility. Maybe, maybe not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think it's a good idea. I second that one. MS. RAWSON: You can get us I -Pads and load our I -Pads and bring them to us every month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I've got an I -Pad. MR. KELLY: HP had a real big sale. I could have got them for 100 bucks apiece. I bought 10. MR. MARINO: County will get a discount. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one thing. Is it possible -- we probably don't control it -- MR. MARINO: I make a motion. Page 117 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: -- that the minutes could be sent out sooner? I just got the minutes yesterday afternoon at 3:00. MS. BAKER: That was an issue with the clerk's office and they apologized for that. We didn't get them till yesterday, so we sent them as soon as we could. But they did apologize for the delay on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There were no items being forwarded to the county attorney's office for foreclosure. Are there any reports or comments? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. I just want to let you know that NABOR has put our Thinking of Buying a Home or Investment Property on their website. So this is now available to the real estate agents for Naples. And then for our regular weekly report, these are our total cumulative numbers through August 21 st. Total abatement cost paid by lenders is $2,278,719.91. Total violations abated by lenders, 1,870. And total open foreclosure cases are 162. And the total weekly savings to the county was $11,753.50. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Great job to the foreclosure task force. Our next meeting date is going to be September 22nd, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick item. The letter that Diane wrote to NABOR was published in their newsletter and it was excellent. We extend our thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 118 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 Any opposed? All right, we'll see you next month. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:34 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KEN KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 119 1b1 2 A6 August 5, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, August 5, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Misc. Corres: Date: ��1 Item #:-i�� - Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary 161 2 o A6: August 5, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. 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. Break: 9:15 a.m. Reconvened: 9:35 a.m. ��. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Under Item #IV.B — Motion for Continuance — addition of the following cases (listed below as Agenda Items): • #13 - CASE NO: CEPM20100003914- SIEGFRIED AND IRENE G. FASCHER R/F TRUST UTD 9/24/93 • #6 - CASE NO: PU4730- CEEX20110009481 - SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN. INC. Under Item #V.A - Public Hearings - Stipulations - The following cases were added (listed below as Agenda Items): • #10 — CASE NO: CEV20110008138 - JOSE GARCIA GONZALEZ AND MARIA CORZO • #15 - CASE NO: CESD20100001516 - GERALD DIPASQUALE • #19 - CASE NO: CESD20100009819 - RP /SIX DEVELOPMENT LLC • #5 - CASE NO: PU4974- CEEX20110008810 - MAREK HEVIER • #7 - CASE NO: CESD20100020107 - O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC Under Item #V.B — Public Hearings - Hearings - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda Items): • 91 - CASE NO: SO174092- CEEX20110009221 - RAMON G. FIGUEROA • #2 - CASE NO: 50166258- CEEX20110008929 -PATRICK J. KLISIEWICZ • #3 - CASE NO: PR042532- CEEX20110007460 - MARK E. SHAW • #4 - CASE NO: PR046629- CEEX20110008535 - BRADLEY WINTHROP • #9 - CASE NO: CESD20110002970 -VEDA A. GAGLIARDI • #11 - CASE NO: CESD20100021956 - DON SCIOLI AND JOAN SCIOLI • #12 - CASE NO: CENA20110006059 - JOANNE CHRISTINE POYER EST, AND IRIS M. PAUL • #16- CASE NO: CESD20110000250 - WING SOUTH AIRPARK PRIVATE CONDO • #17 - CASE NO: CEAU20110001340 - KHADIM HUSSAIN • #18 - CASE NO: CESD20110001342 - KHADIM HUSSAIN #20 - CASE NO: CEPM20110007564 - ELI WALLEN AND DANNIE DEVOL 2 0.n: A6 '4 August 5, 2011 • #22 - CASE NO: DAS12519- CEEX20110008345 - PAT SWALLOWS • #23 - CASE NO: DAS12520- CEEX20110008376 - PAT SWALLOWS • #24 — CASE NO: DAS12521- CEEX20110008509 - PAT SWALLOWS • #25 — CASE NO: DAS12522- CEEX20110008511 - PAT SWALLOWS • #26 - CASE NO: DAS12523- CEEX20110008513 - PAT SWALLOWS • #27 - CASE NO: DAS12524- CEEX20110008514 - PAT SWALLOWS Under Item #VI.A - New Business - Motion for Imposition of Fines - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda Items): • #4 - CASE NO: CEPM20110001550 - PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS Under Item #VILA — Old Business — Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda Items): • #1 - CASE NO: CEPM20100018647 - TARPON IV LLC The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 20, 2011 July 1, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on June 20, 2011 and July 1, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CENA20100009616 OWNER: JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -181 AND 54 -179. REPEAT VIOLATION OF LITTER/DERELICT ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CHEMICAL JUGS, PAINT CANS, WOOD, BROKEN FURNITURE, PLASTICS, METALS, CLOTH MATERIAL, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 61839320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3190 KAREN DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Botts represented the County. Jean Claude Martel, the Respondent was present. Investigator Botts provided an overview of the case noting: • Mr. Martel was found in violation of Collier County Ordinances as listed above with an order issued by the Special Magistrate on 12/3/10. • As of 8/5/11 the violation has not been abated. • Fine Amount: $200.00 /day • Fines incurred from 12/11/10 — 8/5/11 (238 days) - $47,600.00 • Unpaid operational costs — $112.20 • Total Amount Due: $47,712.20 • On February 18, 2011, the County assisted Mr. Martel in partial cleanup of the property, however the rear of the property is still in violation. Mr. Martel testified: 161 2 A6 41 August 5, 2011 • The front yard is cleaned up and the only items in the rear are behind a fence and are an air compressor and a few other miscellaneous items. Investigator Botts reported, and Mr. Martel agreed, Code Enforcement Officers have not gained permission to view behind the fence to determine the severity of the violation. Special Magistrate Garretson requested Mr. Martel allow County Official to view behind the fence to determine if the area is in conformance with County Ordinances. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until 912111 to allow County Officials an opportunity to view behind the fence in question to determine if the area is in conformance with County Ordinances. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 13. CASE NO: CEPM20100003914 OWNER: SIEGFRIED AND IRENE G. FASCHER R/F TRUST UTD 9/24/93 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22-234(3),22-231(12)(b), AND 22- 231(19). SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DECLARED A DANGEROUS BUILDING BY COLLIER COUNTY. DWELLING HAS SEVERAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO: INFESTATION, PAINT CHIPPING, ROTTED WOOD AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS MISSING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALSO DECLARED DANGEROUS. FOLIO NO: 74080200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11219 KEEWAYDIN ISLAND, NAPLES Michael Volpe, of Robbins, Kaplin, Miller & Ciresi, LLP represented the Respondents who were not present. He requested a continuance as the Respondents are in the process of addressing the violation and it requires action by the Collier County Historic Architectural and Preservation Board. Investigator Mcgonagle stated the County had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a 60 day continuance for the case. CASE NO: PU4730- CEEX20110009481 OWNER: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC OFFICER: OFFICER RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2005 -44, SECTION 9 (4) PUTRESCIBLE WASTE ON GROUND CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: USED DIAPERS, FOOD, CARDBOARD, GLASS, PLASTIC, SOIL UNDER CLOTHING, WOOD, TOILETS, TV'S AND OTHER FURNITURE, ETC. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 201 SANTA CLARA DRIVE, NAPLES A written request for a continuance was submitted by the landowners Attorney. No representatives of the Respondent were present. Officer Addison noted the case has been ongoing for a long period of time. He has constantly contacted all parties associated with the violation with little or no response. The violation is a health, safety and welfare issue. The parties were duly notified for the hearing 4 161 26 A 6! August 5, 2011 on July 15, 2011 and the request for continuance was filed on August 4, 2011. He requested the motion be denied and the case be heard today. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's motion for a continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CEPM20110006480 OWNER: SHADI OF NAPLES INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 2004 -58, SECTION 12. A STRUCTURE DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT /FIRE CAUSED AN INSPECTION TO BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED BUILDING INSPECTOR. THE STRUCTURE WAS INSPECTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARED TO BE A DANGEROUS BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 135480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 521 SOUTH FIRST STREET, IMMOKALEE Investigator Snow represented the County. Mohammed Rahmes, the Respondent was present. Mr. Rahmes requested a 30 day extension to comply with the Special Magistrate's Order. Investigator Snow reported the Respondent is addressing the violation as expeditiously as possible and is paying the operational costs today. The public health safety and welfare concern has been addressed by the Respondent. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent a 60 day continuance for complying with the Order. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 10. CASE NO: CEV20110008138 OWNER: JOSE GARCIA GONZALEZ AND MARIA CORZO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03. RED KIA ON LAWN. FOLIO NO: 36560240002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2912 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Investigator Gomez represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Jose Gonzalez, August 5, 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 September S, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by moving any and all vehicles from the front /rear yard of the property and park them on the designated parking area of the property as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code by August 8, 2011 or pay a fine of $50.00 a day that the violation remains unabated. 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 24 161 2 August 5 A6 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 It was noted the Operational Costs have been paid by the Respondent. 15. CASE NO: CESD20100001516 OWNER: GERALD DIPASQUALE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). WOOD DECK CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 38722840002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4025 62ND AVENUE NE, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Tony Asaro who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Gerald Dipasqale, August 5, 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 September 5, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining Collier County Building Permit(s), or a Collier County Demolition Permit, request all required inspections, and Certificate of Completion by September 5, 2011 or a fine or $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 19. CASE NO: CESD20100009819 OWNER: RP /SIX DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4). ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT #2010071280. FOLIO NO: 276360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4176 MERCANTILE AVENUE, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Heniz Box who was present. 16 2 4441 A 6 August 5, 2011 The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Representative Richard Cahoon, August 5, 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 September S, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or a Collier County Demolition Permit inspections and Certificate of Occupancy by September 5, 2011 or a fine or $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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: $112.29 CASE NO: PU4974- CEEX20110008810 OWNER: MAREK HEVIER OFFICER: OFFICER MICHAEL ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 1997 -33, SECTION 6.A.6 CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL DEVICE HAD THE BACK LEG PULLED OUT OF GROUND. FOLIO NO: 59810000144 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14516 MARSALA WAY, NAPLES The hearing was requested by Investigative Officer Ray Addison who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Marek Hevier on August 5, 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 $155.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by September 5, 2011. Repair costs to be included in the water bill, no civil penalty. Total Due: $155.00 CASE NO: CESD20100020107 OWNER: O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). GARAGES IN DUPLEX HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO EFFICIENCIES, ADDING PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36110200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5000 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. 161 2 Ab August 5, 2011 The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Joseph O'Neill, August 5, 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 $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case by September 5, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or a Collier County Demolition Permit, inspections and Certificate of Completion by December 5, 2011 or a fine or $200.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 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: $112.56 B. Hearings 8. CASE NO: CEV20110007291 OWNER: RICHARD LARICHE JR AND VALERIE L. LARICHE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 - 97(3). RECURRING VIOLATION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT PARKED IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONCEALED FROM THE VIEW OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. FOLIO NO: 35647920000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4438 2312D PLACE SW, NAPLES Investigator Mucha represented the County Richard Lariche, Jr. and Valerie L. Lariche, the Respondents were present. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos taken 6/1/11. Investigator Mucha testified: • There are two pieces of excavation equipment behind a fence recently installed by the Respondents with their roofs visible. • Mr. Mucha closed the orginal case after the fence was installed, however a complaint was filed and it is a "technical violation" with the roofs of the equipment visible from the street. The Respondents testified: • The fence was installed and they were under the impression the installation constituted compliance with County Ordinances. • Following the installation of the fence, a business competitor filed a complaint. • The complaintent is not an adjacent property owner, however lives in the neighborhood. • There are no complaints by adjacent neighbors. 161 2 A 6 August 5, 2011 Discussion occurred on attempting to find a resolution to the case. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until 912111 to see if the County and Respondent can determine a resolution to the case. 14. CASE NO: CEPM20110004402 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR UTD 10/8/96 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(b) AND (c). RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE NEAR THE FRONT HAS A ROTTED OUT AREA IN THE GUTTER BOARD AND SURROUNDING AREA THAT IS BETWEEN 2 AND 3 FEET IN LENGTH, ALLOWING ACCESS DIRECTLY INTO THE ATTIC. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Investigator Kincaid represented the County. Judith Hill, the Respondent was present. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 4/4/11 Exhibit B —1 photo dated 8/4/11 Investigator Kincaid provided an explanation of the violation via the photos. Ms. Hill testified: • She has attempted to correct the violation but has health issues and trouble finding a contractor to complete the work. • Correcting the violation is a hardship for her. Discussion occurred on identifying an avenue to correct the violation (church group assistance, etc.) It was determined a violation does exist and the County may abate the violation on her behalf. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case by September S, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all applicable Collier County Building Permit(s), inspections and Certificates of Occupancy /Completion necessary to repair or replace any parts of the roof system damaged by the intrusion of rain water or moisture and protect all exterior wood surfaces, other than decay resistant wood and repair areas by painting by September S, 2011 or a fine or $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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. 9 1b 2 A 6 August 5, 2011 Total Amount Due: $112.64 VII. NEW BUSINESS B. Motion for Imposition of Fines: - Continued 9. CASE NO: CEPM20100008282 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR UTD 10/8/96 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). A PRIVATE DWELLING SWIMMING POOL THAT HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED SO AS TO CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD OR HARBOR INSECT INFESTATION. WATER HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STAGNATE AND BECOME POLLUTED WITH GREEN ALGAE. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Investigator Kincaid provided an overview of the case noting: • Special Magistrate Order No. 4621 - Page 2545 — 10115110 • The County abated the violation on 1 /11 /11. • Fine Amount: $250.00 /day • Fines incurred from 10/23/10 — 1 /11 /11 (81 days) - $20,250.00 • Unpaid abatement costs: $872.20 • Unpaid operational costs: $112.73 • Total Amount Due: $21,234.93 Ms. Hill testified: She was out of state seeking medical attention from September - November of 2010 and recouperating in early 2011. She was not at the residence when the violation was abated by the County. She asserted the contractor who abated the violation caused damage to her door, damaged furnishings and left refuse behind. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's motion, however waived the fines and assessed the Abatement and Operational Costs in the amount of $984.93. Said assessment to become a lien on the property. Code Enforcement Staff to investigate her assertion regarding the activities of the contractor responsible for abating the violation. CASE NO: CESD20100004761 OWNER: WILNER FRANCOIS AND 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 RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 36560840004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2700 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. Wilner Francois, the Respondent was present. Supervisor Letourneau provided an overview of the case noting: [t 1.61 21 -1i a6 August 5, 2011 • Previous Special Magistrate Order No. 4671 - Page 2323 — 3/4/11 • The violation was abated on 6/6/11. • Fine Amount: $100.00 /day • Fines incurred from 4/5/11 — 6/6/11 (63 days) - $6,300.00 • Total Amount Due: $6,300.00 • He recommends the fine be waived. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's motion. CASE NO: CESD20100002960 OWNER: LEOBARDO GUTIERREZ AND MARITZA GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CORRALS ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39655120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1815 47TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County. Leobardo Gutierrez, the Respondent was present. Brenda Gutierez, an interpreter was present. Investigator Asaro provided an overview of the case noting: • Previous Special Magistrate Order No. 46 94 -Page 2323 — 6/3/11 • The violation has not been abated as of 8/5/11. • Fine Amount: $100.00 /day • Fines incurred from 7/3/11 — 8/5/11 (34 days) - $3,400.00 • Total Amount Due: $3,400.00 Mr. Gutierrez testified: • The original permit included construction of a corral and roofed area. • The corral portion of the permit has been completed. • The roofed area has not been completed due to financial hardship. • His intention at this point, is to amend the permit to eliminate the roofed area and bring the project into conformance with a valid permit. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until September 2, 2011 to provide an opportunity for the Respondent to amend the permit and obtain all related inspections. If the Respondent comes into compliance by that time, the fines are a abated during the continuation period. If the violation is not brought into compliance with County Ordinances, fines as necessary may be imposed. Break: 1 1:48 a.m. Reconvened: 12:05 p. m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - continued C. Hearings 6. CASE NO: PU4730- CEEX20110009481 OWNER: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC OFFICER: OFFICER RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2005 -44, SECTION 9 (4) 11 161 2 A6 August 5, 2011 PUTRESCIBLE WASTE ON GROUND CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: USED DIAPERS, FOOD, CARDBOARD, GLASS, PLASTIC, SOIL UNDER CLOTHING, WOOD, TOILETS, TV'S AND OTHER FURNITURE, ETC. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 201 SANTA CLARA DRIVE, NAPLES The Respondent was not present. Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/22/11 Officer Addison represented the County. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 5 photos Officer Addison testified: • The violation is a repeat violation consisting of lack of removal of refuse (as described in the complaint) in a timely manner. • The violation is a matter of public health, safety and welfare. Discussion occurred on an avenue to address the violatoin including the County abating the violation by engaging a refuse removal contractor to service the area on a regular basis and assessing the charges to the property owner. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and found the violation is an extraordinary cirumstance affecting the health, safety and welfare of the public and assessed a "Super Fine" of $25,000.00 and in addtion ordered the Respondent to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $55.00 on or before September 5, 2011. 3. Comply, and remain in compliance with the applicable County Ordinances by August 8, 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. 5. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to initiate the nuisance abatement process in order to abate the violation. 21. CASE NO: CESD20110004390 OWNER: WILMER ESPINAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE REAR PROPERTY AREA WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38850200006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5845 EVERGLADES BLVD N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/26/11 Investigator Asaro presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo The violation remains as of 8/5/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 12 161 2 A6 August 5, 2011 I. Pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.56 on or before September S, 2011. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to permit or remove the structures on or before September 5, 2011, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.56 D. Emergency Cases: None VIII. NEW BUSINESS C. Motion for Imposition of Fines: - Continued 3. CASE NO: CEPM20110000018 OWNER: ADRIANA ARIZMENDI AND JOSE ARIZMENDI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-243. LANAI DOOR UNSECURED. FOLIO NO: 36125880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 199148 TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/14/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 6/28/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4675 — Page 1462 — 4/1/11 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 4/9/11 — 6/28/11 (81 days) Total Fine Amount: $16,200.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $280.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $16,592.29 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $16,592.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 5. CASE NO: CESD20100019403 OWNER: H & H 29TH AVE HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). TIKI HUT, SHED, AND FRONT WALL STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 40171920008 13 161 2 6 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3220 29TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES August 5, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/26/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 8/5/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 — Page 2451 — 2/4/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 515111 — 8/5/11 (93 days) Total Fine Amount: $9,300.00 Total to Date: $9,300.00 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $9,300.00 Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 6. CASE NO: CESD20100014276 OWNER: DENTON II LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). LARGE METAL TYPE SHED PLACED IN THE REAR OF IMPROVED PROPERTY WITHOUT A PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 66930120007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 437 CARVER STREET, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/15/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Snow presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/4/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 — Page 820 — 12/3/10 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 1/4/11 — 4/4/11 (91 days) Total Fine Amount: $9,100.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $875.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $10,087.29 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $10,087.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 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 HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36614600006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4301 3RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 14 r* 161 A 6 August 5, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 8/5/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4681 — Page 2194 — 5/3/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 7/4/11 — 8/5/11 (33 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.12 Total to Date: $3,412.12 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,412.12. Said amount to become alien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20100017789 OWNER: ELVIS CAMACHO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). UNMAINTAINED POOL AT THIS LOCATION. FOLIO NO: 38100840006 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 2725 701H STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 7/11/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 — Page 3252 — 1/14/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 1/22/11 — 7/11/11 (171 days) Total Fine Amount: $42,750.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $42,862.56 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $42,862.56. Said amount to become a lien on the property. IL CASE NO: CEPM20110000638 OWNER: ELVIS CAMACHO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 243(3), METHOD FOR DESIGNATION AND ELIMINATION OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS 22 -236. DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS BUILDING DESTROYED BY FIRE. FOLIO NO: 38100840006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2725 701H STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/11 15 A 6 August 5, 2011 The respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 7/11/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4681 — Page 2192 — 5/3/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 5/21/11 — 7/11/11 (52 days) Total Fine Amount: $13,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $13,112.56 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $13,112.56. Said amount to become a lien on the property 12. CASE NO: CEPM20100004034 OWNER: ABEL D. ACCILIO AND SARA ACCILIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WITH ALGAE GROWTH. FOLIO NO: 64701126902 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 907 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/26/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 5/23/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 — Page 2469 — 2/4/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 2/12/11 — 5/23/11 (101 days) Total Fine Amount: $25,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $933.75 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $26,296.48 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $26,296.48. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 13. CASE NO: CEPM20100001420 OWNER: JOSEPH AND KAREN SALVATORIELLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15)(12n) . A PRIVATE DWELLING SWIMMING POOL THAT HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED SO AS TO CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD OR HARBOR INSECT INFESTATION. WATER HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STAGNATE AND BECOME POLLUTED WITH GREEN ALGAE. THE POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE IS TORN AND THE DOORS ARE UNSECURED ALLOWING POSSIBLE ACCESS TO THE POOL AREA. FOLIO NO: 71373120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18445 ROYAL HAMMOCK BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 16 161 z A6 August 5, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/20/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 5110/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4590 — Page 2187 — 7/16/11 Fine Amount: Part B: $250.00 /day - Part C: $250.00 /day Duration: Part B — 7/20/10 — 5/10/11(295 days) - Part C — 7/20/10 — 5110111 (295 days) Total Fine Amount: $147,500.00 ($73,750 each - part B and part C) Unpaid Abatement Costs: $3,966.40 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $151,578.69 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $151,578.69. Said amount to become alien on the property. 14. 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 THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE AND STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 40060360106 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3950 31 ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/26/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 8/5/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4681 — Page 2202 — 5/3/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 6/4/11 — 8/5/11 (63 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.12 Total to Date: $6,412.56 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $6,412.56. Said amount to become alien 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: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 17 411 161 2 A6 August 5, 2011 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: September2, 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 12:59 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING B nda Garretson, pecial Magistrate The Minutes werr pproved by the Special Magistrate on C1- - 1 1 as presented ✓ , or as amended 18 i A 6 161 . September 2, 2011 D MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRA'gy 1 E " " " "' " """""'^ Naples, Florida, September 2, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle roletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: Date: % LV, ?h\ v, Item #:tl,T 2Wrto :-gies to: 1 161 2, A September 2, 011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding. The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:02 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations 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. Break: 9:15 a.m. Reconvened. 9:35 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda Item Numbers): Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to Item V.A — Stipulations: • 8. CASE NO: PU4688- CEEX20110010877 - STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC • 9. CASE NO: PU4690- CEEX20110011363 - STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Under Item V.B — Hearings - The following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers): • 2. CASE NO: S0174991- CEEX20110008046 - CAROLYN K. PENTZ • 3. CASE NO: 50174527- CEEX20110010473 - EVELYN J. MOFFET AND ROBERT WATTS MOFFET • 4. CASE NO: PR042652- CEEX20110009945 - ROMUALD MUNDKOWSKI • 5. CASE NO: PR042660- CEEX20110010569 - CHARLES R. GALLOPS • 6. CASE NO: PR046235- CEEX20110009466 - H & R FARMS OF IMMOKALEE • 7. CASE NO: PR046615- CEEX20110009669 - BEAUTIFAUX LLC • 15. CASE NO: CESD20110002337 - LAUREL LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. • 22. CASE NO: CEOCC20110005064 - IMPAG LLC (noted during meeting at time of item number) Under Item VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines - The following case was withdrawn (listed below as Agenda Item Numbers): • 4 CASE NO: CESD20100003049 - WALTER O. BADO VEGA The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 5, 2011 The Minutes of the August S, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS Investigator Cascio represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative Chad Imig, Construction Manager on September 2, 2011. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by October 2, 2011. 2. Pay a $500.00 civil penalty and a $5.00 administrative fee for a total of assessment of $555.00. 3. Agree to a review of all outstanding citations. 4. Agree to hold biweekly "tailgate education "for a period of two months with Stock Construction representatives and their subcontractors. Total Amount Due: $555.00 CASE NO: PU4690- CEEX20110011363 OWNER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR GEORGE CASCIO VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 134- 126(A)(6) ALTERED BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 53570103484 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6475 CAREMA LANE, NAPLES Investigator Cascio represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative Chad Imig, Construction Manager on September 2, 2011. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by October 2, 2011. 2. Pay a $500.00 civil penalty and a $5.00 administrative fee for a total assessment of $555.00. 3. Agree to a review of all outstanding citations 161 2 A 6 11 September 2, 2011 A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 8. CASE NO: PU4688- CEEX20110010877 OWNER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR GEORGE CASCIO VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SEC. 1.4 N UNLAWFUL CONNECTION TO THE CURBSTOP. HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. FOLIO NO: 53570101761 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6365 SERANO WAY, NAPLES Investigator Cascio represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative Chad Imig, Construction Manager on September 2, 2011. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by October 2, 2011. 2. Pay a $500.00 civil penalty and a $5.00 administrative fee for a total of assessment of $555.00. 3. Agree to a review of all outstanding citations. 4. Agree to hold biweekly "tailgate education "for a period of two months with Stock Construction representatives and their subcontractors. Total Amount Due: $555.00 CASE NO: PU4690- CEEX20110011363 OWNER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR GEORGE CASCIO VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 134- 126(A)(6) ALTERED BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 53570103484 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6475 CAREMA LANE, NAPLES Investigator Cascio represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative Chad Imig, Construction Manager on September 2, 2011. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by October 2, 2011. 2. Pay a $500.00 civil penalty and a $5.00 administrative fee for a total assessment of $555.00. 3. Agree to a review of all outstanding citations 161 Z A6, September 2, 2011 4. Agree to hold biweekly "tailgate education "for a period of two months with Stock Construction representatives and their subcontractors. Total Amount Due: $555.00 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CENA20100009616 OWNER: JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -181 AND 54 -179. REPEAT VIOLATION OF LITTER/DERELICT ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CHEMICAL JUGS, PAINT CANS, WOOD, BROKEN FURNITURE, PLASTICS, METALS, CLOTH MATERIAL, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 61839320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3190 KAREN DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Botts presented the case. Jean Clade Martel was present. Investigator Botts testified as of 9/2/11 the violation has not been abated. As previously requested by the Special Magistrate, Mr. Martel did allow County Officials on the property to inspect the site. She highlighted the County'y request: Special Magistrate Order No. 4637 Page: 672 — 12/3/10 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 12/11/10 — 9/2/11 (266 days) Total Fine Amount: $53,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $53,312.20 Mr. Martel reported he had a friend present to assist him. Mary Brisson, Registered Nurse stated she was a friend of Mr. Martel and became acquainted with him 10 months ago during treatment for a stroke. During discussions, Special Magistrate Garretson became concerned on the health of Mr. Martel and determined he was not competent to participate in today's hearing. She requested the County arranged an evaluation for Mr. Martel to determine his well being. Mr. Martel agreed to an evaluation. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: S0166263- CEEX20110009555 OWNER: MARY E. VIGEANT OFFICER: DEPUTY M. HERNANDEZ #3428 VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9885 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES Deputy Hernandez was not present. 4 l 161 1 September 2, 2011 Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor reported he is no longer employed by the Collier County Sheriff's Department. The Department did not send an Officer to represent them in the case. Ms. Vigeant was present and presented a handicap parking sign. She testified she forgot to display the sign after parking the vehicle. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the case with prejudice. 10. CASE NO: CEV20110007291 OWNER: RICHARD LARICHE JR AND VALERIE L. LARICHE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 - 97(3). RECURRING VIOLATION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT PARKED IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONCEALED FROM THE VIEW OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. FOLIO NO: 35647920000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4438 23RD PLACE SW, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. Richard Lariche, Jr. and Valerie Lariche were present. The case was resumed following a continuance at the 8/5/11 hearing. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 6/1/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 9/1/11 Mr. and Mrs. Lariche testified they are in the process of completing landscaping work to abate the violation as shown in the 9/1/11 photo. They requested the item be continued until the work is completed. Supervisor Letourneau stated the Lariches' have been taking steps to abate the violation. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until the next hearing date. 14. CASE NO: CENA20110007405 OWNER: JOSEPH A. JEAN AND RAYMONDE JEAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -181. LITTER CONSISTING OF WASHER, BOXES, SUITCASE, DOLLYS, CONTAINERS, METAL, CRATES, COOLERS, MATTRESS, PICTURE FRAME, GAS CONTAINER, BUCKETS, T.V., BEDRAILS, RADIATOR, AND AUTO PARTS IN THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 36377240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5291 23RD PLACE SW, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. Joseph A. Jean was present. Original Date of Service: 6/8/11 Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 9 photos dated 9/1/11 Supervisor Letourneau reported the case was originally investigated on June 6, 2011 and the violation remains as of 9/2/11. 161 2 A6 September 2, 2011 Mr. Jean testified the property is the subject of a short sale and he needs to be off the property by 9/4/11. The debris is outside as he is in the process of cleaning up and moving. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by September 12, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 24. CASE NO: CESD20100005186 OWNER: JOSE FONTE VALDES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). CANOPY CARPORT STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 40182440001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3680 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County. Jose Valdes was present. Norta be Cestebes served as an interpretor for Mr. Valdes. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 4/21/10 Investigator Asaro testified Mr.Valdes has obtained a Collier County Building Permit, however has not completed the construction and obtained the Certificate of Completion. Mr. Valdes testified he began the project without necessary County permits and received a violation. He obtained the necessary permit(s) but has had recent financial hardships and health issues which have hindered him from completing the project in the anticipated time frame. The structure is secured into the ground via concrete. He requested additional time to complete the project and obtain the necessary Certificate of Completion/Occupancy. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 161 2 A6 �J September 2, 2011 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by February 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit all necessary inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by February 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Mr. Valdes was requested to contact Code Enforcement Officials if he has trouble meeting the deadlines imposed in the Order. Total Amount Due: $112.38 27. CASE NO: CESD20100005619 OWNER: ROY E. COMPTON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40182480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3690 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County. Roy Compton was present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 4/23/10 Mr. Compton testified he and his wife have had financial and health issues which have hindered the ability to complete the project. He has submitted an application for a Collier County Building Permit. He requested additional time to obtain the permit and complete the project. 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 February 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit all necessary inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by February 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 24 161 2i A6 September 2, 2011 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: $112.29 28. CASE NO: C002734- CEVFH2O110006845 OWNER: TOM BRENNAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(a), 142- 33(d). OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER ID ISSUED BY THE COUNTY. ID HAD EXPIRED IN 2009. VIOLATION ADDRESS: NAPLES BEACH CLUB HOTEL, 851 GULFSHORE BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Crowley represented the County. Tom Brennan was present. Investigator Crowley testified: • On May 21, 2011 during a "Prom Check" at the Naples Beach ClubHotel she observed Mr. Brennan operating a Vehicle for Hire. • During her onsite interview, Mr. Brennan could not produce his Driver ID for inspection. • At a later date, it was determined Mr. Brennan's Driver ID was expired during the time in question. • On June 26, 2011, a citation was issued to Mr. Brennan for operating a Vehicle for Hire without a valid Driver ID. • Mr. Brennan did immediately obtain a valid Driver ID after notification by the County that it had expired. Mr. Brennan testified he was under the impression he was issued a "warning" on the day of the incident. Subsequently, he was issued a citation. He bears the expense of duplicate annual background checks, one for himself as an owner, and one as a driver. He recommended the County address the issue of "duplicate" fees and requested the fine be waived. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational costs of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total assessement of $55.00 to be paid by October 2, 2011. Total Amount Due: $55.00 29. CASE NO: C002736- CEVFH2O110009209 OWNER: WILLIAM HARRIS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(a), 142- 33(d). OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER ID ISSUED BY COLLIER COUNTY. ID EXPIRED ON 1/22/11. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARCO MARRIOTT HOTEL, 400 S. COLLIER BLVD, MARCO ISLAND 161 2 A 6 44, September 2, 2011 Investigator Crowley represented the County. Willilam Harris was present. Investigator Crowley testified: • On July 5, 2011 she observed Mr. Harris operating a Vehicle For Hire without the necessary decals on the vehicle. • During the onsite interview, the necessary decals were found in the glove compartment and placed on the vehicle. • It was later determined, Mr. Harris's Driver ID had expired in January of 2011 and he was therefore operating a Vehicle for Hire without a valid Driver ID on the day of the incident. • The citation was issued on July 9, 2011. • Mr. Harris has renewed his license. Mr. Harris testified he forgot to renew his Driver ID as he was out of town at the time it expired. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY and ordered to: I. Pay the Operational costs of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total assessement of $55.00 to be paid by October 2, 2011. Total Amount Due: $55.00 30. CASE NO: C002737- CEVFH2O110009210 OWNER: THE NELLIE GROUP INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(a), 142- 33(d). EMPLOYED WILLIAM HARRIS AND ALLOWED HIM TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER ID ISSUED BY THE COUNTY. ID EXPIRED ON 1/22/11. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARCO MARRIOTT HOTEL, 400 S. COLLIER BLVD, MARCO ISLAND Investigator Crowley represented the County. Kathleen Gorman, The Nellie Group, Inc. was present. Investigator Crowly testified the case was in relation to the previous case (CO02736- CEVFH20110009209) where Mr. Harris was allowed to operate a vehicle without a Valid Driver ID. Ms. Gorman testified when she contacted the County regarding the necessary renewals she was informed the County was changing background check vendors and she could not apply for the renewals at that time. She forgot to check back with County Officials and the County does not contact companies when renewals are required so the proper renewals were not obtained. The Special Magistrate noted it is the responsibilty of the license holders to ensure there licenses or certificates are up to date. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational costs of $50.00. 2. Pay an Administrative Fee of $5.00. 3. Pay a fine for $200.00 for total assessment of $255.00 to be paid October 2, 2011. 161 2 A6 ii September 2, 2011 Total Amount Due: $255.00 31. CASE NO: C002738- CEVFH2O110006824 OWNER: JAMES KEVIN GILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(a), 142- 33(d). OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER ID ISSUED BY COLLIER COUNTY. ID EXPIRED IN 2009. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARCO MARRIOTT HOTEL, 400 S. COLLIER BLVD, MARCO ISLAND Investigator Crowley represented the County. James Kevin Gill was present. Investigator Crowley testified: • On May 14, 2011 during a "Prom Check" at the Marco Marriott she observed Mr. Gill operating a "Vehicle for Hire." • She signaled Mr. Gill to stop at the "Prom Check" checkpoint however he proceeded without stopping. • She was able to photograph the vehicle as it passed by the checkpoint. • Later that evening, she observed the vehicle at the 951 boat ramp where she interviewed Mr. Gill who stated the passengers were provided complimentary services. He instructed her to contact Ron Gill, owner of the company for further details. • After a series of phone calls, she was unable to contact the owner to validate the testimony. • Subsequently, it was determined Mr. Gill's Driver ID had expired on July 24, 2009. • The citation was issued. • She has not determined if compensation was provided by the party (who arranged the transportation) to Mr. Gill. James Gill testified he did provide transportation, however the passengers paid for the gas and no monies or services were received for the transportation services he provided. Ron Gill, Owner/Representative Big Shotz Limousine provided the following evidence: Exhibit A: Reservation from between the parties involved indicating the service was complimentary. Ron Gill testified the company (Big Shotz) is no longer in business and the transportation was complimentary to a family friend as indicated on the reservation form. If necessary, he will obtain a letter from the party responsible (Ms. Perez) for arranging the transportation confirming the service was complimentary. The Special Magistrate took the case UNDER ADVISEMENT subject to Ron Gill submitting a notarized letter from Ms. Perez stating the transporation service was provided complimentary with no exchange of services or funds. Said letter to be received by Code Enforcement Officials by September 16, 2011. 32. CASE NO: C002739- CEVFH2O110009364 OWNER: BIG SHOTZ LIMOUSINE INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY 10 161 2 A6 September 2, 2011 VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(a), 142- 33(c). OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE BUSINESS UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY LICENSE TO OPERATE. LICENSE TO OPERATE EXPIRED IN AUGUST 2010. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARCO MARRIOTT HOTEL, 400 S. COLLIER BLVD, MARCO ISLAND Investigator Crowley represented the County. Ron Gill, Big Shotz Limousine, Inc. was present. Evidence Entered: County Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 5/14/11 County Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 6/20/11 Investigator Crowley testified the case stems from: 1. The activity identified in the previous case (CO02738- CEVFH2O110006824). 2. A vehicle with a telephone number displayed which advertises transportation services. 3. The presence of online advertising. Based on these facts, Mr. Gill appears to operating a Vehicle for Hire license business in violation of the Ordinance. Mr. Gill testified the previous case inolved complimentary services, the telephone number on the vehicle is old and was inadvertently not removed, the the online advertising has been done by third parties (web sites citing Naples services from previous data). He is not currently operating a Vehicle for Hire service. The Special Magistrate took the case UNDER ADVISEMENT subject to Ron Gill submitting a notarized letter from Ms. Perez stating the transporation service was provided complimentary with no exchange of services or funds. Said letter to be received by Code Enforcement Officials by September 16, 2011. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: (Continued) 2. 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 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 7/29/11 Special Magistrate Order No. 4681 Page: 2182 — 5/3/11 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 7/4/11 — 7/29/11(26 days) Total Fine Amount: $5,200.00 Total to Date: $5,200.00 The County recommmends full abatement of fines as the violation was abated. �. 6 2 i A 6 September 2, 2011 The Repondent's representative was present. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 11. CASE NO: CESD20100002960 OWNER: LEOBARDO GUTIERREZ AND MARITZA GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CORRALS ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39655120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1815 47TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County noting the violation has not been abated. He reported the case was continued at the August 5, 2011 Special Magistrate hearing. Leobarda Gutierrez was present. Brendi Gutierrez was present to translate for Mr. Gutierrez. Investigator Asaro outlined the County's request for Imposition of Fines: Special Magistrate Order No. 4694 Page: 399 — 6/3/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 7/3/11 — 8/5/11(34 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,400.00 Total to Date: $3,400.00 Ms. Gutierrez reported the hearing was continued in order to amend the existing permit and remove the proposed roofed structure from the auspices of the original permit. The permit was amended and the final inspection is scheduled for today between 9am and 3pm. The hearing was recessed so the Respondent could attempt to determine if the inspection has been completed. Break: 12: 01 p.m. Reconvened: 12: 20 p. m. Ms. Gutierrez reported the inspection had not been completed. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until the October meeting. VIII. NEW BUSINESS B. Hearings 11. CASE NO: CEV20110006054 OWNER: ROBERT PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. UNLICENSED VEHICLES BEING STORED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35751200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2119 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 12 161 2 114teAberO, 201110 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 3 photos dated 515111 Composite Exhibit B - 4 photos dated 9/1/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle and or repairing any defects to each vehicle so they are operable, or storing the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or removing the offending vehicles from the property by September 9, 2011 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 12. CASE NO: CEPM20110007297 OWNER: DANA D. LEWIS EST. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL GREEN AND STAGNANT. FOLIO NO: 60842700304 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 140 NAPA RIDGE WAY, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo dated 6/2/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before October 2, 2011. 13 16 1 2 40 A6 September 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 September 9, 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 before September 9, 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. 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. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 13. CASE NO: CESD20100006517 OWNER: AGRON SLOVA AND NEAT KERKUTI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). REPLACEMENT OF STAIR RISERS WITHOUT A PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 35761000000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4637 18TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos dated 5110/10 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 2, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 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. 14 161 2 -E SeA2, 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: $112.20 Break: 12:41 p.m. Reconvened: 1: 00 p. m. 16. CASE NO: CEPM20100007769 OWNER: SILVIA DERRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 22- 322(a). SEAWALL IN NEED OF REPAIR. FOLIO NO: 55850840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 223 1ST STREET, BONITA SPRINGS Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Investigator Pulse represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1 photos dated 6/7/10 Exhibit B - 1 photos dated 7/26/11 Composite Exhibit C — 2 photos dated 7/31/11 Exhibit D - 1 photos dated 7/8/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 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 October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by repairing and/or reconstructing the seawall and obtaining all required Collier County Building Permits) and inspections and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 2, 2011 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 17. CASE NO: CEPM20110009173 OWNER: ROBERT E. BROWN AND SERITA D. BROWN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE 15 161 2 Pi Ab September 2, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). WATER GREEN WITH ALGAE. FOLIO NO: 66262006349 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8622 PEBBLEBROOKE DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Investigator Musse represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos dated 8/7/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before October 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 September 9, 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 September 9, 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. 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. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 18. CASE NO: CEPM20110007564 OWNER: ELI WALLEN AND DANNIE DEVOL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL. FOLIO NO: 62766360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 707 94TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/15/11 Investigator Bosa represented the County. The Respondent was not present. 16 161 2 _��jj . 11S tkfi, 2011 Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1photo dated 6/7/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 9/1/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before October 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 September 9, 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 September 9, 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. 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. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 19. CASE NO: CEPM20110008927 OWNER: HARRY NEVINS AND JACQUELINE NEVINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(19). BEE INFESTATION AT THE REAR OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 81628960004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 270 ISLAMORADA LANE, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/19/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/22/11 Investigator Condomina represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo dated 6/15/11 Exhibit B —1 photo dated 8/19/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 17 161 2 Ab September 2, 2011 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Remove the infestation from the residential structure and maintain the structure free from infestation by September 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 20. CASE NO: CEPM20110008150 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). BROKEN SLIDERS AND GREEN POOL. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 3 photos dated 6/15/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before October 21 2011. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before September 16, 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 on or before September 16, 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. If the option outlined in #3 above is chosen, obtain all required Collier County permits to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before March 2, 2012 or a fine of 18 161 2 -11 �Ab September 2, 2011 $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. 5. 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 September 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 6. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before September 9, 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. 7. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation(s) and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 8. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadlines, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.38 21. CASE NO: CESD20110008158 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 6/15/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 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 October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the 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. 19 kt,, A 6 September 2, 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: $112.3 8 23. CASE NO: CESD20110006379 OWNER: DONALD WOODRING OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). AN UNPERMITTED SHED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 45910280001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1381 17TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/19/11 Investigator Condomina represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo 6/6/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s), Inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 2, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 25. CASE NO: CESD20100017332 OWNER: SUZANNE M. YOUNG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR TWO SHEDS AND A LARGE BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 45849280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1090 11TH STREET SW, NAPLES 20 161 2 1 V i A* September 2, 2011 Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/19/11 Investigator Condomina represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos dated 6/17/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 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 October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 2, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 26. CASE NO: CEAU20100017344 OWNER: SUZANNE M. YOUNG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02 (A). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR A WOOD FENCE WHICH IS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 45849280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1090 11TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Certified Mailing: 8/18/11 Date of Courthouse Posting: 8/19/11 Investigator Condomina represented the County. The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos dated 6/17/11 The violation exists as of 9/1/11. 21 161 2 o6A6 September 2, 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 $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 2, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 C. Emergency Cases: None IX. NEW BUSINESS B. Motion for Imposition of Fines: (Continued) 3. CASE NO: CEAU20110002303 OWNER: ALEXANDER O. ULATE AND 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: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 5/11/11 Special Magistrate Order No. 4681 Page: 2205 — 5/3/11 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $112.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $112.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 5. CASE NO: CEPM20110004442 OWNER: SAINT HUBERT JEAN BAPTISTE AND FABIOLA ANTOINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ 22 161 2 .' fm Ab September 2, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(i). BROKEN/MISSING WINDOW. FOLIO NO: 35989080006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4724 25TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order No. 4702 Page: 1765 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 7/16/11 — 9/2/11 (49 days) Total Fine Amount: $12,250.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $12,362.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $12,362.29. Fines continue to accrue. 6. CASE NO: CESD20110004443 OWNER: SAINT HUBERT JEAN BAPTISTE AND FABIOLA ANTOINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 35989080006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4724 25TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order No. 4702 Page: 168 — 7/1/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 8/2/11 — 9/2/11(32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,312.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,312.29. Fines continue to accrue. 7. CASE NO: CESD20100021849 OWNER: JEREMY J. OLMSTEAD AND CARRIE E. OLMSTEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4). ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 56570003468 23 1b1 2 . -, 1", A 6 September 2, 2011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 495 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/15/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order No. 4675 Page: 1460 — 4/1/11 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 8/2/11 — 9/2/11 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $6,512.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $6,512.20. Fines continue to accrue. 8. CASE NO: CESD20100003657 OWNER: JOSHUA S. LAINHART AND MELANIE D. MEYER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.4.1. PERMIT NUMBER 2003052154 FOR SCREENED ADDITION EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 3, 2003. NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 37869920006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2170 20T' AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/22/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Potterpresented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order No. 4704 Page: 996 — 7/1/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 8/2/11 — 9/2/11 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $3,312.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,312.38. Fines continue to accrue. 9. CASE NO: CEPM20110003003 OWNER: ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ 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 (2), (11), (12), (19), (20), (12)(b), (12)(h), (12)(i). MOBILE HOME WITH NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS ON THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR OF STRUCTURE /BUILDING CAUSING A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE TO THE COMMUNITY. FOLIO NO: 66221120004 24 161 2 V September 2, 2011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 701 DELAWARE AVENUE, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/19/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Snow presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 5/30/11 Special Magistrate Order No. 4672 Page: 1870 4/1/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 4/7/11 — 5/30/11 (54 days) Total Fine Amount: $13,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $3,490.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $17,102.64 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $17,102.64. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20100005026 OWNER: VIRGILIO VALDES AND ELIZABETH VALDES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR THERESE ROUSSEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19) AND SECTION 22 -243. VACANT CONDOMINIUM UNIT HAS EXCESSIVE MOLD ON INTERIOR WALLS. FOLIO NO: 46573003925 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 190 SANTA CLARA DRIVE, UNIT 5, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 8/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 8/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Rousseau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 6/21/11 Special Magistrate Order No. 4606 Page: 647 — 9/3/10 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 9/11/10 — 6/21/11 (283 days) Total Fine Amount: $70,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $16,909 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $87,771.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $87,771.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20100018647 OWNER: TARPON IV LLC 25 f :g 161 2 V41 A 6 September 2, 2011 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(i). STRUCTURES WITH EXTERIOR DOORS OPEN TO UNITS AND NOT PROPERLY FITTED WITHIN ITS FRAME, NOT PROVIDED WITH LOCKABLE HARDWARE, NOT WEATHER -TIGHT AND WEATHERPROOF, AND NOT MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR. WINDOWPANES NOT MAINTAINED WITHOUT CRACKS OR HOLES. FOLIO NO: 65070800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 616 PALMETTO AVENUE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Snow presented the case. The request was to add the abatement costs incurred by the County and increased fine amounts due to the duration of the violation. The Respondent was not present. Abatement Date: 4/25/11 Fine Amount: Part B: $250.00 /day; Part C: $250.00 /day Duration: Part B: 12/11/10 — 4/25/11 (136 days); Part C: 1/4/11 — 4/25/11 (112 days) Total Fine Amount: Part B: $34,000.00; Part C: $28,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $2,190.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $64,302.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend the Previous Order for a total amount due of $64,302.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CENA20100006344 OWNER: WILLIAM M. GRANT TR, WILLIAM M. GRANT REV TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS FOLIO NO: 25080640009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 LINWOOD AVENUE, NAPLES The Special Magistrate GRANTED the motion to rescind the Previous Order. 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 26 16 r 2 �, A 6 September 2, 2011 X. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 7, 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 2:40 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING (enda Garretson, pecial Magistrate The Minutes werr approved by the Special Magistrate on bC�4� , as presented V , or as amended 27 161 2 A6 September 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, September 21, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM 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 L/ _ Hiller _ Henning Coyle Coletta SL DECEIVED NOV 0 3 2011 i oaro+ c.q county r:on rnissioners ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrator Secretary Mist '�a Da; 161 2 A6 Se 'tember 21, 2011 NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 2:05 PM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None IV. MOTIONS None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations None B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEEX20110012494 OWNER: JULIE KOVACS OFFICER: OFFICER BONNIE KUBICSEK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14 -35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1385 MARIPOSA CIRCLE, NAPLES The case is an appeal of County Staff's determination Ms. Kovac's dog "Trixy" is a "Dangerous Dog." Ms. Kovacs testified: • The dog in question is a Bassett Hound. • She was walking her two dogs on leashes as two boys were riding bicycles down the road. • The dog in question is afraid of bicycles and veered to the left, as this happened she dropped her leash. • One of the boys jumped off his bike in an attempt to help her retrieve the leash. • She told him "no, stop" concerned the boy would get bitten as he did not know the dog. • As the boy attempted to restrain the dog, in his effort to assist her, he was bitten. 2 VI. VII. VIII. 161 • The boy startled the dog and acted in self defense. Officer Kubicsek testified: 2 1 A6 ., September 21, 2011 • There are 4 bite incidents involving the dog in question since 2008, this is the second one this year. • Dylan Rostin and Brandon D'Antuono filed affidavits on the most recent incident. • The victim was bitten twice, once as the boy was retreating from the initial engagement with the dog. • Based on a review of the evidence, the dog was deemed a "Dangerous Dog." The Special Magistrate noted during an appeal hearing in February of 2011, the determination was found in favor of Ms. Kovac's, however discussion occurred on her responsibility to ensure bite incidents do not continue to occur. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's appeal of County Staff's determination Trixy be deemed a "Dangerous Dog." Officer Kubicsek outlined the requirements for a "Dangerous Dog" (a $300.00 annual registration fee, placement of appropriate signage on the dog's place of residence, the dog must be walked with a muzzle, etc.) C. Emergency Cases None NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: None OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's request to Rescind Order No. CEPM -2011- 0009173 (Robert E. and Serita D. Brown). CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None 161 2 * i A 6 September 21, 2011 IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 7, 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 2:28 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE BrcAa Garretson, pecial Magistrate The Minutes were appro d by the Special Magistrate on ��J 2w�Qe,l ` `�'o t k as presented , or as amended 161 2 OctobA,411 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, October 7, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning -f Coyle Coletta .1c ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary M D : %2\ \3 \ \ \_� RECEIVED NOV 0 3 2011 of co. . ^ty C:crnr -mac.icner, 161 2 'October A, 2 11 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:03 A.M. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations 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. Break: 9:14 a.m. Reconvened: 9:40 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda Item numbers): Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to Item IV.B — Motion for Continuance: • 9. CASE NO: PR046623- CEEX20110009955 - BEN A. HANDA • 30. CASE NO: CENA20110011444 - ELDER DUQUE AND MARIA ALICE MACEDO • 17. CASE NO: CEPM20100009008 - JOAN SIGONA Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to Item V.A — Stipulations: • 26. CASE NO: CESD201 100071 18 - JILL J. WEAVER - TESNO AND HENRY J. TESNO • 10. CASE NO: PU4732- CEEX20110012313 - LENNAR HOMES LLC Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers): • 1. CASE NO: S0174548- CEEX20110011608 - LLOYD L. BOWEIN • 2. CASE NO: SO171990- CEEX20110010065 - ANDREW M. JAMES AND COURTNEY M. JAMES 4. CASE NO: PR046728- CEEX20110012967 - CAROL H. KRALEY • 5. CASE NO: PR046084- CEEX201 1001 1270 - REAL POINT LLC • 6 CASE NO: PR0042653- CEEX20110009947 - LUIS A. RENDON • 7 CASE NO: PR046615- CEEX20110009669 - BEAUTIFAUX LLC • 8 CASE NO: PR045864- CEEX20110011159 - MARK A. VESELY • 11. CASE NO: DAS 12146- CEEX20110012449 - LIZABETH CUENYA • 12 CASE NO: CEV20110007291 - RICHARD LARICHE JR. AND VALERIE L. LARICHE • 13. CASE NO: CEV20110007977 - JAMES DELLECAVE • 16. CASE NO: CEAU20100009648 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ • 21. CASE NO: CESD20110003387 - PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS • 25. CASE NO: CENA20110006521 - JILL J. WEAVER - TESNO AND HENRY J. TESNO • 27. CASE NO: CEPM20110007122 - JILL J. WEAVER - TESNO AND HENRY J. TESNO • 31. CASE NO: CEV20110010511 -YVES GABRIEL AND ROSELUNE GABRIEL - MERTUS • 33. CASE NO: CEV20110007156 - LARRY D. SHIPMAN • 34 CASE NO: CENA20110007164 - LARRY D. SHIPMAN 2 161 2 .; A 6 October 7, 2011 • 35 CASE NO: CELU20110007170 - LARRY D. SHIPMAN • 39. CASE NO: CEV20110008438 - JOSEPH ETIENNE AND MARIE ETIENNE • 41. CASE NO: CENA20110010052 - CARLOS ARZOLA • 42. CASE NO: CESD20100021355 - CARLOS DEL RIO AND SANTA ABREU The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 2, 2011 The Minutes of the September 2, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 9. CASE NO: PR046623- CEEX20110009955 OWNER: BEN A. HANDA OFFICER: PARK RANGER RICHARD MAUNZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 RESTRICTED AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT BEACH ACCESS, NAPLES Ranger Maunz was not present The County had no objection to Mr. Handa's request for a continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a one time request for a continuance in the case. 30. CASE NO: CENA20110011444 OWNER: ELDER DUQUE AND MARIA ALICE MACEDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI, WEEDS, LITTER AND EXOTICS SECTION 54- 186(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 37281080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 620 WILSON BLVD N, NAPLES Investigator Potter represented the County. The Respondents were not present but have indicated they were unaware of a violation and intend to abate it. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a continuance in the case. 17. CASE NO: CEPM20100009008 OWNER: JOAN SIGONA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(11). THE BOX CASING UNDER THE METER IS DAMAGED, WITH EXPOSED WIRING. FOLIO NO: 62576000006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 660 108TH AVENUE N, UNIT 1, NAPLES Investigator Pulse represented the County. 161 2 1 A6 October 7, 2011 Joan Sigona was present. The County had no objection to the request for a continuance in the case. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a continuance in the case until the next hearing date. C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 26. CASE NO: CESD20110007118 OWNER: JILL J. WEAVER - TESNO AND HENRY J. TESNO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER I SECTION 105.1. A WHITE PICKET FENCE, 6 FT WOODEN FENCE, A CARPORT, AND A CHAIN LINK FENCE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 71800000543 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3411 BASIN STREET, NAPLES Investigator Botts requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Henry Tesno on October 7, 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 $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by February 7, 2012 or a fine of$200.00 per day will be imposed until the 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 workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.64. 10. CASE NO: PU4732- CEEX20110012313 OWNER: LENNAR HOMES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 1997 -33, SEC. 6A6 NO FACILITY OWNER MAY ALTER THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION .ASSEMBLY PROTECTING THE COUNTY'S WATER SYSTEM UNLESS SUCH ALTERATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 56324016669 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8074 PRINCETON DRIVE, NAPLES 161 2 A 6 04 October 7, 2011 Investigator Addison requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative, Jack Turner, Director of Construction on October 7, 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 Court Fees and Processing Costs in the amount of $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case. 2. Pay a fine of $1,000.00. Total Amount Due: $1,055.00. B. Hearings 18. CASE NO: CEPM20100018111 OWNER: FRANCIS HODGE COMM CTR INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -236. DANGEROUS BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 01131960005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 210 TURNSTILE DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Seabasty represented the County. Todd Taylor, Collier County Sheriffs Department was present. Helen Bryan and Marya Repko of Francis Hodge Community Center represented the property owner. Exhibit entered: Exhibit A: 2 photos 10/21/10 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 6/13/11 Exhibit C: 3 photos dated 7/29/11 Exhibit D: 2 photos dated 10/6/11 Investigator Seabasty testified: • On July 14, 2011 County Staff notified the landowner the building in question had been declared a "Dangerous Building ". • The photos depicted weeds growing on the property, a building in disrepair and structurally unsound condition. Sergeant Taylor testified.: • There have been SWAT Team raids on properties within 1000 feet of the building and there is concern the building may may provide a safe haven to criminal activity in the area. Given the condition of the structure, securing it is difficult and there is a safety concern should individuals choose to illegally enter the building. Ms. Repko testified: • The building is the site of a former segregated church and there were hopes of restoring it. • The restoration project has become unfeasible and the intent is to remove the structure and create a public park at the site. 161 2 ,. October A, 261 • The Collier County Historical Architecture and Preservation Board has listed the building as a "historic structure" and the organization is in the process of obtaining the necessary approvals to remove it from the site. • The Trust developed for the Community Center is "unfunded" and the organization is relying on volunteers to remove the structure. • She requested the deadline of January 2012 to remove the building. The building is currently secured with a padlock. County Staff, based on public safety issues, expressed concern on granting an extension of time to remove the structure. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate UPHELD the County's declaration the building is a "Dangerous Building" and ordered the Respondent to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 7, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.38 3. CASE NO: S0160520- CEEX20110010851 OWNER: LASZLO JEREMIAS OFFICER: DEPUTY J. ELSER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9069 GERVAIS CIRCLE, NAPLES Deputy Elser was not present. Mr. Jeremias, owner of the vehicle was present and submitted evidence of a "Disabled Person Placard" issued to the operator (his mother) of the vehicle the day in question. The placard fell off the mirror while the vehicle was parked. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the case. 15. CASE NO: CEPM20080016475 OWNER: SAN JANIE TREVINO AND GUADALUPE MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTIONS 9,11,12a, 12b, 12c, 12i, 12k, 12n, 12o, 12p, 19 AND 20.. SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS OWNER OCCUPIED THAT HAS NUMEROUS MINIMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS. FOLIO NO: 56400080001 161 2 A October 7, 011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 311 PRICE STREET, IMMOKALEE Investigator Mucha /Supervisor Letourneau represented the County. San Janie Trevino was present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 29 photos dated 1/16/09 Composite Exhibit B: 10 photos dated 10/4/11 Investigator Mucha testified the case has been on going for a long period of time, with anticipated asssistance by various agencies to intervene in the situation. The intervention has not completely occurred; resolving issues on the building has reached a point where there are health, safety and welfare concerns. Ms. Trevino testified the building has not been repaired due to a financial hardship and she was hoping for assistance from various agencies. She understands the building is in disrepair. 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 $112.91 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 7, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.91 37. CASE NO: CEPM20110006834 OWNER: ERIC SOMMERTON AND EVA MARIE SOMMERTON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTIONS 22- 231(15) AND (12)(1). POOL IS GREEN, STAGNANT, AND NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED, ALSO RIPPED POOL SCREEN PANELS. FOLIO NO: 51978009441 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 15050 SPINAKER COURT, NAPLES Investigator Musse represented the County. Eric Sommerton was present representing himself. County evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 10/06/09. Respondent evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: photos depicting abatement. 161 2 A 6.4 October 7, 2011 Investigator Musse testified the violation for the pool has been abated; the pool screen at the roof of the pool cage is in violation. Mr. Sommerton stated the screening at the top of the roof does not appear to be ripped, but rather "creased ". However, he will ensure all violations are abated. 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before November 7, 2011. 2. Make all necessary repairs to the pool cage structure on or before October 14, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.47 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. CASE NO: CEAU20090008537 OWNER: ANTON KARABA AND EVA KARABOVA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. WOODEN FENCE BUILT ON PROPERTY WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 48600000705 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12243 FULLER LANE, NAPLES Anton Karaba and Eva Karabova were present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: May 18, 2011 Special Magistrate Orders: 5/7/10 -No: 4588 Page: 1720 9/3/10 — No: 4606 Page: 635 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/4/10 — 5/18/11(166 days) Total Fine Amount: $16,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $16,712.64 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines and ordered operational costs in the amount of $112.64 be paid. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. CASE NO: CESD20100003049 OWNER: FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER 161 2 t; 0 October , 011 Mr. Karaba presented an oral motion requesting operational costs assessed be waived and the original order rescinded, as the fence as originally constructed, was in accordance with County requirements. County Staff noted the fence, as originally constructed, failed the required permit inspections. The permit expired before the required corrections from the inspection were completed. The expired permit created the original code violation of the installation of an "unpermitted fence" and that Mr. Karaba was required to obtain a new permit for the fence. Mr. Karaba contended a new permit was acquired, although the County required additional information (site plan, etc.). None of the structural requirements from the original inspection were required to be installed and the construction of the fence should not have failed the original inspection. Supervisor Letourneau reported the original permit was issued in approximately 2005 and Mr. Karaba had approximately 18 months to address the requirements of the original inspection and failed to do so, hence the permit expired. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondents Motion for re- consideration of the original case as there was ample time to originally address the inspection report and the County has expended considerable resources in resolving the case. The Respondent was ordered to pay Operational Costs in the amount of 5112.64. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Total Amount Due: $112.64 CASE NO: CESD20100009819 OWNER: RP /SIX DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4). ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT #2010071280. FOLIO NO: 276360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4176 MERCANTILE AVENUE, NAPLES Gary Billmyre, the Respondent's representative was present. Investigator Box presented the case noting the violation has been abated and recommends the fines be waived. Abatement Date: 9/20/11 Special Magistrate Order: 8/5/11 —No. 4712 Page: 413 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 9/6/11 — 9/20/11 (15 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,500.00 Total to Date: $1,500.00 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. CASE NO: CESD20100003049 OWNER: FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER I . AO. 161 October 7, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. SHED CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40350400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1920 EVERGLADES BLVD N, NAPLES Doug Anderson, Red Pig Realty, the Respondent's representative was present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has been abated and recommends fines be waived. Abatement Date: 9/22/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 - No. 4702 - Page: 193 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 8/2/11 — 9/22/11 (52 days) Total Fine Amount: $5,200.00 Total to Date: $5,200.00 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. Break: 11: 50 a. m. Reconvened: 12:22 p. m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings - Continued 14. CASE NO: CENA20110009315 OWNER: MICHAEL L. ROXBY AND NANCY L. ROXBY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI, WEEDS, LITTER, & EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES. FOLIO NO: 35989880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4463 25TH COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos dated 10/6/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of the case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by mowing all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches to a height of no more than 6 inches by October 14, 2011; or pay a fine of $50.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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. 19 z A bb1 October 7, 2011 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: $112.20 19. CASE NO: CENA20100017561 OWNER: JOSE R. DIAZ AND MARLENE CABALLERO DIAZ. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS, LITTER, AND EXOTICS. WEEDS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES AROUND THE 30 FT PERIMETER OF THE HOME. FOLIO NO: 36717400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3240 1ST AVENUE NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/20/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos dated 9/26/10 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 6/24/11 Exhibit C: 1 photo dated 10/6/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of the case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by cutting all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches in height located within 30 feet of the residential structure and up to any lot line to a height of no more than 6 inches by October 14, 2011; or pay a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.38 20. CASE NO: CEPM20100019517 OWNER: WILLIAM HILDERBRAND AND SANDRA LEONARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 11 161 Z . , Ab October 7, 2011 SECTION 22- 231(15) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(n) . POOL ENCLOSURE WITH RIPPED SCREEN PANEL, AND UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL, CREATING AN UNSAFE CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 56570005408 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 717 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/19/11 Investigator Box presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 10 /11 /10 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 1015111 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before November 7, 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 Ocotober 14, 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 October 14, 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. Make all necessary repairs to the pool cage structure on or before October 14, 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. 5. 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. 6. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 22. CASE NO: CEAU20110008432 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A)(3). WOOD FENCE ON PROPERTY IN DISREPAIR AND FALLING APART. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/23/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. 12 161 2 A 6 04 October 7, 2011 Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 6 photos dated 7/5/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 10/6/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 14, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by October 14, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. 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. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 23. CASE NO: CEV20110009199 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. UNLICENSED AND INOPERABLE MOTORCYCLES AND A DODGE NEON ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/23/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 6 photos dated 7/5/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 10/6/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 13 i A6 161 October 7 2011 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle and/or repair any defects to each vehicle so they are operable, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or removing the offending vehicles from the property by October 10, 2011 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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 Amount Due: $112.20 24. CASE NO: CENA20110009062 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS, LITTER, AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 186(a) AND UNAUTHORIZED ACCUMULATION OF LITTER, SECTION 54 -181. WEEDS AND GRASS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES AROUND THE 30 FT PERIMETER OF THE HOME AND LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, AUTO PARTS, METAL, PLASTIC, WOOD, GENERAL DEBRIS, ETC. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/22/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/23/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 6 photos dated 7/5/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 10/6/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of the case by November 7, 2011. 2. Cut all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches in height located within 30 feet of the residential structure and up to any lot line to a height of 6 inches and remove all litter and debris to a site intended for final disposal or store desired items within a completely enclosed structure by October 14, 2011 or pay a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 14 1 2 A 6 4. October 7, 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 Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 28. CASE NO: CESD20100000052 OWNER: JESSICA B. SCHREIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/23/11 Investigator Athey presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 3 photos dated 2/7/10 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.29 29. CASE NO: CEPM20100002830 OWNER: JESSICA B. SCHREIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17. NO ENCLOSURE OR FENCE AROUND SWIMMING POOL. 15 6. October 7, 2011 FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/23/11 Investigator Athey presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 4 aerial photos The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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: $112.12 32. CASE NO: CESD20100020705 OWNER: CHERYL LYNN MAIN AND LARRY G. KNAPP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. ELECTRIC GATE ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39895920104 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2680 OIL WELL ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/22/11 Investigator Asaro presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 11/22/10 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of 16 161 2 A 6 October 7, 2011 Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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 36. CASE NO: CEPM20110000313 OWNER: LEONARD SZWAJKOWSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL CREATING UNHEALTHY CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 79904123904 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7574 ROZZINI LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/15/11 Investigator Condomina presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 6/17/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 10/6/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 201 L 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 $112.12 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before November 7, 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 October 14, 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 October 14, 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. 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. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. 17 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 8/12/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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 Respondentfails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.64 40. CASE NO: CEAU20110008151 OWNER: ELIUD RODRIGUEZ AND DENA AULETTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 39716440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 436143 RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. 18 161- 2 ,r A6 October 7, 2011 Total Amount Due: $112.38 38. CASE NO: CESD20110009304 OWNER: EDUARDO VILLASENOR AND ESMERALDA VILLASENOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 40473080002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4132 16TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 8/12/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 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 $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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 Respondentfails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.64 40. CASE NO: CEAU20110008151 OWNER: ELIUD RODRIGUEZ AND DENA AULETTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 39716440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 436143 RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. 18 161 Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 6/16/11 The violation remains as of October 7, 2011. 2 -- A 6 October 7, 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 $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by November 7, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 7, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. 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 Amount Due: $112.20 C. Emergency Cases: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines - Continued 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110004770 OWNER: ROGER DALE MOONEYHAM AND ROME MOONEYHAM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22-231(15),(12)(i). POOL IS GREEN AND UNABLE TO SECURE THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE DOOR AND THE DOOR TO THE FENCE. FOLIO NO: 36110760000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4998 23RD COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 8/25/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 - No. 4702- Page: 187 Fine Amount: Part B: $250 /day; Part C: $250 /day Duration: Part B: 7/9/11 — 8/25/11 (48 days); Part C: 7/9/11 — 8/25/11 (48 days) Total Fine Amount: Part B: $12,000.00 Part C: $12,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $999.15 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $25,111.71 19 161 October 7, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $25,111.71. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEPM20110004402 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR, UTD 10/8/96 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(b) AND (c). RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE NEAR THE FRONT HAS A ROTTED OUT AREA IN THE GUTTER BOARD AND SURROUNDING AREA THAT IS BETWEEN TWO AND THREE FEET IN LENGTH, ALLOWING ACCESS DIRECTLY INTO THE ATTIC. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 8/5/11 - No. 4718 Page: 1557 Fine Amount:$ 1 00.00/day Duration: 9/6/11 — 10/7/11 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $3,312.64 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,312.64. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CEV20110006054 OWNER: ROBERT PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130-95. UNLICENSED VEHICLES BEING STORED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35751200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2119 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 The respondent was not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 - No. 4712 Page: 427 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 9/10/11 — 10/7/11 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $1,512.20 20 r, r1e) .' October 7, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $1,512.20. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CEPM20100009396 OWNER: SILVIA DERRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(i). TWO WINDOWS IN NEED OF REPAIR. ONE WINDOW CRACKED AND HELD TOGETHER BY TAPE. THE OTHER WINDOW BROKEN, COVERED IN DARK PLASTIC MATERIAL. FOLIO NO: 62704240007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 616 92ND AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/16/11 The respondent was not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has not been abated, windows have been boarded at direction of County Staff. Special Magistrate Order: 4/1/11 - No. 4672 Page: 1873 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 4/16/11 — 10/7/11 (175 days) Total Fine Amount: $43,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $432.00 (for boarding of windows) Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $44,294.56 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $44,294.56. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CESD20110004390 OWNER: WILMER ESPINAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE REAR PROPERTY AREA WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38850200006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5845 EVERGLADES BLVD N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/23/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 9/22/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 8/5/11 - No. 4712 Page: 407 Fine Amount:$100.00 /day Duration: 9/6/11 — 10/7/11 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $3,312.56 21 161 2 October Ao§ Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,312.56. Fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: PU4974- CEEX20110008810 OWNER: MAREK HEVIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 1997 -73, SECTION 6.A.6. CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL DEVICE HAD THE BACK LEG PULLED OUT OF THE GROUND. FOLIO NO: 59810000144 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14516 MARSALA WAY, NAPLES The Special Magistrate reviewed the case and GRANTED the County's motion. 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: November 1, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida 22 161 : 2 October O11 4 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:25 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING `l Br da Garrets , Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on , as presented , or as amended 23 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, n IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY`' 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Sy ; 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT August 4, 2N ;, !oilier rienning C lel�� �1eta 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Man and Man Series (FLUM), and Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), of the Growth Management Plan, to reconfigure the boundary and increase the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a project lying in more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project when the required amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the project — as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 25, Township 50 South; Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30; Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 2,262± acres. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] (Companion Petitions PUDZJCC&&10146 and DRI -2006- AR- 10147 these companion items are continued to the September 1, 2011 meeting) Date: n -A Page 1 of 3 Item #: -2- W-1 161 2 A7 B. CU- PL2011 -579, Garden Street, a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow an iron and metal collection and transfer station (refuse systems) within an industrial (I) zoning district pursuant to Subsection 2.03.04.A.1.c.16 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued from the July 21, 2011 meeting, during the August 4, 2011 meeting the petitioner continued this item to the 91112011 meeting: PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146: Hacienda Lakes MPUD -- 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 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 Agricultural (A), Agricultural - Special Treatment Overlay (A -ST) and PUD zoning district (Swamp Buggy Days PUD) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hacienda Lakes MPUD that will allow a maximum of 327,500 square feet of gross retail commercial floor area; 70,000 gross square feet of professional and medical office space including a conversion of retail use to professional and medical office; 135 hotel rooms including a conversion to business park; 140,000 gross square feet of business park or education facility; a public school; continuation of existing "swamp buggy" attraction and "Junior Deputy" passive recreation; and a maximum of 1,760 residential dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care. The subject property, consisting of 2,262 +/- acres is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake - Hammock Road and north and south of Sabal Palm Road in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida; providing for partial repeal and survival of certain provisions of Ordinance Number 84 -26, for swamp buggy grounds; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 and CP- 2006 -11) [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Continued from the July 21, 2011 meeting, during the August 4, 2011 meeting the petitioner continued this item to the 91112011 meeting: DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147: Hacienda Lakes DRI -- A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approving a Development Order for Hacienda Lakes, a Development of Regional Impact located in Sections 11 through 14 and 23 through 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida which will allow up to 1,760 residential dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care, 327,500 square feet of retail.use, 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office including a conversion of retail use to professional and medical office, a 135 -room hotel including a conversion to business park, 140,000 square feet of business park or educational facility, a public school, and continuation of existing "Junior Deputy" passive recreation and existing "swamp buggy" attraction; providing for Findings of Fact; providing for Conclusions of Law; and providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146 and CP- 2006 -11) [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] C. Note: This item has been continued by the petitioner from the August 4, 2011 meeting, then continued from the August 18, 2011 meeting: PUDA- PL2011 -703: Pine Ridge Center West PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2001 -09, the Pine Ridge Center West Planned Unit Development (PUD) by amending Section 3.3, Permitted Uses; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 8.87 + /- acres, is located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] Page 2 of 3 161 2 47 � 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Friendly Reminder - CCPC "Special' meeting for the AUIR/CIE will be on Thursday, September 29`h (if continued; again on Friday, September 30`h) and the EAR - Amendments workshop will be on Friday, October 14`h (if continued; again on Tuesday, October 18`h) 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp Page 3 of 3 161 2 ,A7 August 18, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 130 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 18, 2011 1 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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following member present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Melissa Ahern Fiala `:.. 1" Donna Reed -Caron Hiller Diane Ebert Henning Karen Homiak Coyle Barry Klein Coletta L Paul Midney Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Jamie French, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 11 Misc. Torres: Date: \� Item tl —x— 2 W'1 "pie's to: 16 1 2 A7' August 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 18th 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, will the secretary please do the roll call. 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 or not here, I don't know which. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll probably come in late. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Addenda to the agenda. I guess now is as good a time as any to discuss Item 9.A. We're not going to be calling it because the petitioner's here to request a continuance. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Mr. Strain. Yes, we were unable to get with the bank, which was the reason that we continued in the first place, and schedule a meeting. We do have one scheduled. It's tomorrow. And we did send them a rendering, a couple of -- and a conceptual site plan so they could have a chance to review that before we meet with him. So we're meeting tomorrow, I think it's at 10:30 or 11:00, and so we respectfully request that we be continued so we continue to work with them. We'd like to come back on September 1 st, which doesn't require readvertising yet at this point, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any concerns? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMN USSIONERCARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.. Anybody opposed. (No response.) MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 (sic). Page 2 of 11 6, 161 Z A7 August 18, 2011 ^ Thank you, Bob. ** *Okay, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is September lst. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum. ** *Approval of minutes. We received the July 21st, 2011 minutes electronically. Anybody have any corrections, additions or changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -0 (sic). ** *Ray, any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: No report, since the Board of County Commissioners is on vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's been quiet. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Would that be eight or seven? I thought you said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, seven, you're right, the count of the commission vote. I forgot, Paul isn't here yet. ** *Okay, Chairman's report. Nothing new, so we'll just move right into the -- there's no consent agenda item, so we're right into the remaining advertised public hearings. Just so the record's clear, the first public hearing, which was PUDA- PL2011 -703, the Pine Ridge Center West PUD -- (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the board room.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was continued until September I st. ** *The next item up is -- actually, these two are going to be heard -- we'll discuss them together; I'll read them for the record together. They happen to be adjoining PUDs. They're coming in for some joint interconnections. Two of the PUDs we'll be discussing are PDI- PL2011 -0462, Bucks Run PUD. And PDI- PL2011 -0794, the Mission Church PUD. 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: Discussion on the part of Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had an e -mail from Michael Fernandez's office requesting a meeting, but after reading the documents there really wasn't a need to have a meeting, so we didn't. Michael, it's all yours. ^ MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, representing the Diocese of Venice. Page 3 of 11 � 161 2 A 7 August 18, 2011 As you can see, this is a relatively minor amendment. It's a --just an amendment to the master plan. Both churches are now owned; both parcels are owned by the same entity. The Diocese purchased the property to the north. And what we're doing is just facilitating an interconnection between the two properties for vehicular use and for pedestrians. And we're doing it compliant for fire access as well. This will facilitate the movement between the properties. It's something that actually was desired by the county at the time these properties were originally permitted. So hopefully -- if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but it's pretty innocuous. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had just one, Michael. When I'm looking at the exhibit for the Mission -- yeah, Mission, are we losing lake area and preserve area? I mean, we've got to be losing preserve area, because that's where you're driving through here now. MR. FERNANDEZ: We are losing preserve area. However, the requirement for preserves is 15 percent, or 5.33 acres. Even after removal of the preserve area, we'll be in excess of the requirements. COMMISSIONER CARON: What will you have in the end? I can't read it. MR. FERNANDEZ: All we're committing to in the PUD is the 15 percent. We didn't modify that. The PUD required 5.33. We will still have 5.33 as a minimum. But on the SDP, our calculations indicate that we'll be above that requirement. So there's no loss in preserves relative to the zoning document itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And what about the lake area? MR. FERNANDEZ: The lake areas were conceptual. As it turned out, there aren't any lake areas on the property. Because of the rock elevation we weren't able to build lakes, and so those became water management marshes. Those were permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. We have excess capacity on the property. There's no changes to the water management that's proposed as a result of what we're doing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report? And I'm assuming your presentation was for both PUDs simultaneously? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe you could do the same thing, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of the Bucks Run PUD and Mission Church PUD PDIs this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. I notice Nick couldn't be here, he probably had another important engagement, windsurfing or something, but Jamie is. And the only thing I'd like to ask is that as staff goes through the changes to the admin. code and other documents that are amending the need for a, let's say, a drawn -out public hearing, that they look at issues like this to include in things that can be done administratively. This is an encouragement by our codes to have interconnections. There is no compatibility issues with their location to surrounding properties outside the properties in which are owned by the applicant. So I Page 4 of 11 161 2 A7 August 18, 2011 really think that in the future we could save a lot of time and money if we just simply looked at that ^ administratively with those kinds of criteria. And if that applied, I don't -- I mean, I would hope that we could find a way to not bring these things into this kind of a hearing. So anyway, it's a suggestion. I know you're making a list out, and so maybe you could throw that into the mix. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to take them both separately. And with all the stipulations that we have, I'll read off the first one and then ask for a motion. Oh, Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Not on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion on PDI- PL2011 -0462, the Bucks Run PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made a motion -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: 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: The motion carries 7 -0 -- or 8 -0, Barry. Paul's here. Hi, Paul. The second motion would be on PDI- PL2011 -0794, the Mission Church PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. I'm assuming in all cases the motion is to recommend approval. With that in mind, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. n Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 5 of 11 y "R b 161 2 A7 August 18, 2011 really think that in the future we could save a lot of time and money if we just simply looked at that ^ administratively with those kinds of criteria. And if that applied, I don't -- I mean, I would hope that we could find a way to not bring these things into this kind of a hearing. So anyway, it's a suggestion. I know you're making a list out, and so maybe you could throw that into the mix. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to take them both separately. And with all the stipulations that we have, I'll read off the first one and then ask for a motion. Oh, Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Not on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion on PDI- PL2011 -0462, the Bucks Run PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made a motion -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: 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: The motion carries 7 -0 -- or 8 -0, Barry. Paul's here. Hi, Paul. The second motion would be on PDI- PL2011 -0794, the Mission Church PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. I'm assuming in all cases the motion is to recommend approval. With that in mind, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. n Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 5 of 11 tt�.w 161 2 August 18, 2011 ` CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Cherie', I told you this -- we're going to be moving here today. So I'm not sure about the next one, though. We got some time on this one. * * *So the next item coming up is our last hearing for the day, it's a conditional use. It's CU- PL2011 -579, the Garden Street -- it's actually recycling -- or metal collection and transfer station off of Airport Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got the same disclosure I had on the last one with Michael's office by e -mail. COMMISSIONER AHERN: We received an e -mail I believe from a neighboring property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got something in our packet. I'm not sure if it came in e-mail. But yeah, I saw that. Okay, you're right. But that's in the packets as well, I think. Maybe it is. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I received it I think yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you? Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It was in the packet too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: At the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michael, it's all yours again. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, again, Commissioners. It's Michael Fernandez, representing Naples Lumber. This is an existing property that has been developed. It was developed in about 2000. It's permitted throughout the South Florida Water Management District. It's compliant. We have gone and looked at the property. It's still consistent with the approvals that were given at the time. Until fairly recently it was used as a truss plant for Naples Lumber. As you -- let me put the master plan on the viewer. As you take a look at this master plan, basically we're just overlaying an existing -- the existing survey of the property. There's two large buildings there that are largely open, basically covered areas. And most of the property is impervious. The public park is to the north, facing the roadway. And then there's a perimeter buffer. To the south of the property there's a Water Management District canal. That's part of the overall water management system for the industrial park. The improvements that are required to the property to facilitate a relocation of the existing facilities that this -- that the future user has on Shirley Street right now. It's a much smaller facility they'll be relocating here. And in anticipation of future growth, they figure we've got a down turn right now, it's a good time to come back and get ready for the future. This will allow them to increase their capacity for acceptance of metals and other recycling materials. This facility will be used as a transfer station. They do know there's a prohibition in our agreement of no shredding. And essentially all the work in terms of shredding and other change of materials, if you will, will be done in their facility, as it is now in Fort Myers. And there they have a large shredder and they process the materials and then ship them out for reuse. So essentially it's a transfer station. We don't believe that this is any more intensive of a use than other uses in the adjacent areas, and no more intensive than the uses that were on the property previously that did not require a conditional use. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to additional restrictions, including no outside storage that would be higher than the buffers or walls that are required around the perimeter south of and along the facade of the front building. So to the public, nothing will be in view, other than the structures themselves. Additionally, they've agreed to add a facade to the front elevation of the building to give it a more architectural appearance, if you will. Page 6 of 11 i 16 2 A7 August 18, 2011 The parking will -- the public parking and use areas will remain north or forward of the building. So we believe that those additional restrictions provide for compatibility with adjacent neighbors. I mentioned that this is the relocation. The existing facility on Shirley Street has been operating under a conditional use since 1993. A search of the records and talking to staff and adjacent neighbor shows that it's been a good neighbor. There was one small blemish on the record relative to signage that was put out, a sandwich sign. It was removed immediately as soon as they were notified that that was in violation. There's an existing county facility immediately adjacent to their existing facility on Shirley Street that hasn't reported any issues as well. With that, I'll be happy to address any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michael, the only concern I have is storing maybe too close to the street. And I know you want to start being able to pile outside storage in line with the front facade, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. But those areas will be shielded south of that facade and south of those entry gates. In other words, we're going to come back, you can see by the drawing that we've committed to providing the same height buffer. So if it's eight feet, we'll have eight feet of buffer and landscaping that will basically create an enclosure except for the driveway where of course there is no storage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But wouldn't I be able to look across the parking and see that stuff? I mean, you're going to put it on the -- what would be the eastern and western parking places that you no longer need; is that right? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, would it be a big problem to move it back a little further? Because it will be visible from the street. I know if you did a straight -on elevation maybe not, but people driving down the street will look across the parking and see it. MR. FERNANDEZ: We can probably agree to move it back to those first two islands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That would be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, just so we get this stipulation right that needs to be added, they're going to move what back to the first two islands? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There will be no outdoor storage northward of the first island in the parking lots on the east and west boundary. I mean, if you want to, too, you can move the barrier back there too. Well, that would mess up the island, don't do that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think they're going to have security too, and I think that's part of it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you point to the location that he's referring to on this master plan? MR. FERNANDEZ: Here and here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll let staff figure out -- or probably stipulate that as an addition to the motion, but I'll let staff figure out how to word it so it correlates with the master plan, or maybe show it as a dotted line in addition to the master plan, so it's clear. MR. FERNANDEZ: If we could just stipulate that it will be located at the island. It's depicted to the east or west. I think that will define it at this time, and that way we don't have to make any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I want to make sure that we understand is that through the SDP process I'm not sure these islands have been calculated out through the widths needed to get there, so MR. FERNANDEZ: They are. In fact, those are existing islands right now, and they're to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Does anybody else have anything? (No response.) 10-1.1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My questions, I just got a couple of staff when we get to the staff report. Why don't we do that now then. Page 7 of 11 6 Z August 18, 2011 Thank you, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Land Development Services. And we are recommending approval of this petition, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, let's start with the master plan. The notation right at the bottom of the page where it says approximate location of northern outdoor storage screen. Screen shall be a hedge, wall or opaque fencing or a combination of these screens. What determines what scenario is used? MS. GUNDLACH: It means they could use one of the three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But is there a reason why they would have to use any one of the three over any other? Is there an opacity that has to be reached or something like that? MS. GUNDLACH: They would just have to have 100 percent opacity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would have -- MR. GUNDLACH: -- in order to meet the outdoor -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's already -- MR. GUNDLACH: -- screening requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in our code? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that would be per LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go and move that plan -- maybe Ray could do that for you -- so we can see the general condition notes up on the upper right -hand corner of the plan, and maybe bring those up a little closer. There you go. There's seven notes here. Is there a reason why one through six need to be on this plan? And the reason I'm asking the question is because they're either, from what I can understand, all subject to Land Development Code issues, Water Management District issues, and having them on this plan could only confuse the issue in the future. So why do we need them here? MS. GUNDLACH: You can remove them, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One through six. I think seven's fine, no on -site shredding of metal. Although the exhibit to the conditional use says that. But, I mean, I don't care if that one's on there. But one through six I think could be a contradictory point in the future in someone reading this. For example, number two, stormwater management permitted through that permit. Well, what if they have to change the perimeter and modify it to make it better or standards change? Well, they're locked into -- this locks the CU into that. And I'd just as soon provide the flexibility on both sides to make sure we're not locked into something that could get better in the future. So I would suggest we drop the one through six from this plan as general comments. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that's the only questions I had. And I did read the letter we've gotten from the one neighbor. Every one of his issues, from as best I can tell, would be better addressed at SDP level. And they're all addressed by current requirements within the code. So did you read it and have the same conclusion? MS. GUNDLACH: I had that same conclusion, but also they mentioned something about EPA. And please keep in mind that that is -- the Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency, so they would be responsible for their regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, did you have something? MR. FERNANDEZ: I did happen to speak to the gentleman. His property is actually not abutting Page 8 of 11 161 I August 18, 201 this, it's actually on the block to the north of us, so it doesn't abut. His concerns mainly stem from the fact n that he is lower in elevation, and he's had flooding issues. And I did talk to the Water Management District. They did confirm that our property is downstream. So what we're doing won't affect him, and our proposal does not increase our impervious area. I explained that to him. And his was more concerns as opposed to an objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, even -- I mean, I know what you just said. But even downstream facilities, if they tend to create more pervious area -- or impervious area so that you have less percolation, you could end up backing up as it moves south. So, I mean, I understand South Florida's comment, but at the same time I think he does have a relevant concern. But I do believe that's handled in the SDP process, so thank you. Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Sir, if you wish to speak, come on up and identify yourself on the microphone and tell us what's on your mind. You need to -- were you sworn in when we started the meeting? MR. SIMMONDS: No, I just arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you'll have to raise your right hand, this lady will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SIMMONDS: I came in in the middle of this, and I want to make sure we're talking about the Garden Street -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SIMMONDS: Okay, that was the last thing on the agenda, so I wanted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We move fast. ^ MR. SIMMONDS: I've been property owner and businessman on -- at Metro Park since '92. And during that course of time I've seen and met and had a lot of people that also are property owners there and small business owners, and they're furniture makers and cabinetmakers and furniture designers. And they have and I have a very strong stand against this because of the amount of dust and congestion that this is going to add to the already busy road. We have the Waste Management's trucks, probably 40 or 50 trucks a day. We have trucks from the Peluso Movers. We have trucks from the Collier tire place that are continuously up and down there. And on that road there's -- there is industry, but there isn't any trash transfer or there isn't any refuse storage or junkyard or scrapyard. Now, there is some of that further up in the north end of this project. And of course a good place for this would be at the landfill. But getting back to my particular location. And the people that are around me have very strong concerns that there's going to be an unnecessary, or a very large influx of trucks, roll -off trucks that create dirt and mud and dust going up and down the road. And it's very, very evidenced by going to the transfer site or the CD operation that's in our same project up to the north. We live on a -- we're on a road that has no direct access from Airport Road, it has no direct access from Livingston Road, and it just seems like this is not the best location, if we're looking out for the community and for the people that are already there and that have been there for these years. And everybody here is faced with a struggle just to stay alive. But for the sake of the county is concerned, there shouldn't be a -- it's not any better for the county to have it on Enterprise or Exchange or Shirley Street than it would be to have it out at the landfill, because the revenues are still going to be there. So I think it's important that we think about the people that are already there. The truss plant, which closed down a couple of years ago due to the economic situation, produced a lot of truck traffic, and that was able to be dealt with. But this is going to be a lot, lot heavier. ^ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, couple comments. You had mentioned that this doesn't have direct access to Airport Road. Actually, it's midway in the Page 9 of 11 a' . 161 Z A? August 18, 2011 park between Livingston Road and Airport Road, so it has access to both. MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, but there's no traffic signal. And there's -- they can only turn one way to get out. And they can only really get in with no signal. So this is just going to increase the amount of congestion there at that turn point. And its the same way on the other end, but only -- actually worse, because it has to go out on Industrial, is it, or Commercial and make a zigzag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are various signals sporadically along Livingston going in and out of the park. MR. SIMMONDS: Right. But nothing on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But nothing on that -- I understand that. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing is the truss plant that operated there -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they built wood trusses, which means they had a lot of saws. And they're triple axle trucks. Ones that would deliver to my sites were substantial in length, forklifts and cranes to move stuff around. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand why you think the sorting of the metal would be -- MR. SIMMONDS: Well, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- more intrusive than that was -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, that truss plant had a delivery or a pickup once a day. This is going to be a continuous thing. This is going to be continuous from the time they're open till the time they're closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you load trusses you load one set on the truck at a time. If you're going out for five houses, 10 houses a day, one an hour, you're going to have more than one truck a day. You're loading out for every house you take a load out to. MR. SIMMONDS: Right, right. Well, one load takes up -- could be 10 houses, depending on the size of the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, trucks don't load it like that. But Michael -- and I appreciate your time. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Michael, do you have any rebuttal you'd like to make a note of? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, just that based on the analysis that we've made, talking to the owner of the former truss plant and also looking at their facility off Shirley Street, there'll actually be less vehicles at this site or moving in and out of this site than the existing lumber yard -- or the truss plant. So we don't see that it's going to be an uptick in the amount of traffic that will be generated. MR. SIMMONDS: Well, there's zero trucks moving in and out now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with the stipulations and the additional stipulations with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Melissa. Okay, the motion was for recommendation of approval. The stipulations were involving the forward Page 10 of 11 e: 161 Z A? August 18, 2011 park between Livingston Road and Airport Road, so it has access to both. MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, but there's no traffic signal. And there's -- they can only turn one way to get out. And they can only really get in with no signal. So this is just going to increase the amount of congestion there at that turn point. And its the same way on the other end, but only -- actually worse, because it has to go out on Industrial, is it, or Commercial and make a zigzag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are various signals sporadically along Livingston going in and out of the park. MR. SIMMONDS: Right. But nothing on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But nothing on that -- I understand that. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing is the truss plant that operated there -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they built wood trusses, which means they had a lot of saws. And they're triple axle trucks. Ones that would deliver to my sites were substantial in length, forklifts and cranes to move stuff around. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand why you think the sorting of the metal would be -- MR. SIMMONDS: Well, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- more intrusive than that was -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, that truss plant had a delivery or a pickup once a day. This is going to be a continuous thing. This is going to be continuous from the time they're open till the time they're closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you load trusses you load one set on the truck at a time. If you're going out for five houses, 10 houses a day, one an hour, you're going to have more than one truck a day. You're loading out for every house you take a load out to. MR. SIMMONDS: Right, right. Well, one load takes up -- could be 10 houses, depending on the size of the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, trucks don't load it like that. But Michael -- and I appreciate your time. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Michael, do you have any rebuttal you'd like to make a note of? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, just that based on the analysis that we've made, talking to the owner of the former truss plant and also looking at their facility off Shirley Street, there'll actually be less vehicles at this site or moving in and out of this site than the existing lumber yard -- or the truss plant. So we don't see that it's going to be an uptick in the amount of traffic that will be generated. MR. SIMMONDS: Well, there's zero trucks moving in and out now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with the stipulations and the additional stipulations with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Melissa. Okay, the motion was for recommendation of approval. The stipulations were involving the forward Page 10 of 11 61 2 A 7 August 18, 2011 distance of where things can be stored as we discussed involving those islands and the removal of the general conditions one through six that are shown on the master plan. Is that consistent for the motion maker -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the second? COMMISSIONER Al ERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Okay, thank you, appreciate your time today. ** *Old business? Any brought forward? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *New business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from -- any other comments from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll seek a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,�/ c.,,— �,4 A STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on ( as presented v or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 11 of 11 A 7 161 September 1, 2011 COLLIER MEETING COUNTY PLANNINGCOMMISSION v Naples, Florida, September 1, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Also Present: �V/ iiier Henning Coyle Ccietta G Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Misc. Corres: Date: Item #:%1ok-= -2—W —j 'pies to: Page 1 of 86 l CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein ,n �a P 1A, y i ,y lb 1 A7 eptember 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 1 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's see. The back window is open, so Paul Midney must be here. Here he is. Since Paul is now here, let's do the roll call. 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. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Addenda to the agenda? We are continuing Hacienda Lakes till when, November? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any changes or addendum to the agenda for real? I know what we'd like to do. Ray, do you have anything? MR. BELLOWS: No changes from us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do -- I wanted to point out that our next meeting is September 15th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I won't be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert won't be here. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We still have a quorum. And a reminder, the 29th of -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I won't be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul won't be here. Okay. We'll -- let's see, one, two, three, four. Yeah. We'll still have a quorum. The last two days in September, I believe it is, a Thursday and Friday, the last two -- the last Thursday and Friday we do have special meetings for review of the AUIR. I'm not sure it needs to go two days. With the economic climate that we have, we -- I don't expect to see much on the AUK so we should have it just one day, I hope. And then, Ray, did we have meetings scheduled in October? Because I thought you had indicated to me at one point there weren't any. MR. BELLOWS: At the present time, I've just put together a look -ahead for -- through December, and right now we don't have any items scheduled for October, but there might be some in the next few wee ks. And I'll --next week I'll send out another revised one, and we'll know better if we'll have meetings in October or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission absences. We just discussed that. Approval of minutes. We have an August 4, 2011, set of minutes that was sent to.us electronically. Anybody have any comments, changes to those? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. Page 2 of 86 161 2A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Ahern. All those in favor, signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. We've got some electronic -- oh, there it is. Okay. BCC report. Ray, any recaps? Of course, no, they haven't met. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That takes care of that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a test. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took him a minute though. I asked you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would have come up with something. Chairman's report. Nothing really. I -- this project, being Hacienda Lakes, I woke up at 3:30, and you know what? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you have questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I had so much -- this thing got me thinking, because we've had so many versions, so I laid awake from that point forward, got up and read. So we do have some questions for today. I didn't want Richard to go away with nothing to be requested. ** *We'll move into our regular agenda. The first item up is the consent - agenda item. It's CP- 2006 -11. It's the Growth Management Plan amendment for Hacienda Lakes. It was the one item of the three that wasn't continued last time we had met. Is there any comments, corrections needed for that consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve by anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion we move to accept this as being consistent with the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Ahern. 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 EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 3 of 86 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Ahern. All those in favor, signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. We've got some electronic -- oh, there it is. Okay. BCC report. Ray, any recaps? Of course, no, they haven't met. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That takes care of that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a test. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took him a minute though. I asked you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would have come up with something. Chairman's report. Nothing really. I -- this project, being Hacienda Lakes, I woke up at 3:30, and you know what? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you have questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I had so much -- this thing got me thinking, because we've had so many versions, so I laid awake from that point forward, got up and read. So we do have some questions for today. I didn't want Richard to go away with nothing to be requested. ** *We'll move into our regular agenda. The first item up is the consent - agenda item. It's CP- 2006 -11. It's the Growth Management Plan amendment for Hacienda Lakes. It was the one item of the three that wasn't continued last time we had met. Is there any comments, corrections needed for that consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve by anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion we move to accept this as being consistent with the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Ahern. 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 EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 3 of 86 7 1 b ! 2 September 1, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. ** *The next consent item is CU- PL2011 -579. It's Garden Street recycling center, transfer station, whatever. I think it's both, metal collection and transfer station. Anybody have any comments or corrections needed based on the consent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we accept this as being consistent with the hearing. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The two on the end did the same thing again. With that, 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 EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you. ** *And now we'll get into the fun part of today's meeting. I'll read them both because we'll discuss them in conjunction, but we'll vote separately at the end of the discussion. The first one is PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146. That's the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. The second one is DRI-2006-AR- 10 147. Again, the Hacienda Lakes DRI. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Oh, I had one of those marathon meetings with Richard and Mr. Torres again. I think Bob and I have talked. Probably all the same disclosures from last time. But we did try to meet at length one evening this week to try to work through a wide variety of the issues that I had in order to expedite today's meeting. I also met with staff. We had a long meeting on the same project. So we will hit all those issues today. And, Richard, I don't know if you wanted to make a presentation, because we basically heard a presentation last time, but I thought before you do, I wanted to be most productive during the process of this meeting. We will certainly hear public speakers after we get done discussing everything, but I thought because of the language that was developed by the County Attorney's Office, in conjunction with your office, and certainly with staff, that between the three mikes, we could all -- everybody could get to a mike during this question - and -answer period, and we can get all the rebuttal and all the discourse going back and forth at one time instead of separating it out like we normally do. Do you have any problem with that process? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to briefly say, the way this worked since your last meeting -- and I'm glad it worked this way because we only had one person doing the edits, and it was the County Attorney's Office. So Heidi prepared a version that I believe is the 8/23 version that we're going to be working from today. We provided our comments to that version to Heidi, and we -- and Heidi and I and staff have discussed those changes, so there's very few changes to the version you have in front of us, and none of them are in disagreement between staff and us. So hopefully there's not going to be a lot of rebuttal back and forth. I know you -all may have some questions, but at least the version you have before you today, together with the revisions Heidi's going to present to you as we go through it, have been -- have been reviewed and agreed to between the petitioner and staff. There's maybe one example related to utilities later on that Heidi has not heard back from utilities yet. We'll explain why we want that changed. But with that exception, I think we're in agreement on what's going to be Page 4 of 86 sN _J f A7 16 t e tem er 1 2011 p presented by Heidi today, so hopefully that will reduce the rebuttal from us between us and staff and we'll, of course, address any questions the Planning Commission may have from the 8/23 language that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, getting up early this morning, it did give me an opportunity to slowly read your document, your 50 pages again, and so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Our 50 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not mine; yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mine and Heidi's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yours and Heidi's. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mine and Heidi's. MS. ASHTON: Some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: If I may, some of the questions you have may be answered as we go through the draft. The version that rve given Ray to put on the visualizer has yellow highlighting that shows where I changed it, because we had some difficulties with so many different copies in doing a red -line version that would capture everything. So we're going to work off -- if it's acceptable to the board, work off the clean version that you received in your agenda package, and we'll go over -- you can see on the visualizer what was changed, and then we'll discuss any changes to that document. I'd suggest we go that way, and then if you would like it, then you could open it up to general questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take it actually one or two pages at a time. The date on this, by the way, is 8/23/11; that's the version we will be reading off of for today's meeting. And, Kay, if you don't mind using that mike over there so you can kind of stand ready, then we can probably expedite the method in which we ask all these questions. MS. ASHTON: Okay. And there's one change before we even get to here because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got some too. So go ahead. MS. ASHTON: -- the ordinance that's in your package talks about partial repeal of the Swamp Buggy PUD, and the applicant had changed it or requested a full repeal. On an earlier draft I put "partial repeal" because it wasn't clear to me that that's what was occurring, that they wanted to repeal the older one, and since then they pulled in provisions from the Swamp Buggy PUD and requested the full repeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- I received a revision 8/8/11 with the packet that Ray's got on the screen right now as a cover. MS. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in that one it said, "It is hereby repealed." MS. ASHTON: The caption portion has the "partial repeal" language still in it, so I wanted to correct that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And, Richard, before we start, I'd like to ask staff just a couple general questions so the Planning Commission understands the -- I guess the magnitude of the project that we're discussing. So, Kay, I'd like to make sure we understand how much square footage of a commercial nature, commercial retail or whatever, is being allowed on that project, just so we know the numbers. And from my notes I can see we have 327,000 square feet of retail; 70,000 square feet of general office and medical, 50,000 of which can be put on an adjoining parcel, which is R/MU, but the cap is still at 70 -. We have a 92,000 cap for a hotel, but the hotel can be on Tract C or the BP tract. And we have 140,000 square feet for the BP, but if a hotel is not used on the commercial tract or the BP tract, the BP square footage goes up to 200,000. Now, if you use the base numbers, you're looking at a maximum of 629,000 square feet. Are we on the same page? MS. DESELEM: Those numbers sound, pardon me, like what I recall to be correct, and Heidi also has done some calculations. I want to verify that it matches what she has as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: The total commercial, including the BP and the hotel, is 627,500 is what I came up with. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. And I think you said 629 -? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Now I had 327- for the retail, 70- -- this is important. I want to make sure Page 5 of 86 A CA S 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 we're starting out on the same footage. It's 327- for the retail, 70- for the general office and medical combined, 92- for the hotel, and 140- for the BP. MS. ASHTON: I have three twenty -seven five; is that correct, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Three twenty -seven five. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, that's what I had, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five hundred? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're at 129,500. Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I believe Heidi had 90,000 at -- MS. ASHTON: Actually, I gave you the wrong number. It is 92- when I went and looked at the minutes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, okay, okay. MS. ASHTON: I can put my notes on the visualizer if that would help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. I want to get -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you've got 629 -. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't know yet. We've got 629,500 now. Now we've just got to see where it goes from there, but it's important. MS. DESELEM: The 500 as well. That's what -- I'm looking at the DRI development order document, comparing it with that, and that's what it shows as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred forty, ninety -two, seventy, and three hundred twenty -seven five. Anybody got a calculator? Because I've got that at 629,500. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we have it as as well. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Well, then my math is off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all in agreement six hundred -- MS. ASHTON: Which would be consistent with my PUD documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to swap and go back and forth and whatever, the maximum square footage that is nonresidential, excluding the school use, will be 629,500. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that kind of where we're at? Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's excluding both the school and any senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the senior housing -- we're going to get into that in a minute. If senior housing goes into commercial, it comes off the commercial square footage. If it goes in through the conversion to residential, that's what we're going to get into next, that conversion. So the commercial still stays the same, but if you use some of it up on senior housing, so be it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And just, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't finished with -- what I wanted to go is density next. The density is 1,232 multifamily, and then if you take the conversion -- we'll do the maximum. If you take the conversions for the RV and the conversions for the senior housing, you would end up with 309 single - family, 290 RV, and 450 senior housing. Is that where we're at? COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you run over the numbers one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Twelve thirty-two for multifamily. COMMISSIONER CARON: Multi, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, there's a conversion for RV and there's a conversion for senior housing. What I'm trying to determine, what is the maximum density? So let's use those conversions, because that increases the density. So if you take those conversions out of the single - family, that leaves you 309 single- family, and the conversion then adds 290 RV and 450 senior housing. MS. DESELEM: That correlates with my numbers as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't know how you got to your 1,232 number, because we start with -- Page 6 of 86 A7 p 16 1 Se tem er 1 2011 MR. BELLOWS: It's in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if I've got a typo, I want to know. MR. YOVANOVICH: We start with 1,760 residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve thirty-two. It's on Page -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on a second. We start with 1,760. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of those 1,760, a maximum of those 1,760, of -- 1,232 could be multi - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: The difference is, you add whatever that number -- difference is, is what -- 528 will be single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Then you can convert either multifamily or single - family to RV or senior housing. So I don't know -- so then you take -- so -- so we can go a maximum of 450 single of senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a one -to -one -- the conversion is the same. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's four -to -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a conversion; whether it's single - family or multifamily, it's the same. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four -to -one, right. So I'd rather not talk about multifamily numbers and single- family numbers and concrete numbers, but density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's -- I'm just trying to work through the math, if you'll be patient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four hundred fifty divided by four is what, 112 units, so you would reduce the 1,760 by 112, and then on the RV's you would do -- add that. Somebody's got to do the math. I'm just trying to make sure we agree to the same math numbers. MS. ASHTON: It's 106 that I get. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have to give up 106 more dwelling units to get to the 290. So 106 and 112. I'm just trying to make sure we got the same number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're at 310 rounded up instead of down, but -- okay. So you're about 310 single- family then. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Three hundred ten off the seventeen sixty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's 1,450, right? Plus 290, plus 450. That would be what the max would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want the number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to get to it. I want staff to agree to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want the county attorney to agree to it. I want everybody to understand what it is. So let's go there again. What are we talking for total multifamily -- no, total density? Seventeen sixty for single- family after you take the deducts. You're looking at -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But we could take the deducts from the multifamily side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just saying that. So let's take the residential -- after we take the deducts, the total residential, you're at 1,542; is that right? MR. GARCIA: Fifteen forty-one point three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 1,541. And to that you're going to add 290 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: RVs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and four fifty -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Four fifty senior. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So you could do 1,541 single - family if you can meet the trips, or you can do up to twelve -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty multifamily. MS. ASHTON: -- thirty-two multifamily of those fifteen -- Page 7 of 86 4 161 Z A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number comes out to the same total I got, 2,281. MR. GARCIA: Twenty -two eighty -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we all on the same thing? MS. DESELEM: I think we got there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's just an exercise to show you how difficult this document is to review. MS. DESELEM: Trust me, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you're going to have those numbers, why wouldn't they be in the document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. We're going in a lot of directions here, and that's one of them I wanted to go in, but I also wanted to understand and I wanted to get it on record how they're perceiving the conversion. It looks like it's optional whether it's single - family or multifamily. Does that make any difference to your -- I shouldn't say "your" department, the transportation department. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does in trips. It's a different trip generation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But the difference is, we've got a cap on the project trips overall, so we can't exceed that cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not using the mike. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's capped on trips, so there's a different generation between single - family and multifamily. So we -- as long as those project trips are submitted and stay the same, I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. When -- so out of 2,281 units, multifamily and higher - density projects have less trips than single- family? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'll probably -- I don't know what the market's going to dictate to them, but how does the trips generated by motor homes and -- although senior housing is a much lower trip rate. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the trip rate for motor homes higher or lower? It's got to be higher -- I mean lower, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's lower, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lower, okay. Kay, how's staff going to track this? MS. DESELEM: Carefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carefully. MS. DESELEM: No, what -- I'm being facetious. The applicant will be required to provide a running total each and every time they submit for any county approvals, whether it be plat or SDP. We will be tracking it through that as well as through the PUD and DRI monitoring process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the reference to the totals in this document, is there a scenario that would be better to have language added to the document referencing these maximums that all this tallies up to? Would that help or hinder staff, or is there a way to get that? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Would you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just established two maximum parameters for this project, that until we did this at this public meeting, I don't think anybody -- I don't think as many of us may have realized it. But we're talking about 2,281 for the total density and 629,500 for the total nonresidential square footage. I just -- it's that -- those numbers do not appear anywhere in this document, and I'm just wondering, is it -- would it -- is there a way that they should appear? Is it something that would be helpful? MS. ASHTON: I don't think so. I think it will create more confusion, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that we understand the magnitude of the project, we can continue talking about it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's just -- not to disagree with the county attorney. If you combine that with the total trips in one statement, in no case shall this document exceed six hundred and twenty -nine five thousand (sic) and twenty -two hundred eighty -one, and the equivalent trips that were approved, then we know we have two thresholds Page 8 of 86 161 A7 Septem er 1, 2011 that we're looking at every time we review a submittal. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in there. In the land -use conversion -- Exhibit B talks about every one of the things you just talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Does it provide the totals though, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does -- no, it provides the individuals. It doesn't provide the total, but it does say that the whole project cannot generate more than -- the project, including commercial and residential, cannot exceed 3,328 p.m. peak hour trips. And that document -- it's in the document -- I don't know -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I knew the trip cap was in there because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And then the individual caps are all in that document as well, you're right. We didn't add them up to come up to the 620, whatever was the number, and the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't -- why don't we put it in the same paragraph that trip number's in? That would help track everything. Because this has been a very confusing document. I don't even know if the agencies that reviewed it realize the capacities that we're talking about. MS. ASHTON: The only thing that might be of assistance that I don't think would -- because I think the agreement -- or the PUD's about as tight as I could make it as far as removing ambiguity. But we could do an exhibit that has examples of development scenarios where, you know, you could do -- if they did the 290 RVs and they did the 450 housing, you know, senior housing in the residential, we could do different examples of how it could be developed. But once you start putting text into the PUD, it will create confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I would like to see something added to this document that at least explains as an example the maximum totals this project could get to with the provision that the cap on traffic impacts will not be exceeded regardless of the combination of square footage and density. Is that that hard to get to? I'm just -- is it -- would it be helpful? If it's not going to be helpful, I don't want to see it happen. I'm thinking it would be helpful for staff to track it in the future. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: In my opinion, that would be very helpful for staff in the future, especially if current staff isn't around to explain. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I suggest a location for that, if you don't mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you would go to -- I believe it's Page 17. I'm sorry. It's Page 18 on the August 23rd version. I would add a sentence at the end of the residential density that totals the number you just said, and then under the commercial at the end of that first paragraph, I would add the same number. We probably need to convert that 135 hotel rooms to the 92,000 square feet, or we could put it at the end of the next paragraph, either way, to come up with what your number is for the 600- and change for commercial -- potential nonresidential, put it there, and then we'd be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Well, the problem is once you insert it I don't think that I'm going to be prepared by the end of the meeting to have a legally sufficient document. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not worried about that. I want it done right. MS. ASHTON: Okay. I mean, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The most important thing is that we get this as clear as possible so that when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation, it's one that they can understand without having to spend two or three or four days trying to figure this project out. And I'm looking at this as a clarification not only for their benefit but also the benefit of the public and the members of the staff that have to review this in case the current staff disappears, all go on vacation or retire early, who knows. But regardless, I think it's an important issue to know. And if it doesn't need to be here, I'm not forcing it. I'm just suggesting it. It sounds like Ray had indicated it would be helpful. Heidi, I think it just needs to be added. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you and Richard can work out a way to add it, that's great, but it ought to get done. Ms. Caron? Page 9 of 86 16 1 S 2 A7 eptember 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Under the paragraph that talks about the peak -hour trips, I think that that's a little confusing, too, because it -- it's under a heading -- well, it looks like it's under a heading that talks about commercial intensity, and that's not it. It's the total project intensity. You have to read the whole paragraph to get down here. But then the last line says that the hotel doesn't count against square footage, so does that mean it doesn't count against trips as well? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, trips are there. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We analyzed it in the trips. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: People don't look at the trip analysis when they're doing this, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I know that goes back to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just want to make it clear again that my only goal is to make it clear. And I'm not sure, I think it probably can be handled by a heading that says -- you know, where it says residential density, residential density and commercial intensity, then there should be another heading here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you can move that sentence down, maybe put in bold "maximum trip generation." COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then we can move that sentence down there. That should be a pretty easy change to make. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It just needs to look like it encompasses all of the above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move forward, make sure we've got all the general issues out of the way. And we can start -- and since these are double -sided pages, why don't we run it two pages at a time. Heidi, did you -- you look like you wanted to say something. MS. ASHTON: You know, and if you're on the exhibit, I'll just explain briefly what the change was that I made to the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to start -- we're going to do Pages 1 and 2 to start with, so if you have -- why don't we start with your information on Pages 1 and 2, and then we can come back to the panel and see if there's any comments from us. MS. ASHTON: Can you pull it away so they can see the whole page, or do you just want to see the language that I changed? MR. BELLOWS: Up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language that you changed is all that -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. All right. The main change that was made right here with this yellow language is we eliminated the multifamily to single- family conversion and we called the residential units just residential units. So we eliminated a conversion, and the maximum units for multifamily took the 1,056, which was their anticipated number of multifamily, and then added the limitation of the 25- percent conversion, which came from a later exhibit, and that's when the total comes to 1,232 when you add those together. So based on what they were proposing, the maximum multifamily of those residential units would be 1,232, and we made residential units sort of universal instead of classifying them as single - family or multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then I added a sentence that the county and developer would each maintain a master list of converted uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything on Page 2? Let's let her finish, and then we'll jump into us, ourselves. MS. ASHTON: Do you have a question on that page, Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, but you finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: So you want to go to the second page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to take two pages at a time, because that's how -- when we open them up, they're front and back. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Then let's go to the second page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll ask you all our questions at one time. Page 10 of 86 iw� 16 1 S 2 A7 eptember 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Under the paragraph that talks about the peak -hour trips, I think that that's a little confusing, too, because it -- it's under a heading -- well, it looks like it's under a heading that talks about commercial intensity, and that's not it. It's the total project intensity. You have to read the whole paragraph to get down here. But then the last line says that the hotel doesn't count against square footage, so does that mean it doesn't count against trips as well? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, trips are there. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We analyzed it in the trips. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: People don't look at the trip analysis when they're doing this, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I know that goes back to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just want to make it clear again that my only goal is to make it clear. And I'm not sure, I think it probably can be handled by a heading that says -- you know, where it says residential density, residential density and commercial intensity, then there should be another heading here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you can move that sentence down, maybe put in bold "maximum trip generation." COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then we can move that sentence down there. That should be a pretty easy change to make. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It just needs to look like it encompasses all of the above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move forward, make sure we've got all the general issues out of the way. And we can start -- and since these are double -sided pages, why don't we run it two pages at a time. Heidi, did you -- you look like you wanted to say something. MS. ASHTON: You know, and if you're on the exhibit, I'll just explain briefly what the change was that I made to the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to start -- we're going to do Pages 1 and 2 to start with, so if you have -- why don't we start with your information on Pages 1 and 2, and then we can come back to the panel and see if there's any comments from us. MS. ASHTON: Can you pull it away so they can see the whole page, or do you just want to see the language that I changed? MR. BELLOWS: Up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language that you changed is all that -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. All right. The main change that was made right here with this yellow language is we eliminated the multifamily to single- family conversion and we called the residential units just residential units. So we eliminated a conversion, and the maximum units for multifamily took the 1,056, which was their anticipated number of multifamily, and then added the limitation of the 25- percent conversion, which came from a later exhibit, and that's when the total comes to 1,232 when you add those together. So based on what they were proposing, the maximum multifamily of those residential units would be 1,232, and we made residential units sort of universal instead of classifying them as single - family or multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then I added a sentence that the county and developer would each maintain a master list of converted uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything on Page 2? Let's let her finish, and then we'll jump into us, ourselves. MS. ASHTON: Do you have a question on that page, Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, but you finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: So you want to go to the second page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to take two pages at a time, because that's how -- when we open them up, they're front and back. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Then let's go to the second page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll ask you all our questions at one time. Page 10 of 86 16 1 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. ASHTON: Okay. So at the top part under senior housing we -- at the last meeting the definition was changed to "senior housing." And in talking with Ms. Deselem, we needed to have a definition of senior housing. So instead of saying "including but not limited to," we've put "limited to" so that we knew what we were talking about. And I also changed the words to "derived from." I thought that was a little more clear. And land -use conversion factors, that was just using the correct -- the definition of what it was called on the later page. And then I put in "the entire PUD" so that it didn't read that they could have 450 in this one as well as in the commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ASHTON: Then the Planning Commission had raised issues with the definition of "community facilities," so I changed it to "recreational facilities" to serve the PUD. And we added the one -acre limitation for the state -- for the size of a lot they can have a horse, or two. So you can have two horses. You're not limited to one horse. But if you want one horse, then you can do that. And then you can see here we separated out the RV tract to its own tract, is what you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure there's going to be questions. Ms. Ebert, you wanted to start? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, and it's starting out with acreages. I happened to pull the old PUD for the swamp buggy. It was 129 acres. In the development order it shows 61 acres, and on Page 1 of 50 it shows 47 acres. Why such a big discrepancy? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and I -- let me -- I'm going to put the -- I'm going to put a master plan up on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And wasn't the Junior Deputy part of the swamp buggy? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. A couple of things. The Junior Deputies site was part of the Swamp Buggy PUD and so was lands north of Lords Way, which are now designated on our property either as BP or residential. So you're right, the number was larger, but we own portions of the Swamp Buggy PUD, and we're developing those portions of the Swamp Buggy PUD as either business park or residential, so that's why the numbers are lower, because we're no longer having the Swamp Buggy PUD on the full acreage. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's all the questions on that, but also -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To address the last change that Heidi had put up there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let us ask our questions first -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- unless, Ms. Ebert, did you have a question about anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. When we get to that portion, I will ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Pages 1 and 2. Does anybody have any -- go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: While you're there talking about the acreage, in this Exhibit A at the top of the project land -use tracts, the acreage, the total, if you total those numbers up, is wrong, because it -- and it's mentioned in the master plan that there's 2 -- 2.51 acres of right -of -way in the commercial, and you've added that -- it's added twice here in this. There's a notation in the master plan that pulls it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But this is just the wrong -- it's off -- it's just the wrong total. I don't know if there should be some notation there to reflect what it is in the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't -- to be honest with you, I didn't do the math. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Commercial Tract C, you have it as 3,667. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixty- seven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And 2.51 acres of that is right -of -way, and then that's also in the -- included in the 72.01. So you've added it twice --this just totals --this totals up to two -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's two acres more. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- 264.65, this total right here that you're looking at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's not what you have here is the total. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, there just should be some notation. It's in the master plan. If we look on the master plan, it's right there. Page 11 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll look at that, but I'll -- and we'll -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just not correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have an explanation as to why it is. Well, we'll look at that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When? MR. YOVANOVICH: Now. Dwight's going to do the math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you've got a legal description attached to this document, and if the acreage is wrong -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- its going to change a few things, so we need to understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: But let us do the math calculation, and then I'll explain which or both is the right number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any question -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, is a townhouse with three units or more multifamily? MS. ASHTON: Yeah. The definition in the LDC is three or more units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Heidi, we discussed that they would have the ability to convert 65 percent of hotels to BP. Is that -- is that referenced in here, or are we leaving that out? MS. ASHTON: No. I don't recall that direction, so that is not in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it is. It's later. It's later in the document. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- yes, we do address the conversion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? When you come up with a total for your acreage, you need to do it off your legal descriptions that are on Pages 30, 31, 32, and 33. You've got 57 -- 58.5 acres -- do 2,320.6 less 58.5 acres. You may find it doesn't add up there either. Hopefully as you look at that we'll get to a result. In your density discussion after your land -use tracts are laid out, the caretakers' units that appear on multiple tracts, last meeting I understood they are to be included as part of the density. Is that still correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I may have missed it. As we go through, if -- wherever that is, point it out to me, if you don't mind. I'll try to catch it again. I made a note in each one of the references to caretaker that it needs to make sure we count them as density. And, Heidi, your language under Tract R where you add "a developer and the county shall each maintain a master list of converted uses for this PUD," wouldn't the county just be accepting and verifying the list provided by the applicant? It wouldn't be our responsibility to maintain their projects' density. It would be them to confirm to us what it is and us to review it to make sure its that way. MS. ASHTON: The intent was that the county would maintain their own list, but that's really a staff question as to whether or not they're willing to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just takes staff time to keep track of it, and I'm just wondering if that's what they intended to do, or there is a -- as we go into this document, one of the language changes I was going to suggest, that with every SDP and plat that's submitted they submit an updated density table. They had indicated they were going to, but they didn't -- I didn't -- the language isn't tied tight enough to SDP and plats. But if that happens, what else would staff have to do to maintain it? Why would staff need to be maintaining a list separate from what they're providing? MR. BELLOWS: Well, through PUD monitoring, we want to make sure when the building permits come in that we don't exceed the approved totals. But if they are submitting those running totals with the -- each SDP or plat that comes in, that's one thing. But we have to make sure that what they've submitted is correct if we have to keep a master total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand you're going to keep it. I just want to make sure the responsibility for it lies with the developer, not with staff. MR. BELLOWS: I think it has to be a combination though. Page 12 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. DESELEM: Staff would not necessarily be generating the report. We'd be verifying the information on the report. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Tract RV issue -- and I don't know if, Richard, this is where you were going to go. Can we see the master plan that we're -- there wasn't a master plan in this revision that we've got? MR. YOVANOVICH: And since speaking -- I'm sorry. Since speaking with Heidi, the way we're going to handle it on the master plan -- and you don't have this. We did this because this is the document that takes the longest to make the changes with the hope of staying on the consent agenda -- the area where it says R or RV, we had talked about at the last meeting, we can either do a residential project on that area, which starts right here where this dotted line is, or we can do an RV park. So the way we handled it in the document it's R or RV on the master plan. If we do the RV, we follow the guidelines in the PUD applicable to Tract RV. If we do residential, we follow the guidelines in the PUD Exhibit A labeled Tract R. MS. ASHTON: And the only change on here would be when you go to the block -- if I'm interrupting, please CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. We've got to get this accomplished. MS. ASHTON: It says R or RV, and then residential or RV, that just needs to say RV and take out the residential over there in the block. You understand what I'm saying? Do you want me to go write on it over there so you see what I'm talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you lower the screen. We can't -- oh, there it is on the bottom. Okay. MS. ASHTON: So you've got R or RV in the depicted, and then over to the right where you've get your table, it says R or RV. That part just needs to say RV. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you already have R up above as residential. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, because you already have R up above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no need to repeat it. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I see what you're saying. I wish we could have gotten that map to review today, because there's a lot of fine print on there. MS. ASHTON: So instead of R or RV, it will just read RV dash RV development area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What has staff reviewed in regards to a master plan? What version have you forwarded to us to -- that we should be reviewing against today? MS. DESELEM: The last version that we actually reviewed is dated 6/11. We subsequently received one that's dated 8/11, but we have not reviewed that one. And the one that Rich is showing you now is in addition to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6/11 was the one that we got at the last meeting -- MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we discussed this project at, the one that had the errors in the references to leasable versus gross square footage. MS. DESELEM: Right. That's the last one that we had. That's why Heidi was speaking -- that's why there was nothing included in your packet, because we didn't have an updated version. This was the only one we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't submit an updated version to staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we did. MS. DESELEM: Not until after our stuff went out, as far as I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you didn't send it prior to last Thursday? MS. DESELEM: If I'm incorrect, I apologize. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He says he did. The reason I'm concerned is because I didn't have a master plan in my packet. So I ended up reviewing the one that we had the last time. MR. YOVANOVICH: The changes -- and I appreciate that. And the changes that we made to the master plan were to incorporate the conversion formulas that we were provided in the 8/23 draft of the document and to take out the improper references to leasable language. Those are the only changes we made, and they were to reflect the documents that we received and we're working from today. Page 13 of 86 Z 161 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. ASHTON: Well, actually, there was one additional change which was to put R/RV. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is -- right, and then we -- because that's why one of the confusing comments that I had to Heidi was, we thought the direction was to address that section as R/RV, and now we're doing R or RV, which is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard -- okay. We've now talked about three different master plans; the one we started with; an interim one that apparently Heidi saw, and I know I've seen it; and the one that's in front of us on the screen. Heidi, from a records perspective and approval perspective, if this thing flies today, what master plan is it that we're discussing, officially, for the record, that was provided with the proper notice to both staff and the public? MS. ASHTON: Well, I mean, he's proposing the one that's on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking what he's -- I know what he wants. I want to know what legally is sufficient. MR. YOVANOVICH: Today's is sufficient. We make changes all the time to documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but we get them ahead. We get the document ahead, we converse with you at the meeting, and we make the changes at the meeting in a public hearing. We didn't get this one, all of us didn't at least, ahead. I just don't -- I want to make sure we're on legally sufficient ground for whatever document we approve. Can you tell me what master plan it is that we should be using today? MS. ASHTON: Well, my recommendation would be that you would use the one that you have in your package, which is the one that you got on 8/4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then with their -- but the language on the text would have to be, you know, revised to reflect the updated conversions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so depending on how we resolve things today, a new master plan can be developed, but you'll make the corrections to it; is that -- MS. ASHTON: But Mr. Yovanovich wanted that clarified that you could do -- he didn't feel that it was clear. But he wanted it clear that you could do either R or RV, and that was his direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that. I think that works fine. I'm not arguing the point. I'm trying to make sure we have the right document. It does you no good -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it does this board no good if we don't have the right document that we're discussing at public hearings. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, I understand. And hopefully we can take it -- when we get to Exhibit C, if we could take a few minutes to look at what we changed. I don't think it will take very long -- from what you've previously reviewed, to -- we'll blow it up large enough so everybody, can see the reference, and we can take a few moments to go through it, and hopefully it will be okay, because the only changes to that master plan were to reflect the conversion formula, correct the language regarding gross area, and to put R or RV on there. So hopefully we can take a few moments to go through that, and we can all agree that this is okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm not disagreeing with what you're proposing is the process. I just want to be as clear as possible on how we're going to get there. By the way, this is going to be a lengthy discussion this morning. If members of the public are here to discuss this project and you run out of time, raise your hand, we'll try to accommodate you before we get to the end of our discussion so that we can fit you in. It's important we get any public input there is on this project today. So with that in mind, let's keeping move forward. The Tract RV reference that you changed, Heidi, I think if we -- and I had a comment on it, that the tract does not exist on the master plan, because it was R/RV in the last one that we had. MS. ASHTON: Well, on the one that went to you in -- at the 8/4 CCPC, I can put it on the visualizer, if you would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that I think Richard sent out to us by email had R/RV, and that brought a discrepancy because you had Tract RV, not R/RV. That goes away with the new idea that we've now got. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Page 14 of 86 161 7 September 1, 011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if the Tract RV is not used, it falls to the residential? MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on Pages 1 and 2? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under private stables on single - family lots, we'd discussed going to 30,000 square feet in lot area, and it looks like it reverted back. MS. ASHTON: Well, the lot area's the one acre, which is 43,560, but you can have one horse per 21,780. So the lot area's one acre. So this means they could have two horses if they wanted to. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And in response to Ms. Homiak's comment, she's correct, the thirty-six six -- 36.67 should be reduced by the 2.5 1, and that will make the numbers jive -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- all the way around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your legal description on Exhibit D, I guess we can -- is that where you pulled the numbers from? MR. YOVANOVICH: We compared the legal description acreage to the acreage in the Exhibit A and the acreage to the master plan, and with the reduction of those 2.51 acres from the Exhibit A numbers, they all will -- they will all jive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you start out on the Exhibit D with 2,320.6 acres, your less- than- accept, your first one is 10.9. I believe that is 2,309.7. And your second less- than - accept is 47.6. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you did the math. They're just checking your math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That comes out to 2,263.1; is that right or wrong? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: What did you have? David says 2262 -- hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2320.6 minus 10.9. Does that come to 2309.7? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2,307.7 minus -- okay, then it's 47.6. That comes to 23 -- 43 point -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's the number? Dwight, you're using a calculator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2,262. 1, okay we're there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four one - hundredths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your removal of the 2.5 1, you're going to take it out of the commercial side, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to take it out of -- Exhibit A on the commercial, that number will be reduced by 2.51. So that right number is thirty-four point -- MR. GARCIA: One six. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- one six. Thirty-four point one six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages -- let's -- some of these are going to go faster. Pages 3 and 4, Heidi? MS. ASHTON: The principal uses and accessory uses were added, but that mirrors the language that was under the residential since we separated out the tract. Then under the R/MU, the language was reworded to do the universal 1,760 units, and the 1,232 in the entire PUD shall be multifamily. It allows for a conversion for housing or RV units where permitted. You had asked that up to 50,000 -- in the prior version it said 70,000 square feet can be medical office, so we switched it to 50- per your direction. And then there's a subtraction of any of the medical - related office land uses that's in Tract C, and it also allows for a reduction of retail, because one of the uses is a retail use as you get -- later on. Under A4, this -- which are multifamily dwelling units, that can be stricken, because it says -- defines multifamily as defined in the LDC above, so I struck out that language. Same comment as to the senior housing, limiting it so that we know what units we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just -- I'm not sure -- the line that says the residential units may be converted to senior housing units or RV units, I don't think they can be converted to RV units on this tract, correct? Page 15 of 86 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if the Tract RV is not used, it falls to the residential? MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on Pages 1 and 2? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under private stables on single - family lots, we'd discussed going to 30,000 square feet in lot area, and it looks like it reverted back. MS. ASHTON: Well, the lot area's the one acre, which is 43,560, but you can have one horse per 21,780. So the lot area's one acre. So this means they could have two horses if they wanted to. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And in response to Ms. Homiak's comment, she's correct, the thirty-six six -- 36.67 should be reduced by the 2.5 1, and that will make the numbers jive -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- all the way around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your legal description on Exhibit D, I guess we can -- is that where you pulled the numbers from? MR. YOVANOVICH: We compared the legal description acreage to the acreage in the Exhibit A and the acreage to the master plan, and with the reduction of those 2.51 acres from the Exhibit A numbers, they all will -- they will all jive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you start out on the Exhibit D with 2,320.6 acres, your less- than- accept, your first one is 10.9. I believe that is 2,309.7. And your second less- than - accept is 47.6. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you did the math. They're just checking your math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That comes out to 2,263.1; is that right or wrong? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: What did you have? David says 2262 -- hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2320.6 minus 10.9. Does that come to 2309.7? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2,307.7 minus -- okay, then it's 47.6. That comes to 23 -- 43 point -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's the number? Dwight, you're using a calculator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2,262. 1, okay we're there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four one - hundredths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your removal of the 2.5 1, you're going to take it out of the commercial side, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to take it out of -- Exhibit A on the commercial, that number will be reduced by 2.51. So that right number is thirty-four point -- MR. GARCIA: One six. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- one six. Thirty-four point one six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages -- let's -- some of these are going to go faster. Pages 3 and 4, Heidi? MS. ASHTON: The principal uses and accessory uses were added, but that mirrors the language that was under the residential since we separated out the tract. Then under the R/MU, the language was reworded to do the universal 1,760 units, and the 1,232 in the entire PUD shall be multifamily. It allows for a conversion for housing or RV units where permitted. You had asked that up to 50,000 -- in the prior version it said 70,000 square feet can be medical office, so we switched it to 50- per your direction. And then there's a subtraction of any of the medical - related office land uses that's in Tract C, and it also allows for a reduction of retail, because one of the uses is a retail use as you get -- later on. Under A4, this -- which are multifamily dwelling units, that can be stricken, because it says -- defines multifamily as defined in the LDC above, so I struck out that language. Same comment as to the senior housing, limiting it so that we know what units we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just -- I'm not sure -- the line that says the residential units may be converted to senior housing units or RV units, I don't think they can be converted to RV units on this tract, correct? Page 15 of 86 161 2� A7 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, they can. Oh, no, you're right. You're right, you're right, you're right, yes. MS. ASHTON: That's why I put "where permitted," because it's only allowed in the RV tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But why wouldn't we just take it out of there altogether? MS. ASHTON: Yes, we can take it out. That's a good point, actually. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're taking -- in the up -above paragraph, we're -- it should read, "residential units may be converted to senior housing units." COMMISSIONER CARON: Where permitted in accordance with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I guess you can get rid of -- MS. ASHTON: RV. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. One at a time. Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it should read -- I don't think you need -- I don't even think you need the "where permitted," because it's allowed. I think it would just say "residential units may be converted to senior housing units in accordance with the land -use conversion factors in Exhibit B." MS. ASHTON: Correct. So, Ray, Line 3, strike out "or RV units." MR. BELLOWS: "Or RV units "? MS. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, you want to go to the -- continue? MS. ASHTON: Okay. So then on Page 4, No. 7 is a retail use. So if that's developed in this tract, then the square footage will be reduced from Tract C. Then under B3 same change that we had under the residential, and then under the BP tract 140 square feet of business park and a hotel of 135 rooms. The minutes of your last meeting, Mr. Yovanovich capped the square footage at 92,000 square feet. And then if a hotel is not developed in Tract C -- because a hotel is an either /or as this document is written. Then if -- there's different options for the hotel. You could have the hotel in either BP or C. If it's not in BP or C, then you can convert the hotel to 60,000 square feet of BP uses, and that's what's clarified here, I believe. There is some language on the bottom part, if you move it up a little bit, Ray. This tract shall be permitted to be developed for either a business park or a school. The language that was there was "educational facility," and you might want to go back to the educational - facility language instead of the "school," because it seems throughout the document we're kind of differentiating between educational facility being, as I'm understanding it, a college or a private school, could be a public college, whereas, the school -- I think the use of the term "school," we were thinking, or at least I was thinking, more of a district -- school district public school. So if you want to switch back to "educational facility" instead of "school" in this location, I think that would read with the intent of what they were seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? MS. ASHTON: But it's up to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just going to -- I was going to ask the petitioner what they meant, because it's confusing in places further on. I thought that as Ms. Ashton did, that it was meant for a college or not for Mr. East- -- one of Mr. Eastman's school. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not, it's not. It's not meant for Mr. Eastman. You cannot have this property. But if we -- we could do two things on that property. We can do the business park, or we can do a school. And we want the same types of schools that can go on Mr. Eastman's tract, and that would be all the way up. If we wanted to do, you know, kindergarten, first grade, all the way up through the university-type uses, we would put it on that business tract. That's why we objected to the use of word "private," because there could be a public facility that wants to go there on that site. Later on we'll talk about some clarifications to a later portion of the document to make it very clear that our development - standards table are applicable to the business -park tract wherein it talks about schools. Those standards do not apply to Mr. Eastman's tract. So we'll clarify that later. But right now we can do any of the school uses allowed in the S tract on that property. MS. ASHTON: So I would change it to educational facilities so it would read either a business park or educational facility or facilities. I don't know how much you could fit. But if the tract is developed as an educational Page 16 of 86 161 2 A7 4 September 1, 2011 facility, only those uses permitted in 11 below will be allowed, and that takes you to the S tract. That's what that site is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Richard, is that -- is this the 65 percent conversion? Is this where you were -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. Yes, yes. The previous paragraph was, yes, where we converted the hotel to 60,000 square feet, yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on Pages 3 and 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My turn. Let's go back to No. 5, Roman Numeral IV. The way that appears to be written, you can put up to 50,000 square feet of medical - related uses on the R/MU tract, but if you put any medical offices on the C tract, the 50,000's reduced by the quantity of square footage that you use on medical in the C tract; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So C will have an impact on RR -- R/MU based on how much square footage of medical you put on C? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Same thing with retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, on No. 4, where you took out "which are multifamily dwelling units" because of the reference to the LDC, I guess from Kay I need to make sure -- when we talked about this single - family attached dwelling being classified as multifamily, I thought the reason -- because it's a fee - simple sale. I thought the reason it's classified as a multifamily is because of the building code. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDC also classifies it as multifamily, as single- family attached, fee simple? MS. DESELEM: I believe it -- the way the LDC -- it goes by how many units are in the building. If it's three or more, it's multifamily. And it doesn't really get into how it's sold as to whether it's fee simple or whatever. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's a single- family attached, two dwellings together, fee simple; is that single- family? MS. DESELEM: That would be like a two- family home, single- family attached. MS. ASHTON: Single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. DESELEM: It's single - family. MS. ASHTON: Single - family. MS. DESELEM: If we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a two - family and duplex dwelling is single- family? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So duplexes -- all duplexes are single - family? MS. DESELEM: Yes, pursuant to the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if -- and they're all -- assuming they're fee simple? MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't get into whether the ownership is done. It can be rental, it can be fee simple. It can be whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 7 on the following page where it talks about drugstores and it reduces the retail square footage of Tract C, if the drugstore is medically related how does it -- does it impact the 50,000 square feet, or is that strictly office? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Tract R/MU -- MS. DESELEM: Yeah. Page 17 of 86 16 1A Sep ember 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're allowed 50,000 square feet of medical - related facilities. Are those office, or would drugstores be considered part of that 50,000 as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It comes out of the three twenty -seven five. MS. DESELEM: Yes. It's retail. It comes out of the 327.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though it's medically related, it could go on R/MU, it does come out of the retail? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means they're going to put a drugstore on R/MU. Can they have the drugstore plus 50,000 square feet? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, this sidebar you guys are having, if you don't mind -- really, if you want to have a sidebar, then stop a conversation up here, let me know, and you guys can talk, but we need this paid attention to. This is a very complicated project. I don't want to make a mistake on it. So with that in mind -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Okay. In response to your question, they could still have the 50,000 medical related, because that's a retail use. It's not considered medical office or medical use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So R/MU -- and I'm -- the reason I'm pointing this out is because I thought there was some concern over a certain circumference around the hospital that had to be -- to medically related facilities, and if it's -- 50,000 is the cap, it's not really a cap on that R/MU. It's a cap as long as it's just office, but they could still have other medically related facilities that aren't office? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a distance requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a -- it's not a square - footage requirement. So that's where -- that's how we arrived at the -- where the tract is located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And then we talk about what can go on there up to 50,000 square feet of office, and we could have medically related retail as well in addition to the 50,000 square feet of medical office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it comes out of the cap of the 327 -? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it does. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your Tract BP down below, here you've changed -- well, nobody changed it. The first sentence seems to say something different than I found it to be elsewhere on the project. Up to 140,000 square feet of gross floor area business park land uses and a hotel of up to 135, yet other references to the hotel say "wholly." MR. YOVANOVICH: We can either put -- we can do one hotel up to 135 rooms and up to 92,000 square feet anywhere project. I can't do a 50 -room hotel here at 40,000 square feet and then take the remainder and that square footage and put it in the commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can do 100 -- I can do something smaller than 135, but I can't do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put in a 70 -room hotel -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at 50,000 square feet, you lose the balance of the square footage? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm done, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's -- if you do any kind of hotel at all, you've put it in -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't get to convert it to business park. Is that what we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wanted to know. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have nothing left over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can the business park tract be used for, a portion of it, a school and business park, or is it either /or? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an either /or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: That's right. Page 18 of 86 161 7 Sep ber 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 5 and 6. Heidi? Ray, would you move us to -- MS. ASHTON: On 5 the only changes were under -- some of the uses were switched based on the CCPC direction, and that dealt with No. 16, which is the industrial and commercial machinery and equipment. I had on here that it was 3514 and 3599. I'm not sure if I have that on the right section, but there also was a change in the -- some of the uses for No. 17, the industrial and organic chemicals. My note says it was 2812 to 2819. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: So those were CCPC- directed changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Page 6? MS. DESELEM: While we're on Page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DESELEM: I just wonder, since we've added a change for educational facility, if we should not, perhaps, add that as a use on the list of uses. We have educational services, but we don't have educational facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all -- MS. ASHTON: Actually, that was the sidebar that Mr. Yovanovich and I were having. If we can go back to that page, which is Page No. 4, Ms. Deselem raised an issue with using the term "educational facilities," because we do have an LDC definition for that determination, and that would require approval of the school board, so we're recommending that you go back to the language that is in your version referring to it as a school. Now, if you have the language "a school," that means it could be a school district school or a private educational facility or a public, and I think -- I don't have an objection to those options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll just leave it as a school. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So that will stay as a school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: And, again, that use is not listed. MR. YOVANOVICH: It can't be because these use -- schools are not allowed in the business -park district. So we came up with the list. This list is supposed to be the list, the uses that are allowed only in the business park. If we go and do a school, our only allowed uses are those in Section 11. So there's no need to add school in here -- MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just hope your -- MS. DESELEM: It's confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your future Kay, or whoever happens to be in that position to review this down the road, realizes that, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is a public school, the criteria, what is the difference in criteria? MS. ASHTON: Do you want me to answer? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Eastman can. MS. ASHTON: The public schools have their own development standards, and it's governed by Florida Statutes and also an interlocal that we will probably be having. We had an expired interlocal that sets forth the school board review process, okay. A private school does not have that option. So that's the main difference. And also when we get to your -- another development - standards table you'll be seeing that again as we go forward with the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on Pages 5 and 6? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under No. 16,1 had noted 3571 through 3579. Were you intending to have all of those or just 71 and 79? MR. YOVANOVICH: The version I have in front of me says 3571 through 3579. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Okay. Mine doesn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't? Page 19 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. ASHTON: Which number are you on? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Number 16. This one shows 35- -- MS. ASHTON: Three five one (sic) through 3579. Yeah, this version does not say "through." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's supposed to be through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- talk about a problem with some of the heavy uses. What was the -- what are the numbers in between? What do they represent? I don't have my book. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Let me go back to my handwritten notes from the meeting. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm showing we dropped 3511 through 3599 and changed it to 3524, 3546, and then 3571 through 3579. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I have in my notes was 3524, 3546, and 3571 through 3579. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That's what I have. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, and my notes had the comma -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It was a dash. MS. ASHTON: -- from the CCPC. So I can -- we can change that to the dash if that's what you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had gone through -- because it previously said 3511 through 3599. MS. ASHTON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this was the list that we came up with at the meeting. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Then we'll make that correction. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. Anybody else on 5 and 6? If not we'll go to 6 and 7 (sic). And, I guess, back to you, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: Okay. At the CCPC meeting you took out "paper and allied products," Groups 2621 through 2679, and plastic materials and synthetics, 2821 and 2834. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put Pages 7 or 8 up there, since you're going to keep up with it? MS. ASHTON: Under transportation equipment, on No. 28, you took out SIC Code 3731. That was CCPC direction. Under post sale, trade nondurable goods, it formerly said 5111 -5159, and that was switched to 5153. Then it said "limited principal uses." That was changed to "limited secondary uses." Then under 7361 we added "no labor pools." The reason it's not showing up here on changes are those are the changes that both parties agreed to. Then under hotels, I added the cross - reference so the hotels, the up to 135 rooms capped at 92 (sic) square feet of gross floor area if it's not developed in Tract C. And the hotel square footage does not reduce. That's language that was added at the CCPC meeting. And then it goes on to the next page, if you want to go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, let's go -- finish the next page, and then we'll get questions. MS. ASHTON: And then I added if the hotel conversion is applied to the BP tract, then a hotel is not permitted, just to make cross - references so -- for ease of implementation. And then under Item C it was changed to "principal and limited uses" instead of "primary and secondary." And then the commercial uses were tightened up so that you'd have the 327- and up to 70,000 gross floor area of professional and medical office, reduced by medical - related retail square footage approved in the BP. So you have one retail in the BP; it would offset this number, as well as any of the medical and office, 50,000 square feet of medical in the R/MU. So, you know, you've got a couple uses that could be in several different tracts, and this attempts to clarify so that there's not a duplication. Then you've got the ability to take up to 25 percent of the three twenty - seven, five and convert it to office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And that's what that says. And then I added the hotel if it wasn't developed in the BP or if the conversion isn't used. So the language was reworked there. So I just highlighted the whole thing. And there's a typo. It should be BP instead of PB. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's do Page 8 with your changes, if there are any, and then we can ask Page 20 of 86 i 16 Se ber 1, 2011 questions about 7 and 8, to the extent there are any. Anything on Page 8? MS. ASHTON: Is that for me, that question, Page 8? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We're taking two pages at a time. The pages we should be on are 7 and MS. ASHTON: Oh, okay. So on 8, the agricultural use was taken out in the former draft. And you had requested some limiting language, which is in there only -- under No. 8, only billiard parlors, bingo parlors, marshal arts, and yoga instruction, bicycle and golf rentals is added since your last draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then -- let's see. Auto -- it's on this page. Auto and home - supply stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10. MS. ASHTON: Number 10, it was Group 5331, and that was changed per CCPC direction to 5211 through 5261 and 5531. And then under automobile parking, which is No. 12, that was added, the word including a "garage /automobile parking." That language, I believe, was there. And then added -- "no towing yards" was added. And then under automobile repair, Number 13, the SIC codes were changed, 7513 to 7533 and 7536 to 7549 per CCPC direction. It was just 7513 to 7549. And that's all that I'm showing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages 7 and 8? COMMISSIONER CARON: This is one of your caretaker ones, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a caretaker listed here, but as long as that -- I'm going to -- hopefully they're going to point out where -- when we get to it that they're noted as included in density. I thought I saw it in the previous version. I just didn't remember seeing it in this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is one in Tract C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 9 and 10. Oh, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Heidi, on No. 13, I'm showing 7536 comma 7549. Is it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Dash. MS. ASHTON: I have a dash. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a dash. MS. ASHTON: My notes were dash. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: I don't know if anyone else -- did you have a dash or a comma? MS. DESELEM: My notes indicate a dash as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else for anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nine and ten? Heidi, I think what we ought to do is, to expedite this a little bit, the changes that are in disagreement with anybody, why don't we focus on those instead of the -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're pretty -- I mean, obviously a lot of us have read these, so if we have any issues we'll just bring them up. Any general text changes or any things like that that are different than just SIC numbers -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just assume that was caught. There was enough people looking at it. MS. ASHTON: Okay, wonderful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is there anything on 9 and 10? I do have a question. You have some industrial uses here. And based on my -- and I believe this is a mixed -use activity center. And if it is, I can't see where industrial uses are allowed, according to the GMP. So I kind of need -- I pulled a section of the GMP that talks about this. It says, full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a maximum density," and then "community facilities and other land uses as generally allowed in the urban designation." So I thought, well, maybe you can read into that that industrial is allowed. That worked until you read further in that same document, and then you get into another section of the document that does; under interchange activity center, it specifically says industrial uses are allowed there. Page 21 of 86 x 161 1 September 1, 2Al So I would assume then that it didn't mean them to be used in a regular mixed -use activity center but they only can be used in interchange activity centers. And if that's the case, your Nos. 31 and 32 on those two pages are industrial, and No. 69 on the next page over are in an industrial section of the code. Unless Pm -- unless I read the MUNI code wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are -- I believe they're also allowed in the C5. And we're allowed any of the commercial -- we didn't -- we don't believe we went beyond anything beyond C5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I did pull up C4 -- C3, 4, 5 and "I." MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did that this morning at 4:30, so it may have been something I've missed. But we're going to take a break here in ten minutes, and maybe staff can check on Nos. 31, 32, and 69. They are -- I found them in industrial, but I would certainly love to have someone second check that for me. If they are in industrial, I think we have a problem with the way the GMP's written for mixed -use activity centers; if they aren't, then that's fine. So we'll check that during the break, which will happen in about ten minutes. Heidi, do we have anything on Pages 11 and 12? MS. ASHTON: On 11 and 12, the only changes that the kiosks were moved to an accessory use. Ms. Deselem asked that that be moved. It's more of a kiosk -- I mean, it's more of an accessory use than a primary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: On Tract A, the permitted uses, I'm having a problem with the part that talks about what you can do there, being this is down to, what, 47 acres now. You -- I have a problem with a stadium training with a -- professional baseball. This does not -- this tract also -- no traffic is counted in this PUD, in the regular PUD. But I have a problem if no traffic is involved and something like this goes in there, because there's definitely going to be a lot of traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: These are uses that are already permitted on the property. We've simply incorporated that PUD into this PUD. It's owned by someone other than us, and they are participating in the PUD, and we're just simply bringing -- carrying forward what's already in the Swamp Buggy PUD into this PUD. Since we're basically surrounding it, it makes no sense to have them be an island in the middle of the project. So those uses are being carried forward. They agreed to the revision that prohibited outdoor shooting ranges, but they've not agreed to any other revisions to their existing PUD document. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- Mr. Casalanguida? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In one of these documents, they talk about that none of the traffic from Tract A will be included, and I have a problem with that to the fact that if you put in a stadium in there -- and the other thing, they said they can have -- you're limited -- you shall not be limited to the number of occurrences. They can do other things other than the swamp buggy, which is six times a year. If you can do -- you can have a county fair, you can have circuses, carnivals, and I understand that it was in the original. But if you go to a stadium, you are going to have a lot of traffic, and they don't want to count that in this. I mean, they want to repeal it. They want to keep that in the PUD, but they don't want to account for the traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What it said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think she was directing the question to Nick. So, Nick, why don't you try answering it, if you can. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The trip cap does not include stadium -type uses. Those are typical special events. They'd be handled if they came in for a stadium application through the site development process. It's an approved use. We'd put the restrictions on there as part of that, I would think. But it's not specifically called out in terms of a traffic impact, you're correct. They're carrying that use into the PUD document or the DRI. They're not accounting for it in the trip cap. So, you know, if you're asking me if the trip cap applies to it, it would not. And how we would handle it we'd review it. If they came in for a stadium, we'd probably do a special review on it and try and put some mitigating Page 22 of 86 161 2► i September 1, 2011 factors to it. But it was not considered in terms of traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're still subject to concurrency and everything else. It's just not counted against our project. They're not getting out of any of the review and regulations applicable to us. It's just not within our 3318, 1 think it is. That's all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, that is an approved principal use in the swamp buggy facility. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it obtained its right to be an approved principal use, did you guys consider its traffic impacts for stadium and professional ballfields at the time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't answer as far as, you know, when was it approved, if I looked at it, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Eighty -four. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then I can't answer that question from 20 years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it was previously approved as a principal use in that location, then that means they were -- met concurrency. So how would you regulate concerns with their concurrency issues when they came in for an SDP? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They met consistency, and there's two different reviews that are done. One is -- at the zoning is consistency, and concurrency is actually the development order. So they're still under the concurrency rules if they came in today and said, we'd like to put up a stadium. It's going to generate X amount of trips. We'd look at concurrency and site - related impacts as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they'd have a right to use principal use, but they'd have to mitigate the impacts on the traffic? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Pages 11 and 12. Heidi, did you have anything else on those pages? If not -- or anybody else? MS. ASHTON: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to 13 and 14. MR. BELLOWS: You had that on 12. MS. ASHTON: I didn't have anything. I didn't have any changes on 13 and 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not, 15 and 16. Heidi, did you have -- MS. ASHTON: I didn't have changes on those two changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just a couple. Under 11, Tract S, schools, permitted use, B. You list various things as accessory. Most schools have recreational or sports uses as accessory. Were you not intending to allow that in this location in the school site? I mean, it's a pretty substantial area that those uses take up as accessory. So I think if it's an allowable accessory use, we ought to at least add it to the list. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we added No. 5 for recreational facilities? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if the definition in the LDC under educational facilities already addresses that or not. Tom would know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that kind of brings up another question. This is listed as Tract S, schools, permitted uses. Do we mean private schools or Collier County schools? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the Collier County public school site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't -- can we designate it as Tract S, Collier County school site, or something of that nature? Because that's the only thing it can be used for, right? MS. ASHTON: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This S tract -- MS. ASHTON: -- for the S tract, yes, but don't forget the BP tract cross - references the section, so that would apply to public schools, private schools. But the private schools can only go on the BP tract. The S tract is Page 23 of 86 161 i: t ! A7 September 1, 2011 exclusively for the school district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. That's why I'm trying to make sure the S tract stays exclusively for Collier County School District. MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't say that. And if schools in the other BP mean an array of schools, someone might look at this and assume it means an array of schools because we're not saying it doesn't. We're not saying it's specific to Collier County. I was -- wanted to make sure it didn't get -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? See, here's -- the school has purchased other sites where they intended to put Collier County public schools on, then they found out they didn't really want to put a school there or it wasn't the right location or they had found a better location; it becomes surplus and you sell it off. If it sells off and it doesn't go to Collier County schools, I would suggest that, for this one, this tract would then have to come in for a PUD amendment to see what use would go there rather than leave it open to any schools, so that's where Pm going is future protection. MR. EASTMAN: I think that the way that its written is acceptable to the school district. It also is consistent with the earlier language when we were talking about the conversion of the BP park to a school, which then would cross - reference this section. So I think that it's okay. In getting back to the recreational facilities, those are actual part and parcel of a school. Schools include phys ed. classes, which are taken outside. So, in essence, I mean, it's -- a way to think about it is the classroom would be outside on a ballfield or something. It's part and parcel of the educational facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: It does help to have the additional language that you suggest, Mr. Chairman, for recreational facilities. I think it adds clarity. Leaving it as written, I think, is acceptable to both the developer, the school district, and the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's always read "schools, public or private," I believe, hasn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's my next question. If Tract S could only be used for Collier County schools, then why are we saying "schools, public or private "? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. MR. EASTMAN: It relates to the cross - reference earlier for the conversion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm more concerned about this tract and in case you guys don't build a school there and you sell it off as surplus. Now, with that language in here, are we accepting then that this tract can be also a private school? Because if that's the issue -- MR. EASTMAN: You would be. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. EASTMAN: You would be, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- MR. EASTMAN: That would be -- it would then be subject to the development standards which are set forth in Table 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tract S can be a public or a private school, and we should look at it that way as far as uses go. MS. ASHTON: Uh -huh. MR. EASTMAN: According to the way that its written, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think it's more important to have an accessory listed as recreational facilities as well, because not all private schools may do that as a principal use as you've described your public school doing it. MR. EASTMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: I believe your suggestion's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staffs position on Deviations 4, 7, and 8? 1 can't recall from the prior documentation, Kay; were you guys in agreement with those three? The only reason I'm bringing those up now is Page 24 of 86 p s � 1b1 2 A7 September 1, 2011 they're in order of what they appear in this document, 4, 7 and 8. MS. DESELEM: Give me a second to get a -- be right back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, take your time. We'll take a break, and when we come back from break, we can answer that question and the industrial -use question as well. We'll come back at 10:45 and move into that. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, if you'll please take your seats, we can resume the meeting. I have a couple of announcements. First one is we have another project scheduled for this afternoon, and I know that some of the people involved in that project are watching intently trying to figure out what we're going to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whose is this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is Pine Ridge Center West PUD. For those people wanting to know when it's going to happen, we're going to hear that one right now. Just kidding. I know. I wanted to see -- I don't see Wayne Arnold. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's like, great, my opposition's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I know Wayne's waiting patiently for that to happen. And for the benefit of those that really are trying to see if the Pine Ridge Center West PUD will be heard this morning, I can assure you it will not. So even if we were to finish this one miraculously in the next 15 minutes, we would have lunch and then come back and do the Pine Ridge West PUD sometime this afternoon. So anybody waiting for that one, kind of hang out till this afternoon. We'll be good to go at that time. The other thing is, for those people, members of the public that want to have any comment on this project -- and the ranks are thinning rapidly -- we will accommodate any comments you may want to have prior to lunch. So if you don't want to spend the whole day listening to this tedious operation, you can get at least your points made before lunchtime. And with that in mind, let's move back to where we were. And, Kay, I think we left off with a question -- actually two questions that needed to be resolved by staff. Kay's moving to the podium. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Get you some roller skates. MS. DESELEM: Okay, Pm back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about the Deviations 4, 7, and 8? MS. DESELEM: Okay. Staff is recommending approval of Deviation 4 with the stipulations provided in the staff report last revised 7/13, and those stipulations are that the boundary marker signs shall be limited such that the sign copy is limited to the overall project name and its logo and further limited to placement only on roadways that function as arterial or collector roadways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to the next one, Richard, did you have any objection to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. You got to help me here. What page are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 15, but I can't tell you what version that you're looking at. We're looking at the version 8/23/11. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm told it's fine. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be No. 12, signs, Page 15, Item A. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you are fine with staffs stipulations, I don't -- Kay, does the language in the PUD reflect your stipulation? MS. DESELEM: No, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so. So we need the PUD updated to their stipulations. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Deviation 1 was withdrawn, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm only concerned with 4, 7, and 8 right now. MS. DESELEM: Four you got -- and 7 and 8 we recommended approval of as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's only Deviation 4 that we need to take care of in the PUD. Page 25 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, what about the industrial uses in the mixed -use activity center? MS. DESELEM: The staff and the applicant checked online for the LDC, and have found that all those uses are commercial uses. They are allowed in some fashion in either C4 or C5 as well as industrial. Some were listed both places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the book that you guys printed out with all the zoning references in it? I have a copy of it. I looked at that this morning, and I specifically went to these uses. For example, construction specialty trade contractors; that is verbatim out of the industrial category. If you go to C4 -- I think it's C5, actually, there's a few specialty trades listed individually but not the range that's listed in No. 32, as an example. MS. DESELEM: What -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll redo it at lunchtime. I mean, I looked at that -- I went through that three times because I knew I was going to bring it up today, and unless the documents you gave me are wrong, I can't understand why we are not in unison on this, but -- MS. DESELEM: I think I can help kind of clarify the mystery. The way it is here in No. 32, they're listed as construction special trade contractors. But if you go back to the LDC and you look at those specific groups and the names of the uses that are allowed there, that's what's listed in C5. It's not listed as just construction special trades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the range of SIC codes, that's what I'm concerned about. For example, there is a -- in C5, you can be an electrical specialty contractor, but that isn't 1711 through 1793 and 1796 and 1799. That's one specific number of the full range there. They've got a full range here, and that was -- the only time I saw that was under industrial uses, but I'll try to -- well, I haven't got my book with me. I'll figure out what to do over lunch, and if I -- MS. DESELEM: I was going to say, we looked online. Staff and the applicant jointly looked online. Ray's notes on my sheet show that it's all in C5, all those uses, 1711 through 1793 and 1796 and 1799 are allowable in C5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And printing -- the printing, publishing, and allied industries are as well? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Yes. And, again, they were listed seemingly under some of the names within those groups, not just under printing, publishing, and allied industries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what would be the difference then if we listed it in C5 with a series of individual names but we listed it in industrial with the full range? What difference did it make then? Why do we do it like that? MS. DESELEM: I can't answer that. I don't know how it was designed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the document that you guys gave me was -- remember when we had that table that everybody complained about? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you guys said, you know, this is too difficult. Let's convert it to a text formatted zoning district where everything is listed. And even -- it's redundant. Instead of C3 being everything in C2 plus the following, you went ahead and listed everything all over again. Well, I have that document, and that's what I pulled this from this morning. And I'll find it. But that was -- that document was done specifically to be very -- to clarify things that the tables didn't do. What are you looking at online? Are you looking at tables or are you looking at -- MR. NADEAU: Uses. MS. DESELEM: They are looking at the MUNI code website -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but is it broken down by zoning district, or is it the table again? MS. DESELEM: Oh, and it's not the table, no. It's broken down by zoning district. But for example, instead of looking at printing and publishing, you have to look under one of the uses in there, which it begins as newspaper. So when you -- so you have to kind of go back to the SIC code manual, find the uses that are listed here within those groups, and then go back and specifically look for those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I go to 2711 and I see a news group there or newspaper, whatever, newspaper printing, that's going to cover everything in 2711? Because this category says everything in Group 2711 and 2721. MS. DESELEM: My understanding is they looked and they were there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll try to figure out why I didn't find it the way you have. Okay. Page 26 of 86 161 2 September 1 2 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Page 17 and 18. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: My document on Page 15 under signs, it's referenced in Deviation 4. And on Exhibit E, Deviation 4 is relief from fence and wall heights. It seems like Deviation 3 is referencing boundary markers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page is your -- are you referring to where the deviations are listed? Exhibit E is Page 34. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Page 34. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're right. Deviation 4 is listed. Well, that's -- good catch. MS. DESELEM: If I can back up a minute. Dwight just pointed out that they have made the changes for the sign. The stipulations are on Pages 19 under sign development standards. Under the boundary markers, it's the first bulleted item. CHARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That also referenced Deviation 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, still -- and then how do we correct Melissa's issue? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Would you repeat what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn to Page 34 and look at Deviation 4. MS. DESELEM: Okay. They changed the number of the signs? COMMISSIONER AHERN: It should be Deviation 3. MS. DESELEM: This is -- what happened is when they removed Deviation 1, they renumbered them, so now all references are incorrect. MR. YOVANOVICH: We just need to cross - reference and make sure we got it right. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just need to -- yeah, just change it to 3. MS. DESELEM: Because we used to have nine deviations. Now we have eight. Yeah, that's just -- we can fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good catch, Melissa. Let's move to Page 17 and 18. Heidi, do you have any changes on 17 and 18? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, did you have any changes on 17 and 18? MS. ASHTON: Pages 17 and 18? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON: There were some changes, but we've already discussed them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike isn't working for you. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. The changes we've already discussed on previous pages, except there is a typo that's indicated on there, Page 1232 (sic) -- not page, but 1,232 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: On Page 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was 17. You mean 18, right? MS. ASHTON: And then on 18 there's also a typo for 1,232. The applicant -- it's not reflected on this page, but the applicant requested a change to the residential density section so that it will read exactly the same way as the DR (sic) is read, and that's acceptable to staff as well as me. And I can read that in or, Rich, you can read it in if you've got it in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can read it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can read it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Blow it up a little bit. MS. ASHTON: I can read it in if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to -- is it necessary to read it in? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's verbatim -- it's verbatim what you've already seen in the development order, so we just thought we'd use the same language. We thought it was a little clearer -- MS. ASHTON: Why don't I read it in. Page 27 of 86 J 161 2 A7 Septemfier 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: It will say one residential unit equates to 2.73 recreational vehicle units /spaces, paren, not to exceed 290 RV units in the entire PUD, or four senior housing units not to exceed 450 senior housing units in the entire PUD, and up to 1,232 of the total 1,760 residential units may be multifamily as defined in the Land Development Code. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would recommend add the sentence here, the total residential density set forth in this paragraph shall not exceed, what -- 2,281. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good idea. MS. ASHTON: I'd rather not start inserting things into the text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to insert it somewhere else then? MS. ASHTON: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, didn't we already talk about that? MS. ASHTON: Well, if we're going to do it on consent -- because I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are going to -- I mean, right now -- okay. Consent -- the whole idea of waiving consent was talked about, and I very specifically told Mr. Yovanovich personally I couldn't commit to that and I don't know about the rest of this board, because it is the board decision. So at the end of the day today, whether we go on consent is irrelevant in the process to make the process right. So I'd rather we not consider, oh, well, this might stop it from going to consent or this might make us go to consent. Let's just get the corrections on the record. We'll tally it up at the end of the day and see how severe it is and whether or not we feel comfortable or not. That's the best way to approach it. So I'd rather see the best language going in in regards to the consent issue than avoiding it because we don't want to -- we want to avoid consent. Okay. MS. ASHTON: I'd rather use the examples and show by example what it can go to, because you already have in there residential units of 1,760, and now you're going to put two thousand and something else. I personally think it creates confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did you propose adding the example to the document? Where? In what manner? MS. ASHTON: Well, I thought it should be on a separate exhibit, "see exhibit," but you proposed that it be on these two pages, and I would say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON: -- examples of development could include, and show 290 RV units, 450 senior housing if it comes out of residential, and then 1,541 residential units is an example, and then other versions. I would actually do, this is how it could be developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A little correction. I don't think we suggested it be done a certain way. Richard did. I didn't hear an objection at the time, so it seemed like an okay way to go. If there's a better way to go, that's the way we want to go. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: My thought is this: How about if we added a sentence that says, if the maximum conversions are utilized -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a little hard to hear, so if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we add at the end of that sentence that says, if the maximum conversions are utilized, the total residential density set forth in this paragraph shall not exceed whatever that number was that I can't remember, twenty -one something-- 2,281. Because you could have a gazillion permutations. But we do know that the worst -case scenario, if we maximum all the conversions, it can't go beyond 2,281. And then a similar type thing in the next paragraph when we talk about nonresidential uses. Under the maximum development of nonresidential uses, that number shall not exceed six -- MR. GARCIA: Six twenty -nine five. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six twenty -nine five. And then as Commissioner Caron recommended, take out the maximum trips, create a separate paragraph that says, in no event shall the development within this project exceed those number of trips. And I think -- I don't think it's that hard to do. I don't think you need the caps in there anyway, but some people do believe you do need it. So I think those two simple sentences would address that issue. Page 28 of 86 �t 161 2 A7 Septemfier 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: It will say one residential unit equates to 2.73 recreational vehicle units /spaces, paren, not to exceed 290 RV units in the entire PUD, or four senior housing units not to exceed 450 senior housing units in the entire PUD, and up to 1,232 of the total 1,760 residential units may be multifamily as defined in the Land Development Code. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would recommend add the sentence here, the total residential density set forth in this paragraph shall not exceed, what -- 2,281. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good idea. MS. ASHTON: I'd rather not start inserting things into the text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to insert it somewhere else then? MS. ASHTON: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, didn't we already talk about that? MS. ASHTON: Well, if we're going to do it on consent -- because I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are going to -- I mean, right now -- okay. Consent -- the whole idea of waiving consent was talked about, and I very specifically told Mr. Yovanovich personally I couldn't commit to that and I don't know about the rest of this board, because it is the board decision. So at the end of the day today, whether we go on consent is irrelevant in the process to make the process right. So I'd rather we not consider, oh, well, this might stop it from going to consent or this might make us go to consent. Let's just get the corrections on the record. We'll tally it up at the end of the day and see how severe it is and whether or not we feel comfortable or not. That's the best way to approach it. So I'd rather see the best language going in in regards to the consent issue than avoiding it because we don't want to -- we want to avoid consent. Okay. MS. ASHTON: I'd rather use the examples and show by example what it can go to, because you already have in there residential units of 1,760, and now you're going to put two thousand and something else. I personally think it creates confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did you propose adding the example to the document? Where? In what manner? MS. ASHTON: Well, I thought it should be on a separate exhibit, "see exhibit," but you proposed that it be on these two pages, and I would say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON: -- examples of development could include, and show 290 RV units, 450 senior housing if it comes out of residential, and then 1,541 residential units is an example, and then other versions. I would actually do, this is how it could be developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A little correction. I don't think we suggested it be done a certain way. Richard did. I didn't hear an objection at the time, so it seemed like an okay way to go. If there's a better way to go, that's the way we want to go. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: My thought is this: How about if we added a sentence that says, if the maximum conversions are utilized -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a little hard to hear, so if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we add at the end of that sentence that says, if the maximum conversions are utilized, the total residential density set forth in this paragraph shall not exceed whatever that number was that I can't remember, twenty -one something-- 2,281. Because you could have a gazillion permutations. But we do know that the worst -case scenario, if we maximum all the conversions, it can't go beyond 2,281. And then a similar type thing in the next paragraph when we talk about nonresidential uses. Under the maximum development of nonresidential uses, that number shall not exceed six -- MR. GARCIA: Six twenty -nine five. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six twenty -nine five. And then as Commissioner Caron recommended, take out the maximum trips, create a separate paragraph that says, in no event shall the development within this project exceed those number of trips. And I think -- I don't think it's that hard to do. I don't think you need the caps in there anyway, but some people do believe you do need it. So I think those two simple sentences would address that issue. Page 28 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 And I would hate to -- if things keep going -- because we haven't really made very many changes so far -- there may be more later. But if we're tracking like it is now, those two simple sentences could address that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the clarity that we're asking for is needed, and I think later today you might find out some reasons why it's so vital to have that clarity. In the meantime, I want to make sure the clarity is provided in the most efficient and legally sufficient manner. And I'm going to ask the county attorney what they -- what she sees is the best way to do that, and that's the way we're going to go. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: I still think -- I still think -- excuse me, tongue tied -- that the best way to do it is through an example. If you want to put the maximum - density language that Rich wants, then it would have to say, when you add up the RV units, residential -- single - family residential, the multifamily residential, and the senior housing units -- it would have to identify that all those things are added up to come up with the maximum density, and then that would be acceptable, although I don't know that that would provide the clarity you're seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would that exhibit then be referenced if we didn't add text to the document? MS. ASHTON: You would just use samples. If the 290 RVs built and this -- and actually show how the calculation is; that's how I would set it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'd have to reference that the exhibit exists elsewhere in the text. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. You would know right -- you would say, you know, please see -- or, you know, see Exhibit, whatever number we're up to, I or J, for examples for development, and it wouldn't -- a limit then would have to be listed so it's, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom had his hand up first, then Donna, then Melissa, because I'd like to get the -- everybody needs to weigh in that wants to on this one. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Mine is on a separate issue, but it is on Page 17. So I think you should resolve this issue and the comments there, and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then come back to you? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Donna, Melissa. I know, Nick, you wanted to contribute first or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure we don't want to make this as simple as possible. There's a sentence that starts on Page 18. "In no event shall the project exceed 3,320 p.m. trips (sic), or through the conversions exceed 629,000 square feet commercial, or two hundred and -- thousand, two hundred and eighty -one (sic) residence units. I don't know where this is becoming so hard. It's just -- to me that's a simple sentence. I understand it, and I think staff could understand it. You have two thresholds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get all the input. Okay. Donna, and then Melissa. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would agree with keeping it simple, Nick, but because these conversions are pretty complicated, you may need a little more than that one sentence in order for somebody in the future to understand. I thought the goal was to make sure that under a headline that says "maximum density and intensity" someone could read that section and figure out what the maximums actually could be. I don't have a problem with the language that Mr. Yovanovich wants to add after those sentences. I'm not so sure there shouldn't, right under this paragraph somewhere, be -- I mean, could be some sort of chart that would guide you as to how those calculations get made. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we had that. We had a chart, and that confused everybody. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I thought -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we took the chart out. And I really do think you can say, by way of example, if you have 290 RV units, 450 senior housing units, you can only have X number of residential units, for a total of 2,281. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: 1 was going to make the same comment that Nick did to simplify it, because it seems like it's starting to get a little convoluted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the hundred pages in front of us are a little convoluted, to be honest with you. But anybody else want to comment on this issue? Page 29 of 86 g 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain, will that change the 0.78 dwelling, the density, if you do the 2,281? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the density is the conversion issue, but I'm not sure. Nick, how would staff look at that or Kay or Ray or -- I mean, Nick looks at a lot of things with a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Different eye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tainted glass of transportation, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: A different eye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we're looking at density, does that change the -- that's a good point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's residential. They're all considered residential units per -- you know, when you get into RVs and assisted living, so I guess your density calculations would change. COMMISSIONER CARON: It does change it. It goes from .78 to .99, I think it is. And, yeah, again, if you want to add a line that says that. I mean, I think its always better to be right and to be specific, you know, so that somebody can't then say, wait a minute. You can only have .78 of density. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't care that it says somewhere else. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can only speak from experience. When we've done other projects that are residential and senior housing, we have never changed the PUD to say, if you convert some of your residential units to senior housing, your density went from 3 units per acre to 3.4 units per acre. We've never done that. I don't mind doing it. I'm just saying we've never done it. Where you run into the problem is when you're in the urban area, you're capped at four units per acre. If you convert, you're going to be more than four units per acre, and now are you inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan? We've never had that issue before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The county has always applied a conversion factor, so to speak, for assisted living, congregate living facilities. And the typical conversion factor is, for every acre of residential uses you convert it to an ALF facility, you subtract that conversion factor, and it's typically three something to four units per acre -- three -to -one. So that way you're not affecting the project density, because you're subtracting that number of dwelling units from the maximum permitted residential units in that project. So if five acres are subtracted for an ALF, you take that density, subtract that number from the maximum number of dwelling units allowed, that way you're not affecting density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: As the document's currently written, it's clear. I understood exactly what was proposed to be developed. As you start to add more and more language, it's going to lack clarity. I know you're trying to achieve clarity, but I think you'll have the reverse effect. If you want to show sample calculations of how this is implemented, I don't have a problem with that but once you start adding more language and making it even more complicated, when you're starting with a very complicated document, I would caution you. do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need a consensus from this board because we've got to either do it or not Melissa, which way you want to go? COMMISSIONER AHERN: As -- leave it as is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Leave it as is. Stay with traffic. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think there needs to be some sort of clarification. I'm not so sure we shouldn't wait until the end to -- for everybody to actually think and -- think about language, too, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can always bring it up at the end again, but I just -- and I don't know if it needs further discussion right now, so I'm trying to get past this so we can go on to something else. Would you want to leave it like it is or see it clarified? Page 30 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I'd rather have some sort of clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As would I. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, I'm sorry. I went right by you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You were so excited. It's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I can leave it as is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now it stays as is based on the majority. We'll see if there's any changes during the motion, whatever occurs later today. Let's move on. MS. ASHTON: May I make a proposal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON: I mean, you're welcome to use -- you know, correct my calculations and using those as a sample. And I can put it on the visualizer if you want to see what it looks like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's hold on that discussion until later in today. I don't want to keep kicking this one around. We'll move forward, and as the day wears on, we might have a different attitude or different opinion later on. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Ray, could you please put up the change page for Page 17. My request is an additional revision on this Page 17, and it begins with the paragraph that begins with, Table 3 below sets forth the development standards for the business park land uses and the school land uses within the MPUD. I think we need the clarification that we've discussed previously that this does not apply to the Collier County Public Schools. If we could have that expressly stated in that sentence, I think it would help in the clarification. MS. ASHTON: It is addressed later on when we get to later pages, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think one more --just continually clarifying it wherever it occurs can be -- MR. EASTMAN: I would certainly appreciate it. It's Page 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're -- can tell us, specifically where it says "school land uses," you're referencing -- MR. EASTMAN: We -- okay. Heidi's agreed that at the end of the sentence where we say "within the MPUD," we can say, "however, these development standards shall not apply to Collier County Public Schools." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, do you have any objection? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a weak "no." MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a weak man right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, you created this monster. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not -- I wasn't quite finished with our changes on the land -use conversion factor, when you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Tom got his point in. What's your further discussion? I'm not finished with it either. We haven't gone to our questions, but what's your question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Under the senior - housing intensity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, the intensity of any senior housing unit shall have a maximum floor area of .6. I think we really meant to say "senior housing project." MS. ASHTON: Yeah. Actually, it does show the handwritten changes on the visualizer. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this is agreed to -- this has been agreed to with staff. I just -- you don't have it, so I just wanted to go through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the upper change involving the school, the word "private education facility," that's one we're going to be making, too? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The "private" comes out for school. Page 31 of 86 161 Z 17 September 1, 2011 MS. ASHTON: And then the other change on here that you mentioned earlier would be to add -- at the very bottom before operational characteristics, it will be bolded and say, "total project intensity," semicolon, and the sentence that's actually in the first full paragraph that's on the visualizer will be moved: In no event shall the project exceed 3,328 p.m. peak hour trips. So there'll be a new paragraph that says "total project intensity," bolded, colon, and then the sentence will be moved to the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on 17 and 18? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the two paragraphs above senior housing intensity it talks about conversions, and I think that the second sentence, the developer shall also be allowed to wholly convert the hotel development opportunity of 134 rooms not to exceed 92,000, to 60,000 square feet of business park -- and that, again, means that you can't build a smaller than 92- -- 135 -room hotel and get any conversion to business park. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON: I didn't catch what you said, Mark. Could you repeat that. I couldn't find where you were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He -- two paragraphs above the senior housing intensity. MS. ASHTON: Oh, above it, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the second sentence; it starts with the word, "the developer." MS. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's talking about wholly convert. I just wanted to make sure that, based on the prior discussion, the entire hotel or even a piece of it gets built, they don't get any conversion at all for BP, so -- Pages 19 and 20, anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we'll -- I think -- I want to talk about the alley design, but let's talk about that when we get to the pictures of it. But, Rich, what we do -- in commercial you're allowed mixed use. What kind of development standards would a mixed -use project have? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we went back to what we discussed was the minimum setback was 25 feet, right? I don't -- and then we would be subject to the architectural standards in the code instead of changing anything to allow us to get closer to the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And where would that setback be for a mixed -use project? Because remember you have commercial on the lower floor. It does state that the mixed use -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It would still -- you'd still start at the same 25 feet from the road -- from the right -of -way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The front -yard setback for multifamily -- which is probably what would be considered up there -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we in the table now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're in the table, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Do you mind, before we get to the table, if -- there are two small changes in the recreational vehicle that we need to put on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you -- then on that one, under recreational vehicle park criteria, the fifth bullet point down, the density, we had had -- it had said -- it previously said up to 24.2 acres. And I believe it was to be not less than 24.2 acres. MS. ASHTON: Or 28. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or twenty -- whatever. The site is actually 30 acres on the master plan, and that 24.2 comes from dividing 290 by 12. And it was supposed to be a -- it was really supposed to be a minimum. So it either can be a minimum or it can come out but -- because the master plan is actually larger. And believe it or not, on the site development standards, yeah, we had noted we needed to change that deviation to No. 3. And now I'm ready for you, Mr. Schiffer. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And like I said, I do want to talk about alley design, but we'll wait Page 32 of 86 September 1, 2011 till we get to those pictures. Mixed use. How do we -- what kind of development standards do we have? I mean, the last ten years planning has spent an awful lot of time on the virtues and how to do great mixed -use projects. It somehow skipped this document. I mean, looking at this chart, I assume it will be a multifamily dwelling. Are you saying that if you stick residential on top of commercial, the residential will follow the -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- what we have is -- we would believe that the Table 2 would apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let's look at that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the minimum yards from a tract or a PUD boundary is 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the tract the same as a lot? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you subdivide based on the standards here, you're saying that all projects will be 25 feet from that lot setback because you have no real front setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If tract equals lot -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what we probably should add is -- all of them are a minimum of 25 feet, right? All setbacks. MR. NADEAU: Minimum yards, all yards. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what we need to clarify is that all minimum yards, regardless of front side, correct? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And front, back, side shall be 25 feet, minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I don't see a reference to the road either, you're right, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we can wait till we get there, but if lot equals tract -- I'm not sure lot equals tract, in my mind yet, but if you want to put that in there, that's good. So what you're saying though is that any mixed -use project is going to go by the commercial standards -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- outside residential and multifamily standards? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON: And we can add on the top of that page commercial including mixed -use buildings if that -- I think that would provide some clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On top of what page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table 2. MS. ASHTON: Page 26 of 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure you're right. I mean, you're -- I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 26? MS. ASHTON: So in the caption where it says Table 2, it would read "commercial including mixed -use buildings," and I'll address that again when we get to that page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. When we get there, but I do want to talk about lot and tract and make sure that's the case, because there is no setbacks in commercial other than these references. Okay. I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on Page 19 and 20. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On Page 19 under the sign development standards, that last bullet, just tell me what that's getting us. What is that doing? Any land uses permitted within the boundaries of the MPUD shall be considered on site for the purposes of providing for signage within the commercial tract. So does that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That would allow swamp buggy to have a sign on the commercial tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: And your residential to have a sign on the commercial tract? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Any property owner, essentially, within the PUD would be authorized to have a sign on the commercial tract. Page 33 of 86 6 A? " • September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: We're going to have a lot of sign proliferation here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we're not going to clutter it up. But, I mean, we would have the ability to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, Pages 19, 20? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have questions on 20. The minimum distance from the MPUD boundary for accessory structures, since their height can be the same as a principal structure, why isn't it 15 feet or half the building height? We talked about this last time, and we were supposed to have half the building height in both places. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm going to go real quickly and look at my note. COMMISSIONER CARON: If they can be the same height as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So 15 feet or half the height of the building -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- zoned height of the building? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, if you're going to have them be the same then -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And somewhere there is supposed to be a note -- and tell me if I'm just missing it -- that says that no buildings west of the FPL can be essentially multifamily. They can't be 85 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's Note 6. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Go to the next page. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- go for your commercial tract as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. If you go to the next -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, if -- anything west of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I think we were specific on that residential tract that was up by Lords -- I believe north of Lords Way. It was just that residential tract, and we did that in Note No. 6 on the following page -- page right after your -- the table. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's how we handled -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's for Tract C. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That note applies to the previous table, Table 1 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Everything, okay. Perfect. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- which is the residential table. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: There is another highlighted version in there. I have not talked to Rich on this, but we spoke to Mike Sawyer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not on Page 21 yet. We're still on Page 19 and 20. MS. ASHTON: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. Since you put it up, I thought we were there. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Pages (sic) 19? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I have a note that we were going to change BH, building height, to zoned building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? I couldn't hear you, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: The BH, building height, we were going to change that to zoned building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're going to add the word "zoned." Building height, zoned building height. Yeah, put the word "zoned" in front of there so we know we're not talking about actual. MS. ASHTON: So you want it to read "BH," colon, "building height," and then parentheses, "zoned "? Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That was -- that was what we had talked about. MR. BELLOWS: What section was that on? Page 34 of 86 16 12, A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20. It's a footnote, or the -- not a footnote. It's a -- yeah, reference on the bottom of the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, because in the table -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next page, Ray. Oh, on the back of the page you just had. Down at the bottom where the --below your --right where your knuckle is for your thumb. Oh, you just moved your knuckle for your thumb. Now you're really stuck. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's writing. He's writing that with an arrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know you saw it. Okay. Don't move your knuckle. Okay. Anybody else on 19 and 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. On your recreational vehicle park criteria, first bullet point, any RV park may be located in one location on Tract R. Well, don't we actually have a tract -- well, we relabeled the tract for the RV so that it's now defined as RV, so it can't be in one location on Tract R. It's its own tract, right? MS. ASHTON: Well, the reason I put "in one location" is so that you wouldn't have the R district with isolated -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't we drop the words "on Tract R," because the RV is not on Tract R if it's its own tract. It's RV tract. MS. ASHTON: It's not on Tract R, you're correct. "On Tract R" comes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the next one under site development or plat approval, after the word "PUD" in that first bullet, could we say with each SDP and/or plat application? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. While we're at a -- let's finish up Page 21, the footnotes, and then we'll go into public comment, and then we'll see how much time we have over before we leave -- break for lunch. MS. ASHTON: With each SDP or plat application, where did you want that inserted? I didn't catch that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The very -- after the word -- after the acronym PUD, under site development or plat approval -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the very end of the sentence. MS. ASHTON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 21. MS. ASHTON: When we met with Mike Sawyer, he said that he didn't know what "firewall protrusions" meant, so we're seeking clarification of what that is or if you can answer what that is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we talked about it. There are -- in order to divide a larger building up, I guess, into smaller buildings, you can -- one option is to have a firewall divide units, and that firewall could protrude forward into the setback to divide that building up, and that would allow that firewall to protrude into the setback so we can divide the building up into smaller buildings, although it looks like one big building. Is that a fairly generic laymen's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Yeah, if you have a firewall, you have to protect the fire from going around one side to the other. The easiest way is to have a fin coming out of the building. It doesn't have to actually be three feet, but that's -- we don't need to argue that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's what that is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is such a thing as -- I mean, that makes sense to me as an architect. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we leave it though as the code provides, and the code says -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could say code maximum, the maximum code - required firewall. I think it would probably be 18 inches, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's a difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what it is, Mr. Strain, and would it -- I don't think anybody had any stomachache with a firewall protruding 3 feet into the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you've got a 6 -foot setback and you take up 3 feet, you're reducing Page 35 of 86 A 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 your setback substantially. MR. YOVANOVICH: But it's only for a very narrow area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get from the front to the back if you can't -- if you've got to get through an area that's narrowed down to 3 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would probably occur on a -- in the front or rear setback. I'm not -- the side setback, I'm not sure how that would happen. But the -- it would be the wall dividing two units. Like a townhouse, for example, has firewalls between them. Since they're saying it's for firewalls, it's not like they're going to stick anything else in and get away with it, hopefully. So, I mean, if they're running air conditioning in it, that's not what it's saying. We can, in the code now, have certain protrusions anyway into the setbacks for -- you know, for columns, pilaster, stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It says, sills and architectural design treatment shall not project over 12 inches into the required yard. They're asking for three times that amount. I'm just trying to understand what that means. And as hard as this document has been to understand, I'm sure that some designs are going to be equally hard to understand if they try to take this into some interpretation we're not anticipating. So, Brad, what do you think this limits them to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there is some 5 -yard setbacks. If you put a 3 -foot wall -- the code minimum, I think, now would be 18 inches, from my experience. But, you know, I mean, code is minimum. Maybe somebody wants a safer place and they want a 2 -foot one, or -- I mean, I would have no problem if you worded it that it's -- you know, the maximum required by the governing building codes would be fine with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: What if we just made it real clear it only applied to the front and the rear, because the front, I believe, is 20 feet or whatever the number is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The rear could be five in some of these. MR. YOVANOVICH: For a multifamily? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Multifamily is the one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think we're talking about the principal structure, aren't we, Mr. Schiffer? We wouldn't be talking about accessory structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But if you look -- the multifamily could be five feet if it's not on a paseo. So that could -- you could theoretically, back to back, have 10 feet, 6 feet of which is firewall. Anyhow. I think allowing the firewall to go into the setback is okay with me. Good idea maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, if we allow a firewall to go into the setback, why don't we just allow the whole building to go into the setback? I mean, I don't undertand. The firewall -- it's just -- it's part of the building. If they're going to do that with their buildings, why are not (sic) we asking for 3 -foot or 5 -foot setbacks, different setbacks? I don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's part of a building that has to go beyond the building just to make it safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not if the building's designed differently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or if -- or if it's designed, the firewall can, you know, be parallel with the walls. The problem there is some of these designs are really bad. You would -- I mean, to come in 4 feet on each side, you could do a ray of construction and not have that fin. They barely have room for windows as it is, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, we could -- you already allow roofs 3 feet in. I mean, under that same logic, why don't you let the whole building come in if you're going to allow a roof 3 -foot in? I mean, these are not taking up the whole building. They're -- I don't know how wide they are, but when you drive by them, they don't look very wide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you see them in a lot of them coming up through the roof, is the ones that I've seen, and they're not very thick. So they're not -- they're not in a total -- it's very different than bringing the whole building up to the distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It's just a fin kind of piece coming out of the building. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, this is not our first time at the rodeo. I mean, this -- we're adding Page 36 of 86 161 i2 7 September 1, 2011 new language about a firewall. And is this going to be standard language going forward now for every multifamily? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if there's a -- only if the attorney representing it does any more projects in Collier County. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, everybody's making it harder and harder to get clients to want to come here, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- I'm trying to understand why this is necessary. If you've got a box in which you've agreed to build within, why don't you start at the edge of that box and work inward instead of starting -- filling the box and working outward? I don't understand the necessity to do it this way. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's no different than a roof overhang or anything else that can come in that's already allowed under the code. A roof can come 3 feet. Why can't the fm come in 3 feet? We're just trying to make it clear. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Section 4.02.01 of the LDC provides for extensions and exclusions from design standards, and one of -- there are many -- like 12 or 13 of them, and they allow for chimneys and roofs to encroach into side yards. It also says window or wall- mounted air conditioning units, chimney, fireplaces, windows, or pilasters, which are kind of similar to what Rich is talking about in regards to a firewall protruding, and the LDC allows for it to project 2 feet into a required yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I have it. I read it, and that's what brought my question up, Ray, is, why are we adding more to it? What's wrong with what we've got? We've got plenty here. There's -- MR. BELLOWS: Unless they want more than the 2 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you just said, there are 13 allowable protrusions, and now we're going to invent No. 14. I'm -- anyway. We're just making our code more difficult to understand. MR. BELLOWS: No, I agree. We don't -- we wouldn't allow it if it's already addressed in the LDC. But if they want more than what -- the 2 feet as allowed, if they want 3 feet -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure that -- again, I'm not an architect and I'm not a contractor, but I'm not sure that anything you just listed was a firewall. If it was a firewall, then obviously we don't need it to go more than 2 feet. Can we live with 2 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, your architect could call it a pilaster. A pilaster's like -- see how this column comes out of the wall; that's a pilaster if that was on the face of your building. So if your architect was smart, he could say it's a pilaster. You've got 2 feet. I think you need a -- you know, a foot and a half, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we limit it to the 2 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And does anybody object to being honest and leaving the firewall language in, or we'll just take it out and we'll call it a pilaster? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather you try to stick with the language we already have, and you dealt with staff on how you want to interpret it down the road. We've done that, it works, and I don't know why we have to reinvent the wheel. This whole document is 100 pages of reinvention. And, yeah, things change, but there's a lot of changes here all at one time. I'm not sure why we need to get into the code changes, Richard, so that's my thought on it. I'll make a note of it, and as we go into summarizing this thing at the end, we'll see where it goes. Anything else on Page 21 by anybody? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just had a question, because I'm not understanding the purpose of No. 4. I mean, again, what does that --what does that get us? I mean, I seethe illustration. I see where you're measuring from, but if this note wasn't here, what would that setback have to be? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is, if you -- I don't want to say this word, so -- what it allows you to have -- you measure your setback from the shortest height of the building. If you didn't have that language and your building was 30 feet, you would measure from that 30 feet versus the lower height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that wedding- cake - design thing that came up years ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Page 37 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So we happy to have that coming back, gang? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, honestly, I don't think this is the first time this has come through on a project of this size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's the difference in the high -rise versus the shallower projects, so I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But they've got 85 feet, so it's not exactly a short building. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says two or three story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what that note applies to; two- or three -story buildings can be wedding caked. Taller than that, it doesn't allow for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 21? Just one other question. Number 3, the -- your entrance feature, you know, 50 feet is kind of high. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know we talked about this. Did we agree to 30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-five feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-five feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Number 3 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 3. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- mark it down to 35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. With that, let's break and -- for the pages we're on and ask for any -- if anybody in the public is here that wishes to comment before we come back from lunch, now's the best time to do that; otherwise, you'll end up staying here a little longer if you still want to talk. Nicole, I see you coming up. Dwight, I think you're with the applicant. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: But he'd like to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'd like to leave after lunch. COMMISSIONER CARON: He'd like to leave. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy. I appreciate you taking my public comment a bit out of order. The Conservancy took a look at this project and the Comp Plan amendments that went along with it strictly from an environmental perspective, so you've had lots of good discussion on non - environmental issues and still working things out, but we took a look at it from the environment side, and certainly this project has come a long way from where it started many years ago. The Conservancy and other groups met with the applicant, and we do want to acknowledge that some of our suggestions were taken to heart. They did minimize the impacts to the rural fringe sending lands. They really did listen to our concerns, and I think that when an applicant does that, it really needs to be acknowledged on the record, so I want to get that out there. But I do want to point out a couple of things, because I don't know how much discussion you've had on the environmental issues as part of your review. But this project is going to impact, directly, 460 acres of wetlands, and the entire project site is within primary panther habitat, but it is consistent with Collier County's Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Codes. And I bring this up in order to, as we move forward -- not to apply to this project, but as we move forward, there are some deficiencies within our GMP and LDC that we really need to circle back and take a look at. If the rural -fringe program and the density- blending provisions allows for 460 acres of direct wetland impact, that's a problem, and that's something that needs to be resolved in the future. We simply can't defer all of these panther- habitat issues to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fish and Wildlife Commission in the future. So I want to bring that up because with what the legislature has done with changing the growth management law, eviscerating Department of Community Affairs, more responsibility is going to be on the local government for you to take more of a responsibility role. Page 38 of 86 16I 2 A7 September 1, 2011 You have more authority, and with that comes more responsibility for making sure that our listed species and our wetlands are protected. You can't simply defer that in the future. And with budget cuts, these other agencies, if they still have authority left, aren't going to have the time and funding to take a look at that. So I bring that up as a compliment to the applicant, bring up our concerns not to make David cringe, but just -- this is a really good example of some things that we need to look at strategically, as the county moves forward, perhaps in some EAR -based amendments. And I would --just my two cents on the debate of adding specificity to this DRI. The more specificity that you can add, the better. I am responsible for circling back on the Conservancy settlement agreements, Daytona settlement, and the Marco Shores PUD that comes along with that, and Lely Barefoot Beach, and I'm sure that at the time, 20, 30 years ago, they thought they were being specific enough, but 20 and 30 years later we don't know what the heck they meant. It leaves a lot open to interpretation. So don't do that for the next generation to have to wade through. So I really, want to applaud all of you for taking the time to go through this line by line. Certainly with the new growth management laws, the Planning Commission is going to have to do that more and more. So hopefully you -- you knew that when you signed up for this. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Well, they doubled our pay after the Growth Management Act passed, so we're in really good shape now. We don't mind spending the time here. Thank you. And, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Nicole, I wanted to ask you, in their tracts here for the preserve area, there are uses that can happen in that preserve. Are you okay -- there is no limitation. They can have horse trails, and I don't know how much preserve you're going to lose to horse trails, if any, but there's no -- there's nothing to define that. Same with nature trails and boardwalks and kiosks and -- MS. JOHNSON: I believe that a majority of the preserves will at some point be turned over to Picayune Strand, so that will become state land managed consistent with the Picayune Strand project, so we see that as being consistent. As far as the uses in the preserve that are going to be retained as part of the project, you know, we've taken a look and -- getting people out into nature we see as something positive, so we don't have any problems with the preserve uses. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Any other members of the public that would like to speak now? Or forever -- at least hold your peace till this afternoon then. We'll have another opportunity after we get into this this afternoon. Let's move forward until a little closer to lunch. We'll take a break around -- I don't know. What do you guys want to do? Do you want to head down early to get a seat at the table, or you want to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's always good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's take a break now and come back at 12:45. We'll resume at 12:45 this afternoon. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. It's 12:45. We'll resume the meeting. We had so much fun this morning, we want to just continue it this afternoon. And with that, I think we left off -- and where's our favorite county attorney? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. None of the attorneys -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I used to be one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know they're still fixing the things that happened -- that went wrong when you were here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Statute of limitations is gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: hi fact, when you were the county attorney, you came in, and I was introduced to you by Ramiro Manalich, and you were the green guy at the time, just brand -new newbie fresh from somewhere. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was many, many years ago. My goodness. That's -- Page 39 of 86 '4 16 1 Z A7 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: We both had brown hair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was 40 or 50 pounds lighter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had red hair. Wow. That goes back a long way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, 1990. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, think of the county attorneys. Burt Saunders used to be one, Tony Pires, Don Pickworth. Who -- I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all you guys. Holy cow. MR. YOVANOVICH: Vamadoe was always smart enough to never have done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, lacking Heidi, it makes it a little awkward. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to wait. Anybody -- nobody, huh? Can't help me with where she might be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we know the extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think what we'll do is just have to take a timeout until she gets here, because it's her input that we're dealing with, so I'd rather not have to do it twice. So we will stop the meeting at 12:46 and reconvene when Heidi gets back. You can shut the mike off. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can go back on record. Our favorite attorney is here. I don't mean you, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back, Heidi. We left off on Page 22, and that's where we will pick up for the afternoon. And I guess the simplest way to get past these pages -- there are one, two, three, four pages of diagrams, 22 through 25. Does anybody have any questions on those diagrams? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And it's actually the diagrams that have been taken out, Rich, and it's for the alley design. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, since they've been taken out I really don't need to discuss the diagram. But the problem with them is, you could actually still build what the diagram represented, because you still have it in the development standard. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that -- you're right. That column should have come out at the time we deleted that exhibit, that figure. And there's actually another figure that it was intended to go with, not with the one you didn't like. But there's another alley design on Page -- it's Figure -- is it 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page? I'm in the strikethrough version, which makes this a little bit difficult. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you see, I didn't bring that because I didn't think you -all were using it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I have the other one next to it. I can translate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 24, I think he's talking about, of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We would need to delete the figure on Page 24, correct? MR. GARCIA: Figure 6. MR. YOVANOVICH: Figure 6, which is actually on Page -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Twenty -four. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- twenty -four. Oh, yeah. The figures are below. I got it. That's where I'm off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think --but isn't 24 just doing --showing us a townhouse development? I'm worried about this alley design. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and the alley needs to go away. But I'm told if I make the alley go away, I also make Figure 6 irrelevant. I guess Figure 5 would be your typical townhome. Page 40 of 86 17 161 ,,,,, September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me look at -- okay. So even both versions of the strikethrough and non - strikethrough carry the alley design column, so that gets removed. MR. YOVANOVICH: That needs to go away. That column needs to go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Table I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Table 1, the column labeled "Townhouse alley design," we took the figure out, but we also need to take out the column. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And believe me, the design gods are going "Hallelujah" for that one. MS. ASHTON: And then Figure 6 comes out as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: And Figure 6 comes out as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Believe me, that was -- you saved some people some horrible living conditions with this move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I love the way you define things. Heidi, did you have anything you wanted to talk about in the designs? MS. ASHTON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No changes, okay. Anybody else have any questions or concerns about the designs? I have one on each remaining page, and that's the same one. You see where the preserve is kind of clouded in? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, take any one. Page 22. They all have preserve clouded in. Then it shows where your setbacks are. You have a preserve setback at 25 feet for the structure, and then accessory setback at 10 feet from preserve. But if you look at where the preserve clouding goes, it goes past the property line, and that corner is closer than 10 feet to where the 5 -foot minimum rear -yard accessory setback is on the middle lot. And while I know we have language that says it's got to be -- accessories are 10 foot from preserve, I'd hate to see someone try to trump that by saying, see, our clouded -in diagram said we could have that that way. And I can see designs coming out with lot lines just a little bit into a preserve to try to preserve that additional 5 feet of setback. So I'd like -- I'd like them cleaned up so that the preserve cloud actually goes 5 feet to the left of the lot line, so that when you actually get to the 5 -foot setback that you're allowed for accessory, you've got a full 10 -feet setback. Now -- so, anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, they're really not to scale on that, so I will clearly move the cloud to where it's to the -- in these diagrams to the left of the lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't want -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it argued in the future -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. That was not our -- that was not an intent to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on then. We'll take Page 26 first, because it's on kind of like a standalone. So Table 2, Page 26, does anybody have any questions? And, Heidi, did you have any changes first? MS. ASHTON: There were two changes on the document that you saw before, and then there's an additional change that we discussed earlier. Under Table 2, commercial, on the top where it's all caps, the insertion would be, "including mixed -use buildings," and that's in response to Mr. Schiffer's comment. And then there's an additional asterisk that you didn't see last time, four asterisks, and it says, principal and accessory structures shall not protrude or encroach into any required landscape buffer, and that's when we consulted with the SDP reviewer and we received that feedback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, with the four asterisks, should we not show them somewhere? And I think the caretakers' of the thing would be the best place. MS. ASHTON: We put it under minimum yards measured from MPUD boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where? I'm not seeing it yet. Page 41 of 86 C A MS. ASHTON: On the visualizer it's one, two, three -- the fourth block. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's been added -- 161 2 September , 0 1 MS. ASHTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- since our packets, okay. And then this brings up the question, my interpretation of tract would be the MPUDZ, obviously the big boundary on the outside of the whole thing. Tract would be that portion of it that's set aside for residential, for commercial. So there really is no lot dimension. Now, you were saying tract equals lots. That would be nice. But in other words, my concern here is that we are going to be able to subdivide, and there is no setback requirements for lots, thus the only thing controlling the position of buildings and stuff on a lot is keep it out of the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the previous Table 1, they referred to lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not sure why we just wouldn't want to be consistent in this document and keep referring to lot, unless there's a fine line that divides a tract from a lot, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then you notice there is no front, side, rear setbacks. There's dimensions from perimeter tracts or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think to clarify that, you're right, we should change the word "tract" to "lot," and then you would have -- if you had an outparcel, you'd have your set -- you would have your lot boundaries in a commercial plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we would -- what you're going to then say to us is that every setback on the lot is going to be 25 feet, and I'm not so sure you want to say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I'm looking over here. Code is 25 feet? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So side, front, rear is 25 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: For every lot setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And granted, you know, the whole tract, as I see it, could be one lot that you could -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It could, it could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put a huge building. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but if we subdivide it. If we subdivide it, you're right, we would need to have a 25 -foot setback from the subdivided lot that we create. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then it brings in the question, what does the three asterisk front -yard setback really mean then? Because in other words, if you ran a road through what you -- the tract which you now call a lot, which I'm not quite sure you want to do that still -- is there any setback requirements from that road? Because there's no such thing as front, side, and rear in the way we're setting this up. And here is where I wish we had some urban, up -to -date, "look how clever we can do things now" wording, you know. But right now you just -- it's this big, huge chunk of something we're going to just stay 25 feet off the edges, and anarchy from there on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're consulting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So, Dwight, technically it should say from the adjacent right -of -way line or easement line, correct? MR. NADEAU: That's accurate. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it would be 25 feet, Mr. Schiffer, from where the road is, and if the road is on our parcel, it would be 25 feet from that road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you -- see, I still think tract is -- remember how you broke down the project into residential and RV and stuff? I think those were tracts. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And within tracts, a subset of tracts is lots. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you're going to say "tract" as "lot," which we should think about. So if you run a road through this now lot, this big lot, this huge lot, we run a road through it, we're going to Page 42 of 86 ILI y September 1, 2011 stay 25 feet away from that road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's got a right -of -way, from the right -of -way; if it doesn't, from the edge of the curb or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So our only setbacks in this whole area for commercial is away from roads or perimeter of this killer lot? MR. YOVANOVICH: Or individual lots as well. If you were -- you're right, if you had a big -- if you had just one big -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- commercial project that was set up and you did it through a Site Development Plan where you're going to have individual lots. In that scenario you would have basically a 25 -foot setback around the perimeter or any road that is within it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- and then, obviously, there would be a buffer requirement around that perimeter also. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's less than 25 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- okay. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Like a shopping center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it leaves a lot of freedom. I mean, it could end up with something really good looking, or it could end up with something like we just killed in the residential section. Okay. Again, for the -- my feelings for the board is that, you know, I do think lots are subsets of tracts, and we should have setback requirements on lots so that they could -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- build it normally, but let's see what this gives us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we did make that change. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's going to apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- went from tract to lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what I'm saying is that I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be a really big lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the tract -- the fact that we went tract to lot, I don't think is an odd idea, because what it ends up with is no subdivision -- if they don't subdivide -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- then it just ends up with the only setbacks in this whole section of the project is keep away from the roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, plus you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's pretty much how I believe every shopping center out there is developed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it is. I mean, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: One at a time. MS. ASHTON: Well, the change that was just -- if I may. Can I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: Written on the visualizer is not correct, because it says "measured from the lot or right -of -way easement," because when you measure from the right -of -way easement, you measure from the back of curb or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON: -- pavement. Well, that's what the asterisk says right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It's -- MS. ASHTON: Number 3, Asterisk 3, that's what it says. Page 43 of 86 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. What we're saying -- and that's the clarification -- is that if within your lot you have a right -- you have a private road that's by easement, not by plat -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it's a private easement, I think what Mr. Schiffer was saying, are you 25 feet from there? And the answer is yes, or could you be right up against that road because the road happens to be 25 feet wide; that's what I understood the question to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And the answer is, no, we've got to be 25 feet from the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the curb -- MS. ASHTON: Pavement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or edge of pavement, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Edge of pavement. And if it's platted, it's from the right -of -way line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you made like a little alley, then you'd be 25 feet away from that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the road is going to dominate the massing of the buildings on this site, not setbacks, not other things? That 25 -foot setback is the only requirement within the tract lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then the other -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's unique. I mean, it could end up with something -- the freedom could give us something really nice, or the freedom could give us something really bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. MS. ASHTON: I think you have to delete "or right -of -way easement" that you just wrote in, so it would just be from the lot. And then you have to look at the three asterisks to determine -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So whoever wrote that on there, I would cross it off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a couple of things. So what this is saying is that you're going to have a 75 -foot building on this front C parcel, and it only has to be 25 feet back from any part of that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- boundary. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. That's what you just said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be right. MR. GARCIA: You would have to say 25 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you've got to use the speaker, sorry. If you're going to contribute, we've got to get you on record. MR. GARCIA: You're correct in the way that you're saying it. The way it's written, yes, you could have the maximum building height at 25 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. GARCIA: So if we want to address that, we just have to make a change. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. We have to make a change to again say, "or half the building height" to be consistent with everything else. MR. GARCIA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition, because we've added in here "including mixed use," meaning that you could put housing on top of this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we need to put the footnote that's on the other one that says no residential Page 44 of 86 p A7 161 2Se tember 1 2011 buildings higher than 50 feet can be west of that FP &L line, because if you use it as a mixed -use building, we don't want it to be higher than 50 feet in that front tract anywhere. I mean, that was the whole goal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think there was a difference. I don't think -- I don't know practically what the difference would be between -- a 75- foot -tall commercial building is okay on that piece of property but a mixed -use building 75 feet tall wouldn't be okay. I think the concern more was on the northern portion of the property closer to Lely was what that -- where that concern came about, and that's why we limited it to 50 feet on that residential piece. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want a -- homes -- because those are somebody's home, if you include it -- again, just 25 feet away from 951. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it can't be. Don't forget, I've got my canal, too. There's a -- how wide is that canal? It's a hundred -foot canal before I even get to 951, so I'm going to be a minimum, you know, of 125 with a structure to 951. So, I mean, it's -- without that -- without that knowledge, I can see how you would conclude that I could be right on top of 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anymore? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Just one minor thing, and that's that No. 3 down here in the notes. There is actually no No. 3, so that just can come out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three, little i. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we did change to 25 or half the building height, yeah. MS. ASHTON: Is that for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mike. Heidi, you need your mike. MS. ASHTON: The 25 feet, is that for the minimum yards from the MPUD boundaries and the preserve setback as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON: Or just the one? I'm just trying to follow what you're saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: The setback from a lot line or MPUD boundary would be 25 feet or half the building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum 25 feet or half. MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum of 25 feet or half the zoned building height. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So its just that first one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whichever is greater, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Ray or maybe Heidi. But, Ray, when they consider structures, how do you determine the structure? In other words, in the building code, there's -- we can determine structure -- MR. BELLOWS: The LDC defines a structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so it would be what, a break in a building, or what would it -- it defines a structure as anything greater than 30 inches above -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's two measurements. There's a measurement for any structure 36 inches above grade that has to meet setbacks, and then there's the building code definition of a structure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And in other words, what I'm getting at is, like, in the building code, if you have a structural type that has unlimited area, while we have this huge lot, we can have one structure on it even though there's breaks in it and stuff like that. Is that how you would also interpret it? MR. BELLOWS: I think that's possible, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Unless you regulate the bulk of the size of the building other than what the LDC provides for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's a big leap of faith to the designer of this project. Hire a good one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we usually -- we have at various times in the past put massing elements into some of these PUDs. Why aren't we considering that for this one? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are some in the LDC in regards to the architectural provisions about breaks in buildings and recesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's nothing that says a building can't be a football field long. It just -- Page 45 of 86 161 2 September 1, A17 MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- says, if it is, you've got to have certain breaks as you go along. MR. BELLOWS: And we did put, in several PUDs, as you may recall, limiting either the big box to a certain square footage so you would not get a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hey, come on. We're in an activity center. This is where commercial's supposed to be. We can't -- we can't start talking about big boxes and all that stuff. We've got architectural standards. I've done several activity- center PUDs, and this is the first time we've talked about how long the building can be. We've always relied on the architectural standards to address -- the bigger the building, there's standards to address that. The most recent one was out in Golden Gate Estates, and that made sense, but this is an activity center, and I don't remember where we've gone to -- where we've gone to limit -- where we've gone to limiting -- you can't have a big box in an activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, your first statement, we can't be talking about it, we can. It's why we're here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say we can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you did. You said, we can't talk about it. Yes, you did. Can you read the minutes back? Never mind. The reason I remember you said it because it perked my attention. Normally I'm not trying to pay attention. So we can talk about it. That's what this board is for. And if we have an issue with massing, as we have had in many PUDs, we can insert language or suggested language with a recommendation to have a massing element added. We have done it in other PUDs. As far as specifically activity centers -- and I know we got into a lot of discussion about buildings -- sizing in the Target in East Naples. And we allowed a Target to go in, but if it wasn't a Target, or -- it wasn't a big box like Target. We didn't use the brand name, but that's the best reference I can think of -- there had to be some other kind of treatment or other kind of actions in regards to the buildings there. You had come in with a series of different pictures and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We actually did that with -- I don't think we dealt with size, but we talked about -- we talk about -- we talked about breaking it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Well, that particular lot wasn't as deep as this one either, if I remember correctly, so -- I mean, we have done this before. It's not -- it's nothing that we shouldn't do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if there is an idea -- and, Brad, I guess we'd all probably be wanting to hear from you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. Could you put up the master plan showing all the tract lots that are commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- I'm afraid to put one up, because I don't know which one you have, so COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have any in this package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you can use the one -- I've got one. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can put this one up that we'll hopefully be discussing soon, because we're getting close to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, mine will show it better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Along -- in other words, there's two concerns I have. One is 951 and the other one is within the project. Within the project, if you mess it up, you messed up your project. 951, we all look at. What is commercial on 951 in this thing? The upper piece? Okay. That one piece there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he's got one, Diane. He found one. MR. YOVANOVICH: That one. And, remember, we've got a hundred -foot canal before we even get to that property line and the further setback. So that's the activity center that's -- we can build our commercial on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if anybody quickly knows, you're limited in how much you could build. What percentage of that site is the maximum floor area you can have? I know we don't use floor -area ratio -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 46 of 86 161 Z A7 September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but if there was one, what would it be? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. Mr. Schiffer, there is no maximum defined. It's driven by parking -- the type of commercial uses, parking, setbacks, water management, and open space. But on average, generally for retail uses, you usually get about 10,000 square foot per acre. For office, it's higher; more like 15,000. And those are just -- and that doesn't include multi -story, and those are just rule of thumb. There is no -- there is no maximum. It's up to the designer. And, of course, it's a factor of the mixture of uses because of the parking driving much of the consumption of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what it boils down to, if they wanted to offer a maximum FAR that they would adhere to on that piece of property to give it some level of confidence that we're not going to have one building 25 feet inside that -- on every end with God only knows what else you would figure out how to do it -- under slab -- between water management and -- MR. MULHERE: We're limited to 327,000 square feet maximum. I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- I think we want to provide for creative design. That's what we're talking about, but now we're really talking about restricting creative design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want to talk about that. But I also don't want a, you know -- MR. MULHERE: I thought you mentioned it, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- six -, seven -story solid block of concrete -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. That wouldn't be permitted -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 30, 40 acres, you know, other than -- you know, sitting out there in the middle either. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I'm sure we're open for a suggestion, but that really wouldn't be permitted by the architectural standards. There are massing standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the traffic count. MR. MULHERE: There are facade standards. I mean, we have probably the most restrictive commercial architectural standards in the state. I mean, they may not be perfect, but they do address many of the issues that you're raising. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any concern over the massing issue? I think his point about 327- is probably a good point, because that site is over a million and a half -- about a million -and -a -half square feet based on my quick calculations. So if they're using 327 -, they're not fully covered in that site. Now -- of course, now we get back into the height issue. And, Richard, you got maximum zoned height 75 feet, yet our standard zoning districts, C1, C2, and C5, are all 35 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: And C4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C3 is -- I'm getting to it. C3 -- C3 is 50 feet. Terri will just tell you not to talk over people. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And C4 is 75 feet, but the majority of your uses are not C4, and the uses that are -- I would be surprised if you want to put bowling alleys up 75 feet in the air. I would think -- and the way C4 seems to be written, it references floor -area ratio for hotels and destination resorts, of which I know you're very familiar with. Maybe we can consider 50 feet as a standard height with the exception of senior housing, hotels, or destination resorts would go higher. What kind of buildings were you thinking putting up to 75 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think with -- the main thing we were thinking was the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when you're thinking -- that's fine. And, again, we went -- you know, the C4 zoning district doesn't get that fine. It talks about 75 feet, and that's where we were, and we're well over 100 feet from the right -of -way. We didn't think 75 feet was unreasonable. But with the limitations you're talking about, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be 50 -foot zoned height with 75 feet for hotels, senior housing, or destination resorts. That's hotels. Page 47 of 86 161, 2 September 1, 0 7, MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, but I don't know that I -- well, I guess if I put my miniature golf course out there I might become a destination resort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you used that before, so I just wanted to give you the opportunity to use it in the right place this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't fit here either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, does that mean you're acknowledging it didn't fit in the other place the first time? Oh, Richard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about residential, too, because of the things that are -- one of the beautiful, natural things in Collier County is the lightning shows out in the Everglades. People living up that high would be able to enjoy that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're talking for a mixed -use project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that. That's residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's -- they can go higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Richard, did you hear what -- so it would be 75 feet for hotels, senior housing, destination resorts, or mixed -use facilities. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the -- corresponding to the 50 feet would be 60 feet for actual, and corresponding to 75 would be 85 as you have it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Are we ready to move on to Pages 27 and 28? Heidi, do you want to start off with anything you've got? MS. ASHTON: Ray, could you put Page 27 on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Microphone. MS. ASHTON: You can see the proposed change to clarify that it excludes the Collier County School District from the Table 3, and since the school board district is excluded, the two references to SBR are also proposed to be removed. And your prior draft had "minimum gross leasable area," and changed it to just "minimum gross floor area" to be consistent with the rest of the PUD and the DRI. And then we had an insertion of some language that we received from the SDP reviewer on Page 28 when we get there, and those were the only changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On this table, anybody have any issues? Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Can you just slide it down so we can see the balance of the page. Could we also delete the reference to SBR that's at the bottom of the page? MS. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're at it, the reference to SBR under accessory needs to be dropped, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: And also principal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, principal's already noted, but accessory -- MS. ASHTON: Oh, yeah. Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. It wasn't on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Yep, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. There's a note here about portable classrooms. If we're building this project on these tracts, you're not going to be using portables? I mean, I'm not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't see a business park with portables in it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to drop -- Page 48 of 86 o A 7 161 2 September 1 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I understand the portables for the school board, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll drop the double asterisk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And then the triple will become a double, and we'll have to fix the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 28 now, Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Ray, could you put that page on the visualizer, please. The yellow is the added language, "each installed according to industry standards." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Page 28? I do. Nick, I guess, way up on the top. Uh -oh. Sorry to wake you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I'm awake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second line down, "Developer with roadway facilities as generally depicted by LDC." Wouldn't we just say as depicted by LDC, or why would it --I mean, who's going to determine what is generally depicted? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you're going to go with referencing the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then after B4 it says, a commercial and industrial -- slash, industrial typical roadway section. I haven't looked at those sections for a long time. Do we have one now classified that way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we can just drop the word "generally" then and go straight from there. Okay. Pages 29 and 30. Wow -- let's take 29 -- well, it's nothing. It's all legal description. Unless anybody spent the time and retraced the survey, let's go to Page 34. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're skipping over the master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no master plan. We don't have one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is no master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been one of the problems. Now that you bring it up, we can talk about it. We don't have a master plan, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me show you what changed from the master plan you don't have, which was, I guess, the last one. Let me show you what we changed since the last one you saw in August. As I mentioned earlier in the day, we added the "R or RV" to address the tract that was created as part of the edits through the county attorney's review process. We also changed this section over here, which was the provisions related to -- although I can't see it anymore. Can you blow that up just a little bit more -- the conversion factors to make them consistent with what we discussed today. Previously we had the older conversion factors in there, and I believe we also addressed the gross -area issue that was previously raised. I believe Heidi and Kay have had an opportunity to look at this. Don't give me -- either you did or you didn't. I was told you were going to --you would get a chance to look at it and that there's no issues from staff. I'm just asking. And then I know this is your first look at it, and we were going to take our time going through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When are you going to give us copies of it so we could read it? I hate to ask that. I know its just a measly little master plan, but, Richard, we do like to read -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't know that you were not provided a copy during the break. I apologize for that. I thought you were provided one, and apparently we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else get a copy? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't got a copy, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I apologize for that. I thought you had, and I guess we need to give it to them now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to have another break soon -- well, actually in about 45 minutes, so we will review it during that break. MS. ASHTON: And 1 just have the same comment as I did earlier on the prior master plan that was up there, that instead of -- under the legend -- you can't see it on what's up here now -- it should read, "RV equals RV" developed area and not "R or RV" under the legend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now that we're on this master plan -- go ahead. Page 49 of 86 �4 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MS. ASHTON: And there's one other. Well, they're depicting a cross -out, but where it says RV dash "residential or" would be crossed out, so it's just "RV," dash, "RV development area." So over in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. MR. YOVANOVICH: I really would like to leave the "or" there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm really mixed up on what you're talk -- where -- the picture we have in front of us, is that the section you're talking about now? MS. ASHTON: Yes. I'll put mine up so you can see what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ASHTON: This is a different version, which is the one we were provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you're going to need to use the mike. I'm sorry. MS. ASHTON: This is a different version, but this is what we were provided. And you can see right here it should read "R or RV," okay. And then over here that should be RV, which is RV development area. And then you've got R over here, which is residential tract. So "R" means residential tract, or "RV" means RV development area. So I think that accommodates what you're trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to agree with you. It gets a lot closer. And that will be something we can double -check over the break and be done with it after the break, I hope. Thank you, Heidi. MS. DESELEM: I just noticed -- for the record, Kay Deselem. When I looked at it quickly -- we've made some changes today to the conversions, and this document is not consistent with what we've changed today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us an example? MS. DESELEM: I don't have a copy, or I can't see that part of it. But like we talked about the educational facilities and we talked about schools. Dwight gave me a copy when we took the lunch break, but I didn't have a chance to get with Heidi during the lunch break to discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, after our next break, we'll come back and discuss this one more time. MS. DESELEM: What -- oh, there he is. Okay. And the other thing that -- Steve Lenberger noticed that the Letter B was missing from -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, we can't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just a minute. MS. DESELEM: -- their preserve area, and it's just a typo that we can correct. And I had asked Dwight to make sure that he changes the date at the bottom to 9/1, because we already have one that's identified -- or to 9/11, because we already have one that we've accepted -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nine eleven. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Or -- hey, you guys went by month and year, so you have to change it to 9/11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know something, you are very lucky Mr. Murray's not here. He'd be the first one to tell you an eight- and -a -half by eleven to read this fine print is pushing the envelope. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't even know if -- we'll see what we can do during break. Is that -- there is no larger -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Can they magnify it on the monitor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During break you can just leave it on the monitor, and we'll have to review it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we -- why don't we try to blow up just the words, because I don't think -- I think we're all comfortable, I hope, with at least the graphic depiction of everything. I think you're more interested in being able to read the text. So let's at least try to get you a text that's blown up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before break. MR. YOVANOVICH: Before break, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any questions right now? We're going to come back to the master plan after the break. Rich, you are aware of -- and I don't see him here. He was here earlier -- Joe Bonness with his issue regarding his property? Page 50 of 86 ..; � 161 2 ,.3 September 1, I MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you provided an alternative easement. Has he gotten back to you on that? He was here this morning, and I thought if he wasn't going to stay this afternoon, he'd ask to speak, but he didn't, so -- MR. GARCIA: I think the reason why he stepped away is him and I had the opportunity to speak. He took a look at the replacement easement, and he is fine with that, but there is one change. We had proposed to vacate the easement past the FP &L -- east of the FP &L easement, and he has an objection to that. So we just agreed that we wouldn't -- that we would take that out of our vacation -- easement - vacation application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you -- I have a graphic of what you guys proposed to give him, or can someone put that on the overhead so you can explain to us what has occurred. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. This is the easement that would go away, and it would be replaced by an easement around our perimeter getting him basically to his properties back here. It will get him into his property, and he would have access along -- is that Lords Way? What is that? MR. GARCIA: There's no road there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. There's no road there, I'm sorry. And we had previously talked about taking -- vacating that portion of that easement that was on our property beyond the FP &L easement, and Joe objected to that. So we will remove that portion of -- we will remove vacating that easement from our easement- vacation application. So, yes, we've addressed his concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I need to probably put what I've got in front of me on there, because even though he doesn't have a concern, he may have missed something. A straight -line easement means you don't have any radiuses to worry about and you just move right on to the -- straight on eastward. When you break up into two 90s, to make those sharp corners still stay on your property may pose a problem for anybody with a vehicle trying to get back there and actually use that, and all I was wanting to make sure is that the radiuses there were adequate enough, and that's why I was going to ask Nick to take a look at it. And I was mostly concerned about that northeast corner, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll take care of that. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second thing, there was a -- this seems to indicate there's a bridge over the canal. If there is at that location, is there a bridge in the location you're proposing? And if not -- or even if there is, why wouldn't the easement extend across the canal like it does in the south? The existing one looks like it goes further to -- well, it does go further to the west than the north one you're proposing. Do you know why? MR. GARCIA: I don't know why. There is no bridge on either location at this point in time. I mean, the easement that is existing is depicted that way because the document that created it took it from that section line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but whoever owns that piece of canal, if they don't want to give Mr. Bonness an easement across that canal, he's up the creek without a paddle. If he's got one to the south, that may mean he needs one. So wouldn't he need one to the north? Nick, are you familiar with this at all? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I am, sir. Some of the canals in Collier County are owned by the county, some of them are easements granted to the Water Management District. I don't know. I'd have to go back and pull the title to find out and verify what's the case with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll make it as a note of something that's got to be addressed then. I see you guys are conferring about something over there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- the two things that need to be cleaned up are indicated on that. And I don't need a copy of it, so you guys can have it if you -- if you want to use it so -- or Ray wants to keep it. Okay. We left off on the master plan. We're going to come back and revisit it after break. And right now -- we don't need to get into the legal description, although maybe I'll wake up in the morning and read that. Let's go to Page 34. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Put you to sleep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Heidi, do you have changes on Page 34? MS. ASHTON: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, there is going to be a change in -- the references in the prior parts of Page 51 of 86 �{ s 161 A Sep ember 1, 20 1 the document -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll change the deviation references that are on this page. We'll change it to the deviations as labeled on this page, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe the 4 will become a 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on the deviation page? Kay, from the staffs perspective, are there any of these deviations that have not incorporated your -- staffs concerns? MS. DESELEM: No, sir. We should be good to go on all of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for Deviation No. 4, as it reads in this deviation list -- and I guess I want to ask this of Nick. This would allow them to put 20 -foot walls up along both sides of the new Benfield Road corridor, I would think. And is that something that is acceptable to our -- the way we do roads? Well -- and it says, where associated with existing or future public roadway. So I guess Rattlesnake Hammock and Lords Way, if it goes public, all of those could have 20 -foot walls on each side of them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a 120- foot -wide, potentially, four -lane road if they're going to maintain that wall. And it's not in your urban area. The property to the east is residential. They'd be canyonizing their project. I'm not sure we have heartburn if it's meant to attenuate noise, as long as they're taking responsibility to maintain the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's on their property. They'd have to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just want to make sure from -- we had the wall issue come up in another issue a long time ago, and I didn't know if it was acceptable or not. So I'm not concerned about it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We could use the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: What's that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the intent of these walls is to protect from noise in the future, it's almost to our benefit, as the public. I mean, you know, again, this is east of the urban -- right on the urban boundary line. It's not a downtown arterial road. If this does get four lanes of traffic and they want to put up a 20 -foot wall to attenuate noise, I don't think -- you know, you may drive down and feel like a canyon, but it will be -- it will be quiet for the neighborhood. We haven't had problems with it. I know on Davis Boulevard you're looking at a 20 -foot wall as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation No. 5 requires the 6 -foot wall. That has to be around business parks to be relieved from in regards to their business park with the exception of the residential areas; is that right, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your business park is surrounded on three sides by residential and lakes. Does that mean you don't intend to wall the lakes? And the reason that's important is because then the residential on the other side of the lake's got a direct view into the business park. MR. GARCIA: It does not mean that. I mean, we -- our petition is only not to put it along Lords Way. So the three sides that border residential would still have the wall, the required wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't we simply it so we don't get into that discrepancy in the future and simply say that you don't want to put the -- you want to put the deviation to relieve the wall from the frontage along Lords Way. MR. GREENWOOD: Fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would work a little easier rather than fight over what -- okay. Okay. Pages 35 and 36. Heidi, do you have anything? MS. ASHTON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on 35 and 36? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do. Legal A, access to Parcel A. Now, I know Parcel A that you're referring to here is the swamp buggy tract, I believe; is that -- I shouldn't say. I believe Parcel A is the swamp buggy tract; is that correct? Okay. What is Parcel A then, since you're shaking your head no? Oh, this is the one that leads on the Page 52 of 86 161 September 1, 2011 outlying parcels? Where's Parcel A? You see your new map you just passed out? The swamp buggy grounds is listed as A. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Tract A, not to be confused, which apparently we did confuse you, with Parcel A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where's Parcel A? MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got a little end holding that checkered -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Much better. We've got a full -sized drawing. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So the two parcels you're referring to here are the landlocked parcels that are out in the preserve. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the A that's on the swamp buggy grounds doesn't mean it's a Parcel A. That means it's a Tract A. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's Tract A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot A. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to be confused with Parcel A and a potential Lot A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C -- now that we know the area we're talking about -- it says, no existing public access right -of -way easements shall be vacated to preclude off -site, private, and public lands without providing replacement access easements. I would simply like that sentence to refer to it as an "as equal," meaning whatever easement they have, if it's for access and/or utilities and for whatever else, you give them an equal replacement for an easement. So I'm only suggesting that we add the language, something to the effect it's an equal easement in stature as far as what it can do. I see your scrunched -up look, Richard. Is that because you disagree with me? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I guess I should have put my glasses down. I was trying to read. So where (sic) do you want to put there, a replacement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The replacement easement will be equivalent to the easement that was removed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now we get into Page 36, which brings in a whole new issue that needs to be discussed, because its the first place that this occurs. Ray, could you put up the reference to Emergency Medical Services. The piece that I'm concerned about, it says, the valuation of one -acre site dedication that has been determined to be -- and it's zero zero per acre. I appreciate you wanting to contribute this for no dollar value, but I have a feeling you'll change that as the future goes on. And I want to make sure that we establish a value or we establish a methodology that's consistent with our Code of Laws in regards to appraisals for donated right -of -ways. And, Heidi, I brought this up at the last meeting, and I know you've looked at it. Chapter 74.205. I certainly would like to know from your office -- and I'd rather make it real clear for the record what the language is I'm talking about. I actually happened to bring it. Wasn't doing anything else at four o'clock this morning. It says, the credit for a dedication of land shall not exceed the fair - market value of the land dedication as based upon a written appraisal by a qualified and professional appraiser acceptable to the county based upon comparable sales of similar property between unrelated parties and a bargaining transaction as of the date of the contribution, the date of the commencement of the construction, the date of the land dedication, or for dedications the day before the date of the issuance of the development order, approval, parenthetical, zoning amendment, site -plan approval, PUD approval, or other development order, end parenthetical, wherein the contribution, construction, or land dedication was proffered or required, whichever occurs first. Now, my understanding of what that would mean is the county would be kind of silly not negotiating a price on the land before they rezoned it, because typically rezoning is an entitlement and increases the value of land. And you really want to buy it before that happens. So based on that -- this is just one example, under emergency medical services, where we're talking about donated land within this project. There are several of them in the various road dedications that will amount to a significant amount of acreage. And we have a new Growth Management Plan that -- I think it was House Bill 7207 -- that changes the way Page 53 of 86 161 2 A? September 1, 2011 we have to deal with impact fees that are in excess of value received -- value provided. I mean, if we have -- I think if we collect more in mitigation or dedication than we're entitled to, that may leave some liability on the county. And I don't want that to happen, so I want to understand how we're going to evaluate this land pursuant to that section of the code -- or the Code of Laws that I read, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: Well, based on our last meeting, my understanding was that we would have a value today and that the staff and the applicant would get together and agree on a value of the property prior to the PUD zoning change, if that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Harry Henderson was -- I heard he might be, because he is a qualified appraiser who did look at this, but at the same time I understand, based on emails going back and forth between the applicant and the county, that Mr. Henderson's valuation wasn't going to work because he didn't include off -site mitigation for panther habitat, which I'm not sure is part of a value of a piece of property in itself. That's a whole 'nother separate issue. But I'd like to get -- I'd like to get an understanding on this because it is important, and it's highly -- it's a high monetary issue. So, Nick, do you want to jump in first and -- MR. CASALANGUII)A: There's one we can quantify, which is the value before, 30,000 an acre, which staff and the applicant says is reasonable. It's the taxable value. Harry says it's defendable depending upon developable land. The issue that goes on -- and that satisfies, I think, the part of the statute that you're talking about. The second part is when you receive the property later, you're going to have the benefit of the mitigation that goes with that. And since they haven't gone through the process, I can't -- I can't value that. That's something that can be calculated when they're done and turn it over. So to solve that, I would recommend that this number reads 30,000 per acre, and with the -- and then the additional value that county benefits from through the mitigation process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to consider -- first of all, if we get to that point where we're putting a value in here that it's not 30,000, it's not to exceed 30,000, because this -- the document says, the credit for dedication of land shall not exceed the fair - market value of land dedication upon a written appraisal. We don't have a written appraisal. MR. YOVANOVICH: The property appraiser appraised the property. The bill just went out --the TRIM notice went out at 30,000 an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I would think that that's pretty darn good as far as meeting the requirements of an appraisal. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I'd rather establish an actual value, if the parties can agree on it, rather than having an up -to that we might be fighting about later. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This value is based upon the properties as it is zoned today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we wouldn't have to worry about the entitlements received after this process goes through, the one you're applying for now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the way you'd handle the mitigation, that would be a separate add -on as it occurred at whatever arrangements that you have down the road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think we'd have to come up with a sentence that says, any additional value the county would receive from the mitigation equally throughout the project. In other words, what are your mitigations for the whole project, and then that would be calculated for the county acreage as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about the panther mitigation credits. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's more than just panther. MS. ASHTON: Well, that's a separate provision. I guess I'm not clear on what you're talking about, the mitigation. Page 54 of 86 16i 4 il A7 eptember 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: We're being required to not only give you right -of -way, but we're also being required to give you right -of -way that has been mitigated for for the impacts you're going to do, you, the county. So what we're saying is, the right -of -way's worth 30,000 an acre, and then we're going to have to spend X more so you can develop that. We want to be reimbursed for that X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So that's where -- what we have said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, from a legal -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. So you've changed the deal, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON: Because under IX it talks about paying for the mitigation. Is that what you're talking about? Because, you know, I review appraisals, and we don't do a separate valuation for mitigation, so I'm not real clear how you're going to quantify -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because you don't usually -- you usually just take the land and go mitigate yourself In this case -- MS. ASHTON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you're taking land and making me -- after you take it, you're making me mitigate it for you. MS. ASHTON: But the mitigation is something separate from an impact -fee credit for the donation of land, okay, that -- we can address that when we get to that section. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I want to stay strictly to the law that we currently have on the books to make sure we adhere to it, and I don't know if the mitigation is part of that, because it's not part of the land. It's something that helps other sections of land, and they can accrue various impact -fee credits for it, but it doesn't necessarily add to the value of the land that we're discussing. Okay. MS. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: These are two different -- remember, this is the Emergency Medical Services' site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. We're going to get into the same discussion on the roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. But what we're doing is, I believe we're mitigating for both. MS. ASHTON: Okay. If you think you should be entitled to some sort of impact -fee credit for the mitigation -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON: -- then that's something you -all need to work out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and we did. We said we would get 30,000 an acre plus our costs to mitigate for your -- you, the county's ability to develop that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show us that language. MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't. We just talked -- that's what -- originally we had proposed a number, and Nick said, Rich, I'm not ready to agree on the mitigation number, so let's come up with language that says, Rich, I'm okay on the 30,000 raw -land price, but I'm not ready to tell you I'll give you another 30,000 per acre for mitigation costs. So what we're saying is, let's do 30,000 an acre raw -land costs plus our cost to mitigate that land for your use, and we'll arrive at that later. We'll provide him bills, we'll show him what we spent to mitigate other lands, and it will be -- he'll be able to verify it. I don't have that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's right. It'd be crazy for me to say I'm agreeing to 61,000 an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not suggesting you do that, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's 30,000 acres is the value, and that solves the valuation issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's based on a record appraisal already in place. So -- okay, we can get there. I see how we get there. So we take the county assessor's valuation as of today. Page 55 of 86 .r A7 I 161 Se P ber 1 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we use that as the market value of the property for the insertion into this document on a per -acre basis. And then how are we going to handle the miti- -- the panther credits and all the other things? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we need to add another sentence that says we will also be entitled to EMS impact -fee credits for the value of the mitigation we provide so you can develop that EMS site, and then when we get to road right -of -way, we'll say, plus the cost -- we'll get road impact -fee credits for the cost of the mitigation we provide so the county can build its roads. MS. ASHTON: Well, that's kind of a separate deal, because we need to have an assignment of the mitigation so we know what mitigation they've done that's assigned to this tract so that we can use it when we go to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We can -- that will all be dealt with in the paperwork. We're going through and -- we're permitting it right now. We're impacting -- we're permitting your impacts as part of our process right now. MS. ASHTON: If you want to include that in the PUD, then I can work with Nick and we can come up with some language that we'll insert and propose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's critical it's included in the PUD. I think we have two elements. We've established a value for the land that's based on the law, and you're going to establish a credit arrangement for impact fees to the extent that you have to mitigate certain lands, whether they be EMS or roadway as required by the county so they can use the land. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. It's a cost of construction as opposed to the fee value of the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that's a good way to approach it. MS. ASHTON: Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm there. But we have to go through -- in each one of the paragraphs it referred to a blank space for value, we've got to insert the same language repetitively so every section takes that into consideration. If everybody's satisfied with that, I think that works out well. So we're legally sufficient, the applicant accepts it, county staff understands it. My goodness, it's the best of all worlds coming together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- harsh this buzz a little bit here. But isn't the land worth so much more once utilities are in and everything else? What's -- the fair - market value, I know, is the lowest right now, and I know that's a great deal for the county. But is that the fairest deal for the property owner, because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's not a whole lot about this that's fair. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let's not have that discussion in 2019, okay. I'm not going there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say we either stick to the law or we don't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd just as soon we stick to it, so -- anybody else have any questions through Page 36? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't mean this particular provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty -seven and thirty- eight. Oh, hey, Dan. Dan Trescott, for the record. MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah. Dan Trescott, Southwest Regional Planning Council, planning manager, DRI coordinator. Good for you on dealing with that last issue. That's great. The thing I have to add is we need to also notify the State Department of Historical Resources on the archaeologic resource paragraph there where it talks about, you know, disturbance of the sites will have to receive approval from the county. I think we need to put the State Department of Historical Resources in there, too, and the same within the DRI development order, because I don't think the county has -- the county does not have an archeologist, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're looking at the wrong guy. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we need to -- MR. TRESCOTT: Just insert "and State Division of Historical Resources." They're the ones that keep track Page 56 of 86 161 2 1 i A 7 September 1, 2011 of all the sites around the state, and I think Kay said there was something in an ordinance dealing with that, but I think it's good to make it clear here that they should be notified, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Thank you. MR. TRESCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to stick around for a while, right? MR. TRESCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. Let's move on to 37 and 38. Actually, Heidi, I don't know how much you have on all these road - connection pieces, but we have them up through Page 46. Why don't we look at them all. There's a common element regarding the value of the land which we just resolved, I believe, on each one of them. And if I'm wrong on that, let me know. But other than that, what else did we have on those road segments that were going to be installed? Did you have anything, Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Do you want to go just two by two pages? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that's fine. Whatever's easiest for you. MS. ASHTON: I don't have anything on 37 or 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thirty-nine and forty? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Hold on, please. Hold on, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if -- the Planning Commission members have anything on those two pages? Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-nine and forty? MS. ASHTON: Oh, 39 and 40. You can see the change that was on Page 39. It just changed from DRI to PUD, since we're dealing with a PUD, and then on Page 40,1 did add some language, and that was -- it's related to some language that we're going to come upon later, and I was just trying to clarify which are site - related driven impacts, and that deals with the impact -fee credit. So that's what that sentence is. And then we have to insert the 30,000 here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from Planning Commission or, Richard, up to Page 40? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Forty-one, forty-two? MR. YOVANOVICH: On 41, Roman Numeral V, where you -- MR. BELLOWS: Forty-five? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, 41, Roman Numeral V. You'll see there's a reference to 140,000 square feet for the business park. That needs to change to the entirety of the business park, because remember we also have the ability to put either a hotel there if we don't build one in the commercial area, and if we don't build a hotel anywhere, we have the ability to do another 60,000 square feet of business park, so we really have the ability to develop the entire business park. And I don't think Nick -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- has any problems with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you really want to cross out the words "140,000 square feet of and just leave it "business park and residential Pod D." MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what we wrote was the entity of the business park. If you want to put business park, either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just leave it simple, business park and resi- -- then whatever you evolve the business park to is what you end up putting there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll just leave it the "business park and residential park, Pod D." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So Lords Way is going to be undivided two -lane road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why, leading up to a business park, would we not want it to be a divided, treed parkway like we have at Creekside, for example? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Creekside, the back of it is a two -lane road. Page 57 of 86 10 1 2 A7 September 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's divided and it's treed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Partially. And I'm going -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Most all of it, and so is the entrance portion. By the newspaper is divided and treed and pretty much down as you snake around. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a combination of residential and industrial, and your worst impact would be divided. It's not a county requirement for it to be divided, you know. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well -- but this is a PUD. We can require anything. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would require more right -of -way. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the right -of -way is actually 60 feet, which is on the next page. That's what exists in easements. So that 90 -foot really needs to be reduced to 60 feet, on Page 42. And that's the way -- that's the way we presented it the last go- round. Those are lands that are existing road easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are -- are there other property owners that are not owned in principal by your applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: You have -- I guess it's the Baptist church now, right, that's on the north side of the road, and they have an obligation to give some right -of -way, but it's not -- so we're at 60 feet is the right -of -way we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, in the future -- and that's a bigger church, and they have a -- they might be able to move forward monetarily quicker than the last fellow that was in there. If they were to build a substantial -size church -- because that's a big piece of property -- and they were to have facilities being used seven days a week, like a lot of them do now, how do you see that functioning on that road system at 60 feet with a business park at the other end and whatever else happens out there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not the road you'd worry about; it's the intersection you'd worry about. And that's one of those site - related impacts. They'd have to look at it at SDP and development. It's not the two -lane road -- carries up to 12,000 cars a day, 800 p.m. peak hours. It's your intersection. It's the gate valve that you're concerned about. So when they came to develop, these folks, we'd look at the intersection. And if it meant additional turn lanes, they'd have to put that in. That's the constricting point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got any questions through Page 42? Forty- three, forty-four? Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just one more on Page 42. The last line, if the segment of Lords Way is not deemed necessary by the time you've developed 66 percent, then we're going to -- we're going to allow this commitment to expire. Why would we allow it to expire? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At some point -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, at some point this is going to be 100 percent built out, and why shouldn't we get the commitment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're paying for that -- in the exhibit you have -- I don't know if you have a color exhibit or not. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Where the red thick line ends to the east, if -- from that point farther east to Benfield Road, that's 100 percent of the county's responsibility to pick that segment of the road up. If there's no need for that connection and that cost when they get to that point and we can't afford it, it's not in my CIE to do it, how do I hold that in perpetuity against the developer? So he asked for some surety, and I think 60 percent -- 66 percent of his development time frame gives us enough time to get to that point five, ten years from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 43 and 44? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the same acre references on them, so we'll keep those consistent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. On Page 43,1 don't know -- I don't think -- Heidi, you had some, so I'll let you go first. Page 58 of 86 x A7 1 September 1, 2011 The road right -of -way width should be 120 instead of 150, I think she's showing. MS. ASHTON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And -- MS. ASHTON: And then I'm just establishing what are the site - related improvements -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MS. ASHTON: -- because those are essentially donations. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And to clarify, when you're about -- the line that starts "the road easement necessary for this section of Benfield Road" -- you with me? It's about halfway down that paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm still looking for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here. I'll show you what I'm going to add. And I talked to Nick about this. What we get reimbursed for is a portion. We get our 50- percent reimbursement for the value of the land, but we get a 100 - percent reimbursement for increasing the type of road from a local road to an arterial road. So we just wanted to make it clear that that 50 percent didn't also apply to the upgrade of the road, that we get a 100 - percent reimbursement for the delta between the road we would have normally built versus what the county's asking us to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the deal, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. If the road costs $100, and $90 of that road is in the base, the increase to the county arterial would be $10, so they would get the full value of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think on the -- Mr. Chairman, what road -- which pages are we up through right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're through 44. MR. YOVANOVICH: Forty-four. So bear with me. There's another reference on Page Roman Numeral VII. Is that which -- that's Page -- that's probably -- it's on the next page, I'm sorry. I think it goes to 48. There's a reference to 150 feet in width. It should be 120 feet in width on that one as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anybody up through Page 44? Forty-five and forty -six? MR. YOVANOVICH: Roman Numeral VIII, there's another reference to 150 feet in width, and it should be 120 feet in width. Oh, that's why. I was looking at the wrong version, sorry. I think that's it through Roman Numeral X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- yeah. Forty-six, anything else? If not, 47? Anybody have anything on Page 47? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, Commissioner Strain. On 11 where it said the certificate of occupancy, it says -- for 75,000 in some areas it says 50,000, and I cannot tell you which page, but -- because we've had so many, but I remember reading 50,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 50,000 was if it's medical, and the 20- -- the 70- is medical and general together; is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I think in version 6/28 we got -- originally we had -- we were only doing one CAT station, and that was in the -- that was in the commercial area, and we were required to do one at 50,000 square feet, but we were asked to do a second one in the business park. So we were given 75,000 square feet in the commercial square and 70,000 square feet in the business park, because we were being required to do a second CAT station, so we had made those changes at the last meeting. MS. ASHTON: Those are the numbers that was at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember now. Anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We have something on the utility. Provision B -- are we on -- am I on the right page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on Page 47. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I'm working from my strikethrough version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Page 47 the Roman Numeral X, which starts on 46 and ends halfway down the page on 47, and then it goes -- then it goes to Roman Numeral XI. Roman Numeral X is verbatim from the DRI, but what -- Roman Numeral X stops short of including Item G in the DRI, which involves the DRI traffic impacts to Page 59 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 I -75 and SR951 in regards to ramps and things like that and how the developer will handle those. Well, I realize that's a DRI issue. To omit it from the PUD might not make it as easily found to consider in the future. I'm not sure the DRI is written accurately -- because I had some issues with that based on my discussions with John Podczerwinsky. But regardless, if we're going to have you guys have to adhere to some kind of service requirements in regards to the - -1 -75, we ought to include it in the DRI. Nick? MR. YOVANOVICH: In the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PUD, I'm sorry. It's in the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I think it should be identical. If it's in the DRI, why not in the PUD. I don't think its a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But one thing that John pointed out, and I think -- I'm very glad he did -- in the DRI, after the FDOT gets done telling you guys what you will have to do if you reach an unacceptable level of service -- by the way, which doesn't say who determines that, but I imagine the DOT would love to determine that -- then you've got to fix it, and all the costs for you to fix it are -- if it's -- a proportionate -share payment is identified as needed, the owner shall receive road - impact credits for 100 percent of this contribution. And as John pointed out to me, you're going to go fix a state road that we can't use impact fees for -- we don't use impact fees for, but you get a credit back against our impact -fee system for repairing a state road. Is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true. We've spent money on state roads before. It's in our impact -fee calculations. Again, we're a donor county and a donor state, so a lot of the state roads, Collier County puts their impact -fee dollars on those projects as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's only done at the time that the state agrees to give us some funding that we match or do something like that, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we pay impact -fee credits for state roads, and we get nothing from the state for doing that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do -- in some cases we do. It's on a case -by -case basis. For instance, Davis Boulevard, we have a reimbursement plan from the state. But portions of our projects that are under state roads, we do some of that included in our impact fees. And it's related -- it's in that impact -fee calculation as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You have an interstate toll adjustment that you use to take off the calculation in the impact -fee study, and it's .94, I think it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you multiply times your road costs and your calculation by that point because the rest of that percentage is for state roads. So if you take that off, how are you getting impact fees from the state roads -- to address the state road system? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You said the keyword, "interstate." Now, I -75, in the ramps and the approach, that's where you get into that, you know, little gray area, is the approach to I -75 under Collier CR951, SR951. That's not an interstate. So that's where they start to draw the line. Even though it's within the LA line, the improvements we're doing right now at 951 we're doing with both county and state road funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have to use our impact -fee credits to get access to pay for the access improvements to an interstate system that is not getting -- that is the interstate system itself, by its calculation in our impact -fee study, reduces the value of impact fees we charge because we supposedly don't contribute to those roads. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They consider that the main -line widening. When you talk about interstate credits -- I'm not staying it's fair. We don't like it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Politics. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- that's the reality of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then why wouldn't we want to tie their credit to the matching -funds scenario that we'd have to put up on the state side? So when the state comes to us to do something, instead of us having to put up impact fees, we can show them that they have to credit us for impact fees that we used to address their state system. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The state would credit us; is that what you're asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Instead of giving -- instead of making us credit our overall impact -fee Page 60 of 86 A7 161 2September 1, 2011 system, why don't we specifically get the state to acknowledge a credit for our share of any impact -fee frontage we'd have to put up for those portion of those fees used for improvement to the interstate system, our access to the interstate system? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not going to get a nod from DOT on that. I'm not going to get a commitment from them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that sure is a lopsided agreement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I can tell you, our review, when we go through the MPO process, our funding we get from the state is pretty lopsided, too, so -- they're passing everything onto the locals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at least we're in agreement that this language should go in the PUD? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's a good thing now. Maybe we just ought to forget it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's transfer the bad language into the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Of course, I know the applicant's not going to forget, so -- okay. The next item up after that is the CAT, or actually the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Public utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, it's the Master Mobility Plan that -- I don't know where we're calling it that, because the county's Master Mobility Plan isn't complete yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your Master Mobility Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- our Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Podczerwinsky, this has to do with the pedestrian facilities, the bike paths as long as you're doing this under the master mobility. Will there be -- did you have time to look? Will there be bike paths, not sidewalk, but like bike paths? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: As I browsed through the document, I did not see a specific provision for bike paths on private roads. Do you guys have any response to that, bike lanes on private streets? It would be required on any public streets that are being dedicated to us per their design requirements. But for private streets, I did not find any. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So, in other words, the bike people will have to drive on the sidewalks? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Well, they do have other pedestrian facilities throughout the site, but I don't know if there's a specific provision that would allow them to stay off of the sidewalks within the -- within their site planning. In any case, it's going to have to refer back to the LDC and the requirement of the LDC for cross - sections. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But right outside here -- you have on Collier Boulevard, 951, you have a multi -use path. I can tell you the one on Immokalee Road is used very frequently. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But if they have to go from side -- there is nothing on the inside. I mean, with a project this big -- and you want to have the people stay within this project, because you have a hospital nearby, you have the commercial center -- you have to provide something for the people getting there on their bike other than the sidewalk. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me help out. Commissioners, maybe I could help a little bit on this. You have a master plan -- they call it their mobility plan -- in front of you. You've got a line that's black and red with white little checkers in it. That's partially Benfield Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. Those roads, when designed, will either have a bike lane or a multi -use path, but we don't make that decision until we get into that design phase. So those -- they will have one of those two on there, because they would be called arterials in Collier County. Once you get to a collector road or a local road, we don't put bike lanes on those. Usually developers don't Page 61 of 86 September 1, 2011 either, and it's not in our code right now. So other than those two segments you see, it would be up to the developer as a local road internal to their development to include pedestrian facilities, but they don't put bike facilities. And it is also based on volume. If a local road -- does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, yeah. In a way it does. I was just at the Quarry. On their spine roads they have real bike paths, and what a difference it makes. If you want to do this in a -- under the master mobility, something is going to have to -- you're going to have to give them some leeway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's some language in the DRI that addresses the need for bicycles. And Dan may be going to mention that so -- MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah. Under the DRI development order, Page 5, Paragraph A, provisions of a combination of bicycle, pedestrian systems, to be placed along public arterial and collector roads within a DRI which connect with public and private bicycle pedestrian systems in the DRI, and then they talk about racks and bicycle storage facilities in recreational, commercial, and multifamily residential areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 17 has another breakdown of certain bicycle needs as well. MR. TRESCOTT: It's an energy - conservation measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation. MR. TRESCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So back to Diane's concern. How are you addressing the requirements for the bicycle pathways within your project? MR. GARCIA: The way the documents read, we were planning on meeting the code, which is what Nick said. All of the arterial and collector roads will have their own bike lanes. Inside the development what is a private road within the development wouldn't be required to have them. It would be on our choice. We would still be required to have the required sidewalks that can be used by pedestrians and bicycle riders, but we wouldn't be obligated to have them in the actual roads, as you do on the arterials and collectors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you -- Nick, when the words are added to our DRI that says the neighborhood shall be developed with a multimodal street system that can accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists thereby promoting alternative modes of transportation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, do we have a definition or cross - section for what our multimodal street system is supposed to be? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have a cross - section for arterials and collectors, not for this. And I'll give you an example. Pelican Bay. If they were to come in with a design where they had a spine road that was wider to accommodate more traffic, we would look for that cross - section to have a bike lane in it. If they have multiple connections with local roads where, you know, the development may -- 50 or 100 homes, then that kind of volume on that road wouldn't warrant typically a bike lane to be put on there. So it depends on what they come in for their design -- is what we would look at when they come in for their project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we just requested the neighborhoods have typical roads, why would we say it will have a multimodal street system? What does that mean? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It means sidewalks as well, too. Here's your challenge. If you've got a road that's 500 feet long and it has 200 homes on it, that's a pretty low - volume road. The main 22 -foot paved road would accommodate a biker that is treated like an automobile. It almost -- for me to say to them, put in a bike lane for such a low- volume road is overkill. If they put a Pelican Bay Boulevard through the project, which in one of their master plans they tie in some of these pods and if they put in a boulevard or main road that connects the two, when they came in, we'd recommend that they would connect those with a bike lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm not asking them -- I'm not trying to say they have to put in bike lanes. All I'm trying to understand is, what was meant when we say in Collier County you're going to have a multimodal street system? Because we're saying that in a document. And if you're telling me it's strictly a street and a sidewalk, well, I'm just wondering why we didn't say, it will be a street with sidewalks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In some cases, bike lanes. It really depends -- and that's the challenge. It really depends on what they came in for a design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This says in the neighborhoods though. And you just told me you wouldn't require Page 62 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 separate bike lanes in neighborhoods. So then if you wouldn't require it in neighborhoods and it only was meant for collectors and arterials, then why would we say in neighborhoods you're going to have a multimodal street system? Why wouldn't we just say, all roads will be -- will have sidewalks? And, then, are we getting to the same thing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because if they build a neighborhood major road that -- like a spine road for their development, the spine road we'd say, that's -- now, as everybody starts to come into that spine road, put the bike lane on there, or go to an -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The spine will be a collector road though? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be -- it's still private, so it would be a local collector road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says public, arterial, and collector roads within a DRI which will connect public and private bicycle pedestrian systems within the DRI, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Conflicting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right now the way that's written, you're saying any public roadway system would have to have the public lanes, but any private systems, this multimodal reference is sidewalks to whatever degree that MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or an 8- to 10 -foot multiuse path. If they did a spine road, I'd say, why don't you consider that instead of your sidewalks on both sides or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens to Lords Way with a 60 -foot right -of -way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd get a 6 -foot sidewalk and probably a bike lane on Lords Way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's going to be classified -- okay. It will have a bike lane? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a public collector road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying Lords Way's going to have -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Potentially a bike lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Potentially? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, remember, I can go with a 12 -foot multiuse path instead. City Gate DRI came forward with a design right now. They said, we're an industrial boulevard that will be WilsonBenfield one day. Do we really want bike lanes next to dump trucks and heavy travel vehicles? We said no. So instead of bike lanes, they put in a 12 -foot multiuse path off- - COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've still got to get into the DRI, so we'll probably hit some more on that when we get into that. I'd like to wrap up the PUD real quick so we can take a break, and then while we're on our break, we'll decide how long we want to go this afternoon and whether or not we'll even get to the Pine Ridge West or Pine Ridge View West, whatever that is called. Pages 49 and 50? Does anybody have anything on Pages 49 and 50? Heidi? MS. ASHTON: I just want to make a comment on 47 and the section that deals with the EMS donation. I'll work with Rich, and we'll come back with language which is going to quantify the cost of the mitigation as a cost of construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON: And so we'll have language. I would suggest in No. 8 on Page 47, that we'll insert some language in the amount. I just wanted to reserve -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean Page 45 -- well, what -- I'm on Page 47. There's no No. 8 there. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. We would add an 8 that would quantify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've only -- you've got 11 and 12, so where are you to add 8? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean 13. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry, 13. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phew. MS. ASHTON: Glasses don't always work so well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of those senior moments. I've been having those, too. Page 63 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think that's really what you want to do, because that's the transportation section. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, but we'll quantify -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want -- MS. ASHTON: Transportation, and then separately for EMS. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And you'll deal with it in the EMS section, which was earlier. Then in transportation we'll have the same issue. MS. ASHTON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Gotcha. We had a comment on Page 49 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're now on 49. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I think you were up to, under public utilities. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. This is the one that I haven't gotten blessed by the public utilities department, but I believe there's similar language in the DRI, and you would add -- do you want it as an "E," Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: We strike it, and we replaced it with what's actually in the DRI. MS. ASHTON: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably a better move that way, whatever they tell you to connect to you'll just connect to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a better move. MR. NADEAU: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that, I believe, takes -- does that get us to the end? He says hopefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us to the end of the PUD with the exception of the review of the master plan when we come back from break, and then we'll go into the DRI. And when we come back from break, we'll discuss how far along we're going to go today and how much time we will need for the next case, because we may not have enough time to get through it today. So we'll have to talk about that. We may -- anyway, let's come back at 2:30. (A brief recess was had, and Commissioner Midney has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the break. A couple things while we were on the break. Karah Lewis, thank you for your excellent cooking. Your mother taught you well. At least she says she taught you everything you know, so -- As far as this afternoon after this hearing goes, I would want to talk with the rest of the Planning Commission to see what you feel. We have to go through the DRI yet, the master plan, and then we have to go through -- I -- so far I've written down 42 stipulations, and I'm sure that the applicant will want to make sure they're aware of all 42. We then have to have our discussion and deliberations before any vote. That usually takes some time. Sometimes it's quick; sometimes it isn't. With that in mind, though, we also break a little before five, because that's when the TV cameras get turned off. So -- we have another project after this that has turned out to have a more controversial stand than may have been originally thought, and it may take time to hear all the arguments on that particular project. I asked the applicant of that project, if requested by this panel, would they consider a continuation, and they said they would. So I need to know what this board wants to do. Because I can see us working through one for a while yet, and I'd hate to start on the second one and not be able to finish it by break -- by the time we break off and have to continue it to another day anyway when we could start afresh on the next meeting of the month. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion -- and that's at the request of the Planning Commission. Is there any discussion? (No response.) Page 64 of 86 161 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. 1 wish to thank those of you that have sat through all this today to at least find out that you're continued to the 15th then, so sorry for the inconvenience. And with that, let's move into the master plan on Hacienda Lakes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain, before we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can call me Mark. I like that better. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Before we close out the PUD, I have a question. When they are going to repeal the PUD for the swamp buggy, which was 129 acres -- and they're rolling it into this -- are they not also opening up that PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's the way we've always approached them in the past. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- Heidi, can you hear her? MS. ASHTON: I was just looking at the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you hear her question? MS. ASHTON: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're repealing the Swamp Buggy PUD and re -- resurrecting it within this PUD/DRI. Prior to this it wasn't a DRI. It was a PUD. Now it's going to be a DRI and a PUD because it's part of this PUD. Does that open it up for discussion to whenever we want to go with it, or are we limited in some -- MS. ASHTON: I'm not really sure what your question is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've tried to simplify the question from what -- I was interpreting Diane's comments. But go ahead, Diane, you might want to ask it directly of Heidi again and see what she's got to say. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi, I guess I am having a problem with No. 8. 1 would like it taken out, removed from this completely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think you need to ask your original question. MS. ASHTON: I think what you're getting at is that you've got the swamp buggy grounds, and it's showing 47 acres -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON: -- 23 of which is swamp buggy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What she's trying to say is -- and your predecessor had answered this for us multiple times. If we amend a PUD and we don't repeal the prior version, then we are limited somewhat in the things we can discuss about altering the PUD, but if we repeal a prior PUD to put a new one in place, in the placement of the new one, in the past we've been able to -- it's opened up to any discussion we want, whether it be development standards, uses, or whatever. I think you're trying -- Diane's trying to first establish, have we opened up the swamp buggy PUD, and then if we have, she has a concern about one of the items there. I think that's what it boils down to. MS. ASHTON: I believe that they've opened up the PUD. Now, I think that Mr. Yovanovich earlier indicated that he has, perhaps, limited authority as to the swamp buggy parcel, which I believe is 23 acres. There's a total of 47. So we do have another 20 acres if he doesn't feel he's got the authority with the swamp buggy to address that Page 65 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 acreage. I do believe the owner is here today on the remaining part of the attraction parcel. Are you following me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The swamp buggy at forty -- the swamp buggy grounds is owned by two different people. Half of it, practically, is owned by somebody that's here today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other half is owned by an entity that Richard doesn't have -- Richard has limited authority to speak for. So, now, with that all said, did you want to ask a question now about that issue, or how did you want to approach it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, because I -- I'm just real uncomfortable, and I think it will solve a lot of problems. Are you willing to give up the stadium training and practice facilities for the professional baseball? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we are not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then that's a substantial -- okay. Because we have other problems -- we have three different places in here where it shows different acreage. When we go to the DRI, they show different acreage than what the county is showing. And like Mark said, this is confusing enough, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's talk about the stadium issue. I know you brought it up before, and it needs to be vetted and understood. You're coming in for a DRI in which you're now -- so the Swamp Buggy PUD is elevated to a DRI status by the mere fact it's now a new PUD with you guys. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certain elements of the old swamp buggy grounds are exempted from the calculations that you're using; for example, traffic. You don't -- you're -- the traffic they generate isn't part of a cap that you guys have to deal with. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's part of the overall PUD, but not part of the cap. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the uses in the swamp buggy PUD, if it was looked at as a DRI, would have been subjected to different scrutiny than if it's looked at as a PUD. I think that may be where Diane's concerns are, and I -- and Dan Trescott's here. So maybe, Dan, could you elaborate to us the issue of the swamp buggy grounds. MR. TRESCOTT: The swamp buggy grounds is considered an attraction under the DRI thresholds. And if they are allowed to convert it to a stadium, it's either going to be a notice -of -change requirement, depending upon how big it is, or it's going to be an automatic substantial deviation. And this is the first time, really, I've heard about a possibility of a stadium. I don't know. I may have heard of that before. But, you know, we've reviewed those as single DRIB in themselves in Lee County and in other counties where they have these spring - training facilities. And I know at some point maybe the county wants one, you know. It is an economic generator and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you will be the -- a level of reviewer of this project, I'm assuming after the Board of County Commissioners renders a decision on it, assuming it's positive, it goes to you guys to be looked at as they -- as the regional significance regarding the DRI process. So how would you look at the inclusion of a stadium or professional ballfield use that currently is shown in the PUD that we have in front of us today that is now a PUD/DRI? MR. TRESCOTT: I think kind of like we looked at the RVs except R -- you know, I think we concluded that the RVs were not originally in the application, and they've come in sort of in the final hour, but we've tried to address the impacts of it. I would say we'd be best to -- I mean, I guess we could put language in the development order or the PUD somewhere that addresses that stadium -- possibility of a stadium being in there and it being required to go through an NOPC or a substantial deviation application, either that or just take it out altogether. And if it comes in -- if it wants to change from swamp buggy to that at some point, then they come in and we re- review it. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't you do that? Page 66 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it makes sense, but I'm now concerned about the authority to make that decision by the people that are here today. MR. TRESCOTT: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard's quietly sitting down because he doesn't want to answer that question. MR. TRESCOTT: I think he's conferring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- and it's good input, thank you, too. MR. TRESCOTT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was important. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You ask about the residential also. Did we ever get into the caretakers residence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that -- yeah, that's confirmed as being part of the density. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question? To the -- and I'm asking you, because you're the person. Today I have a Swamp Buggy PUD that has an allowed use for a stadium. MR. TRESCOTT: You mean the old one or the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The old one, the old one. MR. TRESCOTT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I were to come in today to the county and say, I want to build a stadium, do I go through a DRI review? MR. TRESCOTT: If it's over 10,000 seats, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Even though it's an existing PUD that was adopted in 1984? MR. TRESCOTT: Yes, the tracts -- yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So why don't we agree that to the extent I would have to go through a DRI review today to implement the Swamp Buggy PUD, I will agree to do it in the future. I don't think anybody's trying to hurt -- MR. TRESCOTT: I think, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think anybody's trying to hurt swamp buggy. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, absolutely not. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- so let's have -- if they would have to do it today, they'll do it tomorrow. If they don't have to do it today, they don't have to do it tomorrow. MR. TRESCOTT: If it's in the DRI, then it's a little different. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MR. TRESCOTT: If it's below 10,000, I'm not sure. It might have to -- you might be able to do a simultaneous increase and decrease thing and add that use. I'd have to look at the law a little better on that. But I know your question, yes, they'd have to do a DRI over 10,000. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So then we'll deal with that. You know, if we have to do it today, we'll do it tomorrow. How's that -- does that make sense? MR. TRESCOTT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that works for the Regional Planning Council, I think it works for us. MR. TRESCOTT: That's what I asked for. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to the extent that you would broach or breach a DRI threshold under the current swamp buggy PUD -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you do so under the new swamp buggy incorporation of this PUD, you still have to do the threshold exercise to make it -- to get approval, which is your -- either an NOPC or a substantial deviation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think if we get that language in there -- I would suggest that we probably add it under the swamp buggy section on Page 13, something to that effect, and I'm sure Heidi will love to work that out with you, and then we'll be off on that issue. Page 67 of 86 161 2 A Se tember 1 2011 p , That's very helpful. Thank you, Dan. Now we have to go into the development order, and we -- I'd like to take that one a little faster since it's more generic. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Mr. Strain, you've got -- can we do the PUD master plan real quick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Heidi had a few edits that are on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Kay's going to have to be asked if she can handle it from a staffs perspective, so let's go. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope as, again, we're changing the -- what we have as the R/RV to the R or RV, making the change to where it is just RV in this portion -- apparently we left a B off up here, changing the word "educational facility" here to "school," and then there's a total project intensity -- is that where we're going to put the three thousand -- whatever the number of trips are? Is that what you meant by that note, Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Yeah, you'll just repeat that sentence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Just want to make sure. MS. ASHTON: It will be repetitive, but we'll just repeat it. In no event shall the project exceed -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Exceed 3,328 -- MS. ASHTON: -- that number, trips. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- MS. ASHTON: And there's one other addition that Tom Eastman has, which is to put, after schools, it Collier County School District schools." Where we're adding the word "school" instead of "educational facility," it will say school, paren, excluding Collier County School District Schools. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But that -- again, that's the business -park tract. That sentence only applies to the business -park tract. MS. ASHTON: Well, he's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking, Tom. Do we need to muddy it by bringing in Collier County Public Schools since you're not going on that tract? MR. EASTMAN: For clarity I would appreciate it. I don't know that it's that much mud, Rich. I hope it's not too much mud. It just makes it real clear. I would hate to see someone point to that and say, you know, that's the standard. There's a reference -- and it just makes it more clear. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Because I'll tell you what I would argue. I would argue that a cap doesn't apply to me if I'm Collier County. MS. ASHTON: Well, he just wants the clarity. You've got it on the other two areas where we reference it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MS. ASHTON: And then there's one sentence that's on this master plan that is not on your density residential intensity, so we'll add this one on the other page, and that reads "caretakers' residences shall be deducted from the 1,760 -unit allocation." It's here, and we'll put it also on the other one so that they read the same. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: And my request for the changes is exactly what you would argue, Rich, that this cap doesn't apply to Collier County schools. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I would argue that I can go above 140,000 square feet on the business -park tract if I'm a Collier County public school. MS. ASHTON: And that's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's what I was afraid -- MR. EASTMAN: That's what I believe this change allows for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All right, so -- all right, never mind. MR. EASTMAN: Do you disagree? MR. YOVANOVICH: But you're not -- you're not -- Collier County Public Schools is not getting the business -park tract. MR. EASTMAN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he'd like it. MR. YOVANOVICH: But he'd like to buy it. Page 68 of 86 161 1 A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. MR. YOVANOVICH: Got it. I'm good. We'll get together. MR. EASTMAN: But what if it were to become a eventuality potentially? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, okay. MR. EASTMAN: I mean, it's not that much mud. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm good, I'm good, I'm good, I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, does -- is -- usable open space, is the preserve considered that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's usable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slide your thing up to the legend. I just want to make sure there was a change in a word there. Yep, okay. I'm fine. Anybody else have any issues with the master plan? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I'd like you to acknowledge that you've reviewed it and like it. MS. DESELEM: I love it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think it's great. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. The only thing I would say was, if throughout today any recommendations come forward that -- as far as the density and intensity and any of these other things that are in the PUD document, that this would have to be revised to mirror that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I think that's -- MS. DESELEM: And other than that, I think it's lovely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- one question for Heidi. Heidi, could you please clarify what you said about the caretakers' residence. MS. ASHTON: Uh -huh. I'll refer you to the page once I find it. Okay. On Page 17 of the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MS. ASHTON: The third line down under residential density, after the words "no more than 1,232 multifamily units may be constructed in the entire PUD" -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. ASHTON: -- then the sentence would be added, "caretakers' residences shall be deducted from the 1,716 unit allocation in the entire PUD." COMMISSIONER EBERT: Will be deducted from there. MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It means they'll be counted as density. MS. ASHTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's also in Exhibit B. That's where -- she was reading from Exhibit B, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd like to go back to the usable open -space issue that Mr. Schiffer just brought up. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd like to go back to the usable open -space issue -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Page 69 of 86 16 1 s,4 mber 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- issue that Mr. Schiffer brought up. So you're telling me that all of these preserves count as usable open space? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. The Land Development Code defines usable -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What's our -- what's the commitment for open space on a project like this? It's a percentage figure. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what is -- MR. BELLOWS: It's 60 percent for residential and 30 percent for commercial mixed -use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on the site plan it says 60 percent within the total boundaries of the MPUD. And that's why I asked the question, because if the preserve is not usable, that's going to be difficult. If it's usable, it's extremely easy. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's impossible. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, preserve is usable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None of it's wetland? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it still doesn't mean it's not usable. MR. BELLOWS: I don't think that matters in regard to usable base calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the dry season you could do things. I mean, there's opportunities, so -- Anybody else have any question on the master plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the development order. We can take this one in bigger chunks. We've -- the PUD had more detail than the DO. So why don't we work about five pages at a time. And we have all these pleasant "whereas" clauses in the first five pages till the first page of findings of fact. Does anybody have any questions? What about those pages? Now, Heidi and Richard and Ray or Kay, I have made notes as we've gone along, and I did not make notes on some of the smaller items. I just made notes on the -- you know, because you -- there's a lot of little grammatical things I saw you guys taking notes on those. I've got -- without the master plan I've got 44 corrections, stipulations, whatever you want to call it. A lot of those would be carried over to the DO. So someone's going to be coordinating that anything in the PUD that gets changed that is mirrored in the DO, the DO gets changed as well? MS. ASHTON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure, because I'll try not to be redundant in all those issues in the questions that I have remaining. Pages 1 through 5, does anybody have any issues? Heidi, do you have anything? MS. ASHTON: No. There were some changes, but they were what was directed at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 6 through 10. The -- anybody have any questions, 6 through 10? The strikethrough version that we had did not have all the backup with it. We referenced a Commercial Tract C. Do you guys have a separate tract map? Because you have a master plan, but it doesn't -- okay. So the master plan is your tract. So Tract C in your master plan means more than just commercial. It's also your tract designation, because you also -- in your reference to your road access, you reference pods. You got -- so I'm trying to make sure we understand the differences between the different designations. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. There is a distinction when you get to the traffic. We've identified within our project area pods that relate to the traffic improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not the same as the tract designations on Map H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can we say the tract designations are the legend designations on the master plan for the DO? MR. YOVANOVICH: Map H. Map H is the master plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- which is the DRI -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- equivalent. Page 70 of 86 l . 2 61 A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to help me. What -- can you put Map H up on here. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Right side up. Okay. That pretty much mirrors -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except -- there's always an "except" with this project. See your R/RV? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, because we made that change based -- based upon previous discussions. So it will become an R or RV. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, did you have any -- because they reference the -- it says, optional RV park, R/RV. You'd have to change that reference in the legend, too, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to make similar changes to several of these maps to deal with the R or RV, as well as the legends. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. The way that they've labeled it, I think, is confusing. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're okay. MS. ASHTON: R or RV. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we understood it. We'll match it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, looking at this map, I wanted to make -- okay. You're going to re -- you're going to research and review that Bonness easement and get us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We told you we would take care of it. We'll make sure that the replacement easement has the necessary turn radius for him to get in and out of the corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And access to 951? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We'll have to deal with that, yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are on Pages 5 through 10. Does anybody have any other -- any questions? MR. TRESCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan. Yeah, feel free, Dan, to jump in, because this is more of your review than anybody else's, so -- MR. TRESCOTT: Right. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to add under C, Page 9, dealing with the archaeologic sites, that they need to -- it would notify the county and the Department of Historical -- state Department of Historical Resources. It's similar to the PUD language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TRESCOTT: -- because I think that -- you know, they're the ones that keep track of all the sites. And there might even be a permit process. I'm not sure. But, you know, you don't want to do something without their knowing about it. They're the qualified archeologists, the state, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That makes sense, thank you. MR. TRESCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, did you have anything in those pages? MS. ASHTON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 10 through 15? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute. Ten through fifteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything? MS. ASHTON: I have some changes under U. Are you working off of the strikethrough version? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're working -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no idea on this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're working off yours. We're working off of yours, the 8/23 version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine says "county attorney draft" up on top, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, they all say that. MS. ASHTON: Well, one of them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Mine's not double- sided; yours is. So I'm not sure that they're all -- I Page 71 of 86 161 9 A7 September 1, 2011 mean, yeah, they all say that, but I'm not sure I got the same county attorney draft version you got. MS. ASHTON: One of them wasn't mine, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you look down at the bottom, if it says 8/23, that's Heidi's. If it's got -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's got a strikethrough with changes to it, that's mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if I got both? MR. YOVANOVICH: Good. Because we had very few changes on this. The only thing we really dealt with was with the right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine is the strikethrough and underlined, and it says 8/23/11 on it, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But this is an older one. But that's an older one. MS. ASHTON: No. This is the one that was generated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're waiting on Heidi to resolve her issue with you, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What you -- obviously, the version you have that's 8/23 had changes based upon our meetings the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I created a strikethrough and underlined version to show everything that was changed. If you need me to go page by page to show you how we arrived at the 8/23 version, I can, or you -- we can go like you're doing where you're saying, "Does anybody have any issues ?" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned with Heidi's issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON: These aren't my issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not her issues, so -- MS. ASHTON: I don't have a problem with the language. That's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then. From -- Heidi, from your perspective -- MS. ASHTON: That wasn't my change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when we vote on the DO today, what version and what are we voting on? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're voting on Heidi's version as amended today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Heidi's version is the base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, on the lower left -hand side, can you lift that up a little bit so I can see what version you have there. Okay. That's the same one I'm using. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. Actually, the one that the applicant distributed as the strikethrough and underline that -- it came from them, but it says "county attorney draft." It's not my draft, but it is correct as to what the changes were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. We're through Page 15. Pages 16 through 20, any questions or concerns? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we start on Page 21, work through 25. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language that we work out for the mitigation and the right -of -way costs where it needs to be inserted in this document, the same language gets inserted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I was going to point that out. There are some blanks in the next - coming pages. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're up through Page 25. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have something on 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. What's on 17 that you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That is our pedestrian and bicycle movement. Can we do it according to the recent Collier County -- the code that's in effect at the time this is built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Page 72 of 86 16! 2 A 7 (y t September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what they'll be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because that might be a multiuse path instead? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 26 through 30, anybody have any questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on -- 25, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I know we -- I'm just pointing out where this is consistent with changes we previously did. We'll have to make that -- the reference to the business -park change here as well as the width of the right -of -way. It goes to 60 feet from 90 feet, and fill in the blanks. And that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, this is not good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have the other one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one do you have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you put Page 25 up for the one you're using? Because that's not what I'm looking at both sides of me have got. Yeah, okay. That's what I've got. No, here. That's the page that he's talking about. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, and we don't have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have a clean version that should -- this is what I have from the county attorney's -- what I received. That's what my Page 25 looks like. Is that your Page 25? MS. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not mine. That's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's from the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is what -- this is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same as what I'm reviewing. It's just different format. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And on that we're -- on all the transportation sections, we're going to have to make the same changes we made to the PUD. I can point those out, or we can just acknowledge that we're going to have to do that in the transportation section to make them consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the transportation section goes through Page -- up to Page 33. Then Page 33 actually starts -- continues Roman Numeral IX and goes to F. Does anybody have any questions up through Page 33? How about through Page 35? Yeah, that's the changes that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the previous changes we made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were consistent with what you had already asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So everything in the DRI's being changed to what we've already discussed here today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, in the PUD. I don't think they're -- I'm not aware of any changes in the DRI that differ from what we already discussed in the PUD, unless you have other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. TRESCOTT: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. TRESCOTT: What I still don't seem to be clear on is the equestrian use, which we didn't look at before, about how those -- how the connection of those horse trails from this DRI to the -- to either their on -site preserve lands that are going to become Picayune Strand or to the Strand. I just don't know how -- there's existing trails -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard and Heidi, the gentleman's trying to address you with a question you may want to listen to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Dan. MR. TRESCOTT: Yes. I just am not clear about the equestrian issue dealing with the trails that connect Page 73 of 86 16 I 2 01 September 1, 1 from this DRI to the existing trails in the Picayune Strand or even, you know, whatever might occur in your own preserve that's -- preserve areas that are going to go to the Picayune Strand. Pm just not clear. Bob Mulhere and I had a discussion about it, and I was wondering if I could get clarification on that. MR. MULHERE: It's our intent not to construct any trails in the preserves ourselves that we're going to ultimately dedicate to or convey to the forest. They already allow equestrian activities and would encourage that, so we coordinate with them to provide access from our project if we do go forward with an equestrian theme to access the forest. So it will be through coordination with them. MR. TRESCOTT: Do we have language in here that's good enough to -- MR. MULHERE: I think we could add a sentence that says access from the project through the park for equestrian purposes shall be coordinated with the ultimate owner of the preserved lands. MR. TRESCOTT: I think -- would that probably be best in the vegetation and wildlife section -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. TRESCOTT: -- probably? Okay. That'd be great. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Dan. MR. MULHERE: Did you get that, Dwight? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? MR. TRESCOTT: I want just to make -- you know, got to get it in there. I think it's a permittable thing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with Bob's -- with Dan's presence here today and his familiarity now with this project, before this comes back and it will be consent -- I mean, there's no other way of doing it -- would you make sure that he has signed off on the changes that you're suggesting to make? MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah. I want to -- after all this is done, we'd like to get a clean copy, and we'll review it completely with the assessment report we did and give you any additional comments. Hopefully there'll be nothing and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll give you -- believe me, there'll be ten different versions coming to you. You'll get to read -- MR. TRESCOTT: I've never seen so many before, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neither have we. Pages 40 through 41, anybody have any questions or issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 44 we go into the school site, and I'm sure -- Tom, how are we going to talk about the school site in the DO? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. I have requested a change on Page 42, it's Sub A, and I think it's added in there, we have developable acres. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I put it on the visualizer. MR. EASTMAN: It's on the visualizer, and that looks good and is appreciated. And then with respect to G, we've reinserted "attempt to," because our understanding is that county transportation may have needs to make that a four -lane road. And if they do, then so be it. We wouldn't stand in the way of the mobility of the county, nor do we have any authority to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, when you refer to developable acres, what do you mean? MR. EASTMAN: I mean acres that are fully mitigated and are able to be developed without restriction or without need for additional mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the school's definition of development, though, vertical construction or hard impervious surfaces, or does it include water - management areas and stuff like that? MR. EASTMAN: It would include water - management areas. It would include anything where you're impacting the natural environment as it currently sits. So if we have to do pretreatment ponds, that would fall within the scope of developable, where we expect to do that. And then -- this is our most preferred way to ever acquire a site. Page 74 of 86 i yi 4 1b! 2 A7 September 1, 2011 And we have a lot of improvements that are -- that are in place that the school district wouldn't have to do standing alone. So this is -- it's a really good way for us to work with the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that things like water management and everything were intended to be included in that 19, because it's about 12 or 15 percent of your site, depending on how efficient the design is. So -- MR. MULHERE: Pretreatment. MR. EASTMAN: Exactly, yes, pretreatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Pages 45 to 50. MR. TRESCOTT: Yes, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TRESCOTT: On this land -use conversion stuff on Page 48, in Paragraph B we need some language in there that requires the applicant to notify the DCA, the Regional Planning Council, and the local government when a land -use conversion is going to take place. So I -- I think I came up with something to the effect that when this land -use conversion is used, notification shall be made to these -- the Department of Community Affairs, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and Collier County. I think that this has to be in there, because it may be an appealable issue with DCA if it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TRESCOTT: I guess that would be like at the end of -- maybe that's Paragraph 4 or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to find the page, because my page numbers -- MR. TRESCOTT: Forty- eight. MS. ASHTON: Forty- eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but my 48 isn't, apparently, the 48 that you've got, so I don't even know where it is, and I'm trying to find it because I'd sure like to -- can you put it on the screen, Ray? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's under general considerations. MR. TRESCOTT: You see, we need to make sure it's written notification. I think that's acceptable, isn't it? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. TRESCOTT: And, of course, it would be identified in the monitoring anyway, so I won't go into requiring that language. I think usually it's in there, but I just assume that monitoring will be addressed there. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Page 48. I hope that's consistent with what everybody else has. So you just -- we want to add a sentence that we'll notify you and DCA whenever we convert. MR. TRESCOTT: And the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're going to know because I'm going to go in with a permit, so -- MR. TRESCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you decide to do the senior housing, you'd notify the state. If you decide to do the RV, you notify the state. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you convert the retail to office on a one -to -one, you notify the state. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And we convert a hotel to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, to BP or whatever else, right, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And No. 2, you will -- it's just -- put that down to 1,232. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we made that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take the balance of the document, because I don't know what page you -all end at so let's just say from here to the end. Any other questions with the development order? It doesn't sound like there are any. Okay. We've got 44 -- MR. EASTMAN: Heidi has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: I just wanted to ask a question. Can I propose that in lieu of coming up with examples that I'll prepare something, how to calculate the density in each section, like a how -to instructions for staff and also a conversion table that can be used, and propose that for your consideration to use it as an attachment if you like it, and I'll certainly work with staff and with Rich to make sure that it's correct. Page 75 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would love to see some clarification like that for all future people that have to deal with this document. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So I'll do it that way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of you? MS. ASHTON: -- so it's how to calculate it, and instructions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dan? MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah. There was one more thing, or maybe two. I was just -- I've seen the emergency management mitigation provisions. It's excellent. It's probably some of the best I've ever seen. And -- but I did want to get clarif- -- I wanted to get a note -- you know, some kind of sign -off from the emergency management office about these RVs, because I don't think that when they looked at the mitigation for it they knew there was going to be RVs. And I believe Dwight had might -- maybe tried to call them or something yesterday, so is there any word on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. But in other projects where I've done RVs, I think everybody's pretty much recognized that if the hurricane's coming, they're cranking it up and they're leaving. So that's really not been an issue. And plus, they're probably not going to be down here that time of the year anyway, since these people typically are traveling around and they're going to be in -- probably north or cooler during the hurricane season than down here during the summer. Generally. Not all, but generally that's been, you know, the consensus, is that -- MR. TRESCOTT: October's the peak for us here, so that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. But, again, they -- and, Mr. Strain, I'm assuming you would probably pick up and go if you were visiting someplace in your RV and you got a, "Hey, a hurricane's coming." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I -- if one comes through here, I'm out of here, I'll tell you that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I mean, I don't think it -- so I think that's probably -- that's the response that's been in other petitions. But, no, we have not heard directly back yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between now and consent, we could get them -- we could get them to take a look at it and just acknowledge the issue. MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah. I'm -- there's one other thing, and I -- usually these conversion tables -- I sent them -- I sent Dwight a -- Nadeau a white paper on the conversion process that the Babcock Ranch went through in Charlotte County, and it is a -- kind of a complicated document. But they do look at other things. These conversion matrixes look at other things other than transportation. They look at water and sewer. And so, we kind of talked briefly about, you know, what's the most restrictive, and I think it's going to be the trips, but I wanted to kind of hear from an engineer -- your engineer or something on that and -- I mean, it's usually -- usually there's water and sewer capacity, and it is being provided by the county. But you know, it's -- when you go through these reviews, they always say they have capacity, but then, you know, they don't -- they've overcommitted themselves really, and they don't know when they're going to have to provide it. So -- and I don't -- it's not a regional issue because it's being provided by the county and not another jurisdiction, but -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ROBAU: For the record, Emilio Robau. I'm the professional engineer who's helped on this. And generally the uses that we have here, the most intensive use is the single - family that has a big mass of water supply and wastewater removal needs. We have good capacity in the system. We also have a lot of checkpoints, you know, when we go through final designs and concurrency, and it's -- although I understand your concern, Pm really not concerned that we're not going to have any water supply or wastewater removal capacity, you know. And we've already got our letters. And most of these uses, as they convert, you know, like commercial is less intensive than a residential use -- MR. TRESCOTT: Well, that's what I wanted to get on the record was that the conversions that you're planning on doing are actually going to generate less water and sewer requirements than what the DRI was reviewed for, the -- you know, the maximum uses it was reviewed for. It seems as if most of the stuff that's being converted is going to be less impacts. I think -- is that -- I think that's included here, that -- MR. ROBAU: Yeah, it is. I mean, the thing I'd look at as a business park, but the massing of the business Page 76 of 86 I 161 2 A 7 September 1, 2011 park does not overcome, you know, all the rest of the water supply that we have out here, and the majority of the conversions are going to be a less intensive generator and a less intensive -- MR. TRESCOTT: So industrial -- I know the business park is -- you know, it sounds like office, but it's actually industrial. MR. ROBAU: There are a few uses in there that -- MR. TRESCOTT: So industrial generates less water and wastewater? MR. ROBAU: Well, the industrial that we have around here generally does. I mean, I actually did a study years ago on the Collier Park of Commerce, and I did another one on the J &P (sic) Industrial Park, and I actually took the meter usages, because I was trying to figure out, you know, what's the generation rates for those things and -- you know, both from the consumptive side and generating side. And the industrial uses that we have in Collier County and the industrial uses that are contemplated here, the answer was like .1, you know, gallon per day per square foot. It was relatively low. And I think the reason is that most of the industrial that we have here is not, you know, canneries and -- you know, we have very few of those things that are very high- intensive water users and water generators. So -- and that's consistent with the type of uses that they're proposing in the business park. The business park, you know, I look at it, it's not really an industrial. It's more like a C5 would be some of the most intensive uses, so -- and then the rest of the conversions, you know, they go from a residential, you know -- I'm just not that concerned about it Dan, but I understand your comment. MR. TRESCOTT: Well, I just wanted to go on the record that transportation -- the trips are going to be the most restrictive thing that we're going to look at and that the conversions that are all taking place are going to generate less water than was determined in the original application. MR. ROBAU: And I can say -- I can say that's generally true of the entire development. There will be some very specific cases where that might not be true, but the amount of those areas are going to be so small that they're not going to upset the apple cart. MR. TRESCOTT: Okay. MR. ROBAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that would hold true for things like -- because we are talking about the business park, that is where -- MR. ROBAU: That's the place that I'd have to look a little tighter, exactly. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's going to be -- yeah, I think so. So it would be less for the hotel or a school? MR. ROBAU: A school is definitely less, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: That school, as long as there's no living involved with that, right? MR. ROBAU: Correct, but then dormitories are generating just like multifamily. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, okay. MR. ROBAU: Or residence halls, I'm sorry, are generating very similar to multifamily uses. So, you know -- like, you know, the exchange of uses here is a pretty complex matrix, and I could go back and generate a spreadsheet. My general opinion is that I don't think we've underestimated the consumptive water uses and the sewage generation rates. And there may be hot spots, and they're probably located in the business park. But, again, the amount of use in there is not that significantly high. So if I saw canneries or, you know, something like that I'd be really concerned, and I just don't see a lot of that use. Yeah, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan? MR. ROBAU: Is that okay? MR. TRESCOTT: Yeah, that's good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Dan, we met with just -- and Planning Commission, we met with public utilities yesterday and discussed Hacienda and how they're reviewing projects like this since Phil Gramatges left, and they've said they've assigned a dedicated professional engineer to look at these things, and he has looked at Hacienda and didn't have any discomfort with what was in the area. MR. TRESCOTT: Okay. I guess the only final thing I had here was just to make sure that we get some kind of -- we were going to deal with the substantial deviation NOPC thing for the stadium in here. Is that going to be in Page 77 of 86 16 2 Q7 September 1, 2011 the conversion language or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think we should put whatever language we're putting into the PUD to address if there are changes to the attraction site that today would require some type of review, it will be required in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Dan. MR. TRESCOTT: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pleasure seeing you here today for one of these. Thank you. MR. TRESCOTT: It's been very educational. You -all are really thorough. I'm glad to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it will save you some time at your level when it gets up to you. MR. TRESCOTT: I think it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We try to do that with the board, too, so -- now, before we go into all the various stipulations on both documents, I want to make sure there's no members of the public who wish to speak. Anybody -- I mean, I don't see any members of the public, I don't think, but I've always got to ask that question. Okay. Richard, since you participated as we went along today, as a courtesy, do you want any rebuttal? Sony. I do it to everybody. I want to make sure you -- I don't want you ever to say, oh, he didn't let me do rebuttal. I got gipped out of my process, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't need a rebuttal, but I would love to be able to participate in responding to maybe some of the discussion that could occur -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because I can't anticipate what may go beyond what we've already talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be honest with you, I want staff and Heidi -- Heidi to, and you, to all of us participate together in going forward with the stipulations. I've made a list of three pages. I can read them off, guys, and we can proceed that way to make sure it's -- we've got everything, and then what it doesn't have is the grammatical stuff and the small stuff that Heidi's -- some of the stuff that Heidi already caught. So I tried to catch the newer issues. I'll just kind of read them off one by one, and if anybody finds something that needs clarification or disagreement on, let me know. My first note right off the get -go was clarify the maximum trip generation. And I think there was some needed language to clarify that, but I'm not sure now, after going through this whole thing, if we hadn't already -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought we had a number in there that was three -- whatever it is, 3318,1 think. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Three three -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- where it was going to go and how it was going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to remove 2.51 acres from the commercial line item on Exhibit A to balance out the acreage that Ms. Homiak found. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. R/MU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to remove the reference to RV units in Roman Numeral IV, the Tract You're going to correct Use No. 16 in the business park. MR. YOVANOVICH: To a dash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the dash. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add recreation to the No. I IB, which I believe was the schools, as an accessory. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to cross - reference all the deviation references, cross -check all the references to deviations. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to modify the reference on Page 17 to schools on Table 3. I'll wait for you to acknowledge, Richard, before I go each time; that way we're on the same page. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let me do this. Hold on. I'm going to go in the clean version now. What Page 78 of 86 e 4� page are you on in the clean version? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He's not doing it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Heidi's version -- 161 Z A 7 September 1, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: When you say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason -- the version we reviewed this morning for six hours -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- modify reference on Page 17 to the schools on Table 3. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Modify the senior housing language and schools referenced on Page 18. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to move the intensity paragraph on Page 18 -- I think that was from the top down to the end of the section -- and highlight it as Ms. Caron had pointed out. MS. ASHTON: It will be a duplication. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where we're going to -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. There'll be a duplication. The sentence will be read twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. However you guys want to work it out. That was just an issue I made a note of. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recreational vehicles, the bullet reference to the acres on Page 19, that was going to be "not less than 20 acres" instead of "not greater than 24." MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add the words "mixed -use buildings" to Page 26. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add "half the building height" to Table 1 accessory. I think Ms. Caron pointed that out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same page, the building height is supposed to read "equal to zoned building height." MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 19, drop the words "on Tract R." MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not finding that, but I remember that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You remember it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you -- well, you've gone beyond the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. What did you want to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you took out the townhouse alley design, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, but see, we had to go back to that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it's further down on my list. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- I was -- that's why I didn't say anything either. I figured it's there. We're just going to go backward. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I wasn't sure, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just make sure we get it now. Well, I have it, No. 21, but anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: And minimum distance from the boundary for accessories is -- we added half the building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're -- just got -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He just said that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- finished, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or whichever's greater. Page 79 of 86 161 2 A7 September 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Drop the words "on Tract R" on Page 19, you got that? Under the site - development section, at the end of the paragraph, we're going to add, "with each SDP and/or plat application." MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's 19 on yours, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: That No. 19 or Page 19? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the -- we're going to remove the reference to the firewall protrusion, Note 2, Page 21. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to -- Footnote No. 3 on Page 21 is to be 35 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Entrance is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Delete Figure 6 on Page 26. Delete alley design on Table 1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Modify the preserve clouds on the diagrams. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Change "tract" to "lot" on Page 26, Table 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add "or half the building height" to minimum yards in Table 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same table you're going to go at -- the height will be 50 feet, but with 75 -foot allowed for hotels, destination resort, senior housing, or mixed -use, and that's in Table 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the corresponding 10 -foot add "or actual," as it is in the other height, for each one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 3, exclude Collier County schools, drop the SBR references. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 3, drop the double asterisk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 28, drop the word "generally" in reference to the LDC. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to review -- rewrite, I'm sorry. You're going to rewrite the Bonness easement and have it as part of the package, that easement that we talked about, extending it to 951 and straightened out that 90- degree angle. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't realize you were doing it as part of the package. I thought we were going to work with him to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's put it this way. Either he -- someone acknowledges that it's acceptable, and I don't mean you. I mean him. So if you can get him to give you something before the meeting, or he can come to the meeting and say, yeah, I like this. It's fine with me, that's fine. But I want to make sure the issue's addressed, is all we're talking about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'd just as soon not have to amend the PUD if we have to tweak the curve a little later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I asked you to just work it out with him, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, right. We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have -- we're in unison at the next meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We will. We'll get something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Change Deviation No. 5 to the wall that it's referring -- that you're just not going to have a wall along Lords Way. It's optional. You don't have to have a wall along Lords Way, which means you'll have a wall along the rest of the adjoining properties. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 80 of 86 Zs A 7 e tember 1 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to have -- the easement on Page 35 -- oh, you're going to do an equivalent easement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, equivalent language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with a replacement, so you're going to add that language to Page 35. And then for all the areas where we're talking about donated right -of -way, we're going to accept the county appraiser's value, market value of 30,000 an acre as the not to exceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to add a sentence concerning the panther mitigation credits that you're going to be getting in conjunction with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: All mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Heidi and Nick. MR. YOVANOVICH: All mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It's going to go to all the -- yes, all the mitigation, all the issues like that, that's correct. Both for EMS and for roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to add the reference to the State Division of Historical Resources to No. 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to remove the language "prior to business park" on Page 41. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- okay. Page 42 you're going to -- the 90 -foot right -of -way's going to go to 60 foot. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Page 43 and 44, 120 -foot right -of -way -- the 150 -foot right -of -way's going to go to 120. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to add the 100- percent credit for the upgrade of the road system, the clarification that you had asked for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 8, you're going to, again, change the right -of -way to 120 in lieu of 150. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you're going to -- number -- the next one you're going to add the FDOT DRI language to the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're to add 13 at the end of -- 13, you're going to -- I can't read my own writing on this one. Add 13 to N something on Page 47. Remember Heidi had said -- added some language -- add a Roman Numeral 13 at the end on Page 37. What was that about? MS. ASHTON: You already mentioned it. That's the mitigation language that will be modified as an impact -fee credit under cost of construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I abbreviated transportation, and I couldn't read it. You're going to modify the utility section that you had proposed the language. It was acceptable, so that's going to be modified. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to add language to the effect that, should the DRI threshold been (sic) triggered by any changes to the Swamp Buggy PUD under its condition as a PUD prior would still apply under its condition within this PUD. You're going to add the caretakers as a density consideration on Page 17 of the PUD, and in the master plan you're going to make a series of changes involving the RV uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The educational facilities are going to revert to schools, and you're going to add some total intensity or density comments to the bottom of that right -hand side of the document. Page 81 of 86 N 161 2 September 1 And that gets us through the biggest -- the bigger issues of the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: And they're also -- some of those may also need to be addressed in the DO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To those that are already discussed in the DO, they're mirrored in the DO. Now, as far as the DO, I've got eight more items on the DO. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, did you get the review if required by the Regional Planning Council on Page 13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's the part about the DRI threshold. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you get -- remember where we -- he has the word -- God, I forgot the word already. But we added the word "lot "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: And on Page 15 under the schools, did you get the rec facilities? I didn't hear you say that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Pm just trying to double- check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: On things I didn't -- here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri's the one that gets all this right. I just have to kind of scribble it on the sheets MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I have a copy of the scribble? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Anybody else? Melissa? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll pay for it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, the -- on Page 5, No. 16, make the change from SIC Code 3571 comma to 3571 dash. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got that. COMMISSIONER CARON: We did get that one. COMMISSIONER AHERN: You got that one, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before we go into the DO? Okay. I had eight items in the DO. First one you're going to change the tract map regarding the RV, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I just saw that as consistent with what -- the previous discussion, so yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no tract map in the PUD. There's a master plan. That's why I separately highlighted it. C, on Page 9, notify, again, the State Department of Historic Resources. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add coordination language for the equestrian use in the preserves. Add the language "developable acres" to the school section, and then that same section, under G, add the words "attempt to" in regards to the -- whatever that was. Notify the RPC and the DCA concerning any land -use conversions. Get a sign -off on the RV use from the emergency management, and address the stadium issues in the DO the same as you do in the PUD. Okay. So that's 44, plus the master plan, plus 8. We're up to 52, plus the master plan stipulations. I don't think consent's going to be waived, but I will defer to my other Planning Commission members just in case. Page 82 of 86 161 z A7 September 1, 2011 Okay. We just can't do it. There's way too much here. Now, what we can do is to get a motion to recommend approval, and if you all agree to the stipulations, we ought to take the PUD or DO first and then the PUD, and we need to make a motion that way. Heidi, is there anything you wanted to add before we get that -- into that? You look like you had a question. MS. ASHTON: Well, I'm going to be drafting a how -to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull the mike -- you've got your mike pulled away from you. MS. ASHTON: I'm going to draft a how -to calculation and also a converted -use form. So, you know, can you amend -- when you do your consent approval, can you make a decision -- can you reserve that to make a decision on whether you want to add that as an exhibit or not? And I'll work with -- and I'll provide a copy to Rich and also staff for their comments on whether they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, yes. I think what we'll do is we can mention that as a separate stipulation, that as part of the PUD and DO we will accept a -- we will review a how -to calculation and a converted -use form to be added as an exhibit for both at the time of consent, and we won't need a separate consent for that item. It will just be part of the consent process. MS. ASHTON: And then the other question I have is, I got a copy of revised Exhibit H maps. I don't know what map changes were made, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're going to have to go back, because what we did is we changed them to show the R/RV. We'll have to change all those to go to R or RV -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in those areas. MS. ASHTON: So they're going to go back to the original version that you saw at the last hearing except for the R or RV -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MS. ASHTON: -- and the clarification? MR. YOVANOVICH: And if there's anything else that we have to change on maps, if -- and I don't think there is -- but if there is, to be consistent with the stipulations, we'll make those changes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got a series of stipulations for the PUD and a series for the DO. They've been read for the record. Heidi added one more that will be added to the stipulations, but that particular one will be approved or not approved or modified at the consent. And at the consent, that will be the last time we'll have to hear it, so that won't delay anything any further. So with that in mind, is there -- well, I think we need to start with the development order. Is there a recommendation -- Tom? MR. EASTMAN: So we'll be seeing a clean copy of this again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, I think we ought to see a strikethrough version. MR. EASTMAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you want to read all these paragraphs over, and that will just entail more questions. So I would suggest strongly you give us a strikethrough version, I mean only, and then we can go from -- is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will certainly shorten our review. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I will have both versions, but I will give the strikethrough version for the CCPC package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: Just something to verify the laundry list of changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, and we will go through it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward DRI- 2006 -AR -1 0147 Hacienda Lakes DRI with the stipulations today with the recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. Page 83 of 86 161 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss -- Melissa seconded. Is there discussion? SZmbA, zi oo (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the stipulations that you're referring to are those that were read for both the PUD and the DO as they would apply to the DO. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just want to make sure we're perfectly clear. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Is there a motion for the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10147 Hacienda Lakes MPUD with today's stipulations as a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa seconded. Discussion by anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you stand like this, that always -- or sitting like that, I'm thinking, she's got something to say, I better ask her. MS. ASHTON: Well, I'm just wondering if it's going to go on BCC consent; that's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON: Do we have an objection in the record? Kay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think the BCC would be grateful if it did, but if they think they can do more for this, let them do it. And if I think one of them has a concern, they'll certainly pull it. They've not been shy. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So we'll -- I don't know if we have an objection in the record, and that will determine whether or not it goes on consent or not; the board can pull it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't seen one, unless Mr. Bonness shows up. That would be the only objection Page 84 of 86 1 y I A7 .1.. Se embe l� r 1, 2011 I can see at this point. Nobody else have voiced any, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Knock on wood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you, it's been a lengthy, difficult battle, but if you want copies of these notes, you're more than welcome to make a copy, but give me the original before you leave. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that's fine. I just would like to make sure we don't miss anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just -- someone go next door and make a copy. Just bring it back to me. Okay. The next item up was Pine Ridge Center West PUD, PUDA- PL2011 -703. That was continued earlier at the request of the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed. And that will happen the first one up on the 15th of September. We have no old business, but we have some new business. It's a friendly reminder of the CCPC special meeting for the AUIR/CIE on Thursday, September 29th. And if needed, it will be continued to Friday, September 30th. And the EAR amendment workshop will be on Friday, October 14th. If needed again, it will be continued to October 18th. I can suggest to all of you that on the -- we should be able to wrap up the AUIR on the 29th. Is this a joint session with the Productivity Committee again or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember that coming up this time around. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I will check, but I don't believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they do a thorough job on their own. They don't need to be bogged down by us, and probably vice versa. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've spent their time on the budget this year, not the AUIR or CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, did you have something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. We've had this version for a long time because it was supposed to be heard July 21 st. I have done a lot of looking into it, because I love activity centers. I thought everything was great. I didn't think we were going to have a problem, but I hope nothing like this ever comes in front of us again as discombobulated as this whole thing was. We even had stuff sent to us again on Tuesday. This is not fair for the planners. It is not fair. I would have preferred continuing it, handing you back both of these and saying, when you get your act together and get it all in one form, we will rehear it. I was very disappointed in the way this was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we -- to some point, we all may share your concerns that it certainly has been a longer process than I think should have occurred. We went on for, what, almost seven hours today, and we did that the last time, too, so that's a lot of time into a public meeting process for a lot of people to endure. So I do thank everybody for their patience in getting through this and for the applicant for working with us to correct it. I do wish it hadn't needed so much, but we got there. So one way or another we're off and running. So thank you all. And I don't know of anything else on today's agenda. So is there a motion to adjourn, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 85 of 86 September 1, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:43 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION lvu�A�� NIARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved b the Board on �� y pp y , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 86 of 86 161 42 A7 k4 September 15, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE �n COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION p V Naples, Florida, September 15, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, i )DW.fcu.thc.jZway.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: Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 53 Misc. Cares: Deb: ��--��'�► Item #'\`k-= 2 \c►—N Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Fiala Brad Schiffer Hiller �� Donna Reed Caron - Henning 'I h'" Karen Homiak Coyle Bob Murray Coletta Barry Klein ABSENT: Paul Midney Diane Ebert Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 53 Misc. Cares: Deb: ��--��'�► Item #'\`k-= 2 \c►—N Copies to: r September 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. This is Tim Nance up here having a final conversation just before nine o'clock. Welcome to the Thursday, September 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Midney and Ms. Ebert will be absent today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. We have some addenda to the agenda to discuss. The first one will be simply the approval of minutes. They weren't distributed, so we will defer No. 5 until the first meeting in October. On the other items that are here, we have a request that we will discuss now to continue the Orangetree PUD until another meeting, I believe the next one in October. Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Burt Saunders with the Gray Robinson Law Firm, and we would like to continue this to the next meeting. We've met with a lot of folks in the community. We've gotten some letters from the community. We've met with some of the members from the Planning Commission individually to talk about some issues, and I think we can clean up the document a little bit and make some suggestions that will make the hearing go much more quickly. So we would like to continue that. I understand that there are a lot of people here that were anticipating a hearing this morning. I don't know if it would be the pleasure of the board to hear the public comments. We have no objection to doing that. Don't want to inconvenience anybody if they have some comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. What I -- I would like to comment, too. In case any of you saw the last two Planning Commission meetings, we spent a total of seven hours each meeting, or six to seven hours on each meeting on one project called Hacienda Lakes. The final conclusion of that's going to be on consent today, but that shouldn't take more -- very short amount of time. The Orangetree PUD seemed to be almost as complicated. And in various meetings with the developers' representatives, the members of the community, and probably the other panel members here -- I'm not sure if they met with anybody else on this board -- they've decided to take a closer look at some of the things that were so questionable in that PUD and possibly.consider, changing them. So it's a beneficial aspeci in the fact that it's being continued to October. It will be the first meeting in October, which I .believe is the -- nab ;dot; the 1 st. It will be the 6th, October 6th. Customarily, if anybody has come here who can't attend the October 6th meeting and would like to express themselves, you're more than weltem to; however, I'm suggesting if you can at all possibly hold it until that meeting, it's more effective for us to hear your comments at the meeting, especially after the discussions finish when we go over the items that have changed or that need to be changed in the PUD, because a lot of the issues that people may have, we may stumble on in our discussions. So I guess what we'll do is, Mr. Saunders, we'll vote on your continuance request first, and then if any Page 2 of 53 161 ,, 2 k A7 September 15, 2011 members of the public wish to speak, I'll try to move those items up on the agenda after consent so you can at least be heard today if you can't be here on the 6th, but I really hope you would defer your points till the 6th. So with that in mind, Planning Commission members, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to continue by Ms. Caron. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. That means this will be continued to October 6th, our first meeting of that month. Now, as for a show of hands, does anybody in the audience need to discuss the issues they came with regarding the Orangetree PUD today? One, two, three, okay -- four. Okay. What we'll do is, we're going to have to go through our consent item first. After consent, we'll hear your discussion. The board members, I will ask that we not participate too much. We just want to hear what you've got to say, because we really need to have the input from the changes to the document from the applicant and everybody else before we can really go back and forth and see what is right or wrong. They may change a lot of the things that you're concerned about. And with that, we'll move into consent agenda. Well, actually, no. We're going to -- Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 6th. Does anybody on this board know if they're not going to be here on October 6th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. We've barely got a quorum now, so that will help. Well, by then we're going to have, hopefully, some reappointments, or new appointments. Planning Commission -- or the approval of the minutes we're going to defer until October. Ray, is there any BCC recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners met on September 13th and 14th. They heard the conditional use for Yahl Mulching. That was heard on their summary agenda and approved on the summary agenda. That was approval subject to CCPC recommendations. They also heard the rezone for the Estates shopping center, the CPUD and the DRI. That was approved by a vote of 5 -1 subject to the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four -one. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, 4 -1 -- subject to the CCPC conditions. Commissioner Fiala was -- voted in opposition, and her concern was the size of the facility in relation to the rural estate character, and that was subject to the CCPC conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: There was also a lessening of the square footage down to 150,000 square feet from 170 -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, and you had recommended 170 -. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad our stipulations survived, and that was probably part of the whole thrust of this board's objective is to put the best stipulations we could into the document, so that's good news. Page 3 of 53 September 15, 2011 Okay. Chairman's report. Due to a family medical issue, I'm going to get a text message at some point today that I'll have to leave for, and Vice -chair Donna Caron will be taking over at that point. I don't know if we'll get through the meeting or not by the time that happens, so I will stay as long as I can today. Okay. Our first item -- we have two items on consent. We'll discuss them simultaneously and vote independently. ** *The first item is PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, and then DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147, the Hacienda Lakes DRI. All those wishing to participate, please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Now, normally we don't do disclosures and swearing in for consent, but because one of the items on this consent we do have to weigh in on, I wanted to make sure the record was clear, and that is the -- Heidi's preparation for the calculation page that we have to discuss. With that, Richard, I know that you had -- just before we started you mentioned you had a cleanup issue you had to talk to us about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, if you don't mind. And I appreciate your -- I'll put this on the visualizer. And we got these comments from our DRI counsel yesterday. The intent of the stadium was, should we hit a trigger that would require a DRI review, either insubstantial change or substantial change, we would then go through the DRI amendment process. The language could be -- that's in there today could be interpreted to mean that if we were to do one stadium seat, we would have to do a DRI amendment, and I don't think that was the intent. The intent was when we hit a trigger point. So Mr. Weaver suggested this language. We provided -- as soon as we got it, we provided it to Dan Trescott and to Heidi. I know Heidi was at the BCC pretty much all the last two days, so I don't know that she's had a chance to look at it. I think it's consistent with the discussions we've had. I mean, if she needs to do further tinkering with it, that's fine. But I think it captures the intent that once we hit a trigger, we go through the DRI process for the stadium, not that we do it immediately with the first seat. And that's what that language is supposed to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before I let it go, I just want to check the -- within the hundred pages, I'm sure I'll come across it here in a minute. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you need -- it's on Page 18, if you need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can put it on there for you, if you need, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. No, I've just found it. My concern was the reference on how you've -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That actually occurs on Pages -- are you talking about the mitigation now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the 7941 reference. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only one that you feel will trigger, or could possibly trigger this is stadium training, practic facilities, for professional baseball? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is actually what's from the existing Swamp Buggy PUD. We -- those references were to a professional baseball stadium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. That's what I wanted to check, just make sure that reference here didn't limit it too much compared to the language that was in the documents. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I went back and verified as well, that that's consistent with the Swamp Buggy PUD language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: I got the language at 7:30 this morning, so I have not reviewed it. Page 4 of 53 k A7 161 September 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tell us now what you think. MS. ASHTON: I was going through emails. I printed it out. On first glance, I don't think it's consistent with what Mr. Trescott was requesting, because I -- you know, I haven't had a chance to look it up. I don't know what the stadium trigger currently is or what it would be in the future. We could -- so, no, the language is not acceptable. If they want to continue it two weeks to figure something out, I'd be happy to. But when I spoke to Rich before we sent the red -line package, he said Mr. Weaver was okay with the language as written. MR. YOVANOVICH: He was -- and he was, and he went back and looked at it again. And he said, you know, it could be interpreted to mean one seat triggers it. I think we can come up with -- it was always the intent, if I remember, was that we wouldn't have to do anything different today -- we were adding this into the PUD. If we had to do a DRI change today to implement the stadium, we would do it in the future. So that's what this is intended to do. We can deal with it in between now and then at the board level if we have to. But I do think that the trigger language is consistent with what the Planning Commission and Mr. Trescott did say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree that this was only supposed to kick in if you did trigger what would have been considered an impact related to a DRI substantial -- a threshold. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, is there a traffic -count level tied to the swamp buggy grounds? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not currently, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember the swamp buggy is outside of our traffic count, so there'll be a review just like every other project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they are, but I wanted to see if they in themselves had their own traffic count in which they have to be monitored by. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason being is -- and I can understand Heidi's concern is that this may open the door further than it needs to be, so we have to put some kind of threshold that has to be -- or a reference to a threshold. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and we could say "as required by Chapter 380," because the threshold currently, I think, is 10,000 seats. MS. ASHTON: I mean, the point is what they're trying to do is vest what they believe they already have under the existing PUD, which is why we were trying to flesh out the language so that we didn't have a fight later over whether it applied or not. I can read some language in that I think would be acceptable to me, working off of Page 18 of 65 in your package on the DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Number 8 could read, stadium training and practice facilities for medical, baseball, paren, Group 7941. This use is allowed only if a notice of proposed change or substantial deviation application for development approval is processed in accordance with Section 380.06, paren, 19FS or any successor statute and the Hacienda Lakes DRI is amended. If state law changes such that a DRI review or other state review is no longer needed, then this provision shall terminate. That's acceptable to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- and that's really not different than what's there. Here's the issue. MS. ASHTON: Well, it is, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the issue. That section, 380.09 --.06.19 is the process you go through for a change to the -- you do an NOPC. It's not the trigger section. So you can -- you could say -- if you wanted to, just say 3 80.06 and take out the parens, that would encompass all of the section, including the trigger sections. Because what this basically reads right now is, in order to do it, you've got to do an NOPC, either insubstantial or a substantial change. The trigger language is in the statutes, and the trigger currently is 10,000. It could go up, it could go down. We don't know. It could go away altogether. So what we're just simply saying, if we're required to do one under 3 80, we'll do one, whatever the trigger may be. But right now if you read this, the paren 19 is what gives us trouble, because it's not the trigger statute. It's Page 5 of 53 i � � r September 15, 2011 the process portion of the statute. MS. ASHTON: I think that my language satisfies their concern, so I would recommend my language. If they continue to be unhappy with the language, they can propose further changes to the board at the BCC hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you read your language one more time, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: Yes. And this is for Page 18 of 65, Section A8, and then we would make the other change to the PUD that would reflect the same language. So the new paragraph will read: Stadium training and practice facilities for baseball -- professional baseball, paren, Group 7941, end paren. This use is allowed only if a notice of proposed change or substantial deviation application for development approval is processed in accordance with Section 380.06, paren, 19, end paren, comma, Florida Statute, or any successor statute, comma, and the Hacienda Lakes DRI is amended. If state law changes such that a DRI review or other state review is no longer needed, then this provision shall terminate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there an objection to getting rid of the reference to the paren? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm thinking is trying to keep it simple, but why are we tying the Stadium Naples -- I mean, the -- Stadium Naples. Whoa. I just got done reading that book. It was interesting, so -- stadium -- the stadium point, why are we tying it to the amendment of the Hacienda DRI? Simply -- the way this seems to read is that if the Hacienda DRI is amended, then we have to do -- then we have -- this would have to come in during an amendment process, but you're going to -- that is going to trigger the amendment process. You're going to have to amend the Hacienda DRI because now you're part of that DRI if you go to a Stadium Naples -- or a -- Stadium Naples -- stadium -- professional stadium baseball field; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: The intent was, in today's rules, if you go to a stadium greater than 10,000 seats, we would have to amend both the PUD and the DRI development order. As I read this language today it says, if I use any stadium use, I've got to do it. That's what it reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The 19 is what -- the reference to Paren 19 is the problem, because that's a process section, not the trigger section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But no matter what, when they go to do this, they're amending your DRI, which is now their DRI; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They'll amend their portions of DRI that apply to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just like if we were to make changes to ours, we would have to do the same thing. MS. ASHTON: Dropping the Subsection 19 is acceptable to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that's a better -- I like that idea. I think that cleans it up; then you fall under the entire section of 380.06. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And then we're all clean. That was -- I think that was the overall intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Boy, this is going to get complicated if they have to do this. Just thinking ahead. That's why I wanted to make sure I understood what you were trying to do. Now, Heidi, if they drop the Section 19, do you need all your language changes, or -- MS. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- can they just simply drop Section 19? You still need -- you still feel you need yours? MS. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to hers if that's dropped? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's fine. It was the 19 that was -- referencing 19 that was the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That leaves one item that we would change during consent. Let's move on to any others. Rich -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we also have to change it on Page 54. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the DRI DO. MS. ASHTON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And then I believe there was Page 48 and Page 60. It's really the same language, but I'll put up what's on 48. And I think that's where was the calculation of the mitigation. It's really Page 6 of 53 161 Z4 0r A� September 15, 2011 intended that the total cost of the mitigation be divided by the acres. We had it backwards. We had the acres divided by the total cost of mitigation so -- to come up at the per -acre price. So I just simply, if you can read my handwriting, am reversing that to say it's -- the total cost of mitigation is divided by the impacted acres of 718 to arrive at the per -acre cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think, Mr. Chairman, you and maybe others had caught that same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I had two notes in my cleanup, and that was one of them, to explain what it is you were trying to do by the way it was written, so that does clarify it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I just think we had it backwards. We were focused on figuring out how many acres was the number. We had it backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you see any problems from your perspective? MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I wasn't aware of this change. But if it's okay with Mr. Casalanguida, it's okay with me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head.) MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be on Page 60 as well, Roman Numeral XIV, because that was the EMS section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It appears in the DRI as well, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it also appears on Pages -- on Page 40 -- I'm sorry -- Page 32 and 40 of the DRI DO. Those are the two that we saw last minute, and I don't know if there are any others that we need to -- may need to respond to or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple of others. Does anybody else have any other clarifications needed on the consent- agenda items? And, Heidi, the paper you prepared, I had a couple questions about it. And it would be on the one, two -- fourth -- MS. ASHTON: I just want to make -- I just want to make sure I get this change that he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can leave you -all my pages, Heidi, if you need me to. MS. ASHTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page did you say this was? MR. YOVANOVICH: This -- well, this is Page 48 of 65 in the PUD -- and that's how it printed out on my computer -- of the strikethrough version. MS. ASHTON: All right. I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got it? MS. ASHTON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last two pages of your paper -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is this the PUD, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is -- well, Heidi produced a worksheet for the PUD -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it's titled -- it starts out, Hacienda Lakes PUD Master Use and Conversion List or SDP plat, building permits, and mostly my questions are cleanup from Heidi. Under the BP district and some of the others where you refer to square footages, in some cases you use the word "gross'; in others you don't. I would just want to be consistent. I want to make sure that everything is referred to as gross so we don't get net leasable acres or anything like that entering into the picture. On the first one for a hotel, it's 92,000 gross square feet. So I just want that cleanup added. Under the R/MU district, the second line of the first bullet, all uses are office, you just misspelled the word "uses." That ought to be cleaned up. And then on the last page, the first bullet on the top after the Number 3, if no hotel in BP and hotel conversion not used in BP, add 92,000 square feet of hotel up to 135 rooms, and -- can you explain that to me? If there's no hotel in the business parks, they don't use that -- MS. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the hotel conversion is not used in the BP, which I think the conversion there Page 7 of 53 } A, September 15, 2011 is from 92- of a hotel to 60,000 for BP uses, then if that isn't done, then they get to add 92,000 square feet of hotel, up to 135 rooms to the commercial district; is that what you're -- is that what that intends? MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Because they had the -- you know, the square -foot limitation on the commercial, but they also had a hotel that they were allowed as well. And I believe the way that I've interpreted it, as well as the way Mr. Yovanovich has interpreted it, is that that's in addition to the maximum commercial. So if they don't put -- they have three options for the hotel. It can go in the BP or it can go in Tract C, and if they decide not to build the hotel at all, then it can go into the BP as 60,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if they decide not to build a hotel at all in the Tract C or the BP and they don't use the 60,000 in the BP, they don't get anything for it. It just goes to the wayside; is that right? MS. ASHTON: If they don't build the hotel? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If they don't build a hotel and they don't need the conversion in the BP, it doesn't give them -- MS. ASHTON: Then, yeah, there's no other option unless they come in with the PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they can't up their retail/office /commercial space with any portion of the 92,000 in Tract C for not using the hotel at all? MS. ASHTON: I don't believe that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't either. I just wanted to make sure it was clear. MS. ASHTON: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with it. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So what I'm going to do is put page numbers on here so it will be 1 of 5, 5 of 5. And I did meet with some of the folks, the SDP folks, and they thought that it was helpful to help them figure out to calculate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are we going to make it part of the permanent record? The record of today's proceedings is fine, but then when someone goes to pull this up under court record or Clerk's Office -- MS. ASHTON: We can just add it as another exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you need to reference it within the document? MS. ASHTON: Yeah. In the ordinance we'll list it as exhibit -- the next ordinance exhibit number. I don't know what we went -- I don't have the ordinance with me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as it gets listed. MS. ASHTON: -- today. We'll just add it as another exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich? MS. ASHTON: And then just put a reference, "calculation worksheet attached," and we can put that on Page MR. YOVANOVICH: My only -- my only concern about making something like this an exhibit to the document is if there's any -- any change to a word, it now puts us through a PUD amendment process that's got to go through the full CCPC hearing, and I thought this was intended to assist in the calculation. And I don't know. It looks good to us today. If a word needs to change from, I don't know, whatever the word may be, I don't really want to go through a full PUD amendment process if it's an insignificant change to a word. This document is very helpful, but it's not that different than what's in a typical PUD monitoring report, so I think if you were to add this to the PUD monitoring report form that's already out there, I think it would be great, but making it another exhibit to the PUD, just -- I just -- it may not be an issue, Mr. Chairman, but I'd hate to see something comes up that I hadn't thought about that could put me through a process that could take a year to fix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd hate to see you thinking about it and come up with a different interpretation. And we've talked about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The numbers are right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 20 hours of discussion, so. MR. YOVANOVICH: All the numbers are right. MS. ASHTON: I think it needs to be an attachment. I mean, talking with the staff, I mean, the feedback I did get was, we will make a mistake. I just hope it's not too bad of a mistake. But they were pretty certain that they Page 8 of 53 161 2 September 1 AO7 would be making a mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As complicated as this document was and the hours that we've spent on it, I would rather this go in than not. And you've had plenty of time to review it. And at least you had as much time as you give the County Attorney's Office. So if you have any concerns, please state them. If there's cleanup needed, please state it now. But from my perspective -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is this going to become standard operating procedure for all PUDs? I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you bring another one in like this, I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- think it will be. MS. ASHTON: And it will be for Orangetree as well. It's just we haven't done the calculation sheet yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These conversions -- Ray, are the conversions even allowed by the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: The LDC doesn't really address conversions, but we have used conversions in the past, not to this extent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. This is a new animal, and I don't want to see future staff, who is probably -- can easily be different people than are here today, not be aware exactly of all this issue that went on. They certainly aren't going to read the 14 hours of public record to find out, so -- MS. ASHTON: And we have recommended that if this is standard practice that we do an LDC amendment that provides how this will be handled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it will be a much clearer idea to do something like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- I think we have to do an LDC amendment if we're going to continue to do these. I don't see how you get around it; otherwise, we're not reading the LDC the way we're supposed to be reading the LDC. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Traditionally, the PUDs that have been adopted, the way to regulate the intensity is the square footage or the number of dwelling units. This is a little bit more unique in that we're regulating intensity based on the traffic generation. And because we've capped the traffic generation, they feel like within that range they should be able to mix the dwelling units to better reflect market conditions as long as they can demonstrate they're not going to exceed the trip - generation cap. It's a little unique for us. It's one of the first ones that we've really -- well, it isn't the first that has a cap. It's the first that does both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think this panel has bent over backwards to accommodate the flexibility, even from the beginning. It's changed it a lot, but there's a lot more here than any PUD I've ever seen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MS. ASHTON: And, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: The way we would reference the calculation worksheets is on Page 25 -- this is under the SDP or plat approval where they're required to provide the master list of converted uses and the list of previously- approved uses. So I'll just say in the form attached as Exhibit blank, and then those five pages will be attached as that exhibit, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, thank you. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question was if there was a conflict between this and the PUD, which would prevail? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope the interpretation that we've discussed at this meeting would prevail, because the intention is what we -- the intention from the applicant as discussed with us, as discussed in the public meeting, is what has actually come out on this document, and I would think this document would be the intention of this board. I'd hate to see someone interpret differently, and that's my concern for not having it attached. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have some suggested changes. I think they're clear. Heidi's talked about them as well. So does anybody have any other comments about the consent item for the PUD? Page 9 of 53 ii September 15, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve consent subject to the changes discussed? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Melissa Ahern made the motion for PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That motion was made to be consistent with the changes we've discussed this morning. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. * * *Is there a similar motion for DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147, Hacienda Lakes DRI? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern again. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. I assume consistent with the changes we made here this morning. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the effect that they are in the DRI. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0 again. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. ** *Our last item up today is the Orangetree PUD, and that has been continued. There are some people here who have expressed concerns to make their points today because they cannot be here on October 6th. So if that's the case, I ask that you limit your discussion. We usually allow five minutes, but then again on October 6th, please don't expect to voice the same concerns again. We'd like to hear you on October 6th, but we're accommodating you if you can't be here on October 6th. Page 10 of 53 01 A7 161 2 September 15, 2011 So please try to be consistent with that for us so we don't -- so we can get through this one. Those people wishing to speak on this, if you'd all please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you -all are discussing this today without us having the benefit of hearing testimony and the final reading of the document that would be coming to us as it's going to be revised. So you're getting us at a bit of a loss, but we'll still accommodate the discussion. So would the first gentleman mind coming up, identify yourself to speak -- on the microphone for the record, and let us know what's on your mind. MR. PEZZA: Hi. My name is Anthony Pezza. I'm at 1536 Birdie Drive in Valencia Golf and Country Club. I have several concerns. The gentleman representing Orangetree, first of all, said he had conversations with the public, and this is why he wanted a delay in the proceedings till October. I'm just curious whom you had conversations with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, this isn't a cross - examination. You direct your discussion to us, tell us what's on your mind. MR. PEZZA: I'll tell you what's on my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't get into direct -- MR. PEZZA: Okay. hl Valencia we are the big loser in Orangetree's planned escalation of 1,250 multi - dwelling units. We have been spoon -fed information, and a lot of these people in this room, as per your agenda, as per his agenda, came here today missing a day from work, and we're kind of upset, to be frank with you, that this has been tabled when they had plenty of time to amend any portion of this that they were going to amend. To get us in this room, if there was two people here, I guarantee you there's been -- there would be no need to table this. But the fact that there's 25 people here today representing our development is -- maybe has them a little alarmed. And I'm going to just put that out there and tell you what the development is concerned about. In 1985, as you know, there's a settlement agreement that capped this whole Orangetree at 2,100 units. Orangetree now wants to add an additional 1,250 units within Valencia Golf and Country Club, almost double what's been allowed for the entire Waterways, Water Works (sic), Orangetree. He wants to add 1,250 within Valencia Golf and Country Club on what's been approved for only 400 single - family homes. That's alarming to us. The other thing that's alarming to us is the commercial approvals that he's asking for from 60,000 square feet to 332,000 square feet of commercial retail space. Where's that going to be? There's no site plan. There's no information for us to go by. So by the lack of information, this is why the residents have come out here in force. A second point we want to bring up -- and this is no coincidence -- is that Orangetree has kicked out the current developer, D.R. Horton, by not selling him any more lots. Right now we're assuming Orangetree is going to take over the building or be the general contractor in there. What we feel is we need time as a homeowners association -- because the turnover, coincidentally, is supposed to happen November 1 st -- we need time to get representation here. We need counsel to review all our documents and see what our legal ramifications are, because this 1985 settlement agreement, which we are all beneficiaries of, seems to be thrown by the wayside. Everybody who purchased in that development is the beneficiary, just like if my great grandfather died and I inherited some money, I'm a beneficiary. People don't recognize the fact that we are beneficiaries when we purchased in there. But it seems to me that there's a lot of innuendos, there's a lot of misrepresentation going on that we need time to organize ourselves. Is it a coincidence after five years that all of a sudden D.R. Horton is not being sold any more lots by Orangetree? Is that a coincidence that the turnover date happens the same month that Orangetree is projecting this Christmas wish list? This is a wish list. When you go from 400 single - family homes to 1,250 multi - dwelling units -- is what they're asking for -- that's a wish list. Cannot be allowed. We have one access road in and out, which Mr. Bolt owns. He owns the lakes, he owns the roads, he owns the water for our irrigation. How the planning board allowed one individual to own so much -- he owns the land underneath our clubhouse. People that moved into this development, they're not given this information by D.R. Horton. We find this out secondhand after we're in. There's people that moved in a week and don't know that we can't upgrade, at our cost, security camera Page 11 of 53 September 15, 2011 without Mr. Bolt's approval at our gate. We can't do anything without his approval, and the most alarming thing is, is written into the D.R. Horton bylaws is that Mr. Bolt could take over the homeowners association at any time. It's a major conflict. We have some major questions. And, again, I'm going to go back to the fact that this is your agenda. That was his agenda. He got us here today. We missed a day of work. We're here. And the fact that this was tabled is a little upsetting. Next meeting there's going to be 50 people in the room. There's not going to be 25 people in the room, each allowed five minutes, and we're going to get some answers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Sir, may I have your name again, again, please, just for the record. MR. PEZZA: Tony. Last name is Pezza, P- E- Z -Z -A. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker. Why don't we just move to the next aisle back. Anybody? Next aisle after that. Ma'am? MS. MILN: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Susan Miln. I live on Birdie Drive in Valencia Golf and Country Club. I sent a letter out to the commissioners last night referencing my not understanding what is even going on here. I was a little bit alarmed this morning that Mr. Sanders or Mr. Saunders -- I don't -- sorry -- would even say that this was postponed without even informing us. I don't even know what's -- what's planned to start with, as well as you said you're not even aware of the whole document being brought to you, so you're in the same position we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are -- we have a document, but I was telling you -- what I was trying to relay to all of you is that the document, I believe, is going to change, and that we don't know what the changes are. MS. MILN: You don't have the changes, okay, I'm sorry. I correct that. The thing here that I'm concerned about is, whatever makings are in the process here, it leaves us very vulnerable, because we do not as, this gentleman stated, have an association intact. I don't know where the builder went and when he left and how come nobody was notified, and then I'm not sure what Mr. Bolt has in mind for our community, but we don't have any defense at this point, because we have no homeowners association. And not only a homeowners association, we do not have any legal representation, as he said. So this could take a while for us to get intact so we know actually what is going to be happening to us at this point. I don't know how the -- how this all came about, and there seems to be a plan here put in place that would maybe be nonconforming to our neighborhood. And as a community I think that's -- that brings up many concerns. I mean, we have now over 50 percent of a depreciation in our homes to start with, and then we hear that we're going to have low housing -- low- income housing brought in, and we need some clarification as to what low housing means. The fact that we have that one gate and no roads and no lakes and nothing belongs to us, no, we were not aware of that, but we are paying for that. We are paying a homeowners dues that is quite high. Who are we paying it to at this point? Who's getting the money? Where's it all going? We need to get our finances in order as far as a homeowners association before we approve or -- if anybody would even attempt to approve something that's going to affect us as a community. These are our livelihoods. We've invested all this into our homes, as well as everybody else in the county, but we're in a -- we're in a bad position right now. And how is a builder allowed to just -- to just bail out and then somebody else owns us as a community? And we're paying somebody, and we don't know who we're paying. I mean, do we pay or do we not pay at this point? I wrote some things down, and I -- at this point I suggest that, Collier County, could you please take these issues into account. It's going to cause a big -- there's a big magnitude of affect this is going to have on homes and families in our community and our children. I don't know why this wasn't put on a ballot of some sort like the Wilson -- the building thing down there was put on a ballot. Why isn't something like this put on a ballot when it's something of such magnitude coming into a neighborhood? That's just big concerns that we have. I don't even know what I wrote here. To Mr. Saunders, I believe -- I don't want to ask questions. It's not a cross - examination, but when was he advised of all these concerns that the neighbors had or the people had, the public? When were the decisions made to change these plans if he plans on changing them? Why were we not Page 12 of 53 A 7 tri September 15, 2011 notified before this morning? There is people that took off of work, or families have left home, and that's not fair to us either. You did say that if we speak today we don't speak again. I would hope that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mentioned just not to be redundant. We're hearing what you're saying today. Between now and the next meeting, if you get new information, it will be more valuable to address us with the new information than a repeat of what you just said today, that's all I'm trying to clarify. MS. MILN: Okay. Yeah, because I do plan on reviewing the new information. I'm hoping that the new information is sent to us long before we get to the meeting. That's a little bit unfair to us, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, you know, that's a good point, ma'am. First of all, all of you and all of your neighbors that want to come, we will definitely want to hear from you. So I encourage all of you to come to this meeting. You will be allotted time. I don't care if there's a hundred of you in the room, we will hear you all. If it takes two days, it will take two days. But we do want the public participation. So that we're eager for. MS. MILN: We need to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as documents, that gentleman right there with the receding hairline -- MS. MILN: He can't fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- his name is Ray Bellows, and he will -- he can get the documentation for you. But I encourage you to get the latest document so when you come you're coming here with the best and latest information. And that's one reason that the continuation was requested. I think the applicant realized there were a lot of concerns that can't be addressed, and they need to be addressed before the public hearing, so -- MS. MILK: Yeah. But the fact of the matter is that the issues that are brought to us are vague. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am? MS. MILN: -- 1,200 low income, what does that mean? You know, what does that mean to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you said, just like a realtor, they have a disclosure on the bottom of every piece of paperwork you got. You've got to rely on the written documents, rely on the document you get from Mr. Bellows and the written word in that document as to what will be the ordinance if approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So whatever you've heard, whatever you verbally have heard, if it isn't in that document, it's not going to happen that way. You need -- the document will be the controlling instrument. So you need to get ahold of that document, you need to read it, and then you'll understand better the issues that this board can deal with, and it is only those issues within that document. MS. MILN: But do we not have these documents, the homeowners? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what you have, ma'am. No, you wouldn't have gotten them -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the applicant -- the county requires the petitioner to hold what we call a neighborhood information meeting where they are to provide that information to anyone who attends that meeting. That meeting was held on June 29, 2011, at 5:30 at the Collier County Extension Office. MS. MILN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: That's -- we try to get public input as -- in the process as soon as possible. That's why we require these mandatory -- a mandatory neighborhood information meeting. But anytime anyone has questions, if you hear about something, we always are happy to take calls and provide whatever infonnation on about any application that we have in -- that has been submitted to the county. MS. MILN: But the information that's brought forth to a -- our homeowners, it needs to be more clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, ma'am, part of -- MS. MILN: Is that possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of what you've got to do, especially with your own neighborhood, is get the information on your own. We cannot voluntarily provide that to everybody. MS. MILN: But we will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the process. You have to ask for it. They'll provide it. It's public record. So if you just get ahold of Ray, he'll -- he can send you the latest documents. And if you want to get them sent to your HOA and they distribute them, that might be a way to do it. Page 13 of 53 September 15, 2011 MS. MILN: We don't have an HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whoever your -- okay. Whatever organization you have -- MS. MILN: You're going to send them to Mr. Bolt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or however you communicate with one another, I suggest that you get in contact with him and start getting the documents circulated. MR. BELLOWS: I have my business cards. I'll give it to Kay Deselem, who's the planner, and she'll hand out my business cards. And you can call, or Kay, and we can get you any information you need on this project, and we'll be glad to meet with you, show you all the plans that the applicant has submitted to us, and when we receive the revised information that was the reason for this continuance, we'll make that available also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Burt, the same rule. I don't want to open cross, so -- MR. SAUNDERS: No. I certainly am not going to do that. Mr. Chairman, maybe to expedite things to facilitate the next hearing, we'd be happy to set up a meeting out at Valencia Golf and Country Club. We can have the folks come, and we can discuss what's in the plan and what we think some of the changes are going to be. That might help answer some questions. For example, there is no low- income housing in this -- in this plan, but there's some rumor out there that there is, and there isn't anything in the document to indicate that. So we can answer some questions. I would need a contact person, one person that I could call, and then have that person set up the meeting in terms of who's going to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, before this -- before this discussion gets over with, we'll get a contact person for you that maybe can help distribute information to the Orangetree folks. MR. SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MILN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, thank you very much. The next person who would like to speak, sir? MR. PAWLINSKL• Good morning. My name is Stash Pawlinski. I live on Birdie Drive also. I'll keep my comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name, sir? MR. PAWLINSKI: P- A- W- L- 1- N- S -K -I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PAWLINSKI: I'll keep my comments brief, because I would like to speak again in October, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, you can speak, sir. I just ask you to keep -- not to be redundant, that's all. MR. PAWLINSKI: And I'm going to try not to be. I tentatively have joint - replacement surgery scheduled, so I just want to express a couple points. Mr. Pezza actually got to the heart of what my concerns were. One, we're in a unique position that I hope you'll be sensitive to that our transition from D.R. Horton to whoever the next developer's going to be leaves our HOA in a very weak position, and we would like time to gather information to have legal advice so that we as a community can make plans for our future that will be helpful to us and beneficial to the community in general. My first major concern was the fact going from the current approval of lots to 1,250. If you take all the communities together, that's a 50- percent increase on everything. And the bulk of it will be in Valencia Golf and Country Club. I'm certain these concerns will be addressed also. But as it is right now, once the school year starts, you can come out on Randall Road and Immokalee, and sometimes you'll wait through two or three traffic lights with the current traffic waiting. So that was a concern of mine. Not knowing the details of the plan -- and I'm certain if we have more details you can address what your concerns would be. We don't really know specifically what's going to be involved, and that would be helpful. So, again, those are my concerns. Mr. Pezza hit to the heart of it. And, again, I know you've got a long and busy day, so I'll keep it brief, and hopefully I'll see you in October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Next person who'd like to speak, please. MR. BISH: Good morning. My name is Troy Bish at 2212 Vardin Place. Page 14 of 53 161 2 A September 15, 2 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name, sir? MR. BISH: Bish, B- 1 -S -H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BISH: Mine will be short and brief at this time. My fellow neighbors have addressed some of our legitimate concerns that we have. I'm on the advisory committee and I have been for the last 18 months, for Valencia Golf and Country Club, as well as now the turnover club, getting ready for our turnover to form our own board of directors, which now the board of directors is -- D.R. Horton has been the board of directors since the development started. With that in mind, what I'm asking -- and I don't know what the proper protocol is going to be, if Mr. Saunders has the ability today or not -- I'm looking to at least extend this. I'm not interested in an October meeting. And the reason why is because we still won't have a unified voice from Valencia Golf and Country Club. We have no organization. We have no attorney on advise for us. So I'm looking for a November 1 st turnover date. I'm looking for this meeting possibly postponed till after that, maybe even till the first of the year, where we can get our bearings and our feet underneath us and at least be a little bit organized so we can have a logical debate with Mr. Bolt and Mr. Saunders about our future plans. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next person who would like to speak? MS. RAIMONDI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to pull that mike a little closer to you. Thank you. MS. RAIMONDI: My name is Kathleen Raimondi, and I'm at 4290 Eighth Street. Thank you very much for letting me speak. I will ask to speak in October, but the reason I'm mainly asking to speak today is that I have 88 signatures, signed, in a petition to ask you to please consider this petition. Do not -- these people do not live inside of Orangetree PUD zone, but they live on the outside to the north of the fairgrounds where you see the yellow highlight. And when the maps were given out, it looked as if we didn't even exist as homeowners. We were indicated by a line about a quarter of an inch long. So there's nothing here. It looks like we're insignificant people. And this particular issue that I'm bringing forth to you concerns primarily the portion of Orangetree PUD that's indicated on your maps as CU, community use, which is now being occupied by a fire station and the fairgrounds. This does not concern a fire station. It does concern the fairgrounds, which is -- the property is owned by Collier County, and if I'm not mistaken, the fairgrounds is a legal entity called the Collier County Fairgrounds, Inc., so they are a renter of Collier County, and they -- there was nothing there in the beginning. We asked, is there anything going to affect our homes, and we were told no by realtors. They have a wonderful agricultural center where you could take classes on plants and bugs and things like that. They have escalated activities to the point that it is a total public nuisance to the people that live north of the Orangetree PUD by that section, to the point that we are barely able to live in our homes 11 months out of the year. That means we paid for our homes, but we only have peace and sanity for about 11 months, probably ten - and -a -half. And I would like to read the petition so that when they do revise these (sic) ordinance that they will consider why we're protesting. So if you give me that permission. We petition the Collier County Commission, the Collier County Fairgrounds, the Collier County Code Enforcement, Collier County zoning and others, regarding the Collier County Fairground operations to, one, cease all amplified sounds, including music and voice by way of loudspeakers and any other means; Two, cease ignoring the residents' peace, harmony, and tranquility; Three, cease sponsoring events which have been categorized as, quote, community events, unquote, that create noise disturbances to the adjacent and surrounding residents. These events include but are not limited to extraordinary noise, including amplified music, amplified speakers, concerts, rental of the 4H animal shelter for weddings and other parties, helicopter rides, and other helicopter activity over residents' home (sic), bull and rodeo riding and demolition derbies; Four, cease in allowing huge trucks of any size therefore -- thereof to deliver large amounts of alcohol, such Page 15 of 53 f_ w September 15, 2011 as beer, and the sale of alcohol on the premises of the Collier County Fairgrounds, as this leads to intoxication, escalating of noise disturbances, and safety risks. The Collier County Fairgrounds is not zoned for commercial uses and should not be used as such. Five, cease the use of residential streets for entry and exit from the Collier County Fairgrounds since access is available per right and left turn lanes on Immokalee Road, and due to the consideration of the local residents on Eighth Street Northeast and 10th Street Northeast, they have very, very small children and are at risk, and with the consideration that the vehicles exiting the fairgrounds frequently exceed the local speed limit. Six, denial of the request to the Collier County Zoning and Development Division of Collier County per Orangetree PUD for the Collier County Fairgrounds to revise the current ordinance for, A, a maximum height of 115 feet for a tower, regardless of its purpose, as the property is in the backyard of adjacent residents, and Collier County owns more advantageous lots for the purpose intended of a fire observation, which are generally located in areas that are wooded, such -- which is better suited, is located at Immokalee Road and 47th Avenue North. In addition, an ordinance change allows a height revision to a maximum of 115 feet, is a potential precursor to constructing a telecommunication tower without the need for further homeowners' input. Fire /water towers are not generally of such height; B, an on -site residential unit for security purposes, as this is not necessary, without the escalation of community events, increased traffic on -- involving adjacent residential homes, additional equipment which has been involved with the noise disturbances to the residences; And, C, raw -water wells, as the Collier County Fairgrounds was never intended to operate in such a condition as to warrant drilling for water, and this will cause extreme risk to the adjacent community of residents upon their well systems regardless of how deep the Collier County Fairgrounds intends to drill for a water source; And, D, the denial of a request to eliminate all impact fees for new structures. Without the shared responsibility, the costs will become a tax burden for the homeowners. The purpose of this intention is so that the primary goal of Collier County is to create a county and a community where all the people and the residents are treated equal and are to enjoy the same rights and privileges among one another without undue treatment to any one group at the expense of that group for the benefit of one group and the detriment of another. So I would like to submit this consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Raimondi, first of all, you need to -- if you want to provide any documentation, it should go to Mr. Bellows. MS. RAIMONDI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And second of all, this is a zoning hearing on a PUD. And I understand some of the issues you've talked about, but they're not matters that are relevant to this board. Also, the Collier County Fairgrounds is not -- although its part of the PUD, they're not one of the owners that have opened up their section of the PUD except to do what I would have thought you would have considered beneficial, that is to establish a maximum height for a fire tower, whereas, right now they could build that fire tower to the highest structure in Collier County, which I believe is about 200 feet. So I'm not sure how your issues apply to this board. But when you and the rest get done, I'll certainly advise all of you on how you may look at what -- the specific issues this board deals with. It's kind of like the environmental advisory board and all the different boards in Collier County. We have a certain set of rules that we have to review by, and many of the issues you just spoke about don't fall within our rules. MS. RAIMONDI: I understand that it may not seem like it, but if these additions take place, it sort of gives the fairgrounds a blank check and the freedom of will to do more escalating. So we're asking specifically the denial of the additions to the fairgrounds to the community -use portion. And we also would like to say that the reputation of Golden Gate Estates seems to have a negative connotation. What we would like to ask you is you consider in the ordinance is something that will enhance the area and bring people in instead of them always saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am? MS. RAIMONDI: -- I don't want to move out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to have to ask that you limit your discussion today, and if you are -- to stay on topic. Those are not issues that are before us today. If you look at the document, you will see there are only Page 16 of 53 A7 161 2 September 15, 2011 two changes to the fairgrounds to date that I've seen. MS. RAIMONDL• Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, three. I may have forgotten one, but they aren't detrimental changes to you, so I'm not sure what use change you see. MS. RAIMONDI: A tower, a residential unit in the fairgrounds, and drilling for water are the three you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The tower has always been there, ma'am. MS. RAIMONDI: Well, if I'm not mistaken, the last ordinance amendment was in 2004, and it was for the purposes of educational benefit in the high schools. What you're asking for now is completely on the other end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask that we're going to have to ask that you come back on the 6th -- MS. RAIMONDI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we'll discuss it more further at that time. MS. RAIMONDI: I would like to ask one other thing, that they consider having neighborhood information meetings all over again if they change this, because people are not given enough time to understand what this is all about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant will have to meet the requirements of the Land Development Code, and I'm sure they'll do that. If they volunteer to do more, that is their prerogative. We can't control that. MS. RAIMONDI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Andrew? MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew McElwaine. I'll take two minutes. Minute one is just to quote Yogi Berra, eternity "ain't what it used to be." There are multiple settlement agreements around the county that protect the citizens, protect the natural world, and from a conservative perspective, we're watching them all crater. The Key Marco Settlement Agreement, Lely Barefoot Beach, and now Orangetree. These are all landmark settlements that allow development to be built at all, and there are limits that were placed as part of those developments that we're watching blow up all over the place. One turned violent against one of my staff down in Key Marco. First time in our 48 years that a staff person was subject to violence, on a gated community. So these could get very ugly, and I really want to caution everyone about taking what was the ceiling throughout the county and watching it become the floor. In this case this property was zoned by the County Commissioners back in 1980,'81 one unit to five acres. The Grimm remnant of Gulf American Corporation litigated that, and a 1985 settlement agreement was reached which increased it from one to five, to a total of 2,100 units all across this development. Without that settlement agreement, there wouldn't be a darn thing on these properties had the county prevailed. Same with Lely Barefoot Beach, same with Key Marco. Without those settlement agreements, nothing would have been built in those places, or at least nothing like what's there now. So to watch these crater is very unfortunate. And I would point out finally that, according to our attorneys, the applicant has not claimed a vested interest here, meaning no Bert Harris claim. So, meanwhile, as some of these folks have mentioned, they are third -party beneficiaries of the settlement agreement, and they do have the right to litigate that. So I would keep that in mind from a legal perspective as to who has rights here and who does not. So with that, I will hold whatever else I may have to say for another time thank you, and thanks to all these good people for coming down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Andrew. Anybody else wish to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a couple things I want to hope will help you. Well, first of all, the gentleman on the left with the gray hair, like my gray beard, I thought you had indicated when Mr. Saunders was talking of a contact person, you might be the person. And if you are, could you just come up to the mike for a minute. We're looking -- it would be helpful if we had a contact person we could disseminate information through. And I'm sure that would help the applicant get you the information he needs to get to you. Yes, sir. Page 17 of 53 l� t September 15, 2011 MR. WINDER: Yes, sir, I am. My name is Michael Winder. Last name is W- I- N- D -E -R. I live on 1613 Birdie Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1613 Birdie Drive. MR. WINDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we get you information, will you be able to distribute it to the community for the most part? MR. WINDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then that doesn't mean all of you can't receive, independently, information, but you'll have to contact Ray independently if you want it. In the meantime, Ray, if you could get anything that comes in on this project to this gentleman -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Kay. MR. BELLOWS: And Kay will be the main contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. SAUNDERS: If I might, I need a telephone number so I can make one call to set up a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather you get that in private. You don't need to publicly display your telephone number. MR. WINDER: That's fine, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So catch Burt on the way out, and give it to him. That would probably be better. Thank you. Now, the other thing I wanted to mention, this is the Collier County Planning Commission. We only deal with zoning matters relative to the Land Development Code. There are whole bunches of things wrong with Collier County in a lot of people's opinions. In fact, if you know, I've written a column for years expressing how much I think is wrong with different things around here, but those are not issues of this panel. We will not be able to weigh our findings on the presentation of this PUD on anything but the standards in the Land Development Code. So its very, very important that you kind get a little familiar with it or at least get the document that Ray has that is the PUD. So those items listed in there, if you have specific questions about those, we can address those. But the esoteric or esthetics or taxation or other issues involving Collier County, that is not something this board really can get involved in. We're strictly limited by the code. So when we get back here on October 6th, if that still ends up being the date, then we need to at least hear from you, and the most effective way is to address us pursuant to those zoning ordinances. That will be a big help to us. And we do want to hear all of you, so -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One of the things they brought up is they wanted more time. I mean, essentially being stood up today, to me, which is a really negative thing in this application. Should we give them more time, allow them more time? Why, you know, convenience the applicant for two weeks? They obviously expressed concerns about fully understanding. New neighborhood meetings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know if this board can demand more time if the applicant's met all the requirements of the Land Development Code through the public process that has occurred to date. We've either got to take it or not take it, and we can -- if we feel that the time has not been sufficient or the communication has not been good enough, our position could always be we won't accept it. But unless the applicant asks for more time, I don't know if we can demand it. Maybe the county attorney -- or, Nick, are you familiar with that issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Commissioner Schiffer, if the applicant's met the Land Development Code, it's really up to the applicant. Now, typically, the county asks that the applicant spends time with the community, obviously brings a project forward that's cleaner, resolves a lot of the issues ahead of public hearings. So we encourage the applicant to meet with you. But if he meets the codes and -- he can be heard by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But, I mean, the convenience of the public, especially in this case Page 18 of 53 September 15, 2011 MR. WINDER: Yes, sir, I am. My name is Michael Winder. Last name is W- I- N- D -E -R. I live on 1613 Birdie Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1613 Birdie Drive. MR. WINDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we get you information, will you be able to distribute it to the community for the most part? MR. WINDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then that doesn't mean all of you can't receive, independently, information, but you'll have to contact Ray independently if you want it. In the meantime, Ray, if you could get anything that comes in on this project to this gentleman -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Kay. MR. BELLOWS: And Kay will be the main contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. SAUNDERS: If I might, I need a telephone number so I can make one call to set up a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather you get that in private. You don't need to publicly display your telephone number. MR. WINDER: That's fine, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So catch Burt on the way out, and give it to him. That would probably be better. Thank you. Now, the other thing I wanted to mention, this is the Collier County Planning Commission. We only deal with zoning matters relative to the Land Development Code. There are whole bunches of things wrong with Collier County in a lot of people's opinions. In fact, if you know, I've written a column for years expressing how much I think is wrong with different things around here, but those are not issues of this panel. We will not be able to weigh our findings on the presentation of this PUD on anything but the standards in the Land Development Code. So its very, very important that you kind get a little familiar with it or at least get the document that Ray has that is the PUD. So those items listed in there, if you have specific questions about those, we can address those. But the esoteric or esthetics or taxation or other issues involving Collier County, that is not something this board really can get involved in. We're strictly limited by the code. So when we get back here on October 6th, if that still ends up being the date, then we need to at least hear from you, and the most effective way is to address us pursuant to those zoning ordinances. That will be a big help to us. And we do want to hear all of you, so -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One of the things they brought up is they wanted more time. I mean, essentially being stood up today, to me, which is a really negative thing in this application. Should we give them more time, allow them more time? Why, you know, convenience the applicant for two weeks? They obviously expressed concerns about fully understanding. New neighborhood meetings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know if this board can demand more time if the applicant's met all the requirements of the Land Development Code through the public process that has occurred to date. We've either got to take it or not take it, and we can -- if we feel that the time has not been sufficient or the communication has not been good enough, our position could always be we won't accept it. But unless the applicant asks for more time, I don't know if we can demand it. Maybe the county attorney -- or, Nick, are you familiar with that issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Commissioner Schiffer, if the applicant's met the Land Development Code, it's really up to the applicant. Now, typically, the county asks that the applicant spends time with the community, obviously brings a project forward that's cleaner, resolves a lot of the issues ahead of public hearings. So we encourage the applicant to meet with you. But if he meets the codes and -- he can be heard by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But, I mean, the convenience of the public, especially in this case Page 18 of 53 A 7 04 161 2 September 15, 2011 where the applicant came down, had his time, and didn't use it and booted it to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we've had -- we just had one -- we have the -- the first hearing up today has been rescheduled three times. So, I mean, it's not unusual to ask for a continuance, especially when the applicant goes around to either us or the members of the public and finds out they have grave enough concerns they may not even survive the day, so why don't we retool our application and talk to people about it and come back with a better document? That may be what's going on. I would hope so. Burt, did you want to say something? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We obviously met the code requirements in terms of the neighborhood information meeting. We did have some meetings out there this summer with some of the homeowners associations. We're willing to set up another meeting. I will make that one phone call to set up another meeting so we can go through some of the issues that the public has. But, quite frankly, we could have proceeded today, and we elected not to because we're trying to address some of those concerns. So we're prepared to be before this board on October 6th. I'm prepared to make the phone call to Mr. Winder to set up another meeting out in the community to try to answer questions, but we'll be ready to go on October 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: You have some discretion on this, Mr. Chairman. I mean, you can say that this isn't ready to go at this point in time, and you can say come back in a month, if you want, or two meetings from now, or whatever. You have some discretion. I mean, the last thing I want to see is a room full of a hundred people before the Board of County Commissioners because this thing is half baked, okay. What I'd like to see is this thing ready to go, everybody -- everybody pretty much on the same page, because it's not going to work if I've got a hundred people in the room before the BCC because these people didn't get together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. I mean, as far as the -- not going to work. And, Burt, you've not only been a county commissioner, you've been a member of the House of Representatives, and you've been a senator, so you know how strong the public will is. MR. SAUNDERS: Oh, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think with this discussion today and the lack of communication that seems to have occurred -- although I know you've met the intent of the LDC -- that it may be to your benefit to not request a continuance to October 6th, but continue -- an indefinite continuance until you have more time to understand the depths of the issues that are here. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I will meet with the representatives over the next week or so, and as I said, we'll be ready to go on October 6th. If it turns out that for some reason we're not ready, which I would not expect at all, then we can discuss that then, but we're ready to go on October 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the sentiment of this board? Mr. Schiffer, you brought the issue up. COMMISSIONER SCI - FFER: Well, I mean, the people came down, the people got stood up, the people want more time. Somehow I favor that. And I don't know what the appropriate time is, but I think to convenience the people is an important part of this. I would like to, in new business, have a conversation about continuances and to see how we can organize that so this doesn't happen again. But obviously my opinion is that the time should be given to make sure the public thoroughly understands it and maybe the room isn't full next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I would agree with Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I say one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, ma'am. Please, we could -- this hearing was supposed to be continued. We have -- we listened for convenience. We do want to hear your input, but we do have to keep moving on. So, Melissa and Burt, I understand -- or, Donna and Burt -- I mean, Donna and Brad, I understand your position. I want to be careful because we routinely accept continuances for a variety of reasons. Those are really, usually, very good reasons. Honestly, this is a good reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're not against accepting the continuance. We're against the meeting Page 19 of 53 September 15, 2011 being in two weeks. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just wondering why this differs than Hacienda Lakes, for example, or some of the other projects where they've come in on short notice, realized that things need to be modified and ask for a continuance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hacienda Lakes did not have a roomfull of people that came down here in good faith thinking this was going to be heard. But whatever mechanism we have, these people weren't aware that this meeting wasn't going to be heard. And to be honest with you, reading the correspondence we had, I didn't know the meeting wasn't going to be heard, as confusing as that was. So the point is, that's the big difference between Hacienda Lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the applicant still wants to go forward on October 6th. What are the feelings of this board as far as demanding that October 6th not be the date? I mean, obviously the applicant has indicated that if for some reason things aren't ready on October 6th, they can continue further. If as -- if this board doesn't feel the applicant's ready on October 6th, we have a choice at that time if they want to proceed to just vote no on the whole thing. So, I mean, they're taking a risk, and I guess as property owners they have a right to take that risk. But what does the -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would agree. MR. SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might make one statement. This is sort of like no good deed goes unpunished. We came here this morning to ask for a continuance because we know that there's some neighborhood concerns that we can address, and we will address those. We will meet with the neighborhood. We'll make sure that they understand what's in the document. We could have proceeded this morning, but we didn't want to do that. We wanted to give ourselves more time to make changes, we wanted to make sure that the hearing in front of the Planning Commission would go more smoothly, and here we are now being told by the Planning Commission members that maybe we're going to have this continued indefinitely. I don't think that that's fair. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like to see it continued till when they're satisfied that they understand what's happening. I mean, some of the stuff they're saying today -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, no, you can't, please. I'm going to ask that -- no, you have to be seated. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're going to give the floor to Mr. Saunders? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr. Saunders has got the floor right now. We're trying to resolve it. Please sit down. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- you know, and there is misinformation, so I don't think the public's been covered well yet. So I think the best time to come back is when the public and you are comfortable that they understand it. And if you come back with an empty room, that's the perfect solution. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, we will never come back with an empty room, based on that statement alone. We met the requirements of the code, we're willing to have an additional meeting to clarify issues, and we're trying to clean up the document. So we're ready to go on October 6th, and we respectfully request that the continuance be granted until October 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Burt, I want to tell you, had you moved forward today, I think you would have had a lot of difficulty getting this passed today. MR. SAUNDERS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the idea of you moving it to a continuance is good, because the intention is to clean it up. It needs to be cleaned up. But I also think that if it doesn't look like it's ready for prime time at the next time around, this board will certainly weigh in on that. MR. SAUNDERS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it may be not to your best interest to move forward if it's starting -- if it's not looking better. MR. SAUNDERS: I understand, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know how we can demand -- I mean, I just don't want to get a Page 20 of 53 A7 September 15, 2011 precedent setting here, because we have continuances as almost a routine with a lot of projects, and they're always to better the project. So I don't know if it's good to get into a process where we start demanding our own time frames based on public input because, honestly, look at the shopping center. If some of the public had their way on that one, that could have been postponed for years. I don't think that's the right -- I think we've got to let the process work its way out. And if we disagree with it, we can express that in our vote. That's what we're here for, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this applicant ought to be allowed to continue to the date he requested, and if he still hasn't got it together, then we will so render on that date. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. As far as the Planning Commission goes, we voted to continue him already. Is anybody suggesting that change at this point? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, let's not change that, but let's make sure that in that two -week period that the public is really satisfied and understands this application. MR. SAUNDERS: It's actually three weeks -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Three weeks. MR. SAUNDERS: -- so there's a little bit more time. And I'll make that phone call -- as soon as I get the number from Mr. Winder, I'll make that phone call tomorrow, we'll set up that meeting, and I'll rely on Mr. Winder to make sure that the community is notified as to the time and place of the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Planning Commission members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And members of the public, I think you all know we're very concerned about this one. We have no limitation on our time. We spend time on these. The last one -- the first one you heard today was 14 hours of public time. You won't find that in any other board in Collier County for one issue. We will spend the time. We'll get it heard right. Now, we already closed the members of the public speaking. I know other -- you have more to say. It's not going to end here today. It's going to -- it may not end on October 6th. The last one we had two different hearings on, seven hours each one. If we have to take that much time to make this come out, we will do that. So with that, we'll end the discussion today on the Orangetree PUD, and we'll move into our regular agenda. Thank you all for the time you spent here today. We appreciate it. Let's take a 15- minute break while the room clears. We'll resume at 10:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the break. We will get into the regular meetings now that we have had scheduled. ** *Well, ironically the first one up has been -- this is one of Brad's favorites. He likes continuances so well. This one has been continued from the August 4th to the August 18th, from the August 18th to September 1 st, and here we are today on September 15th. The next hearing would be on PUDA- PL2011 -703, the Pine Ridge Center West PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission? I think I spoke to Mr. Mulhere, I spoke to a representative from the bank, and I think that's about it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emails, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Mr. Passidomo and I had a brief conversation, and I think it might have been good enough to consider ex parte, on this thing last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Emails as well, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Page 21 of 53 September 15, 2011 Okay. Bob, enlighten us. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere here on behalf of Germain. With me, Dominik Amico, who is the civil engineer on the project, and Jane Eichhorn, who is -- tries to keep us straight as we move through this process and organized. Let's see. We had one hearing. We continued it twice. At that hearing, I guess picking up where we left off, we agreed to continue so that we would have some meetings with our neighbors, primarily the bank, but we also met -- I also met with Mr. Pezeshkan as well at Kraft Construction a few times during that period of continuance. For the record, I had already indicated, yes, we have a recommendation of approval from staff and, yes, the project is deemed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I just reiterate that. On your visualizer, I have a location map. And as you, I think, are all aware, Pine Ridge Road, I -75, this is within the Commercial Interchange Activity Center No. 10. The subject property's that sliver in dark right there. Just to the east is the sister PUD, the Pine Ridge Center West, and then -- or, excuse me, East, and then just to the east of that is the existing car dealership, which was -- I think it's now called Naples Nissan. Across the street you have the RaceTrac gas station, Hooters, and a number of interchange activity- center type uses. Just as, again, a refresher, the subject property is labeled on there. It's that clear site, and just behind it is the Kraft building. Those buildings straddle the lot line between the two PUDs. The retail bank facility's here, the bank's office building is here, First National Bank of the Gulf Coast. I think I got that wrong last time. I want to say it right this time. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You might want to move that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's okay. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You might want to move that up just -- well, north is to the right. No, the other way. I'd like to see more of what the existing auto facility is. MR. MULHERE: And that's right here. So as I mentioned, the site is located within the Interchange Commercial Activity Center No. 10. The Comprehensive Plan states that Interchange Activity Centers No. 4 and No. 10 allow the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the mixed -use activity centers. No industrial uses are allowed in Interchange Activity Center No. 10. So obviously this use is consistent with that -- those provisions and limitations. In our meetings with Summit Management Group, which is the management entity that manages these properties, as well with Mr. Pezeshkan from Kraft Construction, they do support the project. Obviously, they were the original owners and sold the property to my client, but they also had some concerns relative to the site plan, which I will go over in just a few minutes, and we've made some concessions to those concerns that would address -- and with those concessions in place, they do support the project. Interestingly, this is not the first time that a car dealership -- a new and used car dealership has been considered for this property. Back in 2003, Mr. Wayne Arnold requested an official interpretation on a number of matters. There were actually three or four items that were part of that that was -- that request for interpretation. But Item No. 3 asked this question: Is an automobile dealership comparable to other permitted uses and thereby deemed a permitted use in each PUD? He was asking actually for both of the PUDs. And on the basis of that, had suggested that each PUD has predominant land uses of C4 and C5, and new car -- new and used car dealerships are permitted land uses in C4 and C5. Also did a traffic analysis and indicated that the traffic impacts were much less than other uses permitted within the PUD, including supermarket or home - improvement superstore. And had requested a finding from, at that time, Planning Director Susan Istenes, that the use was comparable with the foregoing because the PUD contains that language that says if the planning director finds that to be the case, then that use would be allowed. And Susan Murray -- Susan Istenes, I'm sorry, responded that -- just let me get to the germane point. The information submitted by the petitioner, including a narrative in trip - generation comparisons reveals that the use may be compatible given the development restrictions imposed in the PUD ordinances, however, does not demonstrate that they are comparable in nature to the uses permitted in the PUD. Page 22 of 53 16! 2 A September 15, 20 1 That is why we're here today with the PUD amendment. If it would have been administratively approved, we wouldn't have to be here. But the Ms. Istenes opinion at that time in 2003 was, hey, it may be compatible, but it's not like the other uses in the PUD; therefore, you can't just administratively do it. She doesn't say it but obviously the next understanding would be that you actually have to amend the PUD to get there. As I said, we continued so that we could have a meeting with the bank, which we did have on August 19, 2011. And we have also, since that meeting, been in communication with the bank in terms of electronically primarily in terms of offering certain conditions. At that the meeting was Garrett Richter; Tracy Coghill, senior vice president and legal counsel for the bank; Ken Moran from Germain; myself, Dominik Amico; and Jane Eichhorn. We had prepared a site plan, which I'll share with you, a conceptual site plan that was intended to allow us to have discussion. That was one of the things that was recommended, that we at least come up with a conceptual site plan so that we could have some discussions with the bank officials. Thank you, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: It's upside down. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Upsidedown. MR. MULHERE: As usual, sorry. And we did that. And we also met with, again, Kraft Construction to go over the site plan with them as well. Just let me go over some of the characteristics. As had been discussed, I think, at the original hearing, in this area here we've agreed to a Type B landscape buffer with Type C plantings. We have also agreed -- and I'll probably repeat this when I go over all of the issues. But in our meeting with Kraft, we agreed to the same kind of landscape buffer here. This is a portico -share -type facility that would allow drive - through traffic for service -- to be intake through the service facility. It's entirely enclosed. It doesn't look like it here, but the facility is entirely enclosed. These spaces that you see on the site plan just represent locations for actual service vehicles. The car wash we had located here. We've agreed to relocate that to the west side of the building so it won't affect any of our neighbors, and that also will be fully enclosed. We also prepared an architectural rendering to show that the building will be -- and the caveat here is that we don't know which car dealership ultimately will locate here. They all have slightly different requirements in terms of design, but we will meet the architectural standards of the county, which include treatment of the overhead doors. While this shows two overhead doors here and here, we'll only have one, because this was the car wash, and we'll be moving that to the west side of the building. This will need to be glazed such that it doesn't appear to be an overhead door and have architectural treatments to that effect. And that came from staff as well, that comment. One of the principal concerns that we heard from the bank -- we heard a number, and I'm going to go over those. But one of the principal concerns that we heard was that there was a concern that -- and, remember, we had initially agreed that there would be no used car sales only, so it will be a new -car dealership. That was a principal concern expressed by all of our neighbors that it not be, you know, a used -car dealership. And we've already agreed to that. The second issue, I think, of primary concern is not site related so much as it is a concern over the potential impact of a new -car dealership on this site to the value of the office building that the bank owns. I think they had put on the record that they were of the opinion that this would be Class A office only within this. Obviously, the PUD allows for -- as you've seen and I put on the record before -- a whole bunch of uses that are C4 and C5, many of which are completely and wholly different from Class A office. But as -- with respect to that, we did go and obtain a prospective letter of appraisal from Integra Realty Resources. I think that's been distributed to all of you. We did provide that to the bank officials as well as Mr. Passidomo representing the bank. It was prepared by Michael P. Jonas, MAI and CCIM. We have heard from bank officials that they disregard this appraisal because they were not the entity they got to select who would conduct the appraisal. We would dismiss that. We paid for it. We hired a professional appraiser. A professional appraiser follows the course of action. We told the appraiser, go and do your job and let us know what, if any, would be the impacts in terms of value. And as can you see from this appraisal, the conclusion is that there will be no negative impact from this use. Page 23 of 53 September 15, 2011 Other items that were discussed and that we've agreed to, as I indicated, the use is limited to a new -car dealership. We also agreed to -- one of the other concerns that were raised was the -- apparently the bank has had some experiences -- some less than desirable experiences with the existing dealership, which we really neither can comment on nor do we have control of. We do have control of -- over the dealership that we intend to construct, and we will be good neighbors, and we will be available to address any issues that they raise. Specifically, one of the concerns was this idea of having car carriers using Kraft Road. And at first we thought, well, we could limit that to a location on the site, but actually Mr. Germain suggested that we could do that on -- actually off site, at an off -site location and then drive the cars to the site, and I think he does that in some other locations as well. So there's a cost associated with that, but that would, I think, eliminate the concern of having these car carriers blocking traffic on Kraft Road or becoming a concern. So we would -- we would do that off site. We've also agreed -- and I think the PUD already stipulates and requires that there be no amplified sounds or announcements. All the service doors will be kept closed and only open for ingress and egress, and we will use architectural treatments to diminish the perspective of those service vehicles. They will be treated as required by the code. There are -- we've agreed to, as I mentioned before, to provide a Type B landscape buffer width with Type C plantings, which is substantial, and we would -- we've agreed to do that along the eastern property line and the property line adjacent to Kraft south. And we've agreed to move the car wash function, which will be fully enclosed, to the west property between the building and what would, in the future, we presume, be a preserve area, but it's undeveloped at this point in time. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I think that concludes my presentation. I believe I've addressed all of the issues. As I said, this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It's an appropriate use. We have a staff recommendation for approval, and we'd appreciate the same from the Planning Commission. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions from the Planning Commission members? I have a few. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you -- first of all, that first picture you put up with the buffers, can you -- do you have copies of that to pass out? Because we got the last one, and I didn't see the -- MR. MULHERE: This one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that one. I didn't have that for some reason. I think you sent it to us, but -- MR. MULHERE: We did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- my color printer decided it didn't like color anymore, at least the colors you did, so -- thank you. During your presentation just now, was -- the buffer on Kraft Road and the buffer facing the Kraft building to the south, were those supposed to be similar or identical buffers? Because they're not called out that way on this plan. MR. MULHERE: They're not on this plan. We presumed that there may be some further changes. We would make those changes. We also presumed we'd come back as part of a consent item and we would make any additional changes that might -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that didn't answer my question. MR. MULHERE: Yes, they are the same, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Even though this says they're not, they are? MR. MULHERE: They are intended -- that was an agreement that we had just last week reached with Kraft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So half of your project's going to be buffered like the buffer along Kraft Road, and the other half has got the buffers as indicated on this drawing? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had made notes of other stipulations. I want to make sure they're still accurate from one of -- one of our other meetings. I heard you say no amplified sound of any kind. You're going to be a new -car dealership, but I think we discussed the percentages, because I didn't want to get into the same thing we're into like food where alcohol and food is mixed, and all of a sudden you're a bar when no one intended you to be a bar. MR. MULHERE: Yes, you're absolutely correct. Page 24 of 53 161 2 A7 September 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the percentage of new cars then that you'd -- MR. MULHERE: Sixty -five percent new, thirty-five -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Always would retain a minimum of 65 percent new cars? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The design for the loading and offloading is going to be now -- it was at one time discussed to be internal to the site, but now you're going to do it all off site; is that right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No vehicle parking along Kraft Road. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to -- the use is limited to Tracts B and E only? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have a finished facade on the north and east frontages? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have no collision shop on site. MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The repair shop bays are to be closed except for entering and exiting. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that's all the notes I've made. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Single story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the height -- yeah, do you have a -- what's your -- I can't remember what the standards are, but it will be single story, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we do the -- in your development standards section -- well, no. This is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question on this plan while you're looking up whatever you're looking up. The -- it looks like this plan shows -- Bob, are you paying attention? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: It looks like this plan shows parking on the roof of that building. MR. MULHERE: Right. And thank you. I tried to -- I went over it too quickly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you tried to squeeze it by. MR. MULHERE: No, no, no. There's no intent. There's no intent for that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: This actually is depicting the service bays internal to the building. COMMISSIONER CARON: Internal. MR. MULHERE: And it does -- it is very -- you're -- several people have said that so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's because we have those issues other places, so -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. We have no intent of putting any parking on the building. The PUD would allow, in this location where this building is, a three -story building, and if we moved it up further, it reduces it to one. We are agreeing to a single -story building. I just wanted to -- that, to me, should be just a condition. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is a condition for your building, the entire building, to be single story? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just made a note, the car dealership and accessory structures on Tracts Band E will be limited to single story. MR. MULHERE: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to have no rooftop parking. MR. NIUL14ERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have about a dozen stipulations to discuss with anybody who is going to be speaking against or for this project. Page 25 of 53 September 15, 2011 Anybody else on the Planning Commission? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, you said there is one there where you said there'll be no parking along Kraft Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They volunteered that so I put it down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just to make it clear, don't you -- we don't want them on Kraft Road. In other words, I don't want to confuse that with the parking spaces that are along Kraft Road. MR. MULHERE: Within the Kraft Road right -of -way or Kraft Road easement. I mean, that was raised by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm not debating the thing. It's just the wording of it, to make sure that nobody looks at this plan and sees parking on the side -- MR. MULHERE: On Kraft Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- along Kraft Road. So I think "on Kraft Road" would be better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So no vehicle parking along Kraft Road right -of -way or easement. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, or you could even say "on Kraft Road." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No vehicle parking on Kraft, yeah. Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We will hear from staff, if they have anything to add to any previous comments they made. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Collier County zoning. You do have the staff report. There is -- last revised 7/18/11. And I won't belabor the issues other than to say that staff is recommending approval of the request, finding it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We have provided findings of fact in the staff report to support our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Ray, is there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have two registered speakers. The first one is John Passidomo, to be followed by Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. PASSIDOMO: 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 First National Bank of the Gulf Coast. The bank's corporate headquarters and bank grand facilities face the site of the proposed new and used car dealership and share the entry road into what currently constitutes an upscale office park with it. We gratefully acknowledge the Planning Commission's efforts in encouraging the petitioner to share concept plans and preliminary exterior elevations for their proposed car dealership with us. And as Mr. Mulhere has been very candid in sharing with you, they are of a generic nature. This is a speculative project. There is no car dealership that has been identified, and the plans have to accommodate whomever the market may bear. The bank needed those plans to assess what they have always assumed would be irreconcilable land -use incompatibilities in the office park resulting from the introduction of the proposed car dealership as a permitted use in it. The bank has since reviewed those plans, met with the petitioner to address the bank's comments, questions, and concerns, and retained Wayne Arnold to provide them with the professional planning opinion concerning functional and land -use compatibility. As a result, the bank has come to clear conclusions as to what they feel they need to do to protect their reasonable interests. Page 26 of 53 161 2 A7 September 15, 2011 Mr. Arnold will testify at the conclusion of my introductory remarks. It occurred to me, however, that before Wayne speaks it might be helpful to you to share the bank's perspective on the question of compatibility. That perspective was shaped by the bank's 2007 decision to locate the corporate headquarters in this office park. At that time the park contained the corporate headquarters of one of Southwest Florida's most prominent companies on one third of it. Bank officials enthusiastically bought into the idea of an upscale office park as illustrated -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Upside down. MR. PASSIDOMO: Why am I not surprised -- an upscale office park as illustrated on the developer's master plan for the property shown here for their own corporate headquarters on another one third of it. And the property acquired by the bank are what is depicted on this master site plan as Parcels C & D. The bank knew, of course, that there was a car dealership going in outside the park but adjacent to and east of their property. They accounted for that fact in the pricing of their offer to acquire the land, and they designed their corporate headquarters to face the entrance road and other anticipated office buildings in the park and turn their back on the car dealership to the east. Sometime after completing construction of their facilities, the bank was approached by the petitioner, told that the petitioner had Parcels B and E as shown on the developer's concept plan for the office park under contract and asked for letter of no objection from the bank to permit a new and used car dealership on Parcels B & E. The bank expressed serious concerns and refused to give the letter. The bank was surprised to later learn that the petitioner nonetheless closed on its purchase of Parcels B and E. Until the bank received the concept plans for a layout of the new and used car dealership last month, the bank had heard nothing more from the petitioner. We respectfully submit that there are three ways to assess whether the proposed rezone to permit a new and used car dealership on the property is compatible. The first, is it compatible with permitted uses in the activity center? The second, is it compatible with permitted uses authorized under the original PUD? And, third, is it compatible with the upscale office park which actually exists on the PUD property today? The latter, of course, is the perspective First National Bank brings to this question. We think under these facts and circumstances, it is the appropriate way to assess compatibility. When you do so, we believe you come to the inevitable conclusion that even if -- frankly, especially even if you look at the petitioner's concept plans and preliminary elevations, you come to the inevitable conclusion that a new and used car dealership is an irreconcilably incompatible land use in an upscale office park. We, therefore, ask for your recommendation of denial. Thank you. Mr. Arnold will follow my comments, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might ask you some questions first. Anybody have any questions of John? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, John, the biggest problem I have is that this site could have a supermarket on it. I mean, there is some uses when they brought the property that would be worse than -- in compatibility on all three accounts than this, so -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Commissioner, they bought into that. They understood that. What they want to do now is to fulfill the vision that has been presented to them and that they have implemented through the creation of their corporate headquarters here. They fully acknowledge that there are other uses that are permitted here, and that's why we suggested that when you look at this from a perspective of what is compatibility in an activity center, is a car dealership compatible? We readily acknowledge it is. Is a car dealership compatible with other permitted uses in the PUD? We readily acknowledge it is. But when you look at what is there on site now and what was represented to the bank when they acquired the land, a used -- a new and used car dealership is not compatible with the upscale office park that exists today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what was represented to the bank when they acquired the land then? MR. PASSIDOMO: What you see right here, Mr. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I'm -- you didn't get this from a public record, did you? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir. Page 27 of 53 September 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the PUD doesn't reflect that plan. The PUD just says you can have these uses, and you know the zoning enough to know that we're bound by the PUD and the Land Development Code. We can't enforce that plan. We can only enforce what the PUD and Land Development Code allow us to enforce. This is the first time I've seen this plan, and I agree with you, it's a nice plan for a business park. And it's -- as you say, maybe it's considered an upscale business park. But I didn't find that reference in the existing PUD as something we weigh in on. We weigh in on compatible based on what zoning regulations allow. And Brad's point was one that I had taken a look at, because you've got auto supply stores as an allowed use, you've got food stores, home furnishing stores, hardware, paint, glass and wallpaper stores. Those to me would be more of a problem for you, I think, than a dealership. Now, I understand a dealership's a problem because of this plan, but how do you suggest that we can use this plan as an element of our zoning decision when this isn't the PUD plan nor it is consistent necessarily with the -- or inconsistent with what could be on that property? MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't proffered for that purpose. We're not suggesting for a second that you don't enforce the PUD. We're simply asking you not to make the PUD incompatible with what exists in the upscale office park today. And the plan is proffered for the simple proposition that this is what was represented to the bank. The bank officials had been in this community for in excess of 35 years. They had the opportunity to choose any location for their bank headquarters. They chose this one because this was what was presented to them. This is what they bought into. We're simply saying we fully acknowledge that there are a long list, a potpourri of uses that are permitted that could go into this property. We accept that. We're not challenging that. We're simply saying, don't make this situation worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when your bank bought into this knowing that they're wanting it as a presence for their corporate location and they were kind of relying on it, did you include this as a condition of your contract or agreement when you purchased the property? MR. PASSIDOMO: I didn't represent them, Mr. Chairman, but, no, they did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I guess we'll hear from Wayne next. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And, Mr. Strain, I'll pick up sort of where Mr. Passidomo left off. And you questioned the document that's up there, whether or not that was part of the public record. Let me put a couple of documents on the visualizer that actually are part of your public records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: This is a copy of the record plat for the project that encompasses both PUDs, both the Pine Ridge Center and the Pine Ridge Center West, and it highlights each of the development tracts that were also depicted on the exhibit that Mr. Passidomo showed you. And I'm showing this to indicate that these projects were always planned to be developed together, especially when the ownership was singular. I'll show you another document. It's part of our water management district permitting. And it doesn't look exactly like the concept plan that John had, but this also looks like the Site Development Plan that was approved that encompasses both PUDs. The concepts that we've worked on as a company for the project over the numerous years has always depicted this to be developed as a common sort of development scheme. We also have always looked at each of the pods to be office- related developments. Another thing that we did, I took the plan that Bob had shown you that was the conceptual site plan, and I realize that they've made some revisions to that. But I put that in the context of an aerial photograph so we can see what's going on. And I think that aerial -- if you want to take it even further out, when we get to that in a moment, it will show you the connection to Livingston Road. But one of the highlights on this is, it's on the plat, it's on the site plan, and it's in your PUD that you're going to have interconnections to each of the parcels south or -- sorry -- east and west. The access to the east over to Whippoorwill exists, and it's platted access easement through the Pine Ridge Center PUD. Page 28 of 53 A 7 �- 161 2 15 2011 You'll see the two bank buildings respect that access easement. Their parking's internalized on that access drive. Do not rely on that for parking and ingress /egress for crossing those public ingress /egress easements. If you look at the site plan that's been offered for the car dealership, you'll see that they require the use of this access easement as it continues to the west. It's their immediate parking in front of their proposed dealership. It's a huge point of conflict for allowing the motoring public to what's going to eventually connect Livingston Road to Whippoorwill Lane to have to have all their customers, all employees, go back and forth between what's presumably their outdoor sales area and their showroom and service area. I think that's a huge point of conflict, and it's one of the components of functional incompatibility that Mr. Passidomo spoke about and that I've identified in looking at this from a planner's perspective. It's helpful that they've been willing to relocate elements of this, such as the car wash, but I think what John was speaking to is that inserting a car dealership into a PUD where three -fifths of the site have been developed as office-type uses creates an incompatibility, and it's not something that's been intended. I mean, you have no obligation to amend a PUD to add another use. And, yes, there's a whole bunch of uses in there; many of those probably would never ever get developed. And I think given the development scheme of trying to respect the ingress /egress easements, those parcels need to be developed as two separate projects or certainly one project that can respect the access easement and not require the use of it for employee parking and customer parking. I wanted to show you one other exhibit that's a public record. This is the proposed master plan for the project that's immediately west of the Pine Ridge Center West PUD. It's in for review by Collier County. I'm only showing it to highlight the fact that it also interconnects with and is proposed to connect through to the Baldridge PUD over to Livingston Road. I also want to point out that one of the uses that's proposed in this PUD today, as staff is reviewing it, is another car dealership. So we have the opportunity now to have car dealership potentially at Pine Ridge Center West, and now immediately to the west on this proposed PUD as well. I think it highlights that this is an opportunity to have sort of this leap frog effect of -- and sprawl effect of more car dealerships. I'm not sure that's what we envisioned for our corridors. And while a car dealership may be allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, it doesn't mean we have to insert one into a developed PUD. To me that's the big difference. It's very different than asking for an interpretation, for instance, before any development's commenced as a potential use. But now that you have essentially an office park that has developed, is that a compatible land use? And I've determined that it's not. And I know that when I first heard about this project, I thought, oh, it's in the activity center, you know. What's the big deal. But when you start looking at it from the perspective of one of the office tenants, it is a big deal. And I think that we can look at a car dealership and we look at other commercial uses. I mean, I've done this a lot. I mean, almost every project that we bring through the process, we have concerns about massage parlors, tattoo parlors, even smoke shops or whatever you want to call them. There are land uses, that even in a commercial setting, you -all deem not to be necessarily acceptable in all locations, and I think we have an opportunity here to continue to do the right thing by not allowing the car dealership. To me, one of the comments that Bob made about the offloading, that's a unique thing to me. I'm not used to hearing off -site offloading of the vehicles and then driving them there. But what I first thought of was immediately that identifies that if you go back to the site plan, it's such a tight site, it didn't work. You couldn't get an auto transport truck around the radiuses. And I understand they were conceptual plans, but it also highlighted the fact they probably did need to offload in the road or in the public- access aisle or something that posed another conflict and another incompatible relationship for the office buildings that are there. One of the things that also to me stands out is that we have a variety of commercial districts. And if commercial was commercial, we'd only have one district, but, in fact, you don't have commercial car dealerships, for instance, until you get to the C5, I believe, as a permitted land use now. It's a conditional use, I think, in C4. And if I'm wrong, Bob, you probably know the answer about if it's permitted. But my point is that we're distinguishing commercial uses by the variety of commercial land uses and commercial zoning districts that we have. So I think it's fair to say that this is one of those uses that isn't permitted throughout your commercial districts, and you can distinguish it from other land uses. Page 29 of 53 September 15, 2011 So I would ask you to find that this is an incompatible land -use relationship that they're offering and that you would deny the request to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Wayne? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, if you follow that access drive around and go behind the existing car dealer, is -- and I think you bring a good point with how this access drive is the front drive of the -- if we zoomed in close to that, what would we find behind that dealer? Is there parking on that, or is it purely -- it looks to me like they're using it as a parking access drive, not as a private drive through the -- which -- and you're right, in front of the banks, the bank has treated it totally different. They've landscaped it islands, and it works good. But does it work good on the rest of the link to Whippoorrwill? MR. ARNOLD: I believe, Mr. Schiffer, that the Nissan dealership is not supposed to be parking on that access easement. I think you'll see from the aerial there are some parallel spaces adjacent to it that appear to still have the travel lanes free and clear for that. I think the other highlight is that they're not using their access easement to cross it to operate their business facilities on a daily basis. I don't know what the status of those vehicles may be in the back. They could be employee parking. I really don't know. They could be stored vehicles there waiting to be maintained. I have no idea. But I think the point is, those were intended to be interconnected access easements linking Whippoorwill to the west. And I'd also point out to you that, you know, this parcel is the last parcel in your interchange activity center. The parcel to the west, as you go through here, that I showed you on the pending plan -- and that's obviously subject to change. But I think one of the reasons that they may qualify to ask for a car dealership is reliance on obtaining a car dealership in the Pine Ridge West PUD, because if you read your Comprehensive Plan for infill, you qualify for the highest intensity use on a parcel that's adjacent to you. And if you can make a case that one of the higher - intensity uses may, in fact, be an auto dealership, then they could ask for an auto dealership on that parcel as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: But I think it highlights, if you're going to have to interrupt an access easement to run your business operations, it certainly doesn't seem to be a safe or compatible land -use relationship. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, let's start by putting on the plat that you started with. The tracts that are on the parcel in question -- I can't read letters -- is that Tract A and B and then to the south is C? MR. ARNOLD: They're Tracts B and E that are the subject tracts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B and E, I'm sorry. Okay. The reason I ask that is the PUD calls out three areas, Area A, Area B and Area C. How do those areas compare to the references we keep bringing up as Tracts E and B? MR. ARNOLD: I believe they're the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: E and B is A, B and C? MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I'm not following your question, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, did you originally lay this out for the prior -- for the current owner of the property since you did -- I mean, is that -- were you the original engineer or -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we were. We were working for Kraft at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, when you did Kraft's PUD and you have their permitted uses listed by Areas A, B, and C for this particular PUD, what tracts correspond to Areas A, B, and C in the PUD to the plat that you produced? MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to go back and pull my PUD master plan, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's important for the uses that are involved, because Tract Area C had a series of uses, Area B had more intensive uses, and Area A was strictly open space and stormwater management. MR. ARNOLD: Uh -huh. Page 30 of 53 161 2 f September 15, 0 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just trying to relate the PUD to the plat so we know what tracts -- uses we're talking about where. How did staff -- maybe Kay, or whoever did this one, how did you guys correlate this? Kay, let me ask -- let me see if staff can enlighten us as to how they decided which uses were allowed where in the original interpretation. MS. DESELEM: For the record, pardon me, Kay Deselem. We have recognized in the ordinance that's amending this PUD that they're amending Area C and Area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But where is Area C, Kay? MS. DESELEM: Area C is that area closest to Pine Ridge. MR. BELLOWS: This is Area A. MR. MULHERE: Could I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: The PUD as it reads allows all the uses in one area also in the other area, so we only have to amend C. And if we amend C, it's also allowed in the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. I just want to make sure that the areas we're talking about -- we keep referring to Tracts B and E. I want to make sure Tract B and E has some correlation to the PUD. MS. DESELEM: It's confusing because it's platted differently than it's referenced in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Ray is pointing to the area that is A, and that's B, and C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Area B already has the southern part of it with buildings on it? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant is not requesting that the uses in Area B all be changed, just the portion that's unbuilt at this time? MS. DESELEM: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Back to Wayne. Can you put the aerial where you've got the site plan, the current proposed site plan on -- back on. Ah, there you go. Wayne, when you were proposing a dealership for this site, where were -- how were you going to address that easement? MR. ARNOLD: First of all, I was not proposing a dealership for the site. It was simply a question of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, when you wrote the letter to Susan Istenes asking her to allow a dealership on the site -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how did you expect that dealership to fit on there? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I never did a conceptual layout for the site for a car dealership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you put the Baldridge PUD back up. MR. ARNOLD: This is actually a conceptual plan from, I believe, a project that's called Brynwood Center. But it references the Baldridge as an adjacent PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The name -- the title on this is -- MR. ARNOLD: The title's actually to the left of the page there, Mr. Strain. It says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See where you show the interconnection up on top with the Pine Ridge Center West interconnection? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the interconnection where the words " Baldridge PUD" are on the bottom close to that one? If this dealership were to move that interconnection on the Pine Ridge Center West to the south, it would be in line with the one to the west side of whatever this PUD's called; would that not be true? Otherwise, this winds through the site kind of like you're making note that this other one would have to wind through the site if they were allowed to build the dealership. So in one way we could straighten it out by requiring them to put an interconnection to the south of the dealership's site and then have a continuous through road over to Kraft Road, then back up and around that way and -- or we follow this one. But not knowing what's in this site, that could easily end up being as much of a snake -like configuration as we could have with the Pine Ridge Center West PUD. Page 31 of 53 z� �.,� +� September 15, 2011 I'm not sure that by moving that easement they're doing anything wrong. They haven't suggested that but, I mean, that may be a solution to the easement issue. MR. ARNOLD: Could be, except then you disrupt the flow of that east/west easement through these two PUDs that it's currently built, and you have reliance from, at least the bank property owners, that they have an access easement in that location. Now you would, you know, move that south, I think is what you're describing, which now you end up with a larger zigzag pattern across at least these parcels. I'm not sure it -- I'm not sure there's any perfect solution, Mr. Strain, to getting traffic east/west through all of these projects, but at least we have an existing access easement that's been built and stubbed out for the future connection to the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think you change any of the zigzag quantities. Instead of making a left at this property line, you make a left at Kraft Road and then a right. Here you'd make a -- you'd come out and you'd have to find your way to make another left and a right to get out to the far west end of this other PUD. So otherwise you'd go straight from Kraft Road all the way over to that interconnection for the Livingston Road PUD, and then up Kraft Road and around by the bank. I mean, I'm just trying to understand why that's any more negative than the one you're suggesting is negative here. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the reason I'm suggesting what they have is a negative situation is that they're relying on using that access easement to put cars in it for their customers and employees to back out into it and cross it. So you've got to look at your cars that are out in the parking lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just trying to see if there's any solution; that's all. MR. ARNOLD: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Planning Commission of anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob Mulhere a second. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, can I expand on two questions that you posed to our witness? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PASSIDOMO: The first is, there was a question about the 2003 request for interpretation. We tried to make the point early on that we're not quibbling with the fact that a car dealership is compatible in an activity center, and a car dealership is compatible with other C4 and R5 uses that may be permitted under the PUD. Our point, obviously, is that a car dealership isn't compatible with an upscale office park. But reflect on the time that request was made. It was 2003. It was before the office buildings were built. After that period of time, a decision was made to do what was represented to you on the concept plan prepared by the developer and bought into by the bank. The second thing is, a lot of discussion on functional compatibility. We understand that, we appreciate it, and we respect the fact that the commission is doing due diligence to go to questions of functional compatible, but we also listened carefully. When was the last time that you saw a car dealership that would offload cars neither on site nor on the adjacent public right -of -way? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know that we're trying to put a square peg in a round hole? That either -- if you're going to abide by that condition, if they're going to -- and Mr. Mulhere was great to say, we're going to do it. The fact is, he doesn't even know who will be the ultimate user there, and certainly Mr. Mulhere isn't going to do anything in the future. MR. MULHERE: At all. MR. PASSIDOMO: But if they do abide by that condition -- if they do abide by that condition, that tells you all you need to know, that a car dealership doesn't work here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John, I've got -- I've just got one question. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the stipulations that were talked about and the effort that the applicant's gone to try to mollify any concerns you have, including, like you suggested, moving -- they're only moving the offloading off site because they figured that would relieve another concern, I would assume. Page 32 of 53 �7 1 b1 September 15 2011 Where is -- let's forget about the site plan you were shown by whoever sold you the parcel. That's a matter between you and those people, whoever they may be, because it's not a zoning document. Where are you hurt by this car dealership? I'm trying to understand that. I mean, I think we have people come in and they have concerns on a variety of projects, and we try to mitigate those concerns. And in this particular case, a lot of the issues that you started out saying were possibly something that might be wrong I think they've tried to address. Which ones are left? Which is on the table? MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, that's why we've gone to pains to suggest to you at the outset of my introductory remarks and with our expert testimony's conclusion, these things can't be resolved by trying to resolve functional compatibility. And with all due respect, we don't think they moved the loading off site as an accommodation to us. We think they moved the offloading off site because it doesn't fit. Mr. Arnold can elaborate on his testimony, but you can't get there from here. You cannot make that turn off of Pine Ridge Road coming east, make that turn onto the central access way, and maneuver through. It just doesn't work. So there's nothing that could be done to mollify us, and we think that the exercise the Planning Commission went through was a worthwhile exercise to serve your purposes with the intention of finding something that is functionally compatible. We reject, with all due respect, that premise. We do not believe you can have an -- a new and used car dealership in an upscale office park. We didn't share with you the master site plan for any purpose but to share with you what we bought into and what exists there today. That is what exists there today, and that is what we think is the proper test of compatibility; not an external one, but an internal one; not a macro one, but a micro one in looking at whether or not a car dealership, in whatever form, could conceivably be compatible with an upscale office park. We submit that it cannot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I asked you that question a month ago, why didn't you just tell us that so these people didn't have to go to all this -- and we didn't have to go all these continuances, and we could have just voted on that meeting? MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I was very clear in telling you at that time in response to your inquiry that we went into this with the absolute assumption that these were irreconcilable incompatibilities. We were shut down and didn't have access to looking at what the petitioner was proposing to do. We welcomed a chance to look at it, but we went into it with a healthy degree of skepticism. I thought I made that very clear. It was a fair question. We tried to respond to it in a fair way. But the fact is, what that concept plan has proven to us, and I hope has proven to you, is that you can't make these two things compatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, had I understood it as clear as you've made it on this one with the new plan that you showed that you relied upon, I think we would have maybe approached it differently, but I appreciate you letting us know. Thank you. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: 1'd just like to have an opportunity to rebut on a few items. I don't know that I heard really -- I heard the major issue now is compatibility, not necessarily value. I know at one point from the bank's perspective it was value. So we put into the record an appraisal that indicates from a professional appraiser that there is no negative impact from value. I haven't heard anything that rebuts that. Now it's compatibility. Number 1 -- I'm going to read again from the letter from 2003. Citing changing conditions we -- it's suggested that we now have a compatibility issue that didn't exist before because the bank wasn't there. Well, I'm citing the changing conditions that argue it is compatible, because the car dealership that's immediately adjacent to it wasn't there either. Things have changed. Things always do change. Regardless, Mr. Arnold said in 2003, whether the bank was there or not, that use was permitted within the PUD. It says, limitations exist in each PUD which more than adequately address any compatibility issues associated with an automotive dealership. Okay? Now, an office building was allowed then, and the argument was made then that that is compatible with all the uses in the PUD, that a dealership is compatible with all the uses in the PUD, that was the argument that was made. Now that one of the uses that is built is built, the argument's made that it's not compatible. I'm sorry. Those are conflicting opinions, conflicting professional opinions. Page 33 of 53 September 15, 2011 Another paragraph: Based on the location of the properties, their permitted uses, and the development standards, we believe a positive determination can be made that the automotive dealerships are comparable to other permitted uses and deemed permitted uses within the PUD. So I don't believe that an adequate argument has been made that this is incompatible. It's the same argument that was made before. The only difference is we now have one of the uses that's allowed within the PUD constructed. If I could talk about the access issue for a moment. We had met with staff. We talked about that. And, yes, the access would -- is platted here and would continue here. We've also had preliminary discussions with Kraft Construction who would prefer to see that access on the southern terminus here, I think which you had suggested. And they are amenable to that, and that would be something that would be developed and created through either a vacation of the existing easement or establishment of a new easement at the southern point here between Kraft and the car dealership, proposed car dealership that would allow for the interconnection, and we'll have to work with, of course, the adjacent property owner as well. Either way, the continued access from this PUD and the PUDs to the east will be provided for. And it's not uncommon. There are many examples where there are easements that exist with uses on both sides of the easement. This is not going to be a -- you know, a major arterial roadway. So, I mean, that happens all the time. We will have to design the site. We've met and we had preliminary discussions with Mr. Casalanguida who actually suggested -- and we even designed a preliminary plan that located the easement to the south. Right here. It's tortuous regardless. You're coming off of Whippoorwill, you're heading through the Nissan dealership where there's parking already -- parallel parking on that easement, then heading north, then going through the retail bank of the bank office, then heading back south, then heading through the car dealership property. So it's just a little bit further to the south than it presently exists, and it would make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you and I ever talk about this? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so either, so that was my own idea, too. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, dangerous. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So, again, respectfully, there is no compatibility issue here. There is no diminution of value here. The use is appropriate. It's already been deemed to be appropriate on property immediately adjacent to this, to the bank's site. I'm happy to ask (sic) any other questions. The other point is that we are -- you know, this is an opportunity. There will be, minimally, 25 new jobs created by this. Potentially up to 50, which I think is important in this day and age. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to talk about this potential of moving to the south and what that actually gains anybody as far as interconnection is concerned. I'm not understanding why sending people traversing back to the south there makes any sense at all. I mean, it is -- once you get onto the PUD, you're east and west. It's a straight shot through to the next -- MR. MULHERE: There is an opportunity -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I apologize. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. I mean -- MR. MULHERE: There is an opportunity -- there is an opportunity to create a connection from this point here. Potentially that might -- and I don't -- you know, I don't know whether this is feasible or not, but there might be a straight shot. You might even have both easements remain in place so you have multiple points of ingress and egress. But we -- we're not suggesting that we would vacate that easement unless there was an appropriate reason to do so. We will -- we understand the easement exists. It's platted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you know -- I mean, I want Nick to weigh in on this as well -- whether that's even -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe I was outside when the swearing in took place, so I don't know if that has to happen, so -- Page 34 of 53 161 2 A September 15, 201 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to swear him in in, Terri? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER CARON: If anybody needs to be sworn in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I appreciate that, ma'am, thank you. I'll let my mom know, too. We're looking at our Whippoorwill Lane. That's the existing connection you have. Right now it's platted easements that's there, and the connection that goes to this project is down here. So as Commissioner Strain pointed out, right now there is a plan to do something like this. Now, whether you took that curve and put it over here is not much of a difference to us. In our opinion, this is meant for really local circulation. It's not really meant for Whippoorwill folks to be coming up, although they will have the opportunity to use that. What it's meant to do is there's banking, drugstore, lunchtime, Starbucks. It's as these folks in here need to use services back and forth, they will, and, of course, the public can as well, too. But we knew when this was being proposed in the original beginning that it was not going to be designed as a through public road originally intended that was going to be here. It was not possible. So the best opportunity for us was to make sure that these uses, as they interacted back and forth, would have the ability to stay off the main road, as well as some public travel as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So the plan is not to go from Whippoorwill essentially straight across all the way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was the original plan from -- that was done a long time ago. They showed easements or proposed reservations this way. When the Kraft site came in, they eliminated that, when these folks came in, so you know, you abandon -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But right from just south of the Nissan dealership where the road is now, right there, it's not the plan to go straight across -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- from there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: These are all access easements now. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know what's there now, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we have no plan to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So you'd either be doing this, or you'd be coming across here and there. So the S curve or the curve that you have here is either on this parcel at one location or down in here. So I think they're equal in terms of providing that benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I was just --I was going to say the same thing. These are just interconnects for convenience within that corner. If you did go from Livingston to Whippoorwill, you're eligible for a ticket taking the shortcut through a parking lot, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're not parking lots. I mean, they've designed it as such here. These are public- access easements. So, you know, if you've got a resident here who wants to get to their bank or to Starbucks, they can certainly -- if Pine Ridge, you know, 10, 20 years from now is carrying 60,000 cars a day, and they say, I don't want to deal with that traffic, they can certainly make that move. It will be slow and arduous, but it can be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it is a way to interconnect parking lots only. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not a roadway. It's not a public roadway. It's meant as an interconnect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's a key point. I think the bank designed it above and beyond its expectation by keeping all parking and everything off of it. It certainly looks nice and works for them, I guess, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And the dealership did as well. I mean, they did some parallel parking. But for all intents and purposes, it's not going through their lot, and we asked them to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, to do that straight through at the bottom, the bank would have to cooperate with you. And not being an odds maker, you know, that might not be the easiest negotiation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Kay? MS. DESELEM: Just briefly. Kay Deselem. Page 35 of 53 . di September 15, 2011 I just wanted to note that the documents that you've been looking at today, the one that's entitled "Concept Plan" and the one that's entitled "Auto Dealership Facility Proposal Preliminary Exterior Elevations," those were provided by the applicant for information purposes. They're not part of the PUD documents. There's no proposal in the ordinance itself to amend the existing PUD master plan. So staff has not evaluated these for consistency and compliance with the LDC or any other documents, nor have we reviewed it for consistency and compliance with the existing PUD document that's being amended. So there could be changes to these, just so you know. MR. MULHERE: I think our -- we tried to capture all the conditions in the text and, no, we're not -- we know we have to go through a Site Development Plan process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, one of the documents in our package was a Covenant of Unified Control, and it says that the undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee - simple title holders and owners of record of property commonly known as Kraft Office Center, LLC, and Germain Real Estate Company, LLC. Those are the two owners of the entire PUD, of this west center PUD? Is that how it's supposed to be reading? MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back and verify that for sure. Perhaps, Heidi -- since the County Attorney Office also reviews that covenant, she may want to jump in, but I have to go back and look at the documents. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Williams reviewed the PUD. I'm assuming that he made that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the reason I'm asking is the bank was sold a business park, and I'm just wondering if one of the underlying people that have consented to this Covenant of Unified Control or to this sale of this parcel were the same ones that the bank bought its property from. MR. MULHERE: I believe that may be the case, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion and then a motion. Anybody? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'd just like to weigh -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: -- in on my experience in commercial real estate. Approximately two months ago when this was coming up, I did drive and spend about 45 minutes around the entire Whippoorwill and all the buildings there. I do not see any reason why we should not favor a car dealership there. There's already a car dealership there now. There's a bank. There is some offices. And it's not purely an office park. I don't see any way where the people who are -- Mr. Passidomo and his clients are hurt by having that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have -- I can read the notes we made so that someone could then decide if they want to make a motion to stipulate or to deny. It's strictly up to whoever makes the motion, but I can at least get it to all of you if you want to go that direction. So let me read what I have made notes on. And, Bob, if there's something here that is inconsistent with what we've discussed, let me know. First, there will be no amplified sound of any kind. Second, it would be for a new car lot, but the new cars would have a minimum of 65 percent of the capacity. Third, there will be no vehicle parking on Kraft right -of -way or the easement. Four, there will be limited use to platted Tracts B and E only. Five would be add -- they're going to add landscape buffers, a Type B with a Type C plantings to the east and south frontages, the front along Kraft Road, and it would be the south property -- the south line, wherever that ends up falling. The finished facades on the north and east -- there will be finished facades on both the north and east sides. There will be no collision shop on site. The repair shop bays would be closed except for entering and exiting. Cars will be delivered off site -- on an offsite location and delivered to the site so there will be no truck Page 36 of 53 161 2 i. A7 September 15, 2011 deliveries of cars. The car dealership and accessories to that car dealership use on Tracts B and E will be limited to a single story. There will be no rooftop parking. And the easement that -- there will be an additional easement of equal capacity, size, and terminology that exists today between Tracts B and E also placed on the south side of -- and I think that's the southernmost tract, which I think is B -- whatever that southernmost -- the larger tract is so that it lines up better with the PUD that may be planned for the immediate west area. Those are the notes that I made on the project. Does anybody have any clarification or correction needed to the notes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion either one way or the other on this from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to those stipulations? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak? Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just discussion -- I mean, I would actually like to vote against it, but I can't because of the uses that are in the PUD. It's too bad when the bank bought the property and saw how it was developing that they didn't go back and, as a condition of sale, remove those negative uses such as the supermarket, general merchandise, but they didn't, and black and white on the page is black and white. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I will be voting against the motion, and I'm voting against it because I think that the site right now is not functional. They have had to take now and do off site their car - carrier deliveries, because it is obvious from this plan -- and no matter how you shift it, there's just not room to get those trailers in. And a game of, well, we'll drive them in from off site, I think, will end up being an issue and a problem down the road, because I don't think that will happen. I think you'll end up having trailers parked on Kraft Road until they can quickly try to get them unloaded, and I think its going to create problems for the bank and the office buildings that are around there. I don't think the site is appropriate. It's -- and I can tell you right now by looking at this plan, if that easement goes straight through, the parking of cars the way they do it at auto dealerships will not allow that to be a functional corridor any longer. You know, I watch it and I live with it at the corner of my road every day. I know that what is said in hearings and what happens on the ground are two different things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And from my part, I have tried to see where the damages may be on the part of the bank. I honestly was hoping they would be able to challenge something to a point where there's a damage, but they even acknowledge that it's compatible. They've acknowledged -- with the PUD uses. And the compatibility issue was strongly emphasized a number of times by the -- one of the applicant's representatives, as well as the -- Susan Istenes acknowledging it was compatible. It just wasn't comparable, and they had to go through the -- add it to PUD process, and I think that's what they've done. There's been no diminution in value of the bank's property, which I had talked to one gentleman with the bank, and he was concerned about that. I can't see where that is now happening. So I don't know how this is a negative other than the perspective of what they bought under and what they were shown when they bought, and that isn't necessarily a zoning issue for this board because that isn't the plan that the PUD portrayed. So with that in mind, I would have to support the motion. And anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 37 of 53 ti t ...C", September 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -1. Thank you all, and we will be taking an early break for lunch, and I will have to leave. I've got one hour to be where I've got to be -- or it started one hour -- almost a half an hour ago, so I won't be back after lunch. Ms. Caron, it's all yours. What time did you want to return from lunch? COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem. We'll be back in an hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll resume the meeting at 12:45. Thank you all. (A luncheon recess was had, and Chairman Strain is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) VICE -CHAIR CARON: Welcome back everybody to the September 15th Planning Commission meeting. ** *And we will move on to our next petition, which is VA -PL- 2010 -1654, resolution -- a variance resolution located at 4750 18th Avenue Southeast. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you -all got sworn in before. It wasn't a mass swearing in. We have to swear in everybody, please. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thank you. And ex parte. We can start down here, Melissa, and -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: None. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We had a cordial conversation during lunchtime, bumped into each other. Nothing to do with this hearing, but just in case anybody saw. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yes, he did eat at the table. I didn't even realize what you were here for. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: None here. I've been gone for nine days. MR. BENNETT: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Lary Bennett. Address, 241 East Yeomans Avenue in LaBelle. I'm here representing Lane Bryant Development. They were the contractor that built the building that has the setback issue with it. And the property is a 2.6 -acre tract that's about 180 feet road frontage and 660 feet deep. This building -- it was a 30 -by -60 building -- is about halfway back on -- it's around 300 feet or so from the road. And the -- the setbacks in this area are 30 feet for the side setback. This building wound up having the closest corner at 23.43 feet for the side lot line. I wanted to tell you a little bit about how it happened. It was not an intentional act to violate setbacks. It was the contractor's failure to get it laid out properly. He actually used -- there's an existing home on this property, and he used the location of the existing home and just pulled a string line from the side of the existing home and went back about a hundred or so feet to where the new building was going not realizing that the existing home was not sitting parallel with the property line. It was skewed somewhat. So when he went back a hundred feet, why, that pushed him over closer to the side lot line. And it's a steel building, preengineered steel building. So he poured the slab, and then the next inspection he actually gets is when the building's complete. You know, its not like a conventional masonry home where you've got a tie beam inspection and the roofing inspection and all that. So he actually had the building erected by the time he got the spot survey that showed that the setbacks were wrong. But the site is heavily wooded. The adjacent properties are vacant, and they're also heavily wooded, so there's a pretty good buffer in there of trees and vegetation between the actual building and the property line itself. The building's been completed, although I'm sure it probably doesn't have a CO at this point, because once the spot survey was sent to Building Department, of course, the setback issue was caught. So it's basically six feet -- about six- and -a -half feet closer to the property line on one end than it should be. The other end is slightly farther away by almost two feet. The other end is about 25 feet from property line instead of Page 38 of 53 �. 61 1 September 15, 2011 30. We reviewed the staff s report that the staff prepared. I believe it fairly represents what happened and what situation is out there, and we certainly concur with it. I'll be glad to answer any other questions if you have them. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions right now? Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Did the contractor erect the building without getting the spot survey approved? Is that -- because generally that's why you have a spot survey, so this doesn't happen. MR. BENNETT: That's my understanding. He's a contractor from Lee County. That's no excuse, but -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: They don't require spot surveys. MR. BENNETT: That's right. Typically, you know, when you pour a slab for a steel building, the steel building's delivered to the site, and you go right ahead and erect it. And it was when he actually ordered the next inspection, which in the case of that steel building was a final, then they said, well, where's your spot survey, and that's -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: So he's probably used to using final surveys as opposed to spots. MR. BENNETT: Yeah, and that's what happened to him. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And one more question. Is this just primarily used as a shed? There's no other facilities or anything in there? MR. BENNETT: That's right. That's correct. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. BENNETT: Storage building, a garage, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pretty much a similar question. So he did not have a spot survey and continued to build? He went all the way to the finish line and got a spot survey? MR. BENNETT: Yes, sir, that's what happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. BENNETT: Of course, with a steel building, and a fairly small one at that, it was only a few days before the steel was erected and the building was basically completed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then maybe to follow. So he's not going to have a shop or anything that's going to be particularly loud inside this thing? MR. BENNETT: Not to my knowledge. As far as I understand, it's just a garage /storage type of facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE -CHAIR CARON: It's just a storage? MR. BENNETT: Yes. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. Staff? Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, for the record, principal planner with zoning and land development services. And staff is recommending approval of this petition. And I have not received any complaints about the shed. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Nancy, would you put any stipulation on here that -- first of all, that it can't encroach any further, and that if anything happened to it, then it has to be replaced, it has to move into the correct position? I mean, there are no stipulations. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. We typically don't do stipulations for variances. Ray, is that something that's normally covered within our code? MR. BELLOWS: Variances can have stipulations. Typically it's limited to the encroachment shown on the survey. VICE -CHAIR CARON: But usually it says that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I haven't seen this resolution. Let me look at it real quick, see if it's on there. If not, we can add that. MS. GUNDLACH: I'll look as well. Page 39 of 53 September 15, 2011 VICE -CHAIR CARON: Oh, I guess it says as shown on Exhibit A, so I guess that covers it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Now, some variances you might have other conditions like additional buffering or whatever. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. Mr. Eastman first, and then Brad. MR. EASTMAN: Nancy, I was just curious to know if the immediately- adjacent property owner had given a no- objection letter, the one where the shed is closest to their property. MS. GUNDLACH: No, we have not received any no- objection letters. MR. EASTMAN: Have they consented or been informed or weighed in on this at all? MS. GUNDLACH: They are legally required to be informed, and they have been informed. MR. EASTMAN: And made no complaint? MS. GUNDLACH: No complaint. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm ready to make a motion, so I move we forward VA- PL2010 -1654 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr. Klein. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Anybody opposed? (No response.) MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners. VICE -CHAIR CARON: You're on your way. MR. BENNETT: Thank you very much. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Next time ask your clients to use a local contractor, and then they'll know the rules. MR. BENNETT: And a surveyor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's what I was going to -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah, thank you. And a legitimate surveyor, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should hire you on the front end. MR. BENNETT: There you go. VICE -CHAIR CARON: ** *The next item is boat -dock extension, BD- PL2010 -1473, and it's for a boat -dock extension up in Little Hickory Shores. MR. TURLEY: Yes, ma'am. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE -CHAIR CARON: All right. Ex parte by anyone? MR. TURLEY: Good afternoon. My name's David Turley, for the record, and I'm representing Greg Orick, owner of Naples Barge Rental, LLC, property owner of record. He has indicated that he wanted a single - family boat -dock lot, or has a single - family boat -dock lot, and is zoned for single - family residence and is allowed two boat slips. The water depth in there is pretty shallow, so we needed to go an extra 25.5 feet beyond the allowed 20 feet to gain adequate depth for mooring and installing boat lifts. That is a little -- that's a little better drawing of what was supplied in the packet. You can clearly see that they pretty much all align along that shoreline, and they are all designed perpendicular for that particular reason, because it's zero lot line in there. And it was rezoned in 1999, Resolution 99 -236, in order to accommodate these single - family -home boat docks. Page 40 of 53 161 2 A 7 September 15, 2011 Those lots are so small that nothing can possibly build on them with the exception of a residential dock. I know the property owner does have it listed under Naples Barge Rental, LLC, but he has sworn to me and to us and guarantees that that lot is only used for his personal purposes and no commercial activity whatsoever. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. That's a very important point. And, remember, you are under oath for him at this hearing. MR. TURLEY: Yes, ma'am. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Because that's a very important issue and was certainly something I was going to bring up, because these are personal and not -- this is not a commercial lot, and this man owns a barge rental company, and I'm concerned. MR. TURLEY: That was one of our concerns. I mentioned to him maybe he should change it in his name, but for legality purposes and investment purposes, it's -- like most of those lots in there are owned by multiple companies, LLCs. I've done some research across the street and so on and so forth, and I don't think there's one of those that is actually owned by a single individual. So it's interesting how that's been treated up there. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And he realizes that rent to private parties to take essentially -- MR. TURLEY: Yes, he does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- private boats is a commercial activity? MR. TURLEY: Yes, he does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The problem I have is that we didn't really have a document that we're used to that would show the topography of the water underneath these lifts. And when I look at the section, I kind of get the feeling that you could move it in a little bit more. In other words, you don't have to go as far as you are to hit the water that you need. MR. TURLEY: Well, that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is, one of them is rather wide, and we really don't want too, you know, large a draft in the waterways there. MR. TURLEY: Well, that particular craft is about -- an average 25 -foot vessel, and with twin outboards, it's going to need at least possibly maybe two to two- and -a -half draft. And when you install a boat lift, that takes up another 10 -inch beam -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. TURLEY: -- aluminum beam, plus the bunks. So you're adding almost another 20 inches to the depth in order to be able to install that lift -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. TURLEY: -- to support that vessel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually what I usually do is go three foot, one foot, so four feet is what I look for. And in that case, from this section, I still think that you could pull it in tighter. Do you have any document that shows -- and I can't read that, unless Ray can zoom in a little bit better on the dock. Yeah, flip it, Ray. So -- come on out. See if you can get it even bigger, Ray. Can you? MR. BELLOWS: Closer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. What we're trying to do is read the numbers along the side. Okay. So see what I'm saying? You're -- you've got pretty deep water. You're six feet -- MR. TURLEY: It drops off drastically there. On the side elevation, that elevation that was supplied to you is not a very -- that's not to scale to start with, and while I -- I guess Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, they figured, well, you know, instead of having a very large piece of paper and trying to draft that on there -- but if you notice about the wing area of the dock itself, it's a minus 162, and then just at the head of the slip, which would be -- it's two point -- a negative 2.67. And usually we're allowed up to a minus 4 feet, or 4.5 feet for water depth with DEP, Army Corps, and -- but, there again, as I was saying -- stating, we need an additional 20 inches below the hull for the cradle beam and the bunks to pick up those vessels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, most people say a foot, but we'll go with 20. So to the best of your belief, this thing could not be closer to the shore. MR. TURLEY: Not much more. Page 41 of 53 F September 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not absolute. MR. TURLEY: No, no. We might be talking maybe a foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kind of the same answer I had. MR. TURLEY: We might be talking a foot. VICE -CHAIR CARON: That's good. What is with the flipper there, this decking? MR. TURLEY: That bow access platform? VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. No one else along the shoreline needs that and I don't know why we need that excessive decking there. It should just come out as a straight finger pier. MR. TURLEY: Well, that was basically primarily for accessing these backwater boats. You access those from the bow. And in my case, I'm semi handicapped, but -- no, I mean, to access -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: But that's not what's shown, and that's not what you talked about in the report either. That 25 -foot boat wasn't a -- MR. TURLEY: Well, and then -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: The pontoon boat. MR. TURLEY: Well, what was described in the application, that 4 -foot dock is actually, from piling to piling, 3- foot -six. This is the way this particular individual builds these docks. That's 3- foot -six. Now, when you install the controls, or these lifts and the motors on the lifts itself, that will take up almost an additional 18 inches of space, so now you're limiting it close down to 2 -foot passage where the -- let's see. Can I do this? VICE -CHAIR CARON: There's a hand -held mike you can use and get around to where -- yeah, where you need to. MR. TURLEY: Right -- usually right in the front is where the motor's, kind of, and controls are for these lifts, and that area between there with the GEM remotes and the motors, it will restrict it down, like I say, almost 18 inches to 2 feet, which makes passages very narrow. VICE -CHAIR CARON: How's everyone else managing to do it? MR. TURLEY: Well, a lot of the docks on the other side are 5 feet. The dock just to the west has an incredible wraparound that -- on both sides, here and back around -- the canopy of the mangroves is obscuring this. But they have an actual wraparound where I can only go part of the way because of the excessive decking. That decking area is only about 32 square feet on one side and 34 square feet on the other side, which isn't -- it's half of possibly the little desk here. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. Any other questions? Do you have -- Barry, Karen? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have one. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah, then back down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, are you the contractor for the dock, or what is your -- MR. TURLEY: I used to be once upon a time. I had to retire because of physical problems, and Greg's -- Greg Orick, Sr., and I were partners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. TURLEY: And so Greg, Jr., took over the business, and he's the actual contractor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you're working for him and -- MR. TURLEY: I do his permitting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're the poor guy that has to come to these hearings? MR. TURLEY: Sure. Well, it was pretty much similar to Hickory Harbor when I did that one, so he asked me to do this. VICE -CHAIR CARON: It looks like the -- that wing portion is going -- going to force you to cut into the mangroves; is that true? MR. TURLEY: No, that's not correct. The mangroves are behind that area. VICE -CHAIR CARON: So what is that white that is covering half of that? MR. TURLEY: That is an old aerial, and from the angle it was shot at that was the canopy of the mangroves at the time. That's -- the mangroves are depicted -- on the Submerged Resource Survey, there's a picture of the mangroves on an adjoining lot to the east and that -- the mean high water line is just behind that piling. Those pilings -- these pilings are set right on the corner here, and this canopy here is just -- it's minimal. I don't even think it exists Page 42 of 53 161 2 A7 September 15, 2011 right now, because everybody does a lot of trimming in there. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) VICE -CHAIR CARON: Staff report? MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners -- actually afternoon. Mike Sawyer with zoning services, growth management. We did prepare a staff report after reviewing the project. Date on that is August 19th. Here to answer any questions you might have. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Have you been out there to the site? MR. SAWYER: Honestly, on this one I did not make it to this site, no. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Do you -- as staff, do you think it's necessary to have that flipper portion at the -- it doesn't seem that anybody else has a dock configuration like that. MR. SAWYER: That was one of our review comments on the first submittal. The response that we got back from David was that that was necessary to access flat boats or possibly a pontoon in the future. So it was indicated to staff that that was necessary to be able to access those types of vessels. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Boy, that just is making me even more nervous about whether this is a commercial operation or not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's unloading and loading. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- for loading and unloading, because I certainly can step off a regular deck onto a flat bottom or pontoon boat without, but if I were going to have a commercial operation, I would want to make it as safe as possible for the public. So that's just -- MR. SAWYER: As far as the ability to use this particular dock facility for any type of commercial, clearly you can't do that according to any of the resolutions -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Right. MR. SAWYER: -- or by the underlying zoning district itself. So if that were to occur, it would be actually a fairly easy case to be made with code enforcement. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Providing I have a case officer up there at the time and watch them take off with their -- MR. SAWYER: Point taken. VICE -CHAIR CARON: I mean, I'm just trying to prevent an issue, and -- or a potential issue here. MR. SAWYER: Again, we did have a comment on our first review -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- as far as ownership -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- and it was explained again similar to what David said initially. It is owned by his business. He is the sole proprietor of that business. That's where the connection is. We tried to make it as clear as we could also with the staff report, that it is just for personal use. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have one. Mike, looking at this aerial photo, there's one concern. Obviously something must be out of alignment, because there is a boat in his backyard. MR. SAWYER: Again, that's coming off of the property appraiser's website, and as you know, those aerials do tend to be skewed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But to fix that, the boat that we're seeing in his backyard is probably his boat. In other words, this thing is skewed to the left. No, it's skewed to the right. MR. SAWYER: Perhaps David can address that. I'm not sure I'm able to at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then, Dave, can you come back up. MR. TURLEY: No. That was a derelict houseboat that was brought in just before Christmas of last year, and it was reported to code enforcement. Code enforcement came down, and they had that houseboat moved. This -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But whose dock is he on, your -- MR. TURLEY: No. This is on -- the name's Drew True. That's on Boat Dock Lot 7,1 believe. Page 43 of 53 kol September 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the documents here show you have an existing dock, a very small one. MR. TURLEY: There was an existing dock, and it was removed in December. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it would not show up in this photo when Santa painted -- put his boat there? MR. TURLEY: No, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me ask a question. Is -- and I am concerned about the length being excessive because, remember, this is an extension, you know, a la gift here. Would it be a problem if you did cut those wings off but you could run the five -foot dock up to where you now show the 4 -foot dock, so that would give you the ability to put the controls out of the way and not have that, and then that would -- maybe the boats could come further in, and we could take a couple feet off the back of it or something. We're kind of precious with the footage on these extensions. MR. TURLEY: No, I understand that. I understand what you're talking about. To me -- this -- that little wing area is -- does have a railing on it for all kinds of particular reasons, people falling off, going off the back end on your -- it's not intended, by any means -- the railing's there for safety purposes and also to help restrict any type of a commercial use of the dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- but if you said it has a railing, then your statement that you use it to enter and exit the boat doesn't mean -- you have to hop the railing to get to the boat? MR. TURLEY: The railing -- well, you're stepping off -- this -- well, it's not there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe put your -- you have one sheet, 1 of 1. It's shaded. It kind of shows you a dock. MR. TURLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put that one there. MR. TURLEY: This railing comes all the way down the walkway to the back side of this winged area and back to the bow of the boat. So that allows approximately 5 feet from here to here to access the bow of what -- right now he has a 22 -foot Pathfinder, which he can fit on that side, and he has a Gheenoe that fits on this side that's only 17 feet. But the access would be from here as well as here for the bow. But, there again, like -- to try to put the lift up further, it just -- you wouldn't have clearance to lower the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, again, your section shows that you have pretty deep water back in there. Well, what I think we're missing that we normally have is a topo underneath, topography of the bottom of the water underneath the dock, and we don't have that. We have the edges. MR. TURLEY: That's not depicted very well. The mean low water line on the aerial and from the survey is actually to the back of -- this would be this area here would be actually the bow of the boat, which it's only 1.62 minus, and -- minus 1.62. These lifts, depending on the vessel -- the one for the shallow boat is moved considerably further forward on the west side. It's moved up about 5 feet further than the other lift to the larger boat, which is depicted on the side elevation. VICE -CHAIR CARON: But if you didn't have that decking there, you could do the same thing on the western edge as well. You could move that boat up a -- MR. TURLEY: You could do that, and you wouldn't have any access to the -- that deck area is in the 20 -foot allowable area. VICE -CHAIR CARON: I'm just thinking it makes more sense to do a straight 5 -foot pier and takeout that decking area, move the boat up. That means you're encroaching less into the setback. MR. TURLEY: Well, there are no setbacks. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Well, I don't mean setback. Fin sorry. I mean into the extension area. You wouldn't need as great a variance here. And it doesn't harm anything. You can still get on and off both of the boats and -- MR. TURLEY: Well, for safety purposes, that's the only reason that was put there. The docks on the north side have wraparounds almost completely. And I know you can't see that from the aerials, but -- and on average residential docks where you have a normal 80 -foot waterfront and you can go out 20 feet, you have a total wraparound for safety and loading. Page 44 of 53 161 2 A 7 September 15, 2011 VICE -CHAIlZ CARON: Right, I understand, but these are not typical lots. MR. TURLEY: No, no exactly. VICE -CHAIR CARON: They're meant for little boats that you can access, by a -- MR. TURLEY: Yes, ma'am. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- little finger pier and get on and off and go out and putt-putt around the backwater and fish. I mean, that's what they're meant for. So I don't know. Mr. Schiffer is our architect slash engineers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Our plan reader here, but -- and here's the problem I have, is the section and the plan have very little to connect the two together. MR. TURLEY: No, they don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One we do have is, it says, wing dock area at an 8 -foot dimension, and we have that on both plans, so let's assume that's the given. MR. TURLEY: Right, on both sides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what it shows outside the edge of the wing dock area, it's probably 3 feet of water based upon -- you know, it's 2 -foot, 2.67, but it's down -- heading fast towards 4, okay? I mean, and maybe it's 2.8 or -- you know, but it's getting close to 3 feet at the end of that winged area, which is -- remember, this is not where the lift is. The lift does need deeper water. But is the boat going to be 3 feet -- drawing 3 feet of water at the point of -- at that point, the -- MR. TURLEY: No, of course not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So here's the way we can get out of this real easy. In other words, you can have the wings if you push this whole thing back 3 feet, because essentially your argument's going to be that the wing is in the allowable 20 feet. MR. TURLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, the wings are out of it. Could you just push the wing assembly and the rest of the assembly 3 feet landward and make it work? You can take a second and think. But if you do that then you're out of the woods. The wings, yes, we could talk about them, but they're in the allowable 20 feet. You don't have to come here to get, you know, approval of the wings, and -- but it would push the lift and everything about 3 feet forward. Would that be acceptable? MR. TURLEY: Possibly. I've waded out there and, truthfully, this -- the side -- I need to get that actually done to scale to actually show you the water depth in reality. This just doesn't -- oops, I'm sorry. This to me doesn't work. When I submitted to Army Corps and DEP for riprap, that did not depict the slope of the bank whatsoever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does that mean to me? MR. TURLEY: Well, I wanted to put riprap in to protect the shoreline. This -- well, this -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Don't you have oyster beds there? So you couldn't do riprap, could you? MR. TURLEY: This particular -- where's that aerial? Getting back to the aerial, this section here has been used as a boat ramp for the last 30 -plus years that I know of. I know the guy that used to own the dock. His name was Jimmy Lawhon, and everybody in that neighborhood's been using this. They pushed shell, gravel, you name it, down there. And just about -- actually, more than 20 feet past the mean high -water line is not even knee deep, and that's why -- possibly I could get my surveyor to go ahead and redepict it on an actual scaled survey as opposed to just what he's shown here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if you could take the Sheet 1 of 1 and have him put topography on that underneath the dock, I think we'd have a better understanding of what's really going on here -- MR. TURLEY: I could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then come back. It would be quick. MR. TURLEY: I can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then can I make a motion to continue this to a later date? MR. TURLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That does conflict with my earlier opinion in this meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We'll have to talk about it. Page 45 of 53 September 15, 2011 VICE -CHAIR CARON: A motion to continue by Mr. Schiffer and second by Mr. Klein. Is everybody in favor of that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. MR. BELLOWS: Do we have a date certain? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want to. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. I think you can do that by our next -- by our next meeting; is that possible? MR. TURLEY: Oh, yes, ma'am. VICE -CHAIR CARON: I mean, if it's not, tell us now. MR. TURLEY: Oh, no, it's -- I can have it this afternoon. I can have them go down and survey it and actually give you a scaled -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: Then I think, Ray, he can come back at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm good. VICE -CHAIR CARON: And that will be good. Thank you. We appreciate it because, as Mr. Schiffer stated, these extensions are precious -- MR. TURLEY: Yes. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- and we don't do more than we have to do -- MR. TURLEY: I can understand. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- either in extensions or decking, so thank you very much. MR. TURLEY: Thank you. VICE -CHAIR CARON: I appreciate it. MR. TURLEY: Thank you. VICE -CHAIR CARON: And that brings us -- MR. SAWYER: Excuse me, Commissioners. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Just for clarification, you're just looking for elevations on that plan, or are you actually also requesting that he pulls the dock facility in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. If he shows us the topography and proves his point -- or it may prove our point. VICE -CHAIR CARON: But yeah, if it proves our point, then yes, we'd like to see that it gets pulled in. MR. SAWYER: Okay. I just wanted the clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No shove yet. MR. SAWYER: Understood. Thank you, Commissioners. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thank you. And now we are on to -- our old business has been continued, which was the Watershed Management Plan, so everybody's aware of that. And under new business I'm going to make you wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE -CHAIR CARON: And we'll go to public comments since Mr. Nance has been here all day. He has public comment, and we'll go from there. MR. NANCE: Yes, thank you. Tim Nance. I just wanted to make a public comment on an item that was not on the agenda. It was earlier, but it was continued, and that was the Master Mobility Plan. Through work in the Golden Gate Estates area community we've been very keenly interested in the Master Mobility Plan for -- from the very early part of it, and I'm actually very glad that this was continued for you because you are, of course, going to be a very, very important commission going forward with the discontinuation of any state oversight with the closing of the Department of Community Affairs. You know, we're going to be on our own, and I think this Master Mobility Plan is going to be very, very important. What I -- all I would like to do today is to point out a few things that I think will help you ask questions and put this into perspective, because the Master Mobility Plan has actually been kind of an evolutionary thing in my view, and I want to just tell you a little bit about it today to bring you back into it and give you a couple -- suggest that you might want to review a couple things before you see the next presentation. I have already seen the presentation that you were going to see. It was presented August 25th at the Golden Page 46 of 53 161 2 Se p tember 15 1 Gate Community Center. And, frankly, as a citizen who's interested in the work product and to understand what the Master Mobility Plan is suggesting and how it might be used in the future, I was very disappointed in this meeting, because it was basically just a presentation of glossy exhibits, and it really didn't get to the meat of the matter. Let me review very quickly -- and I promise I won't try to hold you here. But the master mobility started as a federal grant to the county in response to House Bill 697, which was a federal -- piece of federal legislation that required all local comprehensive plans to include a section in the traffic element that indirectly reduced greenhouse emissions through direct reductions in vehicle miles traveled. That's where we started. And it was a grant -- I think one very interesting thing for you to consider is looking at the original grant, which is an activity worksheet in a -- it had several projects. The grant was actually Project Activity 6, and it was in the amount of $473,000. It was an Era grant. And in the original grant, it included $175,000 in developer contributions, which I inquired about, but to this day I have never been given a satisfactory answer or which developer was interested if they gave the money or not. But there was an original indication there was going to be a $175,000 DCA. The grant was applied for in June of 2009. The Master Mobility Plan was -- has been presented as a phased plan. And if you look at the website, you'll see that the initial Phase I, which was a data compilation phase, was completed in May 2010, and basically what it did was it overlaid all our existing plans and programs that we had, including things like the Growth Management Plan, the AUK the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program, East of 951 Horizon Study, and on and on and on, bridge studies, congestion management, and so on and so forth, and a plethora of environmental studies. That was completed in May, just over a year ago. Since May and running to the present, we have been in Phase II, which was the development of the Master Mobility Plan itself. And if you'll go on the website, you will see it presented. And it says, reading directly off the website, the Master Mobility Plan will be a single unified planning document. It goes on to say it will revolve around the following master plans and concept, and it goes on to list four master plans, including an infrastructure master plan, which is supposed to provide direction on infrastructure- producing redundancies; a land -use master plan, which is supposed to locate public services, private residential, commercial, and industrial development; a mobility master plan, which is supposed to include multimodal transportation; and a wildlife crossings and habitat preservation panther plan. All through the limited time that we've had public comment, I have yet to see any of these four master plans. And if you have in this body, I would certainly be interested, because to my knowledge nobody has ever seen any of the work product that's been advertised that was going to be produced. It goes on to say that following the creation of these master plans would be signed memorandum of understanding, or MOUs, that documents the commitments of the Collier County Government agencies and primary stakeholders. It goes on to say further that it will culminate with the adoption of the above plans and agreements and basically lead to changes in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. I think that's very profound for something that we don't even know what it is. The public involvement has been very limited. Initially the public involvement was highly restricted. As late as the summer of this year there were no plans for allowing the public to attend any of the meetings. Several groups, including the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, strongly objected, and after days and days and days of pressure, some of these meetings were finally opened up to the public, so that within the last six months, we are to go through the development -- the final development of all these master plans, memorandums of understanding, leading to adoption of these things in December of this year. I think that's fairly shocking myself, and I -- I've just been inquired (sic) as to where the work product is, and I haven't seen anything resembling any of the work product that they described they were going to be producing ever vetted in the public or anywhere else. I just haven't seen that happen. Finally, the Master Mobility Plan will enter Phase III, and Phase III is to develop language for changes in the Growth Management Plan and to develop language for changes in the Land Development Code. That is supposed to be done following the -- hypothetically, I guess, following the adoption of the Master Mobility Plan, and these changes in the GMP and the LDC are supposed to be completed no later than June 30, 2012. The consultants that have been hired to generate the changes in language in the GMP and the LDC is WilsonMiller. Under the scope of work, it defines their work as, to provide assistance in the development of potential Page 47 of 53 September 15, 2011 amendments to the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code and goes on to say the consultant will be responsible to develop revised language. Several things that you can look at to guide yourself -- and I don't expect you to take my testimony at face value. You can consider it. But I think you should review the Board of County Commission tape from July 28th, '09. It's Item 10A. It starts at time six minutes and 52 -- six hours and 52,1 guess, and I think you should review what was told to you on February the 3rd of this year, Item I IA, starts at 52 minutes, when you will see that the consultants describe the Master Mobility Plan, which started out as a federal grant to limit gas emissions, as a comprehensive buildout study for the county extending out to the year 2085. That's what Mr. Perry testified to you before. And I just wanted to bring these things to your attention, because I think that there are many, many questions that the public has not had a chance to ask. The presentations recently in the county have gone away from question- and -answer forums to so- called workshops and breakout sessions and so on and so forth where the people present statements, and then they let the public walk around the exhibits, and we don't ever get a forum where somebody can ask a question and get an answer to the public. And I think that's unfortunate. So I hope you'll look over the history of this before you get the next presentation. I think you'll be surprised at what is not presented, and I would be amazed if you didn't have very, very serious questions over where this is going, how it's going forward, how it morphed into what it is today, how it started out to what it was and became a comprehensive buildout study that really hasn't been publicly noticed or vetted to the public or anybody else. It's been highly limited, and it's been done in a very, very quick timeframe. I can't imagine that we're going to start changing the language to the GMP and the LDC, things that we've worked on for decades, and we're going to do this in six months without much input. So those are my concerns. I actually did a petition before the Board of County Commissioners in March of this year in which I brought up what I thought was a very, very serious conflict of interest between the consultant, WilsonMiller, who was charged and hired to write language for our GMP and LDC when that language was intended to regulate their largest customers. That suggestion was not received very well. They accused me of having a vendetta against WilsonMiller, which I certainly don't. I think WilsonMiller's a marvelous engineering firm, probably one of the best in the country, but I do not think they should be writing the language that regulates their customers. So thank you for your time, and good luck with -- I'll see you on October the 6th. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thanks, Tim. And just -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I just have -- Tim, could you go back on some of those dates on -- MR. NANCE: You know, I'll give you those dates if you'd like. I just wrote them down because I thought it might be handy at some point. You should look at the original grant. The original grant is very interesting for you to read. But the Master Mobility Plan originally went to the BCC on 7/28/09. It was Item l OA. And if you look on the archive videos, it's time six hours 52 minutes through seven hours and nine minute. And February 3rd of this year was Mr. Perry's testimony to you. It was your Item 11 A, and the time was 52 minutes through approximately one hour and 24 minutes. And my petition before the Board of County Commissioners was on March 8, 2011. It was Item 9C, of course, very early in that and you can see my discussion on those items. But it's a huge project. It's got ramifications that are tremendous, and I -- I think there are many, many people that are uncomfortable because they don't know how this information has been generated, how this language will have been arrived at, and what use it may have or what it's intended for or unintended for going forward. So it's -- I think it's got some huge ramifications with planning going forward. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thanks, Tim. MR. NANCE: Thank you very much. VICE -CHAIR CARON: We really appreciate your input. And I'm not even sure when that plan is supposed to be coming back to us. MR. BELLOWS: The Master Mobility Plan? There will be an update on the October 6th meeting. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Oh, there will be on October 6th -- MR. BELLOWS: An update. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- that's for sure. Page 48 of 53 161 Ay September 15, 2011 MR. NANCE: It was my understanding that they were going to present to you the same PowerPoint that was presented in the public meeting. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Public forums. Yeah, okay. All right. MR. NANCE: Thank you. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Thank you very much. And now we'll go on to Brad's new business. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just want to talk about continuances. Mark certainly gave a great speech about the value of continuance. We all know that. The problem is when we have a room full of citizens, you know, the republic; they're the precious people. The citizens got burned by coming down today. So how do we prevent that? When do people know? What happened yesterday, or what happened the day before, or what happened the day before that everybody couldn't have been notified that they wanted more time? MR. BELLOWS: A continuance, if it's given early enough by the applicant and providing reasons, we provide that to the Planning Commission. And if it looks like it's a legitimate reason, we can continue. But since the Planning Commission decides a continuance, we don't tell anyone for sure, because it has to be decided by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we've taken -- I bet if you went back quite a while, a decade or so, a 100 percent we would allow people a continuance. So can't we come up with some -- here's the thing. What ground rules do we need to have to prevent what happened today? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are many reasons for a continuance. If it wasn't advertised correctly, it couldn't be presented, so that -- we could get the notice out and provide notice in time. But if it's an issue where they were trying to address maybe a Planning Commission concern that's up -- then you would be deciding whether that is. But if they continue it the day of the hearing, there's nothing that we could do about that. If they provide us enough lead time where we could get the word out, notify the clerk, or the -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: I think today was a little different in that I'm not sure there was an organized group that you would have known to notify -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- even -- no matter what. And I do think in the long run the continuance will be a good thing for whatever happens out there, whether it's accepted or denied or something in between. So I think it absolutely did in the long run help the public. Yes, it was a burden that some of them had to take days off and spend some time. But in this particular instance, I think it's really going to help them. And we had no one to notify. As they got up and testified today, they don't even have a formal homeowners association that could have sent them the information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let's come up with a process that they can check on. We -- with the Internet and all that stuff today, there's no excuse to not have them have access as to whether it's going to be heard. You know, fellow commissioners here came without the paperwork stating that they knew it wasn't going to happen. I'm looking forward to going home and seeing those three emails I got from Kay to see how you could derive that from that. When I read that, I didn't derive that from that. But anyway, so why can't we come up with a policy or procedure where if -- I mean, obviously the chairman didn't bring his papers. I don't think Donna said she did. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I didn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is, we know. How do we prevent them from -- you know, couldn't they look on something or couldn't we post something somewhere where people could check the agenda and we tell them and warn them to -- so that they can prevent taking a day off from work and coming here? MR. BELLOWS: We do have procedures in place when there's adequate notice and we can put it in -- contact John Tone, put a notice out an item's been rescheduled. When it's the day of the meeting or a day before the meeting, there's really not much time, especially if you don't have contact people. If we were working with a specific group over time and had contact people, that would be part of the notice. We would notify them that there's been a requested continuance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But with the tools we have today -- we could even have an app for this. With the tools we have today, you can -- Page 49 of 53 September 15, 2011 MR. BELLOWS: No, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There should be a place where they could notice -- it could be a caution symbol that this has been continued. And people will learn to be wise enough -- just before I take the day off or before I drive -- and, you know, first of all, these guys don't live very close. I mean, they had a 35 -, 40- minute ride. MR. BELLOWS: And I think the way we've handled it in the past, too, is we allowed them to speak like we did today so they can get their comments in, and it was part of the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, most of them were speaking about how mad they were that they drove down and we weren't having the hearing, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Many times we don't continue the item until the public has a chance to speak, and then the applicant has the alternative to continue at that time if they see that they're not addressing -- or haven't been able to address their comments. That's one process. Let the process go through, present it, have the applicant present, and then continue the item to allow them to address concerns; however, they knew up front they had some concerns, at a short notice though, and then put in a late request. Now, there is definitely a way to address that through electronic -- our website, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's establish that once you know that a continuance has been requested or -- I mean, if everybody was certain enough that this was going to happen today that they didn't bring their paperwork, then that must have meant it wasn't going to happen. MR. BELLOWS: You know, we could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and make a notice so you can do that. Then -- now the other part of the question. I think we should provide notice. You can figure that out. The other part is, should we have a deadline when somebody can continue it? I mean, is there something magic that happened yesterday that couldn't have happened last Friday or Monday, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Since I don't know the events leading up to the decision, I can't tell you why they decided at that time to continue, but I think a petitioner has every right to say somebody's contacted me the day of the meeting. They can't control when somebody alerts them to an issue. But we do charge them extra if they continue the day before, the day -- and the day of the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what do you mean by that? What -- is there -- MR. BELLOWS: There's a penalty charge, a fee assessed for a last- second continuance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what happened in this case? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what -- is that something that somebody would try to avoid, or is it a courtesy fee or -- MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check to see what the exact amount is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is it thousands of dollars -- MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or, you know, a couple of stamps, or what is it? MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to check. I don't recall what the fee is offhand. VICE -CHAIR CARON: But these projects are fairly fluid. Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I was going to say, part of the issue, too, when -- like today, I mean, you could notice -- you could put something online, but you're basically saying there's a potential this could be continued, because until we vote to continue it -- so, you know, as someone who may be interested to come here to speak, I would be -- I would be really skeptical, yeah, about not showing up, because odds are if I didn't show up, then the continuance would be denied, and -- so, it's -- I don't know that there's a magical answer. I know in this particular case one of their issues was with Collier County Utilities looking for something additional at the last minute. So, you know, it's not just issues with the public. So I'm not sure that -- you know, there's only so much we can do, I think, to control the situation. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. One option -- today the applicant looked like they almost decided, well, we can do a presentation today, get the public comment, then continue. They -- it seemed like that was one of the things they were considering. But since Mark offered to let them speak early in the meeting, then that seemed to allay that concern. Page 50 of 53 1bI 2 PAI_ I September 15, 2011 VICE -CHAIR CARON: I think we have to be careful about wanting to make that process, you know, perfect for everybody. This is probably one of the few times I've ever seen in the past seven years a roomful of people show up and then something got continued and a few of them were actually upset. Most people get the fact that if there's a continuance, it's probably to their benefit. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. VICE -CHAIR CARON: So, you know, again, I just don't see it as historically having been a huge problem for us. You know, there were some people that were upset today, but I think -- MR. BELLOWS: There's never going to be -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: -- unbalanced. MR. BELLOWS: I've conducted these meetings for 22 years, and there's going to be times you can get notices out, put the signs up on the wall "This item's been continued" so nobody sits in the audience. But on the last second, when there's an issue that comes up, there's very little we can do other than -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: And most people aren't going to go to the website the morning of or the night before, or wouldn't even know where to try to go. MR. BELLOWS: But we can certainly look into that and come up with some options. Certainly, I would like to take better advantage of our ability to use the web -based communication. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the one thing we obviously don't want to do is deny them to speak. I mean, if we said it's continued and we voted not to continue it, that would be horrible. But point is that obviously in this case everybody knew it was going to be continued, so it would have been nice to notify them. But maybe the point is that it doesn't happen that often that it's worth addressing. So I guess we'll see -- if it happens again, we'll have the conversation again. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah. But I think certainly however we can use the web is a good thing, if -- MR. BELLOWS: Well I'll definitely look into that -- VICE -CHAIR CARON: I mean, why not? MR. BELLOWS: -- and make -- see if we can come up with some proposals for you and bring it back on later agenda, say, this is some of the things we can consider. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. On this one, too, in particular, I think I got the notice late Wednesday that the applicant was going to request a continuance, so it doesn't really become official, as Ms. Ahern said, until you vote on it. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Right. MS. ASHTON: So I would caution you, because I have had instances where I was told things were going to be continued and then they weren't. So I'd just caution you on adopting a procedure that says, you know, don't come. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But, Heidi, in --to that, everybody knew it was going to be continued. They didn't bring their paperwork. We couldn't have heard it today. So, I mean, you're right, somebody could take advantage of that and yank it the other way, which would be the worst case. That would be much worse than the inconvenience. But anyway, let's just try to -- and, Ray, I guess it could be -- in the processing of it if it looks like it could be continued, let's, you know, get the guy to request it pretty far out. And you could even take it -- I mean, how far out could you even move it off the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Like with the Master Mobility Plan, we got notice early that that was going to be continued to the October 6th meeting. We took it off the agenda. We had time to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: So when there's enough lead time, we can do those things, or if it was advertised, we have to note that it's being continued to a later date, so it's listed in the agenda so somebody who knows it was advertised, they look at it, they see what happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's the time to catch it. MR. BELLOWS: That is, but there's nothing -- like in this case, if they have a last- minute issue that they became aware of, we can't say, no, you are going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How far out -- how far out was that that you could change the agenda? Is Page 51 of 53 September 15, 2011 that a week? Is that two weeks? What is that? MR. BELLOWS: You get your agendas mailed to you or sent to you a week -- Wednesday the week before the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, essentially, just about a week -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Wednesday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we don't -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Friday. MR. BELLOWS: Sometimes Friday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, anyway, let's just say about a week before the meeting would be the time that you should encourage people to continue things so that it could be handled that way, and a lot of hearings are handled that way. And then that would prevent the public from being -- you know, they would have plenty of lead time. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And one of the things that we try to do is plan with the people and have meetings early enough in the process, and that is why we require the neighborhood information meeting. And I was a little puzzled -- and I am going to follow up with Kay, so -- which people showed up at that meeting back then and why wasn't the word spread more. And this wasn't the only NIM that they had. This project's been around for a number of years. There have been NIMs going back two to three years, so I'm a little puzzled why so many people didn't seem to have any idea what was going on with this, since there's been three or four NIMs held for this project. COMMISSIONER AHERN: We can't make people show up. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And, you know, generally those type of things people don't show up for, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. But evidently somebody lit the fire under them recently and got something going -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Exactly. MR. BELLOWS: -- and I'm sure that's one of the factors for -- the applicant wanted a continuance. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing you said, I mean, maybe multiple NIMs puts people to sleep. It doesn't teach them more. It makes them think, oh, I've heard that before and it didn't happen. MR. BELLOWS: That could be it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's probably more dangerous. MR. BELLOWS: I talked to a couple of those individuals, and they thought that things had changed from the NIM to this meeting, and that wasn't the case. VICE -CHAIR CARON: All right. I need a motion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. VICE -CHAIR CARON: Second, all right. We are adjourned. Thanks, K.D., and thanks, Terri, and thanks staff. Page 52 of 53 161 2 A7 September 15, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:52 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Cu-/ MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on Q cT q as presented t," or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 53 of 53 16 2 March 15, 2011 BY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March , 29k() LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Consumer Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #609 -610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala coy!, Coletia CHAIRMAN: Justin P. Caldarone (Excused) Victoria DiNardo John Kerns (Excused) Gary McNally John Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Ken Kovensky, Senior Management and Budget Analyst luisc. corres: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Date:_ Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD . ` '� - \ � 31 \ 1 Item #: W$ bl 2 t March 15, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. Call to Order and Roll Call: Michael Ossorio called the meeting to order at 2:04 PM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. He noted Chairman Caldarone and John Kerns were absent from the meeting and the previous Vice Chair had resigned. Assistant County Attorney Williams stated a member could serve as Acting Chairman for the meeting, or a permanent Vice Chair may be elected. Mr. Ossorio suggested the Committee elect John Mitchell as Vice Chair. Gary McNally moved to approve electing John Mitchell to serve as Vice Chair of the Consumer Advisory Board. Second by Victoria DiNardo. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. Vice Chairman Mitchell called the Roll and a quorum was established. II. Additions or Deletions: • A copy of the Consumer Advisory Board Administrative Policy was distributed to the members. III. Approval of Agenda: Victoria DiNardo moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Gary McNally. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. IV. Approval of Minutes — October 19, 2010: Gary McNally moved to approve the Minutes of the October 19, 2010 meeting as submitted. Second by Victoria DiNardo. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. V. Discussion: Michael Ossorio stated the meeting of the Industry Forum Task Force, which included a member from the CAB, Code Enforcement, and the vehicle- for -hire industry, was held. He stated the number of new companies has doubled (from 46 to 96). Vice Chairman Mitchell, who had been appointed to represent the CAB, stated a number of carriers were represented. VI. New Business: (A) Industry Forum - Lettering on rear windows Mr. Ossorio noted there was an issue with signage and referred the Committee to Paragraph (e) on Page 7 of the Administrative Policy Manual. Charter 2 161 2 0 as March 15, 2011 service companies have requested the ability to display company logos on the rear windows of their vehicles. Jamie French pointed out the previous Ordinance contained some language allowing display of a trademark, but was not specific concerning colors. He noted any recommendation from the CAB to amend the Policy Manual will be brought to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval. Testimony was taken from two representatives of the Industry, Tony Marino and Fitz Papps, who stated lettering across the rear window, right above the trunk panel, of no higher than 2- inches and no longer than 36- inches, would not obstruct the driver's view. They suggested using only white, black, silver, or gold as approved colors for the lettering. The space could be used to display a website or a telephone number. Gary McNally moved to approve amending the Administrative Policy Manual to permit lettering (2" x 36'9 to he displayed across the base of a vehicle's rear window in one of four approved colors (i.e., white, black, gold, or silver), and only the company name or website may he displayed. Second by Victoria DiNardo. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. Jamie French will prepare an Executive Summary and submit it to the Board of County Commissioners at the last meeting in April or the first meeting in May. The Executive Summary will stipulate that logos, registered trademarks, and/or insignias will be permitted only on the vehicle's bumper. It will become effective upon the Board's approval. VII. Old Business: (A) Stephen Condon — Request to be granted a VFH License Michael Ossorio referred the Board to Pages 3 and 4 of the October 19, 2010 minutes. He stated Stephen Condon re- applied for his driver's identification and paid the fee of $75.00. Mr. Condon also submitted his application for a VFH license. Mr. Condon stated he submitted letters of recommendation as previously requested. He noted he obtained a vehicle- for -hire permit from Lee County and presented a copy of the "Driver's Affidavit" submitted to Lee County and has the decals on his vehicle from Lee County. He stated he completed a 10 -week counseling program, as ordered by the State Probation Department. Vice Chairman Mitchell requested that Mr. Condon also provide written proof of satisfactory completion of the program. Vice Chairman Mitchell moved that Stephen Condon is to provide proof of his satisfactory completion of a mental health counseling program from Jo 161 2 A8 March 15, 2011 Gordon of Counseling of SW Florida. Second by Gary McNally. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. Gary McNally asked why Mr. Condon did not produce a letter from his parole office attesting to his status. Mr. Gordon stated if his status was anything other than "satisfactory," he would be in jail. Mr. Condon stated he is currently on probation and if his probation were to be violated, he would be sent to prison. The period of probation began on May 15, 2010 and will continue until 2015. Vice Chairman Mitchell stated although Mr. Condon has responded to the Board's questions, he still has concerns about Mr. Condon's past record, and whether or not to permit him to drive passengers to Miami or Ft. Lauderdale or other places within the State. Mr. Condon responded he was issued a travel permit which was approved by his probation officer, and he cannot leave the Collier County without obtaining permission from his parole officer. Vice Chairman Mitchell noted the Consumer Advisory Board's responsibility is to protect the public. While Lee County has re- instated Mr. Condon to drive unrestricted, he suggested imposing a probationary period of 30 to 60 days before granting final approval of his application. Michael Ossorio reminded the Board that a background check of all drivers who have been issued VFH licenses is conducted on a yearly basis. Victoria DiNardo moved to approve Mr. Condon's application and grant a vehicle-for-hire operator's license to him. Second by Gary McNally. Motion carried, 2 — "Yes " /1— "No." Vice Chairman Mitchell was opposed. Michael Ossorio informed Mr. Condon his license will be issued as soon as he provides the proof requested by the Board. VIII. Public Hearings: (None) IX. Reports: (None) X. Next Meeting Date: To be determined Conference Room #609 -610 Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 4 161 2 1 'qg March 15, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Vice Chair at 3:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD Mitchell, Vice Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Boar hairman on 7/ 6 , 20115 as presented U, or as amended 16! 2k Ag July 20, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING Naples, Florida, July 20, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller µ Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz Vice Chair: Lee Horn -0 Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle (Excused) Richard Joslin Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker (Excused) Patrick White Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Lien n s: Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney isc. Date: 3\%N Item #:\lsT 2. CNI c.-pies to: 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lantz called the meeting to order at 9:03 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Seven members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Additions: • Under Item VI, "New Business" — o (C) Jeremy Batten — Reinstatement of License without Examination • Under Item VII, "Old Business" — o (A) Order to Pay the Board, i.e., sign the Orders of the Board III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 18,2011: Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2011 meeting as submitted Second by Lee Horn. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. 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 by the Attorney for the Board.) (A) Christopher Burt — Contesting Citation It was noted Mr. Burt was not present. Michael Ossorio suggested the Board hear the next case since Mr. Burt had been notified of the Hearing. Attorney Neale stated if Mr. Burt did not appear before the conclusion of the Hearing, the Board could take action despite his absence. (B) Smaili Constantino — Waiver of Examination It was noted Mr. Constantino was not present. 2 161 2 $:- A 9 July 20, 2011 Michael Ossorio distributed the information package pertaining to Mr. Batten's request to waive the testing requirement to reinstate his license. He suggested the Board review the documents prior to Mr. Batten's arrival. (C) Jeremy Batten — Application for Waiver of Examination Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Batten's license was cancelled in 2008 • Pursuant to the Code, if a license has been expired or cancelled for longer than three years, the applicant must re -test • Mr. Batten was applying to waive the testing requirement for re- instatement of his cabinetry and flooring covering license under Batten Construction, LLC Mr. Ossorio stated the County did not object. Thomas Lykos noted a problem concerning Workers' Compensation exemption. He asked if all four of the managing members of the LLC worked in the office or in the field since Workers' Compensation does not allow four exemptions. The paperwork stated Jeremy Batten, Kyle Batten, James Batten, and Joseph Batten were managing members. He clarified Workers' Compensation requires coverage for any employee who is not an officer of the LLC or is working in the field on a job site. The issue was compliance. Jeremy Batten stated Kathy Batten is the Registered Agent and works in the office. The other members work in the field. He further stated would remove one name from the list of managing members and Workers' Compensation insurance coverage would be provided as required. Mr. Ossorio stated Workers' Compensation exemptions are permitted for no more than three members who each own a minimum of 10% of a corporation. If the other members are not eligible for an exemption, they automatically become statutory employees of the LLC. He confirmed there was a lack of compliance to Chapter 440 (Florida Statutes). Mr. Lykos explained Workers' Compensation protection covers the medical expenses of the employees. He continued that Jeremy Batten must provide an insurance certificate indicating coverage for the other three "employees" [James, Kyle, and Joseph] who do not have an exemption. Richard Joslin offered an option, i.e., to use a payroll service which would provide the required coverage. He cautioned proof of engagement of a payroll company must be provided before a license could be issued, and the services of the payroll company must be renewed pursuant to the terms of the contract. Michael Ossorio referred to Mr. Batten's affidavit submitted as part of the application in which he stated he would provide Workers' Compensation coverage as required. The State of Florida requires coverage because the installation of cabinets and floor covering is considered to be "construction." 161 " A9 July 20, 2011 Mr. Ossorio confirmed Mr. Batten may have an exemption but all of the other employees in the LLC must be covered. Thomas Lykos reminded the Board that verification of the required coverage had not been provided with the application. Chairman Lantz noted Workers' Compensation Law was a major portion of the Business Law exam which Jeremy Batten was requesting to waive. He asked if Mr. Batten should be required to re -take the exam since he was not aware of the recent changes to the law. Jeremy Batten reiterated he would "make it right." Chairman Lantz questioned the description of operations, i.e., "mortgage field services," as noted in the liability insurance certificate. Mr. Batten stated it is the same type of coverage required for carpentry — the difference was the amount of coverage. Chairman Lantz reminded the Board the issue to be decided was the request to waive the requirement for retesting — not to approve the license. Attorney Neale stated the Board was to make a determination whether the applicant has adequate expertise or experience to waive the testing requirement. He explained that waiving the requirement for testing for the trade and for Business Law does not affect any other requirements. He noted the Board has the ability to waive one test and require the other. Mr. Batten stated he was licensed in Collier County in 2006 and he was tested then. When asked if he was still current in Lee County, Jeremy Batten replied he was not because the Collier County license, when approved, would be reciprocal in Lee. Lee Horn noted Mr. Batten's letter indicated he had been working in Bonita Springs, Lee County. Jeremy Batten stated the work was in mortgage field services /real estate, not construction. When again questioned about his liability insurance coverage, he stated the coverage would be applicable for construction (installation of cabinets and floor covering) when the amount was changed. Since he does not have a license for carpentry, the category will be adjusted when the license is approved. Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Batten if he possessed an active license for the installation of cabinets and floor covering in either Lee or Collier Counties and the response was no. He further questioned Mr. Batten if his license had been inactive since 2008, and the response was affirmative. Lee Horn asked if there had been any major Code changes in carpentry in the past three years. Michael Ossorio clarified that Mr. Batten was asking to reinstate his cabinet license, which is categorized as "Millwork" — not carpentry — and for flooring. The only test requirement is the Business Procedures test. 161 2 A 9 July 20, 2011 Jeremy Batten explained when he initially tested for his license a "trades" test was not required. He outlined his work history: • In 2006, he was licensed in both Collier and Lee County and worked for several Contractors installing cabinets. • In 2008, the Contractors went out of business due to the economy. • He was a Journeyman Carpenter for five years prior to moving from Iowa to Florida in 2006 o He began his apprenticeship when he was 18 years old. Thomas Lykos stated if Mr. Batten's work experience could be documented, it would be easier for the Board to consider waiving a trades test. He was "less inclined" to consider waiving the Business Procedures test since Jeremy Batten did not have a clear understanding of what is required by Workers' Compensation. Mr. Batten reminded Mr. Lykos that a "trades" test is not required to obtain a license for either cabinet installation or flooring installation. He stated he could document twenty years' of work experience and would present his Journeyman Certificate from the State of Iowa. Patrick White asked for clarification of one of Mr. Batten's statements. In his letter he claimed, "We have continued to work in the Bonita Springs area with our Lee County license ... " Previously, Mr. Batten said he has not possessed either a Lee or Collier license for some period of time. Mr. Batten replied he thought the company still maintained a license for the floor covering portion of the business, which is run by his father, in Lee County. He explained the LLC has been involved in property maintenance and clean-up work in Lee County. He continued "Field Asset Services" is a company that works for various banks to clean/maintain foreclosed properties acquired by banks. Michael Ossorio clarified that Lee County requires a Millwork or cabinet license to install wood products. But floor covering is considered to be a business and only a Business Tax Receipt is required, a copy of which was included in the information packet presented to the Board. Collier County requires a Certificate of Competency. Thomas Lykos asked if the Board was being asked to waive both the Business and Law test as well as the floor covering test for Collier County. Mr. Ossorio confirmed floor covering and cabinet installation were covered in the "Business Procedures" test. He stated Mr. Batten has asked the Board to waive testing so he can re -apply under the Code for the floor covering and cabinetry installation license. Mr. Lykos asked if there was a "trades" test for either floor covering or cabinetry. Mr. Ossorio replied "trades" tests were not required. It was noted, under "Type of Certificate of Competency," the application cited "finish carpentry" instead of "cabinetry." Two separate applications were submitted in the packet, but only one was necessary for the category of "floor covering/cabinetry." 16 I 2 A 9 July 20, 2011 Mr. Ossorio confirmed after the Board rendered its decision, all fees (including three years of back fees, a reinstatement fee, and a new license fee) must be paid by the applicant before a license is issued. He also explained the procedural differences between obtaining a license in Collier County versus Lee County, and the reciprocity process between the two Counties. Attorney Neale reiterated the Board was to decide only the issue of whether to waive the written test based on the applicant's experience and other knowledge. He noted Mr. Batten previously scored 84% on his Business and Law exam in 2006. All other requirements must be satisfied before a license is issued. He confirmed if the Board did require a test, the applicant will be required to pass it and then submit a full application for review by the Contractor Licensing Office. If the application was flawed, Mr. Ossorio could refer it back to the Board for consideration. Mr. Ossorio explained the testing procedures approved by the Licensing Board: • "P -T -I" which is required by the State of Florida for a State- certified license • "Thompson ProMetric" test, under the correct classification code • "Gainesville Independent Testing" has also been approved for the Business Procedures Test • Costs: o Collier County sponsorship fee ($130.00 per test); o Books and related study materials; o $80 per test (paid to the testing facility) Patrick White moved to approve the applicant's request to waive the testing requirements for floor covering and cabinetry installation. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Mr. Batten verified he understood the requirements to be fulfilled: to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance, and ensure the business liability insurance designated the correct business. (A) Christopher Burt — Contesting Citation Citation: #63117 Date: May 24, 2011 Fine: $300.00 Description of Violations: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise selfor business organization as available to engage in the business of or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. 161 2 W11 A9 July 20, 2011 Christopher Burt stated he received a violation for advertising for landscape remodeling on Marco Island. He stated he did not realize he was not allowed to advertise. He further stated he had "no intention" of doing the work — he would refer the job to a licensed Contractor. The purpose of the advertisement was to "drum up some business" for the Island Garden Center. Chairman Lantz stated under Collier County's Contractor rules, a person is not required to perform physical work in order to be considered to be a Contractor. A "General Contractor" coordinates various subcontractors on a job site. Attorney Neale cited from the Ordinance: "... the attempted sale of contracting services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services ... " Lee Horn restated Mr. Burt's intention: to not perform the work himself but to find a job and then hand it off to a licensed Contractor to complete. He explained that acting as a "middle man" is still considered to be contracting. Attorney Neale clarified if Mr. Burt were simply selling landscaping materials to a licensed Contractor who had a direct contract with a customer, he would not be engaging in "contracting" since payment for the landscaping services would not flow through him. He would only sell the plants and materials necessary, and would not be taking an unlawful benefit from the contract. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented an information packet to the Board Lee Horn moved to approve entering the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Mr. Ganguli read his Summary into the record as follows: "On the third week of May, 2011, the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Office received an anonymous complaint in the form of a newspaper advertisement in The Marco Island Sun Times depicting landscape remodeling services by the Island Garden Center of Marco Island, Inc." A current check of databases revealed that this company possessed a business tax for retail sale only. On May 24, 2011, I met with the owner of the business, Christopher Burt where an explanation of the violation — as well as a course for remedial action — was provided. Citation #6311 was issued to Mr. Burt at this time for advertising as a Landscaping Contractor without being duly registered or certified." 16� & A49 July 20, 2011 Rob Ganguli explained that Mr. Burt was instructed to either remove the remodeling language from the advertising, or to qualify his business to do so. He continued that Mr. Burt had taken the required exams and was in the process of applying for a General Contractor's license. Christopher Burt confirmed he removed the remodeling language from his advertisement and that he sat for the exam, which he passed. Attorney Neale noted the Board has the option to dismiss the Citation and cited Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 127, entitled "Prohibitions; penalties:" "If the person issued the Citation, or his /her designated representative, shows that the Citation is invalid or the violation has been corrected prior to appearing before the Enforcement or Licensing Board, the Enforcement or Licensing Board may dismiss the Citation unless the violation is irreparable or irreversible." Mr. Burt explained although he received the Citation in late May, he was unable to complete and send the paperwork to ProMetric prior to the deadline for the June test. He took the exam at the next available date in Bonita Springs because it was difficult for him to drive to Ocala for testing since he is the sole proprietor of his business. Michael Ossorio confirmed Mr. Burt took the Business Procedures test as well as the trades test for Landscaping. Richard Joslin moved to approve dismissing Citation #6311. Second by Michael Boyd Rob Ganguli noted the Island Garden Center had been qualified under a previous owner to perform landscaping. When Christopher Burt bought the business, the license expired. Chairman Lantz called for a vote on the Motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. BREAK: 10:05 AM RECONVENED: 10:17 AM 16 1 2 A -9 July 20, 2011 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2011 -09: William Edward Luker, III, d/b /a "Wel -Built Contractors, Inc." Robert Meister stated for the record that he employs Mr. Luker's future ex -wife as his company's bookkeeper. He further stated he had never met Mr. Luker prior to the Hearing. He declared his judgment would not be affected. Chairman Lantz outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • This procedure, adopted on February 20, 2002, sets forth the general method for which the Hearings for the Contractors' Licensing Board shall be held on alleged violations of the Contractors' Licensing Ordinance and also on contested Citations. • These guidelines are based on Florida Statutes, Chapter 489; Collier County Licensing Ordinance #90 -105, as amended; Florida Statutes, Sections 162.07 and 162.08, and other relevant statutory authority. • The general rule for the conduct of Hearings on violations of the Ordinance is set forth in Section 22- 202(G), in the codified version of Ordinance #90 -105 as amended. • Hearings on contested Citations are conducted pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 489.127 and 489.132 as incorporated in Ordinance 490 -105, as amended. Hearings on alleged riolations: • Hearings on alleged violations of Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, are conducted in a manner that ensures that the principles of fundamental fairness and due process are observed. • In order to more fully support these principles, the County Staff and/or County Attorney should meet with the Respondent prior to the Hearing. • At that point the evidence be presented to be subject to discovery and the parties, and their representatives, are allowed to examine the evidence to prepare their cases. If the discovery of evidence is delayed until the day of the Hearings, the Respondent shall be given the opportunity to examine any presented evidence. To further the principle of due process, the general sequence of procedures shall be followed: o Opening Statements: • The County as the Complainant, and then the Respondent or the Respondent's Counsel will first make an Opening Statement. • These Statements shall be similar to Opening Arguments in a Civil trial. • The parties should make statements as to what their view of the case is, what they intend to prove, and give an outline of their case. • They should not present evidence or bring a witness on at this time. 0 16 1 Jul 0 2011 A9 o The County's Case in Chief • The County, in this phase of the proceeding, presents its case to the Board. • The case consists of sworn testimony of relevant witnesses, documentary or physical evidence. • Physical evidence should be presented by the party promulgating to the other party for examination. • Once it has been examined, the Board then must vote on whether to accept the item into evidence. • If the Board votes to accept the item into evidence, it must be marked for identification by the Clerk and then it becomes part of the record of the case. o Hearsay Evidence: • "Hearsay" Evidence is evidence given by a witness who relates not what he /she knows personally but what others have told him/her or what he /she has heard said by others and is admissible under the proceedings of the Board. • Hearsay is only admissible in a Court of Law through certain exceptions. • In proceedings of the Board, it may be used for the purposes of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a Finding of Fact unless that same Hearsay shall be admissible over objections in a Civil court action. • All witnesses called by the County to prove its case shall be subject to cross - examination by the Respondent. • Once they have been cross - examined, the same witness is subject to re- direct examination by the County. • In addition, the Board must exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence. o Respondent's Case in Chief: • Once the County rests its Case in Chief, the Respondent may then present its case. • The presentation is subject to the same rules and procedures in the same manner as the County. o Rebuttal Case by the County: • The County is given an opportunity to present evidence to rebut the Respondent's case after the Respondent rests its Case in Chief. • Evidence presented on rebuttal should only address matters presented by the Respondent and the County should not introduce new evidence or matters for consideration by the Board. o Closing Arguments: ■ The County and then the Respondent present Closing Arguments. 10 161 2 Ag July 20, 2011 In these Arguments, the parties may argue their cases and refer to the evidence presented. It is not the time to present new evidence. The County is permitted to present a Rebuttal Closing Argument after the Respondent. o Close Public Hearing: • Once the above - referenced steps are completed, the Board shall move to close the Public Hearing and take the vote thereon. • An affirmative vote to close the Hearing is necessary. o Advice to the Board.• At this point, the Attorney for the Board will provide advice to the Board on the "burden of proof' and the relevant law in the case. The burden in cases where the Respondent can potentially lose his/her license to practice their profession is typically that of "clear and convincing evidence." This is a standard above that of "preponderance of the evidence" that is required in a normal civil matter. o Deliberations on Violations, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: • At this point, the Board deliberates on whether the Respondent has committed the misconduct as charged in the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall take a vote on whether the Respondent has committed the misconduct as charged, and adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to support such decisions. o Deliberations on Sanctions: ■ Once the Board has found that a violation has been committed and has adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board must decide upon the sanctions to be imposed. The possible sanctions are set out in Sections 22 -203 of the codified Ordinance. The Board shall then take a vote on the sanctions to be imposed. The vote shall be recorded in the Final Order. o Termination or Recommendation to the State's Contractors' Licensing Board: ■ For all licenses that are either State registered or certified, the Board must vote upon a recommendation of action to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board. Richard Joslin moved to approve entering the packet for Case No. 2011 -09 into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. 11 July 20, 2011 Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated the Respondent may request a Continuance. William Luker, the Respondent, stated he was not properly notified of the proceedings and requested a Continuance in order to obtain legal Counsel. He further stated the property where the Notice was mailed is in foreclosure and he does not reside there. His soon- to -be -ex -wife checks the mail. He received the documents the morning of the Hearing. Lee Horn asked Mr. Luker why he did not notify the County of his new address. The Respondent stated the mail was to be forwarded to a Post Office Box. Thomas Lykos requested the Respondent specify the date when he moved from the address of record. Mr. Luker replied "in late April." Michael Ossorio suggested the Board hear Mr. Ganguli before making a decision on whether to grant a Continuance. Attorney Neale suggested the Board not hear anything on the case in order to grant a Continuance. If the Board grants a Continuance, the packets introduced into evidence must be returned to the County. Chairman Lantz asked Attorney Neale for his opinion concerning issuing a Continuance. Attorney Neale replied in a case where there is sworn testimony from a Respondent that he did not receive Notice, it is the duty of the Board to ensure that due process of afforded to the Respondent. One of the elements of due process is proper notice and receiving notice of an action being brought against you is an essential element of due process. Courts allow a Respondent to prepare a defense. He continued that Mr. Luker did not have an opportunity to prepare a defense. Another test is whether the County's case would be prejudiced by granting a Continuance. There would be no prejudice against the County's case by granting a Continuance of sixty days. He suggested that, to promote equal administration of justice and due process that the Board accept his suggestion to continue the matter. Thomas Lykos asked William Luker if 30 to 60 days would be adequate to prepare a defense and the response was affirmative. He continued by asking Mr. Luker if he would acknowledge that he had been provided proper notice and, again, the response was affirmative. Richard Joslin moved to approve continuing Case #2011 -09 to September 21, 2011 and to remove the packets from evidence. Second by Patrick White. Staff requested that the Respondent provide his current mailing address: Mr. Luker stated he resides at 3048 King's Lake Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34112. Chairman Lantz called for a vote on the Motion. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Rob Ganguli collected the packets of evidence. 12 161 2 A4 July 20, 2011 B. Case #2011 -10: James G. Schuck, d/b /a "MMC of Marco Island, LLC." Chairman Lantz asked Mr. Schuck if it was necessary to re -read the procedures and the response was negative. Richard Joslin moved to approve entering the packetfor Case No. 2011 -10 into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Second by Lee Horn. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated the Respondent had evidence to present and distributed the packets to the Board. Patrick White moved to approve entering the Respondent's packet for Case No. 2011 -10 into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "A." Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Mr. Jackson read his Summary into the record, as follows: "On May 20, 2011, the Contractors' Licensing Office received a complaint from Marco Island homeowner, Ms. Toni Jessen. The complaint was reviewed and it was determined that the Respondent, James G. Schuck, contracted for construction with certified General Contractor, Johnson Brothers, LLC, at the newly constructed Judge Jolley Bridge at Marco Island. The contract was under business entity, "MMC of Marco Island, LLC." with a fictitious name registered with the State of Florida, i.e., "Marco Marine Construction, Inc." At the time, this business entity was not qualified with a Collier County Certificate of Competency or a State of Florida contractor's license. Said contract constitutes a violation of Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46, Section 1. 1, which was then enforced as a charge of misconduct under Collier County Ordinance 200646, Section 4.1.6. Mr. Schuck has entered into a Stipulation Agreement with Collier County acknowledging the existence and accuracy of the charge as stated in the Administrative Complaint." Mr. Jackson read the terms of the Stipulation into the record, as follows: 13 161 Z pq July 20, 2011 "BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County, Florida, Petitioner, VS. Case No. 2011 -10 James G. Schuck, d/b /a MMC of Marco Island, LLC, Respondent(s). STIPULATION AGREEMENT COMES NOW, the undersigned, James G. Schuck, on behalf of himself or as a representative for the Respondent, enters into this Stipulation and Agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of the Administrative Complaint referenced in Case Number 2011 -10 scheduled for the 201h day of July, 2011. In consideration of the disposition and resolution of the matters outlined in said Administrative Complaint for which a Hearing is currently scheduled for July 20, 2011; to promote efficiency in the administration of the Code Enforcement process; and to obtain a quick and expeditious resolution of the matters outlined therein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1) The violations noted in the referenced Administrative Complaint are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties that the Respondent shall: 1. Pay operation costs in the amount of $700.00 incurrent in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this Hearing. 2. Failure to comply with the above will result in revocation of current Certificate. 3. Further punitive action will be left to the discretion of the Contractors' Licensing Board." /s/ James G. Schuck Respondent (Sign) Respondent (Print) 6 -30 -2011 Date 14 Board Chairman Date 16 I 2 A9 July 20, 2011 Michael Ossorio asked the Respondent if the Stipulation Agreement which he signed on June 30, 2011 was accurate and the response was affirmative. He then asked the Respondent if he was forced to sign the Stipulation Agreement and the response was negative. James Schuck declined to present an Opening Statement. Michael Ossorio suggested the Board should vote on whether to accept the Stipulation Agreement. Attorney Neale stated the Stipulation provides for the Board to adopt it, but it did not specify penalties. The penalty phase is presented separately and the Board will hear the matters relevant to the penalty phase. Patrick White noted there was an individual who wished to address the Board. He asked if it would be appropriate to hear this person and her testimony as part of the penalty phase. Attorney Neale stated the Respondent had already stipulated to the charge. He advised it would be appropriate to hear the testimony as a matter relevant to the sanctions to be imposed. Thomas Lykos moved to approve adopting the Stipulation Agreement as presented Second by Richard Joslin. Patrick White asked if the Motion could be amended to authorize the Chairman to execute the Stipulation. Thomas Lykos amended the Motion to approve adopting the Stipulation Agreement as presented and to authorize the Chairman to sign the Stipulation. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Attorney Neale outlined the sanctions, set out in Section 22- 203(b)(1) of the County's Ordinance, for the Board's consideration: 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 noticed to consider said purpose. 5. Restitution; 6. A fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.); 7. A public reprimand; 15 161 Z A9 July 20, 2011 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. The award of reasonable legal and investigative costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Neale continued that, in determining the sanctions to be imposed, if any, the Board shall consider: (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. He stated the Board shall also issue a recommended penalty to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board and the recommended penalty may include: • a recommendation for "no further action" or • a recommendation for suspension, revocation, or restriction of the registration or • a fine to be levied by the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board. Consensus: Board members required additional information about the case before further determinations could be made. Lee Horn asked the Respondent what was the date of the contract he entered into and the response was October 13, 2010. Mr. Horn noted that in a previous case heard by the Board in August, 2009, the Respondent was placed on probation through January, 2011. If an additional violation occurred, the Respondent's license could be suspended until a Hearing was held. He stated he did not find a revocation noted in the paperwork presented to the Board. Richard Joslin asked Staff to explain how the companies "tie together" since there have been name changes to the same company. Michael Ossorio stated in October, 2010, Marco Marine was on probation but it entered into an agreement under a difference fictitious name, "MMC of Marco Island, LLC, d/b /a Marco Marine Construction." The action was determined to be a violation after probation. He continued Contractors often change names without notifying the Licensing Board or the Contractors' Licensing Office. He noted there is a $300 fine for not being properly registered and a $500 to come into compliance. The issue is usually handled administratively. But in the case at hand, Marco Marine Construction was already on probation at the time it entered into the contract and a decision was made to bring the violation to the Board due to the fact that Mr. Schuck has been before the Board on several occasions. 16 July 20, 2011 Mr. Ossorio stated there was an additional $100 fine applied to the qualifier. Mr. Schuck had qualified Marco Marine Construction, Inc., and was qualifying "MMC of Marco Island, LLC, d/b /a Marco Marine Construction" without proper notification. It was a violation because he qualified one entity, then opened a second entity in order to contract through that entity, while keeping both companies open. He has since come into compliance. Mr. Schuck should have completed and submitted a full application for the second entity. Ian Jackson explained there were two entities, or business corporations — one of which was qualified and the other was not. The contract was through the business entity that was not qualified. James Schuck stated he tried to change the company's name when he renewed his license but was told because the company was on probation, he could not do so. Michael Ossorio confirmed when Mr. Schuck renewed his license in October, 2010, he asked to change the name. Since he was already on probation, he was advised he could not do so without first appearing before the Board because his Certificate was under the Board's direction. Mr. Schuck chose to go forward and continue qualifying Marco Marine Construction, Inc. Mr. Ossorio continued he was not aware Mr. Schuck had contracted under a different entity, i.e., "MMC of Marco Island, LLC, d/b /a Marco Marine Construction," until Ms. Jessen filed her complaint. Ian Jackson, through his investigation, determined that Mr. Schuck was qualifying an unlicensed company. Chairman Lantz stated the "old" business was still in effect and the Respondent should have written contracts through "Marco Marine Construction, Inc." until the new business was qualified. Thomas Lykos asked if, at the time the violation occurred in October, 2010 when Mr. Schuck signed a contract under the name of the unlicensed company, the original entity was still under probation. Michael Ossorio responded affirmatively. James Schuck stated the reason why the contract was signed under the new company was due to the duration of the contract — the old company was being dissolved and would not be existence for the entire length of the contract. Chairman Lantz noted both companies could have been qualified if Mr. Schuck had appeared before the Board. James Schuck stated he was told he could not change the name because he was on probation. The reason why he didn't sign the contract under Marco Marine Construction, Inc. was because it was in the process of being dissolved. The IRS instructed him to cease and desist as Marco Marine Construction, Inc. because of the fines that were being accrued. Mr. Ossorio stated an entity has to renew its Certificate in September of each year it remains in business. If not renewed in September, a late fee ($10) is due in October. Mr. Schuck and his company were late to renew. The company was delinquent in October. In November, he incurred another late fee. When he renewed his current Certificate, he was advised that he could petition the Board but 17 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 it would take at least one month to be placed on the Agenda. He elected instead to renew Marco Marine Construction, Inc. He could have come back in January, 2011, when the probation ended and submitted a full application to change the name. It would have been an administration function to approve the new application. Chairman Lantz asked when the new entity was incorporated. Mr. Schuck replied the "ball was rolling in June, 2010." The payroll was turned over to a new payroll company in May, 2010. He stated he had been working with a lawyer but "sometimes results are not as quick as you would like." He confirmed he hired an attorney "to turn things over," but the attorney was no longer representing him. Thomas Lykos asked what were the ramifications of Mr. Schuck's action, based on the fact that the violation occurred during the probation period. He also asked about the stipulations of the probation. Lee Horn stated the Board required, in the event of a violation of probation, that a Hearing is scheduled as soon as possible and that Mr. Ossorio had the authority to immediately suspend the license. Revocation was not an option. Michael Ossorio confirmed if he knew about the new company in October, 2010, Mr. Schuck would have appeared then, but he was not aware of the situation until the Office received the complaint. Chairman Lantz asked Ms. Toni Jessen to present her comments to the Board. Attorney Neale reminded the Board the testimony must be relevant to the matter being heard and to the impact of the violation and what the penalties should be. He cited Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 127: "In determining the amount of the penalty, the Enforcement or Licensing Board shall consider the following factors: 1. The gravity of the violation. 2. The impact of the violation. 3. Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. 4. Any previous violations committed by the violator. 5. Any other evidence presented by the parties relevant as to the sanctions appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation. " Chairman Lantz asked Ms. Jessen if her comments were relevant to the case and she replied affirmatively. She stated she also wished to make a public comment later. Ms. Jessen asked if she could also refer to the 2009 and 2010 violations, and was advised to include the references in her Public Comment. She asked for clarification concerning the Board's policy regarding new applications for licenses. 18 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 She stated the old company was charged with a number of tax liens and judgments and asked how Mr. Schuck was allowed to open a new company in light of the problems that existed with the existing company. Attorney Neale asked her to limit her comments to the sanctions applicable in the case before the Board. Ms. Jessen stated Marco Marine performed extensive work on the Jolley Bridge from September 30th through November 1St without renewing its license. She informed the Marco Island City Council on November 1St and the Contractor came in on November 2nd to pay his fees. The work was done while the company was not registered. Mr. Schuck has received fines for previous violation of the same nature as contained in her complaint. Chairman Lantz asked Ms. Jessen if she was harmed by the work that was done. Lee Horn stated the Board was in the process of deciding what sanctions to impose on Mr. Schuck for the current violation. Attorney Neale confirmed the Board could be advised of previous violations which could be considered before rendering a decision. Patrick White asked Ms. Jessen what impact the non - compliance of the business entities had upon her personally. Attorney Neale stated the Board was aware of previous violations and the penalties imposed. The Board will decide on the relevance of previous violations upon the case being heard. Mr. White stated the nature of the violation was the disregard for the County's laws and also stated, as a Board member, he was interested in learning about the impact of the current violation. While the impact of previous violations, either personally or business related, may have some bearing on the case, the previous violations may not be relevant Thomas Lykos explained to that Ms. Jessen the Board will consider a previous violation if it is for the same type of offense being heard, i.e., a repeat offense of a similar violation. The gravity of the situation is different for the type of violation, i.e., a Workers' Compensation violation versus paperwork that was not submitted on time. He continued the Hearing was held was because the Respondent was already on probation. A simple change of name would have been handled administratively by Staff and would not have come before the Board. The Board will determine if the case before it was an administrative violation about clerical duties which is not relevant to similar violations, and should probably remain with Staff as an administrative issue. The gravity would not necessitate a hearing by the Board. Patrick White explained if the case concerned a Workers' Compensation violation and if she had been hurt and had outstanding medical bills under Worker's Compensation, that issue would be absolutely relevant and important for the Board to understand. He asked Ms. Jessen if she had information that fell within the scope under the prior violations, or the current violation, where there was some harm or other impact to her since that was the type of information the Board wanted to hear. 19 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 Michael Ossorio confirmed Mr. Schuck was charged with working without a license and he stipulated that he opened his new business without a license. It was noted since Mr. Schuck admitted his guilt, the presentation of additional evidence of his guilt was not necessary. Patrick White asked Ms. Jessen what was the impact of the Respondent's action upon her either personally or professionally. Ms. Jessen admitted there was no direct impact upon her. Attorney Neale noted the Ordinance states, under Section 2 -202, "Disciplinary Proceedings," that a complaint may be submitted to the Contractors' Licensing Board and investigated by the Contractor's Licensing Office. He continued the only formal charges made were those contained in the County's Administrative Complaint, not the complaint brought by Ms. Jessen. Therefore, the matters in her complaint were not relevant since they were not brought. Patrick White stated while Ms. Jessen's complaint may have "lit the fuse" which began the County's investigation, since the Respondent admitted to guilt, the Board should know if there is "something more" to be presented. There was further discussion concerning Mr. Jessen's statement concerning the history of why the complaint was made. Robert Meister stated the Board should deal only with what the Respondent did. Ms. Jessen stated she entered into an agreement. After doing so, she found out other information that she felt was harming others and her purpose was to represent Senior Citizens who signed contracts with unlicensed contractors. Chairman Lantz stated the situation was a consumer issue. Attorney Neale stated the Board was hearing one case with one charge and the charge had been stipulated to by the Respondent. He continued, stating the Board: • would determine the penalties to be imposed for the stipulated violation, • has been advised of the available penalties and sanctions, • has heard testimony from the County and the public concerning the impact of the violation, and • has been made aware of the previous violations which were committed by the Respondent. Some of the issues to be considered included: • the Respondent was already on probation at the time of the violation; • the name change could have been handled administratively if the Respondent had submitted an application after the probationary period ended; • the Respondent did not engage in a pro- active effort to come into compliance; • the initial complaint was made by a consumer — not by a business entity; • the company's previous history of violations; W 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 • Marco Marine Construction, Inc. took on debts knowing it was in the process of being dissolved; • the confusing name "change" from Marco Marine Construction, Inc. to "MMC of Marco Island, LLC, d/b /a Marco Marine Construction," He suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to close the Hearing and the enter the penalty phase. He stated further public comment from Ms. Jessen could be heard later. Richard Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Chairman Lantz noted the penalty phase had began and asked the County for its recommendation. Michael Ossorio stated there were no recommendations from the County. It was noted the Respondent agreed to pay Operational Costs in the amount of $700.00 on or before July 30, 2011. It was also noted the Respondent's new company has been in compliance since May, 2011. Michael Ossorio stated when the Respondent came to the Office in November to renew the license on Marco Marine Construction, Inc. and was informed the only way he could effectuate a name change, because of the probation, was to appear before the Board, he elected not to do anything other than continue to operate Marco Marine Construction, Inc. He was offered an option which he chose to ignore. He clarified if the Respondent had not been on probation, the change of name would have been handled administratively. He further stated the Contractors' Licensing Office verified with Corporate and Financial Services that there was insurance on the corporation which was not qualified. He continued the State of Florida considers the situation to be a "qualified business" violation because the qualifier was licensed and the owner of MMC. The company was not properly registered — so it is not a typical "unlicensed" case. While the Respondent was charged with a violation, it was not for unlicensed activity. As requested by the Board, Attorney Neale again outlined the sanctions for the Board's consideration: 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 21 161 2 iAV July 20, 2011 under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board. Any period of probation or continuing education program ordered by the CLB may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed 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. The award of reasonable legal and investigative costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Neale noted Item #10 had been satisfied through the Stipulation Agreement. The issues for consideration by the Board included: • The gravity of the violation. • The impact of the violation. • Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. • Any previous violations committed by the violator. • Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanctions appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation. Thomas Lykos ranked the issues as follows: • "gravity" and "impact" — relatively low • "corrections taken" — the company is in compliance • "previous violations" — there are a number of previous violations which is a negative against the Respondent • "other evidence" — nothing relevant was presented He further stated he thought the issue was administrative and there was very little, if any, harm done to the community at large. Due to the Stipulation, admission of guilt, and requirement to pay costs, there was little action required to be taken by the Board. Patrick White objected stating there was a history of violations to consider — a pattern of continuous and repetitive disregard of rules /regulations by the Respondent after a probationary period had ended. Richard Joslin proposed the following: • that the Operational Costs are increased from $700.00 to $1,000.00; • that the Respondent is fined $3,000.00 to be paid within 30 days; • that the new company (or the old company — whichever is operational) is placed on probation for a period of two years; and • that the license holder is required to re -test. 22 1 6 1 21 A9 July 20, 2011 Michael Ossorio stated the Operational Costs noted in the Stipulation were fixed by the Contractors' Licensing Office. Patrick White stated the quality of work was not an issue, and agreed that retaking the Business and Law test could be beneficial. Michael Ossorio noted one of the conditions of the last probation required the Respondent to take the Business Procedures test which he did on August 19, 2010 and scored a 75 %. Richard Joslin withdrew the re- testing requirement from his proposal and agreed the Operational Costs would remain at $700. Chairman Lantz mentioned the option of a "public reprimand." Michael Ossorio noted a public reprimand had been issued as a press release through the Public Relations Office in another case two years ago. Thomas Lykos stated the violation was not directly related to the Respondent's business — it had nothing to do with construction, there were no Workers' Compensation liability issues, no clients were harmed, there was no harm to the public — it was an administrative violation which occurred while he was on probation. While there was no victim at the same time, Marco Marine Construction has appeared before the Board on several occasions. It may not be a repeat of a previous violation, but it was yet another violation from a company that just got off probation. Richard Joslin agreed there was a repetitive aspect and that the Board has seen Marco Marine too many times, at least three. Michael Ossorio confirmed any complaints against Marco Marine Construction would stay with the qualifier regardless of the current name of the company. There was further debate on whether or not to issue a public reprimand and the length of the probation. Consensus: A public reprimand was not supported. A two -year probation was suggested with an immediate suspension of his ability to pull new permits by the Contractors' Licensing Office pending a hearing before the Board. Lee Horn recapped the revised recommendation: • Operational Costs are assessed at $700.00 to be paid within 30 days; • the Respondent is fined $3,000.00 to be paid within 30 days; • that the Respondent's company is placed on probation for a period of two years, and any violation that has been investigated/validated by Staff would result in an immediate suspension of his permit pulling privileges pending a hearing before the Board. Michael Ossorio clarified if a violation involved Workers' Compensation issues, whether it was caught by inspection or found in the field, a "Stop Work" Order would be issued (pursuant to 440) and the entire project would be shut down until there was a hearing before the Board or compliance. 23 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 Richard Joslin moved that James G. Schuck of "MMC of Marco Island, LLC" has been found guilty and has entered into a Stipulation Agreement in which he agreed to pay Operational Costs in the amount of $700.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case within thirty days, and approved assessing a fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid within thirty days and Marco Marine Construction, Inc. or "MMC of Marco Island, LLC" will be placed on two years probation. Any violation that occurs during the probationary period that has been investigated/validated by Staff would result in an immediate suspension of Mr. Schuck's permit pulling privileges pending a hearing before the Board Any failure to make timely payments of the fine or Operational Costs would result in the revocation of his current Certificate, as noted in the Stipulation Agreement. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Attorney Neale stated he would draft an Order within the next five days for distribution to the Board to review. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will be incorporated into the Order. Richard Joslin moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. IX. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Toni Jessen stated: • She purchased a home on Marco Island approximately 18 months ago; • A company was hired to repair a plumbing problem — a leak underneath the house — pipes were to be completely replaced; • During the course of the work, extensive damage was caused to the structure of the house because concrete beams and the vapor barrier were cut; • A large void (6' deep by 4' wide) remains under the house, collecting water; • Two engineers and a Contractor who specializes in concrete restoration have inspected the damage and the estimated cost to repair the damage will be approximately in the "six figure range;" • A complaint was filed against the company for poor workmanship; • It is her understanding that an administrative complaint was filed against the company by the Contractors' Licensing Office alleging that the work began without a issuance of a permit or the amount of the permit was incorrect; • The issue of workmanship has not been addressed because the City of Marco Island issued an after -the fact permit and inspected the property. The Final Inspection was passed. • Her complaint about the workmanship does not involve the work concerning the installation of the piping. The surrounding damage done to the property while in the process of installing the pipes is, in her opinion, a workmanship issue. • She stated the City of Marco Island did not inspect the property, the permit was not issued in advance of beginning work, and the amount of the permit was 24 161 2 A9 July 20, 2011 incorrect — the job was a full replacement of piping costing approximately $30,000 — not the cited "repair" of $2,500. The Contractor lied and the City of Marco did not protect her by inspecting the work. • This issue has not been presented to the Board for consideration. • The Board licensed the company and the Board is to regulate the license so that the public is protected. • She does not understand how the Board is able to protect the public if the full nature of the complaint was not brought before the Board. • She asked the Board to reopen the complaint and thoroughly investigate the charges. • She suggested that one person not be allowed to close a case without a review by a second person. Chairman Lantz stated the issue is a civil matter rather than a licensing issue and the Board cannot regulate the quality of workmanship. Thomas Lykos stated the Board needs to review evidence — photographs taken before, during, and after the work was done that documents the alleged damage. Richard Joslin noted the Board is governed by an Ordinance and follows the Florida Statutes. Workmanship does not fall under the items the Board regulates. The issue is a civil matter that should be brought before a Court of law. The issue is not a willful Code violation and does not fall under the Board's jurisdiction. It was noted if the case appeared before a Judge who then ruled against the Contractor, the decision could be considered by the Board. Attorney Neale pointed out "faulty workmanship" is a violation but there is a very specific definition within the Code. Charges against contractors are brought before the Board through the Contractors' Licensing Office. A sworn complaint is brought to the Contractors' Licensing Office and investigates and determines whether or not to prosecute. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, Growth Management Division, stated local Building Department inspectors are not licensed to inspect a building for engineering or design construction standards. He continued the County worked closely with the State - identified licensed Building Code Official for the City of Marco Island. There was an administrative violation — the inaccurate figure for the Notice of Commencement — and the Contractor did not dispute the citation. If the job was completed according to the Florida Building Code and was signed -off by the Building Code Official, there is very little else that can be done. The report showed that the required inspections were conducted. Regarding Marco Marine: • She inquired about Marco Marine by calling the Contractors' Licensing Office and was told that "everything was fine" • She had a problem with the company and made a public records request to obtain their entire complaint file 25 161 2 Ag July 20, 2011 • She had concerns regarding how the complaints were handled — there were a total of three violations that occurred within the probation period that were dismissed by the City of Marco and not brought before the Board • There are three qualifiers — one qualifier never appeared for any hearing • Why was the State of Florida not notified. • There are other citizens who have been ripped off. • She stated these are serious issues that should be fully investigated. James French noted the County's website, at the Contractors' Licensing page, publishes all licensing activity and whether or not there has been a finding of guilt. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: • Patrick White noted Item B under "New Business" had not been heard and suggested adding it to the next Agenda. Patrick White moved to approve tabling discussion of Smaili Constantino's Request for a Waiver of Examination. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 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 12:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Kyle Lantz, Chair an The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , 2011, "as submitted" U OR "as amended" [_1. 26 161 2 A,9 September 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING Naples, Florida, September 21, 2011 0-AV ET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' I 2sing... Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala !ill -'r f-1- .,nning f`r;yl�� ti ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz Vice Chair: Lee Horn Michael Boyd (Excused) Terry Jerulle Richard Joslin Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick Whitc Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Mist. Cars: 1211.51 1 cap* is: 161 September 21, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lantz called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Eight members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Change — Deletion: • Under Item VII, "Old Business " — o (G) Luis F. Velez — Contesting Citation(s) III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —July 20,2011: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes of the July 20, 2011 meeting as submitted Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: Michael Ossorio noted: • 700 Citations were issued • 8,000 job sites were visited (includes complaint -driven and random inspections) • County renewals are taking place o Specialty Contractors and County- registered Contractors must renew on or before September 30th to avoid paying a late fee Thomas Lykos requested to receive updates of the Budget in October and January. Mr. Ossorio explained it was possible the information would be contained on two documents due to the different County programs ( "C/D- PLUS" and "CityView "). Thomas Lykos moved to request the Licensing Supervisor provide an end of Fiscal Year Budget Report in October and an end of calendar year Budget Report in January 2012. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (None) 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. 2 16,x"2 �-- September 21, 2011 (NOTE. In each of the cases heard under this Section and Section VIII, as follows, the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) B. Tony C. Kirkland — Review of Credit Report (George T. Sands, Inc.) Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Tony Kirkland previously appeared before the Board to qualify a Second Entity (George T. Sands, I c.) • The Board placed the Certificate for the Second Entity on probation for six months and required Mr. Kirkland to provide a clarification concerning the large checks written/paid to George Sands, and to also provide an updated credit report • Mr. Kirkland experienced �ome medical issues and has been required to commute to Tampa for treatment • He was unable to provide a current credit report as required Mr. Ossorio stated Mr. Kirkland has requested a Continuance of his case. Staff had no objection but could not approve the request because the Second Entity was on probation. He suggested tabling the issue until the October meeting. Patrick White noted an explanation or clarification of the number and amount of checks written to George Sands was the other issue of concern for the Board. Patrick White moved to approve,, granting a Continuance to Tony C. Kirkland until the October meeting. Tony Kirkland stated: • His personal credit repo referenced outstanding medical bills. • He paid $17,000 toward the balance of $25,000. • The payments were reflected on the credit report that he presented in March as the last item • He has been unable to w k for the past three months and has been undergoing treatment at t�e VA Facility in Tampa. • The checks were written from George Sands' personal checking account • He admitted he was not involved in the payroll portion of Mr. Sands' business Mr. Joslin verified that the Respondent was sent copies of the documentation including the Agenda for the current meeting, as well as a copy of the Board's Order. Mr. Ossorio confirmed that he spoke with Mr. Kirkland but due to his medical situation, he may not have remembered the conversation. Mr. White stated the intent of hi Motion was to require Mr. Kirkland to provide the updated credit reports and an explanation of the large checks written to George Sands. 161 2 111 A(V September 21, 2011 (Note: Patrick White stated he will not attends the October meeting.) Michael Ossorio clarified Tony Kirkland was required to provide copies of his personal credit report and the cVit report for the Second Entity, i.e., "George T. Sands, Inc," which is on probati n. Thomas Lykos noted rather than granting a Continuance, there was another option, i.e., the Board could end the probationary period and require the Respondent to return with the r uired documentation. The Board could then deicide to grant either permanent approval of the Request to Qualify a Second Entity or permanent denial. He expressed concern regarding the Respondent's admission that he has no idea haw Mr. Sands manages his business' finances. Tony Kirkland stated he requested to qualify a Second Entity to help Mr. Sands obtain an irrigation license and teach him how to perform irrigation work. He was surprised that the Board wa� requiring him to know how Mr. Sands spends his money. Richard Joslin asked the Respondent if he knew exactly what his responsibilities were as a Qualifier. He explained to Mr. Kirkland that he was allowing another company to work under his lice se and, therefore, was responsible for everything the company did. Mr. Kirkland stated he was not aware of his financial responsibilities. Thomas Lykos directed a hypothetical question to Michael Ossorio: If he hired Mr. Sands' company and paid him for a job, but Mr. Sands did not show up to work, who would he (TL) call? Michael Ossorio replied if the problem were related to irrigation, the contact would be Mr. Kirkland as the Qualifier. Mr. Kirkland expressed his confusion. Mr. Lykos explained the hypothetical problem in greater detail. Tony Kirkland stated George S ds could not meet with a client to design an irrigation system unless he was with him because Mr. Sands didn't know how to do it. The purpose of the qualification was to leach Mr. Sands how to perform irrigation work. He stated "there is no way it would happen." Terry Jerulle objected, citing an example, Mr. Sands could meet with a potential client while Mr. Kirkland was appearing before the Board and Mr. Kirkland would not know about it. Chairman Lentz cited another example, stating that Mr. Sands could accept a check from a client but Mr. Kirkland would not know it unless he was aware of the business' finances. Terry Jerulle reiterated the Respondent was financially responsible for George T. Sands, Inc. He continued, the Respondent was asked, "Where has the money being going ?" but his reply was, "Am I responsible to find out where his money goes ?" The Board's answer is "Yes." He stated it was apparent the Respondent did not understand his financial responsibilities regarding the Second Entity. Mr. White noted his concern wa why the checks were issued to George Sands in large amounts and with great frequency. He stated the question the Board wants answered is, "Why were large checks issued to George Sands from the business ?" f A9 161 2 September 21, 2011 (Jamie French arrived at 9:27 AM.) Chairman Lantz suggested that Mr. Sands attend the October meeting. Richard Joslin asked the Resp ndent if he were aware of any ongoing contracts for current projects. Tony Kirkland stated there were contracts for maintenance work, but not for new installations. Lee Horn noted if the Board ag�eed to continue the matter, the probation should be extended. Patrick White amended his motion to approve extending the probationary period until the October meeting Second by Robert Meister. Lee Horn asked the Respondent if he understood exactly what the Board had said and what documents to bri to the October meeting, i.e., an updated personal Credit Report, a Credit Report for the Second Entity, and a clear explanation of why so many checks were issued in such large amounts. He also recommended that Mr. Sands attend the October meeting. Mr. Kirkland stated he understood. The Chairman called for a vote'on the Motion, as amended Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. C. David W. Wainscott — Review of Credit Report Michael Ossorio referred to Page 3 of the "Findings of Fact:" • Mr. Wainscott required wa$ appear and provide full credit reports to the Board for review • The Board was to determine whether to continue probation, extend it, or end probation and allow the license to be used without probation. • The Board previously res cted his Certificate ( "Residential Contracting Only ") due to his lack of experience as a General Contractor Mr. Ossorio verified that a copy of the Board's Order was sent to David Wainscott and stated he spoke with him on several occasions concerning providing the required informati n. Mr. Wainscott did not comply. Recommendation: Suspend Mr. Wainscott's Certificate. Michael Ossorio will contact th State of Florida to request a suspension of Mr. Wainscott's registration until helppears before the Contractor's Licensing Board. Lee Horn moved to approve suspending David W. Wainscott's Certificate of Competency until further notice and to notify the State of Florida to request a suspension of his registration. Necond by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 161 1 t A9 I September 21, 2011 D. Daniel M. Kimball (d/b /a Kimball Floor Installation, Inc.) — Probation Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Kimball was not present and provided the following background information: • Mr. Kimball was ordered to pay the sum of $3,335.00 as restitution to the consumer, beginning April 1, 2011, to be paid in full by July 1, 2011 • He did pay the sum of $500 to the Contractors' Licensing Board • The restitution payments were not made • As ordered by the Board, Mr. Kimball's license was revoked on July 5, 2011 and he received notification of the revocation • He was to appear before the Board concerning his probation Update: • In order to restore his license, Mr. Kimball will be required to pay the restitution in full to the consumer and petition the Licensing Board for a hearing Patrick White noted for the record that Daniel Kimball had been properly noticed regarding the time and date of the September meeting, and was required to appear before the Board. He stated Mr. Kimball's absence constituted another violation of the Board's Order which should be considered if he petitions to reinstate his license. E. James Galarza — Waiver of Examination (Reinstatement of License) Chairman Lantz noted Mr. Galarza was not present. F. Michael Francis — Application to Place Certificate into Dormancy Mr. Ossorio noted: • Mr. Francis is a Registered Residential Electrical Contractor • He has not renewed since 2009 and his Certificate of Competency was cancelled • The Ordinance requires that he take the exam again • He wishes to place his Certificate into dormancy • He has taken continuing education courses and his Registration is current with the State of Florida Recommendation: Approve the application for dormancy. When the dormancy period expires, Mr. Francis will be required to submit a full application and a credit report. If he meets the criteria at that time, a new Certificate can be issued. Michael Francis stated: • Due to the economy and lack of payment from customers, he has experienced financial reversals rol 161 2 ;fit A�, September 21, 2011 • He is unable to pay the total amount of fees ($610.00) at this time • He has not bid on any jobs or worked in Collier County • He is licensed and active in Palm Beach, Port St. Lucie and Martin Counties • He resides in Palm Beach County Richard Joslin moved to approve placing the Certificate into Dormancy until a future date at which time Michael Francis is required to appear before the Board to apply for reinstatement and pay the appropriate fees. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. G. Luis F. Velez — Contesting Citation(s) — Deleted, per amended Agenda H. Rick L. Randolph — Contesting Citation(s) Citations: #6482 (Unlicensed Electrical) and #6483 (Unlicensed Roofing) Date: August 8, 2011 Fine: $300.00 each 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. Rick Randolph presented the following information. • Recently returned to Collier County • Registered with the State of Florida as a Certified Building Contractor • d/b /a "General Home Construction & Aluminum" ( #CBC 031949) • License expires on August 31, 2012 • Began working for a Contractor (Specialty license) in March as an employee; his pay rate was $25.00/hour • The roof leaked and drywall was damaged • He notified the Contractor of the problem and repaired the leak by installing a piece of flashing • It was a simple repair — "a handyman special " • He also turned off the breakers and disconnected an electrical box which has remained at the premises • Citations were issued for electrical and roofing violations Michael Ossorio noted the Contractor appeared before the Board on April 20`h and had been cited for working beyond the scope of his license (repairs made to a column) and working without obtaining a Permit. Mr. Randolph stated the Contractor 'feels he can do anything because he has a State license for Specialty. " Richard Joslin asked if the Respondent received a payroll check from the Contractor and Mr. Randolph responded he was paid in cash. 16 ! 2 t September 21, 2011 Mr. Randolph claimed the Contractor was two to three weeks late in paying him. When the situation became too much, he contacted the client said the Contractor received a total of $38,000. The Contractor invoiced the client for work that had not been performed. Terry Jerulle noted that, as a li�ensed Contractor, Mr. Randolph should have been aware of the rules which have not changed: • Workers' Compensation is to be paid, • Employees receive paychecks, • Employees are not paid 'n cash — otherwise they are considered to be Subcontractors Michael Ossorio clarified Mr. andolph is State - certified and his current license will not expire until 2012. He can work anywhere in Florida but his registration to pull Building Permits has expired. Mr. Randolph was cited for performing electrical and roofing work which was outside the scope of his license. Patrick White noted even if the Respondent was registered at the time the Citations were issued in Collier County, there would be violations because the work performed was outside the scope of his license. Mr. Ossorio stated the issue was not registration — the County's premise was that Mr. Randolph was working as a Subcontractor. Thomas Lykos referred to Item "E -8" in the information packet presented to the Board. He stated the two documents appeared to be invoices issued by the Respondent's company to the Contractor's company, "Storm Control." He asked Rick Randolph if he had submitt d his hours to the Contractor via the invoices. Mr. Randolph stated the Contractor had requested a written statement and he utilized an old invoice form contained in his laptop. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, reported. • July 26,2011 — A complaint was received and a site visit was made • Investigator Keegan spoke with the Respondent who stated he had been an employee of Storm Control • Mr. Randolph noted the homeowner hired him to complete the work • The work performed consisted of electrical, plumbing, interior alteration, replacement of windows and doors — all of which was unpermitted • A "Stop Work" Omer was issued and the homeowner was contacted concerning the issu s at the job site • August 4, 2011— Investigator Keegan met with Robert J. Waring, the Qualifier for Storm Control, to discuss the permitting/licensing issues. • Mr. Waring stated the work was "subcontracted" to Mr. Randolph and a contract insupport of his statement was provided • A Workers' Compensation exemption was noted for the Qualifier, but no policy for employees -- no leasing company • The contract between the two companies documented that General Home Construction & Aluminum had been contracted to perform roof and electrical work 161 Z AA September 21, 2011 August 8, 2011 — Investigator Keegan met with Mr. Randolph • Mr. Randolph was asked who had been subcontracted to perform the roof and electrical work. • Mr. Randolph stated he did the work as an employee of Storm Control • When the contract between the two companies was presented to Mr. Randolph, he stated it was not a contract but a log of the work that he performe • Two Citations were issued for performing unlicensed roof work and unlicensed electrical work Chairman Lantz stated, as a Contractor, he has hired subcontractors to work for his company at "time and materials," and he expected the sub to be insured. Whether he hired a sub or was 'red out as a sub for another Contractor, a license was involved — the sub works under his own license and insurance. He noted there is a great deal o difference between an "employee" and a Subcontractor. If he hired a GC (General Contractor) to do a job, he would make sure the GC used a licensed Subcontractor to perform the electrical work. If the sub was not licensed, the GC w uld be liable. He continued that Mr. Randolpi worked as a Sub who performed the roofing and electrical work himself instead of subcontracting it out and was trying to blame someone else. Rick Randolph reiterated he did not subcontract the job from Mr. Waring but was hired to work "by the hour." Chairman Lantz countered beig paid by the hour does not mean someone is an employee — an electrician is pai by the hour and he is not an employee — he is still the electrician. He noted he was convinced the Respondent was not an employee due to the invoice. Mr. Randolph stated he used} old form in his laptop to accommodate Mr. Waring's request for a "typed" n;CCOUnting of the time and the work performed, Lee Horn noted the Citations were issued in August but the invoices were dated in April. He asked if the Respondent was working directly for the homeowner in August. Mr. Randolph replied the work had been completed by the time the Licensing Officer arrived. He stated when he spoke to the homeowner, he stipulated he would take over the job but permits were necessary for the work that Mr. Waring had done. He informed the owner it would be necessary to hire an engineer. He stated it was only after he was hired by the owner that he "went back into contracting again." He did not pull any permits — he is waiting for the engineer. He met with a "Gary" who inspected the site and stated [blue]prints must be submitted due to the amount of work. The homeowner did hire an engineer drawings have not been completed. Richard Joslin stated the focus of the Board should be on whether the Respondent is guilty or not guilty of the violations contained in the two Citations. Gi 1.1 161 2 September 21, 2011 Attorney Neale commented: • The point was to determine guilt or innocence. • The Board should examine the definition of an "independent contractor." • According to the IRS, ark independent contractor controls the hours he work — sets his own schedule, and receives a 1099 at the end of the year. • Companies violate the independent contractor rules by classifying employees as independent contractors when they are not. • It is not the responsibility of an employee to ensure that taxes are taken from the paycheck or to there is Workers' Compensation coverage. It is the responsibility of the person who contracts with him. • The Respondent did not have control of his hours — he was told when to work. He did not supply) his own tools, which is another test. • The question for the Bo d to consider is did Mr. Randolph meet the standard as an independTnt contractor or was he, in fact, an employee who was being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous Contractor who didn't do what he should — by taking out taxes or providing Compensation insurance — and who was skating by with an exemption for himself. • The Board should exami e both sides of the issue. • Mr. Randolph has a contacting license and he did issue an invoice using his old letterhead, but was it an invoice or was it a time card. That is another test. • The Board should carefully examine /review the standards of an independent contactor versus an employee. Patrick White asked the Respondent if he filed a W -4 and the response was "no." Mr. White noted a written contact had not been submitted specifying that Rick Randolph was an employee. At the time the work was performed, he worked "as needed." Rick Randolph stated he was often removed from the job site to work at another location, such as in Fort Myers. Chairman Lantz noted the IRS and the Ordinance have different definitions of independent contractor. He asked if a person was paid in cash, was he still considered to be an employee or an independent contractor or subcontractor. Attorney Neale stated the questZ was who was responsible taking out the taxes. The employee was not required to ask if taxes were taken out and if there was Workers' Compensation coverage before accepting the paycheck. Terry Jerulle stated the Respondent is a state - certified Contractor who suddenly "played dumb" — he worked Contractor who was not a licensed electrician but hired him to perform electri work. The Board was asked to believe the Respondent did not realize he should be licensed to perform any electrical work and that a Permit was required. l Mr. Jerulle stated he found the presumption to be insulting. The Respondent submitted an invoice on his own (letterhead for electrical work performed. While he understood Attorney Neale's point, he knew his vote on the issue. He continued that for the Respondent to use the excuse that he was hired by the hour — he should he should have known better as a certified building contractor. 10 161 2 A19 September 21, 2011 Rick Randolph stated he only disconnected the electrical box. He did not hook anything up — there was no danger to anyone. He equated it to removing old drywall and not installing a new piece. He further stated Mr. Waring going to hire an electrical contractor to hook up what was needed. Chairman Lantz noted there is la difference between a safe disconnect and one that is not. Mr. Randolph stated he turned ff the breaker box. Chairman Lantz stated he has been called to many job sites and found that the wrong breaker had been turned off — which was an unsafe situation. Whether the Respondent knew how to do the ,work or not didn't matter — he was not licensed to perform the work. He stated the Citation allows the Board to impose an additional fine and his opinion was the fine should be the maximum allowed. He stated he, too, was offended that the Respondent hid behind the "employee" excuse. Rick Randolph reiterated he was hired as an employee and stated his mistake was putting his time on an old invoice. Richard Joslin asked the Respo dent if he had a payroll record to submit as proof of his employee status and7the response from Mr. Randolph was "no." Richard White asked if there was other testimony or evidence to be submitted. Attorney Neale reminded the Board there was only one piece of testimony concerning the Respondent's employment status — his testimony. Mr. White noted the Respondent's testimony explained his use of the invoice form and nothing challenged or refuted his testimony as a rational or logical explanation. Whether he was op rating as an employee or independent contractor, the only piece of evidence submitted by the County was the invoice. The Respondent has refuted he was an independent contractor /subcontractor. Even if he was an employee, the Respondent should have known better due to his certification. The Board should Oecide how much work was done. He continued that he was convinced there was a roofing violation. The amount of electrical work done consisted of pulling a breaker or main. He asked for additional testimony about the el ctrical work. Investigator Keegan stated them were three rooms with new wiring. He referenced the invoice concerning the number of hours spent performing the work. Mr. White referenced the invoic : 2 hours of electrical on May 3, 2011. He asked the Respondent to define the scope of work performed for the two hours. Rick Randolph stated he disconnected the electrical by shutting down the breakers. He disconnected the air conditioner's box to remove the siding. He ran wiring through the wall but it was not connected to anything. Mr. White stated he was convinced the violations were valid. There was an intent on the Respondent's part to perform actions or work that was unlicensed. He continued if the Respondent id not have status as a Certified Building Contractor, his vote might have een different. Terry Jerulle asked Investigator Keegan if he questioned Mr. Waring concerning the Respondent's status. Investigator Keegan stated he d�d and Mr. Waring responded that Mr. Randolph was a subcontractor. 11 161 2 AV September 21, 2011 Attorney Neale explained Mr. Waring's response was hearsay and was used to controvert the Respondent's testimony. Rick Randolph countered that Mr. Waring lied. Attorney Neale cited another ellement from the Ordinance: • An "employee" an y person who works for or is under the supervision or control of a licensee, provided that said employee does not hold himself out for hire or engage in contracting except as an employee. Mr. Neale stated the other test to be made by the Board: • Did the Respondent hold) himself out as a Contractor or did he hold himself out as only an employee? In response to a question from the Board, Attorney Neale explained hearsay can be used as evidence, but at a lower level than direct testimony. He stated direct sworn testimony has more weight than hearsay. Thomas Lykos asked Investigator Keegan to read his testimony into the record and provide a copy of his written statement for the Board to review. Thomas Keegan's statement: "On July 26, 2011, I received a call from Customer Service in regard to unpermitted and unlicensed world at 411 Gulf View Drive. I made a site visit and spoke to Mr. Randolph of General Home Construction & Aluminum who stated that he used to be an employee for Storm Control but was no longer and that the homeowner had since hired him to take over the job. Mr. Randolph showed me the work that was done which consisted of electrical, plumbing, and interior) alterations such as sliders and windows. An atrium was replaced and had been closed in. Doors were replaced. The size of the opening and the frame was altered. A window was removed and replaced with a door. All the work was ui hrrinilted. I proceeded to issue a Stop Work Order. I called and spoke to the homeowner." Thomas Lykos stated the first site visit was in July but the invoices or timecards were dated "April" and "May." There was a window of time between the end of May and July 26h — it is not known when Mr. Randolph left Storm Control as an employee and took over the job. (There are timecards from April and May. There is testimony from Investigator Keegan that Mr. Randolph stated he left the employment of Storm Control and took over the job as the Contractor for the job. Thomas Keegan's statement (co�tinued): "On August 4, 2011, I met with Rob Waring, the Qualifier for Storm Control and addressed the permitting/licensing issues. At that time, Mr. Waring stated that he subcontracted the work to Mr. Randolph and supplied a contract stating so." 12 161 2 1. A9 September 21, 2011 Mr. Lykos asked if Rob Waring showed Investigator Keegan a contract between himself and Mr. Randolph as a Subcontractor. Mr. Keegan stated the Board had a copy of the document. It was determined the document lin question was actually the two invoices between the parties which the Investigator referred to as a "contract." Michael Ossorio noted the dictionary defines a "contract" as a proposal. He referred to Item "E8" — "Proposal submitted to Storm Control." Richard Joslin stated a proposal that has been signed is a contract. Attorney Neale clarified the document did not resemble a proposal — it was an invoice. The three elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, and consideration — they were not pr sent in the document. Mr. Lykos noted in the construction industry a verbal agreement constitutes a contract. Attorney Neale stated there wa� direct testimony concerning an employment arrangement, but only hearsay that there was a contract. Mr. Lykos stated there was an voice from one construction company to another construction company —but the estimony was the document was not an invoice, it was a time card. He asked the Respondent where the other time cards were. Attorney Neale stated the Board was to determine whether or not the violations cited are valid. Everything else may be persuasive or interesting, but what happened on August 8, 2011 wh n the Citations were issued is the relevant issue. • Was the work described on the invoices performed in April and May? Thomas Keegan stated he madei his determination based on the work that had been completed and the information contained in the invoices. Patrick White moved to approve finding that, with reference to Citations #6482 and #6483, the Respondent wav not in violation hated upon the fart. that he was operating as an employee. Mr. White said he bought the Respondent's "story" because it made sense. He further stated maybe the Res ' should have known better — maybe he should have checked for Permit but that was not his job. The Respondent signed on as an employee at $25.00 per hour. From the Respondent's perspective, even though he was a CBC, he limited the scope of his exposure by only operating as an employee. Chairman Lantz stated the issu� has been polarizing. He asked if there was a second in support of Mr. White's motion. (A second in support was not made.) Chairman Lantz asked for another motion to be made. 13 161 2 1 A9 September 21, 2011 Richard Joslin moved to approve finding that, with reference to Citations #6482 and #6483, the Respondent was in violation and fines are assessed in the amount of $300 per Citation. Second by Patrick White. Motion carried, 7 — "Yes, "/ I — "No. " Jon Walker was opposed. I. Thomas Shallcross — Waiver f Examination (Reinstatement of License) Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Shallcross was not present. BREAK. 10:41 AM RECONVENED: 11: 00 AM VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2011 -09: William Edward Luker, III, d/b /a "Wel -Built Contractors, Inc." Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, noted that Mr. Luker was not present for the Hearing. Attorney Neale asked the Coun� to enter testimony on the record concerning the notification process. Excer t: Page 12 of the Minutes of the Contractors' Licensing Board Meeting held on July 20,2011: "William Luker, the Respondent, stated he was not properly notified of the proceedings and requested a Co tinuance in order to obtain legal Counsel. He further stated the property where the Notice was mailed is in foreclosure and he does not reside there. His soon- to -be -ex -wife checks the mail. He received the documents the morning of the Hearing. Thomas Lykos asked William Luker if 30 to 60 days would be adequate to prepare a defense and the response was affirmative. He continued by asking Mr. Luker if he would acknowledge that he had been provided proper notice and, again, the response was affi ative. Richard Joslin moved to approve continuing Case #2011 -09 to September 21, 2011 and to remove the packets from evidence. Second by Patrick White. Staff requested the Respondent p ovide his current mailing address. Mr. Luker stated he resides at 3048 King's take Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34112. Chairman Lantz called for a vote on the Motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. "] 14 161 2 r A 9 September 21, 2011 Michael Ossorio stated for the record the Respondent was present at the Board's meeting on July 20, 2011 and requested a Continuance which was granted. Due to an issue with his address, the Respondent acknowledged for the record that he received proper Notice during the Hearing of the September 21" Hearing date. Mr. Ossorio further stated he mot with the Respondent approximately one week after the July meeting and reminded him of the date for the September Hearing. The Respondent stated he inten ed to clear up the outstanding issues with City of Marco Island Building Department prior to the September meeting. He confirmed he called the Respondent several times and spoke with him on September 201h to remind him the Hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2011. The Respondent stated he would "try to attend." The Board members were polled and confirmed they were familiar with the Hearing procedures. Rob Ganguli requested to enter the information packet previously distributed to the Board members into evidence. Thomas Lykos moved to approve the request. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Mr. Ganguli referred to Board tp the Evidence Packet's Table of Contents: • Item E -10: an Agreement between the City of Marco Island Building Department and William E. Luker, III • Items E -11 through E -15 � email correspondence between the three entities monitoring the activity taking place • A letter from Robert H. Mahar, Building Official for the City of Marco Island, dated September 7, 2011 (last page of the packet) Richard Joslin moved to approve entering the letter from Robert H. Mahar as County's Exhibit "A "in Case #2011 -09. .Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Rob Ganguli presented the Cou tyIs case: • The case came before thetard at the July 20, 2011 Hearing at which time the Respondent requested a Continuance which was granted • The Respondent contacted the Contractors' Licensing Office on the day before the Hearing claiming he had not received adequate notification of the Notice to Appear • Mr. Luker is the Qualifie� for Wel -Built Contractors, Inc. and is a State - certified General Contrac of, License #CGC 1516708 • The Respondent was sch �duled to appear before the Board on September 21, 2011 for f4ilure to obtain Building Permits for work that was completed and resulted in a willful Building Code violation. Mr. Ganguli presented the following Summary: "On February 18th, 2011, 1 received a complaint from the City of Marco 15 161 2 September 21, 20 1 P 9 Island Building Department regarding multiple building permits applied for on December 1, 2010 by Wel -Built Contractors, qualified by William Luker, (License #CGC 1516708). The permits were for the replacement of windows in individual units at the Se breeze South apartment complex at 190 North Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida. Contractors' Licensing was made aware of two separate occasions when the Building Department notified Mr. Luker that his permits were ready for issuance, but despite this, they were never picked up, and the Deputy Building Official of Marco Island observed that the window replacements had been completed. A meeting was held with Bob Mahar, City of Marco Island Building Official, who advised that he would not take punitive action against Wel -Built Contractors if the permits wore closed out and the accumulated fees collected. I contacted Mr. Luker who 1 tended a second meeting with the Marco Island Building Official on March 7, 2011. Mr. Luker was advised of a Building Code violation for working . thout permits and given the option of addressing this matter by obtaining his permits, required inspections, C /Os, and making installment payments in the amount of $1000.00 per month until the outstanding balance totaling $6,708.50 was paid. The City of Marco Island Building Department outlined the terms and time lines for the installment payment which Mr. Luker agreed to as an alternative solution. Despite this agreement, Mr. Luker did not comply with these terms. Having been afforded an opportunity to comply, Mr. Luker's inability or unwillingness to resolve his outstanding permitting issues with the City of Marco Island Building Department denotes a violation of Florida Building Code, Section 105.1 pertaining to permits, and, thcrcforc, is a subsequcnt violation of Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46, Section 4.2.2., which states: "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County." Mr. Ganguli referenced the letter from Robert Mahar, admitted as County's Exhibit "A." Patrick White noted it was a strongly worded letter from the City of Marco Island's Building Official and cited the following statement: "This is a willful Building Cade violation of the highest magnitude and I strongly recommend revocation of his [Mr. Luker's] permitting privileges within Collier County. " Michael Ossorio requested that the contents of the letter were read into the record for the benefit of the public. Rob Ganguli read the following: 16 161 2 1 WV September 21, 2011 cty of Marc 0 Island September 7, 2011 Contractor Licensing Board Members: Mr. William Edward Luker, III or Wel- Built Contractors, Inc, have made no attempt to resolve or satisfy the original complaint. There are still twenty one (21) permit applications waiting to be processed in our files at the City of Marco Isl d. The work associated with these permit applications has been completed without the permits being issued or paid for. This is in violation of Section 105.1 Florida Building Code - Building (2007 Edition). Mr. Luker has been given many opportunities to resolve these Code viol tions. His only actions, in this matter, have been to bide more time, not to resolve the issues. This is a willful Building Code violation of the highest magnitude and I strongly recommend revocation of his permitting privileges within Collier County. The building community cannot afford to have deceptive contractors or licensed l contractors defrauding the public. I have every intention of filing a formal complaint ' with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation at the conclusion of this Hearing. A stern ruling by this Board will speak volumes as to how seriously the citizens of Collier County consider deception and fraudulent activities being conveyed by State - certified contractors. f Robert H. Mahar Building Official - BU1369 Marco Island, Florida State of Florida, County of Collier Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of September, 2011, by Robert Mahar, the Affiant, who is personally known to me. /j/ Betty L. Larson Notary Public — State of Florida =mission mission Number: DD 710624 (Notary Seal) expires: December 29, 2011 17 161 2 1 A9 September 21, 2011 Thomas Lykos asked if the work had been inspected. Rob Ganguli stated the work may not have been inspected since the permits were not issued. I Michael Ossorio noted Inspectdrs will not perform inspections — it is not within their purview to perform site inspections without a Building Permit. They may have been reviewed by the Dep t Building Inspector but not formally inspected. Mr. Lykos stressed it is importzt that the work is inspected to verify that it was done properly and to Code. Patrick White concurred and n ted the homeowners' insurance policies may not be eligible for a rate reduction ol provide coverage — there is a potential for added harm to the consumers. Rob Ganguli presented the County's Closing Statement. • Despite numerous chances to rectify the permitting issues with the City of Marco Island, Mr. Luker has failed to do so. • The Continuance granted) by the Contractors' Licensing Board at the July 20th Hearing was another opportunity to appear but he not complied. • Numerous attempts weremade to monitor Mr. Luker's progress but the attempts to contact him Were unsuccessful. • Mr. Luker again waited until the day before the scheduled Hearing to contact the Contractors' Licensing Office, again claiming he had not received adequate notification of the Hearing. Lee Horn moved to approve clo ing the Public Hearing. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Attorney Neale stated: • The Board is to ascertain 'in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the Respondent. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any evidence but shall not be sufficient, by itself, to support a Finding in this or any other case unless admissible or objection in Civil actions in Court. • The Standard of Proof in )actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the only ones to which the Respondent has had; opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found) guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Beard, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and Rules. 18 161 2 A9 September 21, 2011 • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. Lee Horn moved as follows: County `In Case #2011 -09, Collier Board of Commissioners versus William Edward Luker, III, d1h1a Wel Built Contractors, Inc., (License #CGC1516708) (C llier Certificate Number 33893), the Respondent is found guilty Of Count I, Section 4.2.2, of the Administrative Complaint, `Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City or Collier County." Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. Attorney Neale stated the Board is limited in the number of sanctions that can be imposed since the Respondent is a State - certified General Contractor. • The Board may deny the,issuance of Building Permits for Collier County or the City, or require th issuance of Permits with certain conditions • Notice shall be given to e Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation within fifteen (15) days after the Board has decided to deny /restrict tie issuance of permits. The Board is to consider the following factors before imposing sanctions: • the gravity of the violati n, • the impact of the violation, • any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, • any previous violations c nunitted, ence • any other evid preseoted at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the Sanctions as appropriate With respect to Sanctions, Patrick White moved to as follows: • To deny all future Building Permit pulling privileges in Collier County for the Respondent, • Request that Staff provi a the appropriate notice to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation within the stated time frame, • Request that Staff send cover letter and a copy of the Order issued by the Board to each individual listed in Exhibits E18 through 37 alerting the homeowners to obtain Permits and required inspections of the work that was performed Michael Ossorio stated the Building Department has notified the individual owners. Bob Mahar and his Staff will also notify them of the Findings of Fact. 19 161 2 A9 September 21, 2011 Mr. Ossorio noted the State accepts recommendations from local regulatory Boards and the CL Board could recommend assessing an additional fine as part of the Motion. He suggested that r. White amend his motion concerning denial of permit pulling privileges to include the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and unincorporated Collier County. Mr. White clarified his Motion eferred to future permits — not the open permits that currently exist. Mr. Luker r mains responsible for fulfilling the work. Mr. Lykos stated that was a pro )lem. There was a discussion concerning how to handle the issue of open permits and protect the consumers who contracted with the Respondent to perform work. It was noted the Permits have ben issued in the Respondent's name, but until they were physically picked up and paid for, they are not considered to be "pulled." Mr. White stated the intent of s Motion was to revoke the Respondent's permit pulling privileges in all of unincorporated Collier County, Marco Island, and the City of Naples. The homeowners are to be notified by the County that the permits have not been pulled and inspections have not been done. Thomas Lykos recommended notifying the State that the CL Board supported revocation of the Respondent's license, assessing the maximum fine allowed, and restitution to be made to the homeowners for their expenses to obtain permits and inspections. Patrick White accepted Mr. Lyc s ' suggestions and amended his initial Motion to incorporate the recommendations. Patrick White restated his Motion as follows: • Approve denying all per it pulling privileges in Collier County, (incorporated and unincorporated), they City of Naples, and Marko Island, • Notify the unit owners is ntified in County's Exhibits El8 -E37 of the Board's Order, • Recommend to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Construction Industry Licensing Board) to deny all permit pulling privileges, revoke the Respondent's license, impose fines in the maximum amount allowed, and provide for restitution to be made to the identified unit owners for their expenses. Second by Thomas Lykos. Michael Ossorio stated notifyin� the State was the first step in the process in a lengthy process. He knew the City of Marco Island has already been in contact with the homeowners. Chairman Lantz called for a vote on the Motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 20 161 2 A9 September 21, 2011 Findings of Fact: 1. William Edward Luker, III, d/b /a Wel Built Contractors, Inc., is the holder of record of State License #CGC1516708 and Collier Certificate Number 33893. 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, was the Complainant in this matt r. 3. The Board has jurisdicti n of the person of the Respondent. • William Edward uker, III, was not present during the Public Hearing and was not represented by Counsel. 4. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered. 5. The Respondent acted in la manor that was in violation of Collier County's Ordinances and was the �{ne who committed the act. 6. The allegations of the facts, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint for Case #2011 -09 as to Count I, Section 4.2.2 — "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County," were found to be support d by the evidence presented at the Hearing. Conclusions of Law: The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint for Case Number 2011 -09 as to Count I were approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: • The Respondent viol ted Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, Section 4. .2 - "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County" 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. Order of the Board: Based upon the foregoing Fi dings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, by a vote of eight (8) in favor and zero (0) opposed, a majority vote of the Contractors' Licensing Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, as ordered by a vote of eight (8) in favor and zero (0) opposed, a majority vote of the Contractors" Licensing Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Orders are hereby imposed upon the holder of Contractor Certificate of Competency, State License #CGC 1516708, Collier County Certificate #33893: a. Revoke all permit pulling privileges throughout Collier County (incorporated and unincorporated), the City of Naples, and Marco Island; 21 161 2 A9 � September 21, 2011 b. Request that Staff fo� the City of Marco Island send notices to the homeowners affecte by the case regarding the Board's Findings and their options concerIng future actions, c. Recommend to the Sate of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to revoke the Respondent's license; impose fines in the maximum amount allowable; make provisions for restitution to be made to the identified unit owners. Richard Joslin moved to approve closing Case #2011 -09. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, l8 -0. IX. REPORTS: Jamie French stated: • Outlined the new procedur s instituted by the Building Department to streamline the time Contractors spend in line waiting to obtain Permits and processing license renewal . • Wait times at the Business Center's counter have been significantly reduced. • He presented a status report on the progress concerning the installation of the new computer program, "City View." He noted during the transition period the existing progr , "C/D- Plus" remains active and operational. • Approximately every six eeks to two months, the County holds an Industry forum/meeting be ween Senior Management, members of the CBIA, members of DSAC, members of the local building industry, representative of local permitting companies, and representatives of the Planning Commission. • The changes instituted ma require augmenting or updated the current Contractors' Licensing Ordinance. • He will report back within the next three months. • When questioned about possible fee increases, Mr. French stated the last fee increase was three years ago. • A larger contribution from the General Fund has been applied to the Contractors' Licensing OTice, i.e., salaries for Mr. Ossorio and one employee are paid by the General Fund. • Collier County Business Model: • The Building Department is set up like a vertical business. • The Building Department receives little to no contribution from the General Fund to offset the cost of business. • Permit fees have been reduced. • Reporting capabilities have, been enhanced by the installation of the "CityView" model and theme has been an increase in Industry activity. Plan reviews have increased sin a March — the average is approximately 2,200 permit applications per moth. • Re: Inspections — the average is approximately 2, 500 per month. o August average — approximately 4,000 inspections 22 161 2 September 21, 2011 • The new Permit times deadlines (5 day turnaround for single trades /10 days for 2 trades /15 days for multiple trades) instituted approximately six months ago have been met and are continuing to be met • There is no additional char for the new FEMA Review • If an inspection is a "next day," an Inspector will call ahead to verify that the Contractor is ready. "Time Certain" inspections can also be scheduled. • A part-time inspector (contract employee) may be hired on an " "as- needed basis, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners Terry Jerulle concurred there has been a big improvement in service and approved publishing the Inspector's cell phone n�mbers online. Mr. French provided a brief update concerning Code Enforcement's Inspectors and the Licensing Compliance Officers — hey may overlap, their responsibilities — in response to a question from the Board. �A technical Building Code issue is referred to the Building Official (Gary Harrison). It was noted that Mr. Harrison may elect to retire in December. • Patrick White stated he will not be able to attend the October meeting. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesd y, October 19, 2011 Board of County Commissioners' C ambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3%101 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 12:10 PM. i COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD, Kyle The Minutes were approved by the Board/Cha�rman on 1l/74" , 2011, "as submitted" ! OR "as amended" U. In 1 � ("t '� S I a i 161 Aught 3, 2011 A 10 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING p II August 3, 2011 ` BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain Clay Brooker r Marco Espinar He Blair Foley WOO George Hermanson Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Excused: James Boughton Reagan Henry David Hurst Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Absent: Dalas Disney ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Misc. Cones: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Dee: %.2„k\,:,\ � � Tom Wides, Operations Director — Public Utilities Joe Bellone, Manager — Billing & Customer Service, Public Utilities hem t 11..E -2-VA p c'-pies to: t s A10 August 3, 2011 , I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eight members were present. II. Approval of Agenda: Change: • Item `B" — originally under New Business — was moved to "A" under Old Business. • The topic is Fire Line Meters, not "existing meters" Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Ray Allain. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. III. Approval of Minutes — July 6, 2011 Meeting: Change: • Page Four — first paragraph: Remove the words "no" and "not" from the last sentence as follows: "If there is a possibility of mixing, i.e., installing a foam fire protection system on a non - potable water line, an RPZ will be required." Ray Allain moved to approve the Minutes for the July 6, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. (Note: Marco Espinar did not vote because he did not attend the July meeting.) IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities • Changes to the Standards Manual were forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, approved, and became effective on August 1, 2011. (3:05 PM— Clay Brooker arrived.) B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report for June was submitted. o Reviews conducted: 783 (less than in May — 794) • Move to the new building has been completed A question was asked if any "trending" or statistical analysis was used concerning review of training procedures for inspectors. Ed Riley replied the statistical analysis referred to problems with plan review training. If a field inspector or a Fire Marshall detected a problem, he would request that a particular class is conducted on a specific item or topic. 16 1 2f A 10 August 3, 2011 Additionally: • Training classes will be expanded because the new building contains a dedicated training facility. For example, there is a "wet room" which will enable sprinkler heads to be set off, showing various spray patterns. • It can be set up to show obstruction rules — how things should be arranged in the field. • Functional fire alarm equipment will be installed in the room for training. • Other types of equipment will be installed such as a Mass Notification System which is new in the Code. It has been used primarily by the military but will be used in civilian applications. • In the other room, cut -away versions of hoods will be installed. • The room will be set up to handle different types of training on short notice. • Regarding "trending," there does not appear to be any issues evolving from the field. Q. The training is for building department fire inspectors — the ones who inspect new construction for permits and occupancy? A. Any of the fire inspectors are able to come to any of the training classes that are provided. Q. Are you responsible for training or do you assist in training? A. It's a combination. Part of the Inter -Local Agreement requires that we provide training. They have to request what kind of training they want. We are also trying to put training programs together for the Building Industry as well for contractors, architects, etc. We have conducted several of those in the past six months but not within in the building — we have gone to the architects' group meeting or to the roofing contractors. In the meeting, we answer their questions — it is not really a class. Those are the types of things will generate classes to better define or address questions and concerns. (3:10 PM— George Hermanson arrived.) Q. I don't understand the exact hierarchy. I know the Inspectors work for the Fire Marshalls in their respective Districts. But if the Inter -Local dictates that you control the training and administration of those — if there is an issue or a trend or a problem, where does somebody go? A. The Inter -Local does not dictate — they answer to me or I control. We are to provide training when requested. We do not require attendance — I don't have that authority. What we have is the responsibility to provide training if training is requested. Q. Is there anyway that we can obtain any data on what kinds of issues — specifically I am referring to an article I read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago regarding responses by the Fire Department. I was surprised by the low percentage of fires that were responded to — approximately 96% was non -fire related. A. That information is available from the independent Districts. 1 16 1 2f A 10 August 3, 2011 Additionally: • Training classes will be expanded because the new building contains a dedicated training facility. For example, there is a "wet room" which will enable sprinkler heads to be set off, showing various spray patterns. • It can be set up to show obstruction rules — how things should be arranged in the field. • Functional fire alarm equipment will be installed in the room for training. • Other types of equipment will be installed such as a Mass Notification System which is new in the Code. It has been used primarily by the military but will be used in civilian applications. • In the other room, cut -away versions of hoods will be installed. • The room will be set up to handle different types of training on short notice. • Regarding "trending," there does not appear to be any issues evolving from the field. Q. The training is for building department fire inspectors — the ones who inspect new construction for permits and occupancy? A. Any of the fire inspectors are able to come to any of the training classes that are provided. Q. Are you responsible for training or do you assist in training? A. It's a combination. Part of the Inter -Local Agreement requires that we provide training. They have to request what kind of training they want. We are also trying to put training programs together for the Building Industry as well for contractors, architects, etc. We have conducted several of those in the past six months but not within in the building — we have gone to the architects' group meeting or to the roofing contractors. In the meeting, we answer their questions — it is not really a class. Those are the types of things will generate classes to better define or address questions and concerns. (3:10 PM— George Hermanson arrived.) Q. I don't understand the exact hierarchy. I know the Inspectors work for the Fire Marshalls in their respective Districts. But if the Inter -Local dictates that you control the training and administration of those — if there is an issue or a trend or a problem, where does somebody go? A. The Inter -Local does not dictate — they answer to me or I control. We are to provide training when requested. We do not require attendance — I don't have that authority. What we have is the responsibility to provide training if training is requested. Q. Is there anyway that we can obtain any data on what kinds of issues — specifically I am referring to an article I read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago regarding responses by the Fire Department. I was surprised by the low percentage of fires that were responded to — approximately 96% was non -fire related. A. That information is available from the independent Districts. 161 2 A 1,,10 August 3, 2011 Q. I think it's critical to you as well because if you are doing fire review, fire Inspections, training for fire inspections, and training Fire Inspectors for occupancy inspections — those responses are pretty relevant to what is a trend — of what you are looking at — right? I mean — if there's one thing that is causing all the fires, I would think that's important to know what that is. A. That would be something that the Fire Investigators would bring back to the Fire Inspectors and request particular data or information. We have not seen any particular trending of types of fires. They have been all over the place — mostly accidental in nature. Q. My specific question is if you are responsible for training at their request, how do you know how to prepare if you don't obtain that information? A. It's based on — as I said before — what they request for training. If they have a particular issue or item they want specific training on, we provide that. We don't train firefighters. I train the Inspectors. Q. I am talking about the cause of the fires. If you are going to focus on a particular area of inspection or a particular area of review, it seems to me to be only prudent that you identify areas that have the predominant problems. There is no point in over reviewing something that has never presented a problem in the history — A. I don't understand - -- Q. is what I'm saying. A. I don't understand that — "over review" something that is not causing a problem today. We review what the Code requires as far as on Plan Reviews. It's irrelevant to me what types of fires are occurring. The Code is set as to what we need to have in place today. What starts the fire is generally not an inanimate object. In the building that we have control of on the Fire side, some electrical fires are what you have. I have no control over an electrical fire. That's the Building Code and the Building Department's responsibility on the electrical portion. We look at separation walls, construction — they don't start fires — they help to control a fire or stop the advance of that fire. Q. So your Inspectors wouldn't be dealing with issues of an electrical nature and structural nature unless it pertains to a fire separation or containment? A. Most of the time. If they see something that they are knowledgeable about, they will notify the Building Department to go out and look at. They cannot enforce the Building Code. They can only enforce the Fire Code. If it's an item or an issue that is under Gary (Harrison)'s purview, they forward that information to the Building Department or through Code Enforcement for someone else to go out and review it to see if it is an issue, and to enforce it. Q. It wouldn't be proper for one of them to come in and tell somebody that they were going to reject an Occupancy Permit because of something that it wasn't in their purview to inspect or comment on? They would have to forward that to someone else? A. That is correct. 4 rip 1b1 2 A 10 August 3, 2011 C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering • Oilwell Road Update: traffic was switched to the north side that has been completed. Construction has begun on the south side of the roadway. o The project is 60% completed. It is on time and within budget. • The contract for the Davis /Collier Project has been signed. The Notice to Proceed will be issued after a Dewatering Permit is obtained to build the retention ponds. o The project should begin by the end of September or early October. • There is a Design/Build contract for the two bridges and to construct two lanes on Golden Gate Blvd. D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director - Operations & Regulatory Management • New permit requests for July: • Single - family homes - 92 • Multi- family - 5 o Commercial - 3 o Other (single trade /multi - trade/build -outs) - approximately 1,700 • Administrative change has been initiated • Designated two Permitting Techs to assist Permit Runners or Contractors with 5+ permit applications - must call in advance for an appointment • During the last week of June, the average wait time was 17 minutes • RFP - ( "Request for Proposal ") for the Temporary (contract) Inspector position was posted but only one vendor submitted a bid • Contact is $100,000 • Will be brought to the BCC for approval • CityView: there are 91 issues to be tested and corrected • PORTAL: anticipated to "go live" on the Building Department side by the end of August • Trade Permits are going through CityView while new home /construction permits are still going through CD -Plus VI. Old Business: (per amended Agenda) A. Rate Study on Fire Line Meters - Tom Wides, Operations Director - Public Utilities and Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities Chairman Varian asked Nathan Beals to update the Committee on the topic for discussion. Nathan Beals stated he and Tom Wides were available to answer questions on the fire line metering requirements and billing requirements. David Dunnavant stated the question is - if fire meter requirements are being eliminated from fire lines, why is Utilities continuing to bill customers who incurred the expense of installing meters in the past? !.. 161 2 A io J August 3, 2011 , Tom Wides stated the real topic revolves around two previously- discussed items: • #1 —Utilities has lost water— it is disappearing from the system— it was documented o Alternatives were offered to the Subcommittee but none has been agreed upon • #2 — If the water being lost is unidentified, someone else is paying for it rather than the actual user o That is, the residential customers and the building community are paying for the lost water • If water is being lost in the system and Utilities doesn't attempt to find the source of the leak(s), it becomes a conservation issue He continued there are two sources of raw water: from the Tamiami Aquifer which requires much less treatment, and from the Hawthorne and lower aquifers which require more intensive, costly treatment. He stated the more water that is not tracked, the more users will pay for it. Chairman Varian: The Ordinance was recently changed/adjusted and does not require meters on any projects going forward. Nathan Beals: Line size meters are not required. It does require a leak detector meter on the backflow preventer. It does register flow. Chairman Varian: Those meters that are on — if they go over an excess amount, Utilities charges the customer for that usage. How does that work — charge -wise? Nathan Beals: The meters only register the first three gallons of usage — anything higher than three gallons per minute would not register on the by -pass meter. It would go straight through the assembly itself. That's the difference between the line -size and the detector meter. Chairman Varian: If Utilities saw something on that meter, the customer would be charged? Nathan Beals: On the detection meter — yes. David Dunnavant: If it stops at a certain rate, how do you know what to charge? Nathan Beals: We would charge based on..... Joe Bellone, Utility Billing & Customer Service Manager, Public Utilities: Utilities would charge only what the meter read. If it registered 1,000 gallons, the customer would be charged for the 1,000 gallons without an availability fee. If it registered more than 5,000 gallons, the customer would be charged the full availability fee plus the consumption. Chairman Varian: The little by -pass meters ... how do they register....? Nathan Beals: They register three gallons per minute. If there is a leak or someone using 3.5 gallons per minute, you can surpass 5,000 gallons in a day and one -half. Chairman Varian: You wouldn't know ... Nathan Beals: We wouldn't know — no. If it's above 3 gallons per minute, we would not know. Chairman Varian: How could you charge a customer if you wouldn't know after 3 gallons per minute? If a customer happens to use 5,000 gallons but the system can only register 3 gallons per minutes, how do you figure that out? t August 3, 2011 Joe Bellone: If the reading on the small register was 2 this month and next month it's 7, then we know 5,000 gallons has gone through it. If the register today was 2 and next month it's 4, but because more water went through the assembly than through the detector, there would be no charge. I can only charge for what I see or read on the meter. Chairman Varian: Is that different than a line -size meter — charge -wise? Joe Bellone: A line -size meter would — all the flow would go through the line -size meter and all the flow would then be metered and accounted for. Chairman Varian: Somebody who put a meter on because of the Ordinance and then the neighbor who didn't - -- could get nailed for a higher percentage of dollars than the new guy. Joe Bellone: If they are running more than 5,000 gallons every month, it is probably more than just fire service. Chairman Varian: Agreed. David — am I on the right track? David Dunnavant: This is so disappointingly disingenuous, I can hardly stand it. The fact that this isn't a water loss issue — the water loss on the fire meters never was the issue. You always had rates that covered your water loss which is below the standard for the Industry. You haven't shown at all how much of the water recaptured in fire line meters relates to the perceived water loss. The fact is you're billing a monthly service rate to people who have 8 or 10 -inch meters — which you no longer are going to charge — and I think it is ludicrous to continue charging these people when it is no longer a requirement — a monthly service. If they go over 5,000 gallons —just like a by -pass meter, that's a whole other issue — if you're going to go to the trouble to check each of those. But to leave them on a continuous billing cycle when it is no longer a requirement is just amazingly unfair to those people and not right. Because 90% of your existing customer base, and now your future customer base, won't have a fire line meter. I just can't believe that you can sit there and defend the practice. Tom Wides: The water loss has averaged over the last couple of years around 5 %. The national average is around 15 %. Go back a couple more years before we started focusing on line loss and other issues, we were up closer to 12 %. We have done a number of things to improve our processes, and to minimize water loss. He continued: When we talk about a 15% national average, you have systems that are 100 years old with old pipes, old treatment systems, etc. For a system that's as relatively young as ours — should it be 5% or should it be I%? I think the important thing is to identify where the water is going. If it's 10% and we know where it's going and there's a good reason — flushing, for example — at least we can measure it, but we're not going to bill it to the customer. He stated: We recently looked at a couple of examples. Look at the School Board — month after month on their fire line, they are running 19 to 20 to 25,000 gallons of water usage, and they were being charged for it. Did they do anything about it? Yes, they did. On 111 h Avenue, they found the source causing the water loss — they remediated it — and now their bills are down to around zero. They did something — unfortunately, as a financial incentive, but they did something. They went back and looked at it and tried to work it. Dave, you have talked about the Mercato repeatedly. The Mercato has water that is running somewhere in that system that is not going into the fire system, and they are looking at it. They want to get rid of that bill — and they can. We have one situation where they, in fact, have minimized the bill because they realize there is an incentive to 161 2i. ► 10 August 3,F2011 do it. And you have another group in the Mercato that is, in fact, doing similar — as I understand it. So, is there an incentive here — yes. There is something that you can do about it. And what should it be — should it be 5% -- should it be zero — I think we can do things ... we can help ourselves to reduce the use. Chairman Varian: If they have a meter but don't have any water use, are they charged? Joe Bellone: No. David Dunnavant: That means you're changing something in your Billing Statute because, currently, they do have a monthly service charge. What Nathan indicated last week — or last month — was the only thing being changed was the Utilities Standards Manual and no changes were occurring in billing. Chairman Varian: I don't think any of use would question a charge for water usage. I think the question is that if a meter is in place and there is a monthly service fee for that meter without water usage — that's the bigger problem. That's the question that DSAC is bringing up. The customers who have meters are being charged $100 to $300 a month with no water usage while the neighbor isn't charged. That's the issue to be clarified. Tom Wides: Please listen closely to Joe's answer as he reads from the Ordinance. Joe Bellone: Here is the clause from the Ordinance that describes the situation: "On fire service meter connections that have consumption in excess of 5, 000 gallons in any one billing period are deemed to have provided domestic or other water usage and shall be billed according to regular water monthly availability and usage charges. " He continued: If you don't reach that regular consumption, there are no charges. Tom Wides: To answer David's question, using the School Board as an example, once they fixed the problem — the last two billing periods have been zero — no availability and no user. They fixed the problem. We recognize some testing has to be done on the fire systems. Maybe the 5,000 gallons a month is not the right number — we acknowledge that, but we need your help to — we've talked about this before — what is the appropriate number. Chairman Varian: Is there something that can be set up where, if we are doing multiple build -outs where we have to drain a system on a regular basis, is there a way that we could work with Utilities — maybe 10,000 gallons is too high — but is there an exemption that could be applied due to the work being done? It is something to consider. If we have to drain a system specifically for a remodel or expansion, if Utilities knows about it — the owner may not "get nailed" but you will charge for the usage. Tom Wides: We will consider it. What I don't want to get into is adding 10 people to Utility Billing. If you have something that is a pretty good size and we can see a way clear and we can write something into the Ordinance, I don't have a problem with that. But it has to be reasonable. If you're coming at me for a couple thousand gallons every month, I'm going to have a problem with that. Mr. Wides noted that a single family residence uses approximately 6,000 gallons per month. David Dunnavant: When you have to size a meter, you size it for 10,000 gallons even if you only use 6. Tom Wides: It seems to work because we have found incidents where — it may not be intentional, but we've found situations where people have said, "It's a fire line and I A 0 August 3, 2011 don't have to pay for it, so I'm going to tap into it." To ask the Water Department to go find them is not fair either. David Dunnavant: My understanding is that there was a service charge — even if it was a monthly as opposed to the annual rate which — the annual kicks in. If you run over 5,000 gallons in a month, you get charged the annual rate for a meter. Joe Bellone: There is a monthly rate. For a 10 -inch meter, it's $1,100.00. If you go over 5,000 gallons, you are charged $1,100 in availability charges. That's the availability charge assigned to that fire line size. David Dunnavant: And the flaw that has occurred in at least two instances that I know of — once you hit that threshold, Billing has not corrected it — and even when people don't use 5,000 the next month, they were still charged the $1,100. 1 know we have doubled back and had a couple of those corrected, but I don't know that you have looked at all of them. He continued: You are telling me that if Fire Services uses under 5,000 gallons, they have no monthly service fee charged. Joe Bellone: That's correct. David Dunnavant: And it's been that way? Joe Bellone: This Ordinance has been in effect for three years. Nathan Beals: We had talked in the Subcommittee about an option to what is currently in the billing — we talked about possibly going to a 1/12 1h flat monthly fee — that was never implemented. While it was something we talked about, we received poor feedback on it — so we left it off the table and haven't talked about it since. Throughout this entire process, if you use less than 5,000 gallons — there is no charge for availability. Chairman Varian: Is a Rate Study going to be conducted next year? Tom Wides- We are likely to start it at the end of the calendar year — or Fiscal Year 2012 and it will go into Fiscal Year 2013 — it will begin in October or so of next year. Chairman Varian: That's a year out. Maybe we can talk between now and then about some of these build -outs to make sure that the customer isn't unfairly charged for something that he has to do. Tom Wides: That's reasonable. David Dunnavant: What you have right now, which still isn't quite fair to the people who have the expense of a fire meter — unlike their neighbor who doesn't have a fire meter — who will be charged for whatever shows up on the by -pass, they are going to get not only the usage charge plus the $1,100 still, even though future commercial projects will not require a fire meter. If you fell into that unfortunate time period when a meter was required, not only did you have to pay for it but you have an on -going penal effect of use of fire water for any reason. Tom Wides: We can circle back around now and talk about whether we should have fire meters on every fire line. That would be fair because then you would be measured on what you are using and if you're using far beyond what you need .... David Dunnavant: It's not practical. We went through it for months because the bulk of your system was built without fire meters — to do so now would create complete chaos in every sprinkler calculation that's been done in this County. To go under that premise is useless. The fact is, you have 30 years of systems out there without meters, so why keep referring back to that as fairness. Tom Wides: Because I gave you another alternative when you didn't like that one. And I gave you the availability charge which is used in other communities — the 1 /12tH David Dunnaant: Where they have fire meters. 161 Z 110 August 3,1 Tom Wides: Not always. David Dunnavant: Fire Services. Tom Wides: We have given you alternatives. I don't have other alternatives. I don't feel it's going to be fair to the residential folks and to the other folks who don't have fire services to pay for lost water because we don't have an incentive to find the lost water. David Dunnavant: You are not making any sense. People who have fire meters are the only ones in the system that you will understand if there is lost water and you're charging them not only for the usage — as you do everybody else — but now you are also charging them for a service charge for the meter for that month. Tom Wides: Yes. David Dunnavant: So you are penalizing the customer who has the meter. You can sit there and talk about the residential all you want — it can be leaking into a residential service and you won't know that. Tom Wides: But we do — they are metered. We do know. David Dunnavant: Unless you have replaced those meters, you are right. They could have leakage somewhere. Tom Wides: They absolutely do and we do replace the meters because we have a meter replacement program for the residential side. So, the whole thing goes back to who is being metered and who is not. If you are being metered, you are paying for what you are using. David Dunnavant: You started 30 years too late on this. The balance of your system doesn't have it — the bulk of your system doesn't have it. Tom Wides: So, therefore, are you saying that all the residential folks should pay for any lost water? That's what you are saying. David Dunnavant: They get their minor percentage like everybody else does — as it has been for years and years. Tom Wides: Sorry, we don't agree. Ray Allain: I wasn't really clear about what you were saying about renovations — are you suggesting that there should be a certain amount that a client doesn't have to pay — or just not pay the penalty? Chairman Varian: I guess I was looking at the penalty. I don't have a problem with the usage — if you happen to have a strip mall — you could use up that kind of water and somebody would be penalized for building out. Ray Allain: Right. Obviously, they shouldn't be penalized unless it's a Code requirement, but they still should have to pay for the water because .... Chairman Varian: I am not denying that. Ray Allain: There are two reasons for that: (1) based on what Tom has said, they need to know where it is going because that all goes into the equation, and (2) because the Ordinance states that those who use, pay — they should pay. That is kind of a slippery slope because — I drive past fire hydrants every day that are being flushed and there is no meter on that. We have no idea if that thing is open for 30 seconds or I -%2 hours. If you are going to go to the "nth degree," you have to justify why you are not looking at one area and why you are looking at another. Tom Wides: With transportation, with the Fire Districts, we are trying to measure the flushing they are doing. We are trying to do the flushing with our people where we can. Ray Allain: It may not be practical, I understand. 10 16 i e. . A10 August 3, 2011 Tom Wides: I'm saying we are trying to. Ray Allain: That's a completely undetermined volume of water that has gone out of the system. Tom Wides: What I am saying is that in some cases, we are measuring the flow and they are reporting to us what their estimate of the flow is. We are not ignoring the hydrants —we are trying to get to all. We are trying to measure all. It's not like it's a dormant program — it's an active program. We are trying to find where all of our water is going. Ray Allain: I also see David's point. Why can't these people just go to the regular detector? It still detects the flow, it still has a penalty, it still is an incentive for them to change — but the additional monthly charge just for the line -size meter doesn't seem to be commensurate. Reed Jarvi: Can the meters be removed? Nathan Beals: There were comments at the last meeting — you can submit a permit for an SDP Amendment — go through Fire Review and pull off the assembly as it is with the old line -size meter and the backflow and put in a Double Detector Check backflow, if it's U/L or FM rated and meets the requirements of the Fire Code and the Utilities Standards. That can be done. David Dunnavant: Ray, you alluded to one of the objections to the whole fire meter concept was — it's not about water loss, it's about revenue. The fact is we were going to spend lots of money in the Industry and generate a lot of revenue for potential metering of these fire meters. You haven't even quantified the loss through the fire lines — it's insignificant compared to the cost that the Industry was going to have to pay. He continued: Nathan, we have addressed 75% of the issue. Last month, you said you were going to go to the BCC with the Utilities Manual in July or September. Nathan Beals: It went in July. Those are the changes that went into effect on August 1St They are in effect now. The changes that we discussed at the last meeting. David Dunnavant: The fact is — it was an issue of — there were significantly more costs going into fire meters and the potential billing for fire meters than the actual loss. I don't think you have indicated at any point, how much of that 5% or between 5 and 12% was associated with the fire meters. And you still can't do it on the fire line services that have been in place for 30 years. Tom Wides: You have to look back, but I believe that one of the activities we did during the Subcommittee meeting was to give you an estimate of that loss. Nathan just told you that there are a couple ways to approach this. If you want to remove the meter and go to a Detector Check, you have a way to do that. It's still going to preserve what I'm trying to accomplish which is saying there is an economic incentive that if those Detector Checks continue to pass over the 5,000 gallons, we'll still have a way to give incentive to conserve water and to use is for fire service — not for other services. David Dunnavant. That incentive has always been there — to use the Detector Check. You've always had a leak on the fire lines. It is the line -size meter that is the issue and the punitive charges for it. The fact that people had to do it — it was a very punitive Ordinance as written and passed in 2008. You had no incentive to modify it which I think is — not really in light of what this discussion has been. So now, people have to pay money to come back through Horseshoe Drive to do another SDP and come through Fire Review to remove a meter that was, I think, ramrod down in a sly way, several years ago. Tom Wides: Those are your terms. I don't agree with the terms [terminology] you use. David Dunnavant: You can describe it in other terms, but that's the way it happened. I 161 20�--t, August 3, 2011 Tom Wides: If that's your view — that's fine. What I can tell you is that now we have given you three alternatives. Chairman Varian: Thank you, all, very much. VII. New Business: A. New Procedures: Short -Form Permit Application — Brian Jones, Tamiami Builders and "Mr. Metal" Steel Buildings, Steel repairs and construction Mr. Jones stated: • I have talked to many people who are affected by the new procedures for the short form. It was a shock to us. • We did not receive advance notification of the new forms and were not able to talk to our customers to advise them about the new forms, time durations, and costs. All have been changed. • I tried to research what this assembly had discussed about the new procedures. I was not able to find anything and was hoping you could enlighten me. • For the service industry that is doing A/C replacements or roof repairs, if your A/C goes out in Collier County and it's commercial, it can take a long time to replace the A/C under the current standards. It took me 3 -1/2 weeks to repair a man's roof. His ceiling tiles had collapsed and he had buckets, wet computers. This is the state of the way it is in Collier County right now. • Essentially, the short-form permit is extinct. There may be some exceptions that I am not aware of — I was trying to educate myself by calling other people in the Industry — they are behind me — they said somebody has to stand up and be our voice. • It is a mess -- it's catastrophic. • I was a two -term member on this Board. Part of it was oversight and to give suggestions -- and every once in a while, there is something glaring and you say, "That doesn't sound right." And that was what I felt my function was as a volunteer on a Committee to make sure nothing like that impacts the community. • Everybody who has an air - conditioner — everybody who has a roof — they are affected. And that is unconscionable. • The system we have doesn't work. It's broken. I am asking if you have the authority to rescind it and put back the Permit that wasn't broken in the first place. • There may have been exceptions and I understand with exceptions, that some things may slip through and there was a hazard. There was a checklist — an identified checklist which is no longer included. But that should have been hashed out before something was instituted — there could have been some forethought to it. You let customers — you implement — you go through a due process — that's the American way. • Our Industry is on life support. I'm reduced from a General Contractor — I'm now doing service work. I've got a 60 -year old company my great grandfather founded and hanging on by a thread — and this is about to put me under. I've got people who can work and I can't get them to the job because I can't get the Permit. 12 161 .2iw " A 10 August 3, 2011 (Note: There were some comments off - microphone that were not recorded.) Chairman Varian: I know that we were streamlining the application forms. As a remodeler, a lot of those forms didn't make a lot of sense to me. I know that Jamie and Claudine were streamlining the forms. I did hear from the HVAC point of view, again, if it's a commercial building — going through Fire, etc. — that there were some changes as far as what was required so that the Fire Department can do their review properly. Brian Jones: If your air - conditioner gets stolen or hit by lightening, how long do you want to wait? If you have a restaurant and you serve customers, how long do you want to wait? How long can you afford to wait? If you've got a bucket in your roof — Chairman Varian: I know that the forms were changed to make them easier. There were too many forms. The review process — Ed has certain requirements when it comes to commercial buildings and he always had. As far as air - conditioning — I believe that if a unit goes out over a weekend, it has to be replaced. The Contractor can come in on Monday and obtain an after - the -fact Permit. Robert Mulhere: It seems as if there are two issues. one is the typical Permit process that is a planned thing and the second is the emergency situation. Chairman Varian: I know, Ed, that there are certain trigger points where you need more information but if it's a change -out in an emergency — how does that work? Ed Riley: On an emergency on A/C change -outs, the Building Department does allow emergency change -outs to come in the next business day to start the Permit process. We're not telling people that they can't put an air - conditioner in — whether it's commercial or residential — because of a time frame to obtain a Permit. He continued: The issue here is what was called a "walk- through" Permit — where you could come in and sit/wait for your Permit. Those don't exist anymore because of the process of moving them back and forth between my office and this office. Before the paperwork could be handed to us when we were here — now, we come over three times a day to pick up plans and take them back. We have worked out with the Building Department that if plans get to us by 2:00 in the afternoon, it's back here by twelve o'clock the next day. It's the best we can do and that has to do not with our ability to get the Plan Reviews done, but the times when they want us to come back and forth to the Building Department as well as the length of time it takes to that they need — lead time — to get the final typing done. When we were here, we could get to it and get it out that day. But you still had to come in during the morning. If you came in at 2:00 in the afternoon, you didn't get a "walk through" because it still took time to get through the process before it got out. You would get it the next morning. We have tried to keep it as short as we possible could. The issue with the Roofing Permit that Mr. Jones had was because it was mis- marked when it came to us. We had it eight days before we knew because it wasn't marked as a "priority Permit." When Mr. Jones came over, we showed him the paperwork. It wasn't marked properly. It is to go through a certain process and is marked and we are notified — they are to be packaged differently and handed to us so we know we have to review those and get them back. But that one wasn't. It went through the normal review process as a "first review" — it took 8 to 10 days to review. The Tech who brings it in is to mark the different categories. But when you have so many different categories of permitting — something will be dropped. There are so many different types of permits to run through that those mistakes are made. 13 161 2 A 10 August 3, 2011 Robert Mulbere: If it was very important to get it through, wouldn't you make sure that the Tech marked it properly? I wouldn't leave until I knew. Brian Jones: The Building Director has indicated they are already starting to back up — that they are overburdened with work. This is adding more work — it's not helping the situation for him and if you ask the people who are being regulated — we did not need, nor did we ask for it. If you ask the consumer — absolutely did not need one or ask for it. Robert Mulhere: It seems to me that what we have is an underlying failure to communicate. Chairman Varian: What you must keep in mind is — we had been for so many years, doing projects that were $80 — 90 — $100,000 — $200,000 projects and they were weeks long. Now we are doing projects that are $5,000 or $2,000 which are much quicker. Ray Allain: I disagree. I don't think it is a communications problem. The problem is that some of these changes were instituted and made by Staff without understanding the consequences of the changes. It is frustrating to learn, Ed, that you are now working on a plan to deal with this change — because of your moving — a month after you moved. Why didn't we think about this ....? Ed Riley: We did. The Building Department was notified at least two months before we left that the "walk through" Permits would not and could not work. Ray Allain: I understand but why wasn't Industry informed? Ed Riley: You have to talk to the Building Department. I don't dictate to them how they do business. There are things that are continually changing that affect Fire and affect Industry that I can't do anything about. Ray Allain: But we're talking about Fire Review. Ed Riley: How can I — if they won't bring the plans over and take the plans back — I can't be two places at one time. Ray Allain: It just sounds as if it was a bad idea to move to a separate building because the Industry is suffering as a result of it. You said yourself that most of this is a logistics issue — getting the plans back and forth. Robert Mulhere: Maybe what we could do is ask Jamie French to expeditiously review this issue and report back to next month. I don't want to wait that long, but I don't know how DSAC can resolve this issue. Jamie French: From an operations point of view, Ed has logistically created an extra step for us. We understand that, we understand the reasons why, and he gave us plenty of notice. But that doesn't change Brian's situation — that he can't get an "over the counter" Permit any longer. That's what this comes down to. There have also been some additional requirements that Ed has identified. Ed is the Fire Official and under the National Fire Prevention Code, he is to review certain things. Ed and I have met and decided what makes the best sense — I can use operating dollars to hire a courier. The monies paid for Building Permits will fund that position. But it was something that was not built into our business model. But there's a cost associated with it. I am not going to come back and ask for more permitting fees but something has to give. Another example is CityView. Ed decided to use a system that would best serve Fire and their customers. In our business model, we had already budgeted that Fire would share in the cost of this system — CityView is now a system that we own. Please tell me if you want one less cashier so I can hire a courier and I will certainly consider it. I have limited Staff and — it's not an excuse — but there is only so much I can do. 14 161 a : A 1 0 August 3, 2011 Ed Riley: We make three trips a day from — back and forth. David Dunnavant: It sounds as if we had a same -day Permit and now, at worst, with the transferring — it's a 36 to 48 -hour permit and it should be a 24 -hour permit. If you can come in for an emergency situation the next business day, I don't quite understand why the 24 -hour permitting time is problematic. Clay Brooker: The 3 '/2 week delay was a mistake. It sounds as if what we are dealing with now is a change from an over - the - counter "walk through" permit to a 24 or 36- hour process. In the court system, everything is e -filed digitally. Jamie French: We are still working on -- we are working on CYRAC to review. Most municipalities have not gone over to an active review type of software where you can submit digitally. If we can transfer that image directly to Ed's office, we'll do it. He continued: We currently offer Single -Trade Permits that can be emailed or faxed as noted on the website. We can certainly send those to Fire. I don't know in Brian's case — the roof repair — I don't know the complexity of the plan, I don't know the reviews that were necessary for the project — but, generally, for Single -Trade Permits, we do still have a number of Contractors who will fax them in and then come in either the next morning, or within 24 hours and pick up the Permit. Within the next 3 to 4 months, you will be able to submit digitally and, other than your jobsite card, get your results digitally. But it doesn't fix the issue right now, and Brian has a very valid point. (4:20 PM— Marco Espinar left.) Reed Jarvi: Let me understand — in the previous Permitting process, you brought in the application, and left it and ... Brian Jones: No — you walked in and you walked out. Reed Jarvi: You walked in, handed it in, and waited while it went around and around and it came back out to you. That was approximately how long? Brian Jones: A couple of hours. Reed Jarvi: From a user's standpoint — you didn't see what was going around — you just filed it — you input it and got an output. Is there a reason why Brian couldn't get it from Fire by walking it across to the Building Department? By walking it back here to get it finalized? Since he was going to sit there for an hour or two anyway, walking it across the street was better than waiting a day. Brian Jones: The hope is to get a system that works for everybody —not for just some — it's to get something that works all the time for everybody. Reed Jarvi: The problem I am hearing is it's the relocation of Fire and their coming three times a day which maybe should be four or maybe two — it does not sound unreasonable to me. So, it's really the transfer of data between the Building Department and Fire and back again that has caused this delay. Rather than charge for a courier, just walk across the street — have it signed and give it back. Ed Riley: It would be handled the same way it was with the walk -ins before. The paperwork comes back to us — if we are in the middle of something, it has to wait until we have a break. For example, if we are doing a big Plan Review, it will wait until that is done. There is merit to bringing it over because the sooner we get it, the sooner we can get it out. David Dunnavant: I don't care what we have been using, I don't quite understand — if we are allowed to do emergency work and follow -up with a next day Permit — I can't 15 } 16 2b. August 3, 2011 understand why it is necessary to have a Permit in two hours when a Contractor can wait 24. Chairman Varian: In Brian's case with the roof, it was a little different. David Dunnavant: But if he were to proceed, he takes the risk of doing it improperly. But he can double -back if it's an emergency situation — he can temporarily — he can get the Permit the next day. I'm not understanding the uproar of the change. If anything, it may have been unrealistic to obtain a Permit in a couple of hours. If it's at the end of the day, it may take several hours or until the next day. I don't understand that 24 hours is unreasonable. Ed Riley: Remember, just a few months back last year, we were down to 450 to 550 Plan Reviews. We're up to almost 800 again. Our workload has increased without additional staff. Now you take a 50% increase in your workload that we already have and try to maintain some of those quick turnarounds which we were able to do when we were slow. We knew it would come back to haunt us someday but you provide the best service you can while you can. We're still willing to provide the best service we can but it may not be what people are used to. Chairman Varian: Brian, what would you consider — what would work for the service business in that respect. Brian Jones: The 24 -hour may be the best that we can come up with — I would love to believe that — but I don't know that I have faith that it will really happen to be honest with you. Chairman Varian: You work in other municipalities, too? Is it .... Brian Jones: You can still do the "walk -ins" in other places — it's simpler. Chairman Varian: The one thing we don't need is to hinder Industry. Brian Jones: I solicited some positive input —didn't just come to gripe. One suggestion was to create a checklist for the different types of permits — another was an affidavit for Contractors — let the Contractor put his integrity on the line and sign an affidavit that it has a fire wall or a chimney which would or would not be a concern. Then, yes, it goes into the review pile. If a Contractor signs an affidavit and there are no problems, then here is the Permit. Just detain the ones that need to be looked at and let the free -flow go through the system without a needless burden to anyone. Ray Allain: That seems to be really practical — especially when you consider that for all of these items, an inspection follows up. I'm at a loss to understand why there needs to be a review for an A/C change -out or a re -roof on an existing building when there aren't any structural changes or modifications. You still have the inspection process. Brian Jones: I understand there are certain exceptions that can be noted as exceptions. That's fine — let's deal with the exceptions. But don't penalize everybody and everything for the exceptions. Let's be wiser than that. David Dunnavant: Except for the Fire Code, if it's signed and sealed from a design engineer or a Metro Dade system stamp of approval, the reviewer is not doing anything anyway. He is checking to see if it is there. If it's a system that already has certification, we ought to be able to ... Ray Allain: There are two levels: there's Plan Review and then there's Fire Review. David Dunnavant: Fire is the only one that throws that out. Ray Allain: That's the issue now that Fire is reviewing all A/C change -outs and commercial roofs which is not something that has always been done. It has not always been reviewed the way it is now. That's changed. 16 August 3, 2011 Ed Riley: It's been an ongoing attempt to change for a number of years — especially the A/C change -out. They were being done over - the - counter without our knowledge or review. We knew A/C change -outs were happening because that's how the Industry operates. Air - conditioners break down. The problem is they weren't being routed to Fire. It's been a long time coming — trying to get those change -outs to be routed to us so that we could do the reviews that are required. The equipment that was being installed in commercial buildings and the ancillary equipment — whether it's wiring or piping — has to meet certain requirements. That's what we review for — to make sure that fire -rated materials are used. If the A/C change out is within a unit that serves only that unit and is less than 2,000 CFMs, we aren't reviewing it. We let that go to the Building Department. If it is an assembly that we need to review — if it's commercial — we're only making sure that what is installed as new equipment is being done correctly. Eventually the other equipment will be replaced and when it is, it will be required to be brought up to Code. We've tried to be as gentle as possible on the enforcement of what we're doing. Just because we're reviewing something, it doesn't mean that we send an inspector. We send an "FYI" to the District and they send an inspector if they want — but they are not being paid for it. He continued: It is the same thing for the roofing permits that we are getting. Most of the time, we are not sending an inspector — we're looking at them, we're taking information and we're telling them what they need. We haven't turned down a Permit yet. We're giving stipulations. Frankly, some of the roofing contractors that we have talked to didn't realize what was required. They are not architects and don't know the design of the system and the plywood under it. They do know their job — but it's a combination of what goes in that rated wall — they don't know if it is a rated wall or it isn't. They are learning. That's one of the things that we have talked about. We are going to a roofing industry meeting to try to give them this information and we're working now on developing a checklist for them to understand the kind of things that may be a trigger that they will have issued with. But again, we have been reviewing roofing for years. Not everything has come to us. I can't control what doesn't get sent back to us. Not everybody has a rated wall in a commercial building but these are the types of things that we look for. I understand what Brian is saying. In those cases, we don't have to send an inspector. Brian Jones: It's a waste of resources and everyone is dealing with limited budgets these days. Perhaps the A/C group and the roofing group can get together, but it would have been much better to have done this before the system went in — instead of an after the fact train wreck. Chairman Varian: Brian, if suggestions could be made ... Brian Jones: A list of exemptions — of things that don't need to be reviewed — that's a no- brainer. It needs a little bit of tweaking and some overhaul. That's what I'm voicing — to minimize some of the unnecessary review for everybody's benefit. At least this Committee is now aware that this was a primary issue within the service industry and for the consumer. We need to make it work for everybody. Jamie French: I will go back and revisit this with Ed and if we can determine a time line — there is going to be a period of time when we can't get through the system without sacrificing. I understand that the provisions of the Code are constantly being updated. If it's a matter of sending someone over — to add 5 trips between us — that's fine. We'll work with Ed and make a determination and come back to DSAC as long as Ed agrees. 161 . jA 10 August 3, 2011 David Dunnavant: I have not worked with the service aspect of it — but I just cannot fathom a Permit being issued in less than 24 -hours for a commercial project. Chairman Varian: Again, it was something that was there. But I understand Brian — if he had to wait 8 days for a roofing permit that should have taken 24 hours. David Dunnavant: 30 hours into it — he should have questioned. If I need a permit to do a job and it's been lost in the system, I'd go find it. It was in his best interest to watch how the Tech set it up, also, if it was that critical to him. Ray Allain: Wouldn't it be possible to allow a complete after - the -fact permit and the responsibility be on the Contractor to correct whatever deficiencies existed in a situation like that? Ed Riley: You can have a field inspection and everything is done after the fact. But 90% of the time, all you get is an argument about what Code requires and what it doesn't. Chairman Varian: The understanding here in Collier County is if an A/C has to be changed out, within 24 hours or the next business day, you should apply for a permit. Jamie French. Yes. Gary Harrison has been more than reasonable with the Industry. Ed Riley: It's a reality — those things happen. Chairman Varian: The other side to it — I don't think you're going to install a 10 -ton roof -top unit installed on a Friday night and those are the ones that have a lot of the issues Ed was talking about. The smaller units are not as complicated for Ed or anyone else to look at. Jamie French: Just so you realize, on the penalty phase, if they choose not to come in the next business day, the fee is two times the cost of the Permit. If Code Enforcement is involved and there's a finding — there could be a fine. If it's willful and it goes before the Contractors' Licensing Board, they can assess a fine as well. VIII. Committee Member Comments: • Blair Foley requested a follow -up on the Health Department issue concerning septic systems presented at the June meeting. o Judy Puig stated the Health Department was still waiting for a meeting with the State representative. It is scheduled for next month. Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) September 7, 2011 October 5, 2011 November 2, 2011 December 7, 2011 January 4, 2012 February 1, 2012 March 7, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:40 PM. 18 161 2 t August 3, 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were pproved by the Board/Committee on Q , 2011, "as submitted" A OR "as amended" U. K ��- 16 1 2 September 7, 2011 at MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 7, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Develop m n'f'�er riTN " "' Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Absent: Marco Espinar ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison (Absent) Magaly Bowman, Operations Coordinator — Staff Liaison Laurie Beard, Transportation Planning Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Darryl Richard, Golden Gate MSTU Project Manager Pamela Lulich, Golden Gate MSTU Landscape Operations Manager CHAIRMAN: William Varian Fiala Vice Chair: David Dunnavant (Excused) Hider Clay Brooker Henning Coyle Laura Spurgeon DeJohn 'Coietta c. Dalas Disney Blair Foley Reagan Henry George Hermanson David Hurst Misc. Comes: Reed Jarvi Date: Mario Valle item Excused: Ray Allain James Boughton Cepies to: Robert Mulhere Absent: Marco Espinar ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison (Absent) Magaly Bowman, Operations Coordinator — Staff Liaison Laurie Beard, Transportation Planning Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Darryl Richard, Golden Gate MSTU Project Manager Pamela Lulich, Golden Gate MSTU Landscape Operations Manager 161 2� September 7, 2011 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:08 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eight members were present. II. Approval of Agenda: Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Agenda as presented Second by Dalas Disney Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. III. Approval of Minutes — August 3, 2011 Meeting: Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes for the August 3, 2011 meeting as presented. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. (Note: Dalas Disney, Laura Spurgeon DeJohn, Reagan Henry, and David Hurst did not vote because they did not attend the August meeting.) IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities • No announcements • No questions B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report for July was submitted. _ o Reviews conducted: 807 (June total — 783) (3:12 PM— George Hermanson arrived.) C. Transportation Planning Division: • There was no representative from the division. D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • In August, there were approximately 1700 Permit applications • Inspection request deadline: must be called in by 5:00 PM for next -day service o Approximately 20 inspections per day • Introduced Todd Zeiller who was hired as Claudine Auclair's assistant and will be stationed at the front counter • CityView: Portal is running • CityView and CD -Plus will be running simultaneously • Permits sent to Ed Riley by Noon should be approved by the following day • Standard review levels (5110115 day turn - arounds) are being met consistently 2 16I 2 September 7, 2011 VII. New Business: (None) VI. Old Business: A. New Requirement: PUD Fractionalization Monitoring — Laurie Beard (A copy of the language in draft format was distributed to the Committee.) Points covered: • One entity (Managing Entity) will be responsible to monitor the PUD until close -out • All commitments must be satisfied prior to close -out • The Managing Entity may transfer its responsibilities to a Successor Entity • The agreement is to be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office • The County Attorney's Office will provide written approval of the transfer • If the Owner/Developer sells off tracts, the County will receive written notice • The new Owner must agree to comply to the commitments required by the PUD • The Managing Entity's responsibilities end when the PUD is closed out Laurie Beard stated while several of the larger developers have agreed to the draft, they have requested to submit revisions for consideration by Staff. The agreement will apply to new starts and will be vetted through the Land Development Code ( "LDC ") as an Amendment in the future. There was a discussion of the close -out process including the repetitive nature of the forms . A Committee Members objected to the payment of a fee to close out a PUD, especially if the development has been built -out for a number of years. It was noted that payment of fees are not required to close out an SDP. (A vote of approval was not requested.). B. Golden Gate MSTU Master Plan — Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager, and Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager (A copy of the Roadways Beautification Master Plan was distributed to the Committee Members.) Background: • The Golden Gate Municipal Services Taxing Unit ( "MSTU ") was created in 1983 and is a four square mile area • Boundaries: from Santa Barbara to SR 951, and from Green Blvd. to the Golden Gate Canal • Over 4.1 miles have been landscaped 2 1U 16 1 _�� September 7, 2011 • Current projects: Hunter Blvd. and Coronado Parkway will be landscaped and curbs will be installed Pamela Lulich noted the Master Plan outlines the existing conditions for every roadway and the standards for future development. She stated when the Hunter and Coronado projects are finished, the basic Master Plan will be completed. Darryl Richard noted the update to the Master Plan was necessary since much of the data was no longer current, including the cost factors for the current projects. He stated the future of the MSTU Committee was uncertain and outlined potential future projects along Santa Barbara. Green Boulevard may be affected by the Transportation Department's long -range plans, i.e., targeted construction. The second paragraph on Page 3 -28 was referenced. A question was asked if the Advisory Committee was requesting authority to review permits. Ms. Lulich stated if there was a question about a project involving the Right -of -Way, the Advisory Committee has review capabilities and will work with a developer. It was suggested that the language should be revised. When questioned about how public input is obtained, Ms. Lulich stated the Committee meetings, held at the Golden Gate Community Center, are open to the public and the meeting minutes are posted on the website. There was a discussion of whether the MSTU would lower taxes after all projects were completed and the Committee adopted a "maintenance only" mode. Pamela Lulich stated the MSTU is also responsible for internal mowing as well as building sidewalks. Mr. Richard noted a consultant was hired to provide estimates concerning the maintenance obligation which the Committee recognizes is on- going. He stated they apparently wish to assess the costs for Tropicana, Sunshine, Coronado, and Hunter. While there may be an opportunity to reduce the taxation, funds must be accumulated to maintain their obligation. He continued the goal of the presentation was to obtain formal approval from DSAC but acknowledge that revisions are still needed to the document. Dalas Disney stated he had not been given enough time to thoroughly review the document and could not vote on the issue. Darryl Richard stated the MSTU had been directed to obtain DSAC's approval and would return to a future meeting to present a revised document. The Members requested advance notice for review and noted a redline version will be sufficient Chairman Varian stated the topic will be added to the October 5th Agenda. (4: 00 PM— Mario Valle arrived.) 16-1 2 A September 7, 2011 VIII. Committee Member Comments: o Congratulations to Clay Brooker — proud father of baby daughter, Taylor, who was born in August Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below) October 5, 2011 November 2, 2011 December 7, 2011 January 4, 2012 February 1, 2012 March 7, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:05 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on dL� `j , 2011, "as submitted" N OR "as amended" ". 10 4� 161 2 All i August 19, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING August 19, 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 3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller W Henning Coyle Coletta mac, ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Cones: C-pies to: Chair: James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka Rosemary LeBailly, RN Chief Robert Metzger Jerry Pinto (Excused) Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services (Excused) Maria Franco, 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 Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District t 4 ' z 16 All" August 19, 2011 1. Call to Order: Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 3:43 PM. A quorum was established. Four members were present. 2. Agenda and Minutes: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Chief Robert Metzger moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, 4— 0. B. Approval of Minutes: June 10, 2011 Chief Robert Metzger moved to approve the Minutes of the June 10, 2011 meeting its submitted. Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 3. Old Business: A. COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience) Ordinance Review/Recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners: (A copy of the 16 page Ordinance in draft format leas distributed to the Members.) Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief — Bureau of Emergency Services, stated he had been advised the document had been reviewed by both North Naples and EMS, and the attorneys for each about one week ago. Chairman Talano asked the Board members to review the additions and deletions. Chief Robert Metzger noted he had an opportunity to review the document and compared it against the "approved" document from North Naples and it appeared to be the same document. Chief Metzger moved to recommended supporting the most recent Ordinance language as presented in the document. Chairman Talano referenced Pages 7, 8 and 9. He asked why Section 3, (a) through (n), was eliminated. Deputy Chief Watson stated the deleted paragraphs cited Chapter 401 of Florida Statutes. The representatives from North Naples claimed it was unnecessary to repeat the language since North Naples was contracted by the County to adhere to Florida Statutes. Both attorneys discussed the issue and agreed, Vice Chairman Kopka noted Chapter 401 of Florida Statutes outlines the duties of the Medical Director. Chairman Talano agreed since the eliminated subparagraphs referred to the Medical Director's responsibilities, the language was redundant. He noted that no other changes were made. (Referenced cites: Section 401.265, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64(J) — 2.004(4)(a) of the Florida Administrative Code) Chief Metzger reiterated his support of the change. Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director, suggested a Motion were made to accept the changes could reference the Section of Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code as redundant. Chief Metzger withdrew his Motion. 1 °' ? All August 19, 2011 He stated since lie did not have the referenced cites available, lie was not 100% certain the language was redundant. He continued, stating the language compelled the Certificate Holder to contract with the County and the Contract would likely cover all of the issues that both parties wanted initially in the Contract. He stated he was comfortable with the language. (3:47 PM— Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and Chief Orly Stolts arrived) Vice Chairman Kopka moved to recommend supporting the Ordinance language, subject to confirmation that Paragraph 3 of Section 12 conforms with requirements far the Medical Directors as contained in Florida Statutes, Section 401.265, and Chapter 64(J) — 2, 004(4)(a) of the Florida Administrative Code. There was no second in support and the Motion failed. Chief Metzger noted without examining Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code to compare the language, it would be difficult to confirm that each provision was contained in one of the two referenced cites. He again stated the language in the revised Ordinance compels the Certificate Holder to contract with the County, and he anticipated the County would insist that the paragraphs would be contained in any contract with the Certificate Holder, especially since the cited paragraphs were in the best interests of the County. Chief Metzger moved to recommend supporting the most recent Ordinance language as presented. Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, 4— 0. (Note: The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.) 4. New Business: A. Overview of the Tiered Response Group (G°TRG ") — Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Deputy Chief Bowman provided an overview: The TRG reports to Dr. Tober and consists of personnel from EMS, Sheriff's Office, hire, and EMS Management. • Instituted: April, 2009 • Purpose: to create a more efficient system for delivery of pre - hospital services • Initial focus: EMS operations • Under the direction of Dr, Tober and the BCC, the scope has broadened to include Fire Service • Goal: to collaborate with the Collier County Fire Chiefs' Association to adopt a system -wide policy while recognizing the needs of the various Fire Districts and agencies 1- ;A ib r A I I August 19, 2011 • He will present a detailed report of the EMD system at the next Board meeting Vice Chairman Kopka suggested discussing a proposed change mentioned by Dr. Tober to the method of dispatching units, Deputy Chief Bowman noted TRG will meet next week with the Operations Subcommittee of the Fire Chiefs' Association to confirm the start date. • In September, all units will be dispatched simultaneously and will respond "hot" to all locations, except to hospitals or locations with confirmed transport. • Purpose: to send units as quickly as possible to all calls • Previously, each District responded differently from different locations to each call • Goal: to develop a specific, County -wide dispatching operation • This is the first step • The Sheriffs Office has adjusted its operation within its Communications Dispatch Center to dispatch units within 45 seconds of receipt of a "911" call versus the previous time of up to two minutes • As information becomes available concerning the severity of the call, it is provided to the units which can then adjust their response • The technology exists to run a safer, more efficient system Chairman Talano questioned the taxation of resources and personnel, and asked how it would improve efficiency. ( Deputy Chief Bowman replied the first step does not really improve efficiency but should improve response time. Dr. Tober noted it was difficult to anticipate the consequences but it is anticipated that in the two minutes after the units are dispatched, the system will provide enough information to adjust the response — i.e., some units may fade off the call or the units will proceed but without lights and sirens. He continued the Blue Ribbon Committee faced the issue of prolonged BLS response to the scene, and there were issues in the City where the City Fire Department was on scene prior to EMS receiving notification of the call. The goal is to correct the inconsistencies as the system evolves. Chairman Talano asked who would determine whether to reduce the number of units responding. Dr. Tober stated when enough information is acquired from Emergency Medical Dispatch, the units would decide what is the appropriate level of response. For example, if the "emergency" were a sprained ankle, lights and sirens will be turned off. If it is a cardiac arrest, lights and sirens will be remain on and all units will answer including the Police. Deputy Chief Bowman stated the current system has relied on policy and programming. Communications dispatched all units and even if was determined the "emergency" was a broken finger, all units still responded and an assessment of the situation was not made until the units were on scene. The Communications CAD system has not been the best. He continued the Sheriffs Office EMD system has been able to collect information that is more reliable and consistent — the officers in the units should be able to make a decision and adjust the response accordingly before arriving on scene. 161 AIII August 19, 2011 Vice Chairman Kopka cautioned the decision will be made strictly upon the information provided by the person making the "911 " tail who may or may not recognize a cardiac arrest. Dr. Tober recalled a personal experience: • He was the first on scene of an accident in the City of Naples where a woman was struck by a car and sustained a compound fracture to her wrist • Fire had been notified and arrived first • He was on the phone with an EMD operator — even though he was recognized — it was difficult to get through the questioning • As a result, EMS was delayed in responding to the call • The goal is to even out the responses and the new system appears to be the easiest way to do so Chief Orly Stolts, North Naples Fire Control and Rescue, stated from the perspective of North Naples Fire, the new system appeared to be an excellent move because Fire is "all about" response time. The ability to quickly receive the call from Dispatch could reduce response time by one to one and one -half minutes. He admitted while it may generate approximately 2500 additional calls per year in the District, North Naples is willing to support implementing the system in order to improve response times. Chairman Talano asked if the same information would be provided to EMS and Fire. Chief Stolts replied that Dispatch will send both units and, as the process takes place, will receive EMD updates. The units can then decide if both are necessary or if one can be cancelled off and placed back into service for the next call. He stated it was a good solution. Dr. Tober noted the greater problem, especially during "season," is the overwhelming of the "911" Call Center that calls are "stacked" (or placed on hold) due to staffing limits. The individual answering the call has to talk to the caller, obtain the information, and transmit it to EMS and Fire. Deputy Chief Bowman agreed the cause of the stacking was because the old system was to gather the information and decide which units to dispatch. The new system will dispatch everybody, work the process and disseminate the information. Dr. Tober stated "stacking" occurs when there are too many calls for the operators to answer. He acknowledged that "stacking" might be the first link in the problem. Chairman Talano requested that Deputy Chief Bowman provide a more detailed report at the next meeting. B. Report: Protocol Update — Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Deputy Chief Watson noted the Protocol was revised in July and detailed the three significant changes as follows: • The Pediatric dose of Dilaudid was reduced — the maximum dosage administered was cut in half; • Cyano -kits were made available at the level of ALS Engine (Non- Transport Medic) — all paramedics in the County have access to the potential treatment for smoke inhalation which was especially important to the Fire Districts . 161 2 1 14 August 19, 2011 ' He noted it has been cost prohibitive to distribute the kits but the State recently provided a large amount to Responders. The shelf life of the kits is approximately two years. • Amiodarone, which has been under observation regarding its over -all effectiveness, is contraindicated in pregnancy — Lidocane will be used in its place. 5. Staff Reports: Deputy Chief Watson re. Quality Assurance • During the last quarter, a medical call (trauma patient) fiom North Naples provided a learning opportunity in the form of a Case Review conducted by Lee Memorial Hospital. • Lee County EMS, the North Naples crew, and MedFlight attended. • Input from the Trauma Center and its perspective was beneficial. The case was discussed and different options for patient care were suggested. 6. Public Comment: (None) 7. Board Member Comments: Chief Robert Metzger: • Walter Kopka has been appointed to the newly created position of Chief - EMS Operations. • Chief Jeff Page will retire on August 26, 2011 after 30 years of service. • Walter Kopka will serve as Interim Chief of the Bureau of Emergency Services until a new Chief is appointed. 8. Next Meeting Date: Fi•idap, November 4, 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 4:13 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James lano, M.D., Chairman r� The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on NN 2011, 7 � , "as submitted" f4 OR "as amended" f 161 A 124 August 3, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 1)3 qg g II W)3 Naples, Florida, August 3, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman ^ Michael Sorrell David Bishof Fiala _ Gina Downs filler Henning Coyle C letta ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jack Mackenna, P.E., County Engineer Alison Bradford, P.E., Transportation Planning Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Manager of Stormwater & Environmental Planning 3c. Curres: Date: \ 3\ \ \ Item #: \L9--= 2)A \2. - - `0: I I. II. III. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 2 1 A 1.Z 1 August 3, 2011 Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. IV. Approval of the July 6, 2011 meeting minutes Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the minutes of the July 6, 2011 meeting Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions - None VII. New Business A. PERVIOUS PAVEMENT PRESENTATIONS & DISCUSSION 1) Collier County Land Development Services Staff a. Jack McKenna, P.E. - County Engineer b. Alison Bradford, P.E. — Transportation Planning c. Jerry Kurtz, P.E. - Manager of Stormwater & Environmental Planning d. Mac Hatcher — Senior Environmental Specialist, Stormwater & Environmental Planning Jack McKenna, County Engineer presented the Slideshow "Pervious vs. Impervious Surfaces. " The presentation outlined the concepts and general regulations for stormwater treatment in Southwest Florida and the requirements and ramifications of utilizing pervious materials in the construction of sidewalks, pathways, roadways and parking lot improvements in public and private developments. Break: 10: 30am Reconvened: 10: 45am 2) South Florida Water Management District representative — comments & discussion Ricardo Valera of South Florida Water Management District was available to answer any questions the Council may have regarding pervious pavement and the permitting process. 3) Florida Concrete and Products Association representative Diep Tu, Florida Concrete and Products Association presented the Slideshow "A Stormwater Treatment Option " outlining the types of pervious concrete, the maintenance required and areas of use for the products. 4) Gina Downs, EAC member 2 161 2 A u ust 3 2011 Q 12 g n Gina Downs presented a Slideshow on the various nationwide regulatory approaches to pervious pavements and the potential applications of the material in relation to Collier County land use regulations. 5) Committee and Staff discussion Speakers Bill Barton, South Florida Land Preservation Trust addressed the Council on the Gordon River Greenway and the rationale for choosing the proposed design. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended more workshops be held as the County begins to develop Low Impact Development standards so informed decisions can be made. Gary McNally, EAC Alternate noted he has submitted studies to Staff and Council members on the subject of asphalt leaching substances into the soil. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Summer Brown Araque reported the Board of County Commissioners approved the Gordon River Greenway rezone application. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments '~ Mr. Dickman inquired if the Gordon River Greenway will require additional review by the EAC. Summer Araque Brown, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported the application will return for review of a Special Treatment Zone application. XI. Staff Comments A. Advisory Board Mileage Reimbursement — email was sent to all members Summer Brown Araque reported: • Members travelling more than 20 miles round trip to attend the advisory board meetings are eligible for mileage reimbursement. • Other workshops of this nature will be held in relation to any recommendations contained in the adopted version of the Watershed Management Plan. Mac Hatcher reported the Board of County Commissioners adopted of the State Model Fertilizer Ordinance. 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 1:00 PM. 16I Z �-i A 1-20 August 3, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, us on 51 - , (, �- These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented_, or as amended n FOREST LAKES 161 2 A131 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 August 10, 2011 Agenda I. Call to Order 11. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — July 13, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Next meeting is September 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Comes: Date: Item %-12, 1 �'Pies to: FOREST LAKES 16i 2 i A13 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 March 25, 2011 Field Meetine Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. BY: ....................... II. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, George Fogg, Robert Jones, Dick Barry County: Daryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich - Manager Landscape Operations Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff IV. Transportation Services A. Walkway Connections A Map was reviewed of the Forest Lakes Community. Forest Lakes Dr. In response to the request to install a Sidewalk connection by the Forest Lakes Condo Association the following was concluded: Fiala I o Currently sidewalks are not installed on the street Hitter N -@ A connection to the Condo walkway is not viable as Henning fi \.).. - A sidewalk system is not present Coyle - Only a small concrete slab exists that leads directly to the Coletta ac r parking lot and is lacking a course to install a walkway connection o (2) corners are hazardous for Pedestrian traffic - Comer in the vicinity of Residence(s) 1005 -1009 - Comer in the vicinity of Residence(s) 1085 -1086 Scott Windham noted: • The space in front of Residence(s) 1005 - 1086 is insufficient to install a pathway • Suggested installing a walkway along the section of Forest Lakes Dr. from the Club House and terminating at the main Mist Cones: Forest Lakes Entrance Sign Da*N L \n\ \\ Pam Lulich suggested Installing Safety signage (2 at each curve.) Item It \ Los 21a -,int to: George Fogg moved to extend the walkway (from the Club House) to (terminate before) the Main Forest Lakes Entrance Sign as soon as it can to be included (into the Project) and as an Alternate to the Bid. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 40. (wail Forest Blvd. Discussion took place on installing a walkway in front of the Quail Forest Villas and the following was determined: • The Swales by the Club House fill to high levels during rainy season • Due to the existing Cart Paths, Drainage swales, and Culverts it was not feasible to install a sidewalk on Quail Forest Blvd. George Fogg moved for the MSTU to forgo the proposed sidewalk on Quail Forest Blvd. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Forest Lakes Blvd Sidewalk Installation Darryl Richard reiterated that the (Turtle Lakes) Property Owners are opposed to installing the sidewalk on the North side of the roadway as they perceive a retaining wall will impact the aesthetics of the area. Discussion ensued and it was concluded: o Utilities are installed on the South side of Forest Lakes Blvd. o Easements will be obtained for all Sidewalks • The Berm on the North side of the roadway can be reshaped and will not require a retaining wall • Staff will confer with the Property Owners to acquire Easements (on the North side of Forest Lakes Blvd.) Robert Jones moved to approve changing the sidewalk from the south side to the north pending approval by the Condo Association. second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Scott Windham will confirm with ABB the timeframe required for the Plan revisions and request a Change Order Proposal (to install the sidewalk on the North side of Forest Lakes Blvd. in lieu of the South side.) VII. Public Comments — None 2 A13 1b1 2 I A13 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 10:32 A.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Chai 7T, These minutes approved by the Com ittee on as presented 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 3 ' 161 2 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 July 13, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by George Fogg. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones (Excused), George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Gloria Herrera — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Manger Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold— Director ATM Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Jim Carr —ABB, John Krynock- Public, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. Vll. A. Woodshire ADA Compliance Vl. A. Forest Lakes Blvd. Letter Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — June 8, 2011 Dick Barry moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2011 as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. A. Forest Lakes Blvd. Letter - Discussed under V. A. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: (See attached) • Available Operating Expense $173,978.65 • Reserves for Contingency Available Total $2,448,600.00 1 2 A13 Darryl Richard reviewed the MSTU Carry Forward Report (See attached) o Forest Lakes Cary Forward $1,160,891.49 Forest Lakes Blvd. Letter Darryl Richard reviewed the following documents: (See attached) • A letter from the north side Property owners (Forest Lakes Blvd.) • FPL primary map revealed that a power line exists on the north side of Forest Lakes Blvd. and is near the roadway (from Turtle Lakes Ct. to Woodshire Ln.) - The FPL document corresponds with the Survey (RWA) - The FPL critical section on the south side is only 120 ft. and will not interfere with placing the sidewalk on the south side • Noted that the majority of Turtle Lakes residents are in favor of the Sidewalk Project George Fogg moved to rescind all previous directions on the location of the walkway and place it on the south side as originally designed. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Staff will advise Turtle Lakes (Board Members) of the Committee's direction to place the sidewalk on the south side in lieu of the north. (Staff Action Item) Darryl Richard continued: • RWA is preparing legal descriptions for the required Easements (Staff Action Item) • Clubhouse Easements are the highest priority - Subsequently the south side Easement Acquisition will take precedence (Staff Action Item) Discussion took place on providing an update to all residents in the Forest Lakes Community (for the entire Project.) Kenneth Bloom moved to inform (Forest Lakes) Property Owners on the status of the walkway (installed by the MSTU) during November and in accordance with the timetable of the Project. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 0 161 2 A '13" B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard Darryl Richard presented a letter from Lee Dixon confirming Turtle Lakes Golf Colony will assume maintenance responsibility for a hedge between buildings 5 and 6 if the MSTU will install the hedge line. (See attached) Michelle Arnold cautioned the Committee on setting precedence by the MSTU taking on a Community Project. She suggested postponing any action on the hedge installation until estimates are available. VI. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio Darryl Richard reviewed the Status Report 8: (See attached) Forest Lakes (F -58) Sidewalk Proiect & (F -60) Cut de sac Improvements • Bid documents are complete • Based on RWA Survey data the Final Phase Bid documents will be adjusted as required Michelle Arnold requested Staff verify that precise adjustments are made to driveways and parking lots to ensure proper alignment with the sidewalk for ADA Compliance. VII. Old Business A. Woodshire ADA Compliance Kenneth Bloom reported: • A meeting was held with Staff and Board Members ( Woodshire) • Suggested running the sidewalk through the pavement area to provide a continuous walkway • Noted the parking lots are retaining water and spilling over the sidewalk • Recommended delaying parking lot repairs until current Projects are complete Darryl Richard stated the Woodshire Board Members were advised presently the concern for the MSTU is to correct the ADA Compliance issue. Kenneth Bloom noted: • Cost to slope and grade the parking lots is $12,000.00 (per lot.) • ADA issues are present in (3) areas Michelle Arnold raised the issue of autos parking on the proposed sidewalk at the Woodshire Pool area due to the size of the parking lot. She relayed the suggestion of utilizing the large green area to the right of the pool as a parking lot. Discussion ensued on the Parking lot(s) drainage issue and the sidewalk installation. 161 2 A a After discussion the Committee agreed on the following actions to address the ADA compliance issue, the sidewalks and Parking lots: • Install the sidewalk • Fill in (2) parking lots and install Grasscrete • Install Miami curb for proper drainage • Subsequently the Committee will revisit the Pool parking lot if an issue persists Kenneth Bloom moved to revamp the pool parking lot and overflow parking lot at Woodshire with grass and run the sidewalk and Miami curb along the roadway. Second by Dick Barry. The following additional items are included in the Parking lot(s) work: • The parking lot asphalt will be excavated • The lot will be filled in and graded Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Scott Windham and Pam Lulich provided information from the pre - bid meeting (7/13/11): • Eight Companies were present (the following companies were identified) - Quality - Hannula - Naples Construction Services - Renfroe and Jackson • Based on Contractor feedback at the meeting a second addendum to the Bid will be prepared • The Base Bid includes the Sidewalk portion - Sidewalk will be included in the second addendum • The Bid will be awarded to a General Contractor type opposed to (3) Contractors as originally planned - Bond questions were raised by Contractors in attendance - A General Contractor type will ensure control over the Project and set accountability - Awarding the Bid to (1) Contractor will result in fewer Change Orders • Two major pieces of the Project will be bid as Alternates to provide flexibility and offer different price scenarios - Sidewalk post lighting - Landscaping George Fogg moved to award the Project to a General Contractor and all component parts be done through the General Contractor. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 4 161 2 A13 VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:42 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee 27 iieorgg Fogg, Vice 440irman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented <IN or amended Next meeting is August 10, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 Cl) V M co N N U .. m y N U O Z C � � O V 7 N n O d0• � N C(R �. CO d• h CO d• LO Cl) I;t V O MOd'CO Cr N MLONd' (Y) 'T r ` O Lf) OD (D O (fl M � h M O1 (A Ln n LEA N CO LO d' 0G0 C �• •� } } } } } } } } O Q N d O_ Z Cfl EA d3 69. 6q 69 (!i 613 69 69 fR O V N U) N M M O M M (p CA 7 U) CA O I- d. Q) (O M N O) d' N C7 Cl) (-- I-- O 'a N CA I- V c0 n (M N (M M O OD 00 LO LO I- Lf) (n (C) M h (fl N 4 In m co CD aD c C N } } } } } } } } } C O m O> di EA Vi Efi V> 69 e5, Efi Efl 69 49- C Ld N 00 O N (D r- CO 0 0 0 r C O MN Uf 1� d•Uf 00 T m N CO OD N m d' M 00 LO N C LO Lf) CA 0 0 00 M M rl- O c - Imp co O d•1-- LO NMOM h a7 C CL 00 M - A CD OD d' 00 CD J d (V m Y W I-- W T � � 3 D F 69 EA 69. EA EA 69 Q% (1) 63 CA fR U) E O O LO O O CD CD Cl) O O O U) Lf) I� -: CM 7 M O (M O O N Y V Cl) N Ln O M - U) d" O C) LA R J C CO CO U r- (0 M M d_ P-� 00 r Nr'- O O m U') r- Lf) N N y C tN Cn M M � OD 00 d N (p O £ } } } } } } } } } LL Q W N M ('� csi ffl (fl H9 69 fA EA 69 69 69 N N CL U) c U ~ F- C Y O U) N Q Z Y>> 3 O7 Co CI >Y J W J UJ J vOiU> L 7 N Y Y m -O (6 J @ 0 0 Y U 3 i p CO L _T Q (n y O Q N N C p) O C t -j 0 M 0) .— -0 'p N Cl) V LO CO LU Q N m Q E 7 (n W W W W W W W W W a O a o o �_ FQ - F- F- F- Q Q Q F- F- ♦- F- F- Q Q Q c co U m 0 N CL ZZZZ Z ZZZZ a) cU) U Q co �t m W W W W W W W W W W F" c a - o U) F- F- F- F- F- J F- F- F- F- J J J J O L) X E N O N 7 X CD Q Q m J J J J QQQQ Q QQQQ F- O C COJ�COW1 - -�- rn � co N m` a 161 2 0 161 2 A13 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: August 10, 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: • Phase I and 1A went out to bid and the bids are being reviewed by county staff. (Please see the attached summary) 3 -Rs Equipment, Inc is low bidder at $881,255.50. • WSI is continuing to review the utilities in relation to the south side sidewalk and tree layout for potential conflicts. All findings will be distributed to design team for final plan revisions. Upon completion of the revisions, WSI will submit the plans to staff for final review. 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 Plione: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhatnstudio.com 161 Commercial Land Maintenance ESEYA T ffo Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Avenue • Naples, FL 34104 CUSTOMER NO. Office: (239) 643 -6205 • Fax: (239) 643 -5012 E -mail: info @commlandmaint.net BILL TO: Berard of County Commissioners Attn: Finance Department 3301 Tarniarni Trail East Building F 7th Floor Naples, FL 34112 7/20/2011 1 4500123323 1 Net 30 _ .J 2 Y. TOTAL I $1,730.00 THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID Forest Lakes Community 3.5 Irrigation Technician Supervisor (Supervisor tabor to remove 65.00 227.50 450 sq. ft. of sail and dispose of debris) 3.5 Regular labor to assist. 55.00 102.50 1 Estimated County Dumnina Fees for materials removed from 50.00 50.00 site. 70 Helen Johnson -Bougainvillea, 3- gallon 18.04 (Bougainvillea rate taken from Lely Golf Estates MSTU) MULCH PROVIDED BY COUNTY. IRRIGATION MODIFICATIONS AND REPAIRS BY OTHERS. TOTAL I $1,730.00 THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID P 161 2 F, % , n , f . r? I I it ; .. " I -. Special Service Agreement Collier County - Forest Lakes MSTU - Fountain Maintenance (:10 Board of Counly Commi-i-winers PO Bux-e-1:30115) Naples, FL 34101 Conlact Darryl Richard rn)one f?39) 252-5775 Proposal ID DRte Terms 5 7,13 i it i.-2k I I I Balance Dui: ;30 Days Aflor Goinalption of Work Quantity Description Ruveniw !n rej)aif three fountain',; 'iix d:)rI1Ils = `7ix t'hitlet blo.-ks 1 Lahci lw--, llo,in :zr 375.00 r)f--,,r hour A131 Taxable Onif Price Extended Price No $F; 00 No s'24 `10 $24 00 No if, i10 s3r, f)PI Nn 15 el r, Nn 50 113r, Total .................... 5233.OU This nffer is good for twenty one (21) days from date of (Iijote Sales Tax Not Inc.lud'ad nO NOT PAY FROM THIS AGREEMENT - INVOICEE TO FOLLOW AOUAGENIX CUSTOMER PRINT NAME PRINT NAME DATE DATE 6 s PC) V evo ri a n I ;i I ior i Rnr.9a, '` or t 1`0 r v. F I '33£156 k2:3q�) 561-1,120 —ray 1 614) 561-288,-; F- y L O h N 5 z LLL =p W = w Q 0 LL 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EH EA 6" 6969 f9 fA f9 fA -- d-1 -- -- ---- -- -- ---fry W O O O O O O co O co O 00 Ln O M (D LO O O O O O O (p Cl) (p O O O N p Cp N C 1n M O M O i O O oD oD O N M V Q (` M O oo M N f� O O O 0) N W I- V w C [D N (n O !` O LD O V (n V co v O LD n p N N (n r r r N 06 00 N M r M LL n 69 69 69 69 Vi w W 69 69 v) (p w 69 fA 69 6,) 69 fA N E9 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA FF3 f9 69 (� 69 N ID j N O N y C w w LL o 0 c d .3 p co c 6 o o M m .rn ti (D o 'p E m L c o E c m% co Ln Ln N U > O 2 2 a N a�i m o m a N LL LL LL LL V p o tq O d° y Y oa a m d w E E aEo'om >o @o °(Onc a ' �� a2ia�iaZimaZi° aYiy >ocn C a_d+ N> 7 N = w r yy yy O @U O `O C cm II C -y aJy m (D - m - x 3 rn_ y r. M c) 3: oB N d m0 r r oy rno rno rn�r� o Tc d o °5 n O cmwQc oF�2� d'�°' �0 o o`_ @0dm`d ro`d�>> EC)�o yYO v U _O U a Se N o� of > > > >> 3c a`> mU M 0 0000 O LL C C (D .O d C) a W U .0 - 3 U N f0 N a -p N N .0 LL X omC�O oddo�ydaa�o�o�moMM2��. >q0� 0°� y5._m c w MU�M2 C��F -tY ow(n LiU -(n �cnaaaaaaU JOCL LO LLUV�i� n McD co rnco N N V LD n U m UUUUU�co n U(o NUVOD D1 V N n N V m n pL M n n (n O N p D) N M O N N V r Ln Q) w m V Ln p O NLA O M M O m M f� O co co tXJ p M M m N (D M /T V LT n Ln n co N N Lo N N N� N N N N N U U co Lo M U N N o O V M Ln (D n U 0 Lf LOO L j OD LL, N N CO N N N W Co CD co O N N' N N N N M N N CL o w o 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 o p p O o m 0 _ N L°o L°O L°n L°n L°o L°n L°O L°n LOOS OOO�OOOOOO OO OOH o o0 o ° ,a p LA Ln O o 0 o o Ln to p Ln Ln m cD In Ln o o L°n Ln a V Lo o Lo Ln Lo V V in v v V Lo V V o o R v IT l0 O y O O 'C o C 'C N O c y y O (Oil R � 6 r2 N U O E a, N 0 N N N LOn O U O O y y N L O O O o 0 0 y (-5 N y N m U z m o m (cp V o o (' i s Lu ° o U U U U U U 3 2 -0 0 0" c o ,0 0 L U J J J J N U (` O C U U 'y C) N LD N LD LU (D y N U O F '� acix x�mmm maa� �a3 rn �C7UUciL EEEEEEZEL Utta3 > >>> >c'cUE���Z�'3Qa� ���ssusaaaaaa' @� 000y�°ininin m mUEEE E`p> o do m mvoccLipoEEEEEEmw c D ammm > > EEE E � a oY� �cYyf6���cgtt -�- Uc c- °�aa- -0 7 y / '` Q QDODUUUUU o v �`o `o o�, MM:,0 mmmmLOR �3�tiLLO`cccc iy ti Li LLLL ZOX 5(n to0999i3 -00-OW) O W O 01 x 0 0 0 0 O r Ln O !\ O O M O O a IVICO V LO n O W ' O V O N L 0 0 O O r N 0 0 O O p W N C14 V b O O- O N 8 O O O 8 V O w O O Lo 0 0 V M r O O O O LN (A l 1� O O O N O N Cl) O LO O N L N O N L (3 N n N N v z n - M h M M 69 w cs 6) 6919 169 (9 69 69 r E O N LO LO r- r O i O r N V N � LO r r c, Co M O N N a M --a (D (9 69 6A 69 69IW169 69 0) 69 E9 03 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6969 fA 69 fA 69 EA 6969 EA O O O O O LO 08 M O O 00 N M O W O O O 61 2 OOO V LnO . O O O O O O LO O Ln m 0 0 0 0 o (M LO O O O O o 0 O O O V r O N 0 m m n 0 0 O O M N w O O O O 0 (D N E m r M + A 13 LO co 0 N O O O In Lo M O O 1, O V V O w Ln (n O O 0 Im N o q) O . M f o r- m N to N N N O �n 01 W OOM LnOLn Mm (pM O(n O n O LT O O m M 0 rN Of M W O O o V LO r O) M V M n N r r N M r N CD c O V V O r �2 r r No mm N O N N M 'Q N (M N w V �} Il. O O N co M- CD co M n 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EH EA 6" 6969 f9 fA f9 fA -- d-1 -- -- ---- -- -- ---fry W O O O O O O co O co O 00 Ln O M (D LO O O O O O O (p Cl) (p O O O N p Cp N C 1n M O M O i O O oD oD O N M V Q (` M O oo M N f� O O O 0) N W I- V w C [D N (n O !` O LD O V (n V co v O LD n p N N (n r r r N 06 00 N M r M LL n 69 69 69 69 Vi w W 69 69 v) (p w 69 fA 69 6,) 69 fA N E9 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA FF3 f9 69 (� 69 N ID j N O N y C w w LL o 0 c d .3 p co c 6 o o M m .rn ti (D o 'p E m L c o E c m% co Ln Ln N U > O 2 2 a N a�i m o m a N LL LL LL LL V p o tq O d° y Y oa a m d w E E aEo'om >o @o °(Onc a ' �� a2ia�iaZimaZi° aYiy >ocn C a_d+ N> 7 N = w r yy yy O @U O `O C cm II C -y aJy m (D - m - x 3 rn_ y r. M c) 3: oB N d m0 r r oy rno rno rn�r� o Tc d o °5 n O cmwQc oF�2� d'�°' �0 o o`_ @0dm`d ro`d�>> EC)�o yYO v U _O U a Se N o� of > > > >> 3c a`> mU M 0 0000 O LL C C (D .O d C) a W U .0 - 3 U N f0 N a -p N N .0 LL X omC�O oddo�ydaa�o�o�moMM2��. >q0� 0°� y5._m c w MU�M2 C��F -tY ow(n LiU -(n �cnaaaaaaU JOCL LO LLUV�i� n McD co rnco N N V LD n U m UUUUU�co n U(o NUVOD D1 V N n N V m n pL M n n (n O N p D) N M O N N V r Ln Q) w m V Ln p O NLA O M M O m M f� O co co tXJ p M M m N (D M /T V LT n Ln n co N N Lo N N N� N N N N N U U co Lo M U N N o O V M Ln (D n U 0 Lf LOO L j OD LL, N N CO N N N W Co CD co O N N' N N N N M N N CL o w o 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 o p p O o m 0 _ N L°o L°O L°n L°n L°o L°n L°O L°n LOOS OOO�OOOOOO OO OOH o o0 o ° ,a p LA Ln O o 0 o o Ln to p Ln Ln m cD In Ln o o L°n Ln a V Lo o Lo Ln Lo V V in v v V Lo V V o o R v IT l0 O y O O 'C o C 'C N O c y y O (Oil R � 6 r2 N U O E a, N 0 N N N LOn O U O O y y N L O O O o 0 0 y (-5 N y N m U z m o m (cp V o o (' i s Lu ° o U U U U U U 3 2 -0 0 0" c o ,0 0 L U J J J J N U (` O C U U 'y C) N LD N LD LU (D y N U O F '� acix x�mmm maa� �a3 rn �C7UUciL EEEEEEZEL Utta3 > >>> >c'cUE���Z�'3Qa� ���ssusaaaaaa' @� 000y�°ininin m mUEEE E`p> o do m mvoccLipoEEEEEEmw c D ammm > > EEE E � a oY� �cYyf6���cgtt -�- Uc c- °�aa- -0 7 y / '` Q QDODUUUUU o v �`o `o o�, MM:,0 mmmmLOR �3�tiLLO`cccc iy ti Li LLLL ZOX 5(n to0999i3 -00-OW) O W O 01 x 0 0 0 0 O r Ln O !\ O O M O O a IVICO V LO n O W ' O V O N L 0 0 O O r N 0 0 O O p W N C14 V b O O- O N 8 O O O 8 V O w O O Lo 0 0 V M r O O O O LN (A l 1� O O O N O N Cl) O LO O N L N O N L (3 N n N N v z n - M h M M 69 w cs 6) 6919 169 (9 69 69 r E O N LO LO r- r O i O r N V N � LO r r c, Co M O N N a M --a (D (9 69 6A 69 69IW169 69 0) 69 E9 03 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6969 fA 69 fA 69 EA 6969 EA O O O O O LO 08 M O O 00 N M O W O O O Ln OOO V LnO . Cl) (p o) . . .OV1 L. C' n (D O N I- N N 0 W N CM N Cl) m r M r n O V N to O N 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 N 69 f9 69 69 V) 11 (9 69 69 Q) o ° n n N O o r- m O O co O M W O O o V LO �2 r N r L NT 6'd 69 69 44 69 69 (9 69 69 44 Vj (» 69 (» 69 Vi 69 (» 69 69 69 M (9 (» 69 69 69 (» 6A 6A w fA f9 0 0 CD o rn o m m o 0 0 0 Ln O o 0 0 0 p o O O O O V O �V x 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 O O 0 0 ° N o o O O O 0 0 0 0 O N N O O O Qi Ql O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O p Cp Cl) O O. O m O O O O N' M 1 L°n M LOO O L°o � o M O tOo M N I! ^ (°O N M Omf (oD N N O M (M LO N O Hf W N r p N N n S: r N v M O 69 69 69 EAK f9 fA 69 (A fAN EA 696969 EA w 61i (9 69 69 69 69 f9 64 63 6) 69 69 E9 w 4 6969 N J x F-Ow ga�zz m ¢� Z w a Q w WLu aXWLL 1' amF J J U = 0 <h --- OO z XWw�(n ¢ C� (wnza W Z�F-OU �2 UU�O co y OIYpUp. W W zZ z (7 0z w a OwzUK 00¢¢wV LLI W zF-U wy F0N w? zwa W 0 OF ¢��LL Xcaz LLLLJ <co c7 }OZZ� x� xF- U >J UJZF - y ��Fy W LL ~044Z(7} yZ5m W C) �W z> = >w~W w W OOwW W cnzF zUaOW HU�U >ymwm wt, ww U HUF WU LL LL LLLL LL Ix w }Q UVU ZJLL(�U a w0d aQp W U Z (qy } }o y a" F-Jw Ww ZQQz of 0Y LOz Q LLjHa'a'U W F- ~a'Z��?J W=mY aQ OLL U "wzzw a'a'QQWQ.' O zUm2UZ F-WO (Q W U' �U ~aZ0 244 aLL U LL o -_� F- F- U()Z� f w(nQw?50mw?(naJa -jOLwi�m 00?F- :2'' w O �O z CL z } z Q FU- F O Q Z) cnmz U J Z Z Q a jay § §UO OOIwL F- F-LL» Q y y W W y x x ~zzz CJ CDz WW Q a Ix U 0 X W W U F- F- m co F- xa: d V 161 0 0 m 0 O ti N OD H M r 3 N N M N N 41 OC 000 _� 7 (0 N O N r N 'O _ cfl IC O M 00 r O C > _O > 0) W 4 O m O (U N > O U) co( N O ti O O Y x t4 N d U Cl) � Iq O 00 J F� - N N O M ti _ N C p L 41 N U N i _ LL -� LL 0- ' ++ � r O LL 00 0) O O O O 0) c LL LL LL LL Q p O N CD N Q M O M N L � � 00 00 M M f-- N G1 0 o M r�: zf CO 0 O r (O � r' M ( (O TM w to LL r r M O N LL O Cl) TM h s? N N r r 0) U N C 0) fD N R C > C r CD LO E co N r O (D N L t u U LL M Q. o O O E > N C: J Co O w N m N _U 0) O X W N O D U) L X O LO LO ti (r0 m O (f O m O O CD � (fl (fl a cli M N >+ (O O O r (f) m O N r r O Q V � O L N N N C N 0) U X o d ++ Y (0 m U E ca O z r a M ,, mm � O >a =o U � a� c O a L}L> Q dHQ =xam (1 { { { { { { { { { 161. co 2 co ca -�00 Uri (WD CDA Jv O W -O V N 0 0 -1IN OD OvAw W p O O A U) a W O W N W DDDD rrrr D r DDD D rrrr tp D :3• c m 3 m W fl C) C) 0 -i -1 --q 4a GA 69 G9 EA EA fA to CA EA <A m o I8 3- D mmmm m mmmm m G9 6R EA t!9 Efl 6A N CD o O) g D' a D -° ° W > DDzD D DDDD m m m m OD D 0 c° W m A N m m m m m to Cr (n W G.) N W a D CD Di a m CO W^ O) V7 A W N CD CD < m m N K :p] Z D am �1 C7 06 n:) co D A t j 0 3 CD N 0 cn A O fA D ? pA m M �c =r a F CD O CA r D w a Cp' CD �. ;c M C 3 r o m @ A w N ID my CL m z r °—' o x-am v Z O nn -1 0 (A CA CO _G W -I -I W ,CAJt CA O W 0 CA � �n m m ca i x n mAO W O A Z `. CL �- 0) v o V N - ? O N m O co -P N 1 A 7 co Om CTO W cn D CD 40 4.9 (A GA 69 to 69 V) t4�. { { { { { { { { { ► A13 CA ic K < D, m n W N in m a 0 3 0 m M M O1 n >r 3 N 1 C - A Cl) 2 J d N V W V o r 'O S N N O m N 7 o (Lt pA O 7 7 tD N N Z D) fD N n O 7 H C w O 7 Z O_ Cf N � N d . N W a w co N co N -�00 Uri (WD CDA Jv O W -O V N 0 0 -1IN OD OvAw W p O O A U) -A W O W N W C3) W � v CI) O CD C) ) m m C) C) 0 O 4a GA 69 G9 EA EA fA to CA EA <A ► A13 CA ic K < D, m n W N in m a 0 3 0 m M M O1 n >r 3 N 1 C - A Cl) 2 J d N V W V o r 'O S N N O m N 7 o (Lt pA O 7 7 tD N N Z D) fD N n O 7 H C w O 7 Z O_ Cf N � N d . N W a w N co vW N Jv O W -O V W O W N -9 CT -1 A O W O (D -1 (D W W O O CO CT C3) 90 54 W CDNO CO 000C) V co M d9 fib EA iii G9 6R EA t!9 Efl 6A N co A cn C N v OD D A V W m A N o') to Cr 00 W G.) N W CD A -I CT U) 00 m -J 0D A V N O :1I v W W N A (O N W 9) co .a co D A m w (AO O 00 000 N cn A O fA 619 &9 tit 69 GA CA GA 69 49 CA { { { { { { { O A N _ A' A Z O nn 0 (A CA CO _G W -I -I W ,CAJt CA O W 0 CA O ANU)W co mAO W O A V A W A U) A m V A O V N - ? O N m O co -P 6 A OO(D OD co Om CTO W ► A13 CA ic K < D, m n W N in m a 0 3 0 m M M O1 n >r 3 N 1 C - A Cl) 2 J d N V W V o r 'O S N N O m N 7 o (Lt pA O 7 7 tD N N Z D) fD N n O 7 H C w O 7 Z O_ Cf N � N d . N W a w i 16f 2 ap ^A i� I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — May 10, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. Master Plan — Final Approval for submittal to BCC 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 1 161 2 1116% 8, A 14 i iR� (�EIV BY r r i•irrNrYrNNN.M•... Fiala Hiller Henning T' Coyle Coletta 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 July 12, 2011 MINUTES Misc. Cans: Date: %2- \\ 25\ Item t. CZhies tv I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:09 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura (Excused), Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich — Landscape Operations Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff All documentation was submitted to Sta[Lprior to meeting and was provided to the Advisory Committee and other attendees with an overhead projection screen to help provide a paperless environment via MSTU's request. III. Approval of Agenda Pat Spencer moved to approve the July 12, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — May 10, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the May 10, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report ' ftery) 1 16 I 2 so"M A 14 Darryl Richard distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated July 12, 2011. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $262,784.09 • Operating Expense Available - $76,285.59 • Improvement General Available - $404,910.19 • Purchase Orders Paid - $580,764.22 He provided the Fiscal Year 11 Carry Forward Analysis by Fund Report. (See attached) B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported a potential Change Order Number 2 for Coronado Parkway and Hunter Boulevard, Phase II Median Landscape and Irrigation, Installation Bid Number 10 -5595. He stated the Contractor encountered subsurface rock material and will install HDPE. He provided an estimate from Hannula Landscaping in the amount of $3,161.60 dated July 11, 2011. (See attached) Discussion was made on why a rock flaw clause was not included in the Contract and the amount of footage involved. Instead of bidding the who_ le project dealing with subsurface rock material, it was explained the bid would have been $20,000 - $40,000 higher. The footage involved was estimated at 525' around the curb. Staff stated Road & Bridge plan to resurface Hunter & Coronado next fiscal year and suggested this would be the time for the Committee to make recommended revisions on restriping to give more room for pedestrians or vehicles. Richard Sims placed a 1 -month time limit for the Committee to address any changes for the restriping of Hunter & Coronado. Darryl Richard reported Hannula Landscaping estimate is being reviewed and should not exceed $5,000. It was noted the project is 100 days ahead of schedule. C. Master Plan — Final Approval for submittal to BCC Darryl Richard reported revisions to the Master Plan included the tweaking language and updated cost factors and miscellaneous items for projects. (The updated cost factors are on page 103 in the PDF format.) He provided the draft Executive Summary for recommendation to approve the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan revisions for approval from the BCC. (See attached) Richard Sims moved to direct Staff to submit the "revised" Master Plan to the BCCfor approval. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. W 161 2 1w16,A 14% Staff commended Peggy Harris for her volunteer service time to Collier County since 2004 and will receive a Service Award from the BCC on July 261H Pam Lulich reported the receipt of a proposal from Hannula Landscaping to replace 2 gate valves on clocks for release of pressure build up and repair main line by the bridge in the amount of $1,838. Richard Sims stated the Committee had budgeted for a replacement pump with variable frequency drives. Staff responded the installation is for during the interim. Staff will move forward on the quote. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula — None. VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Richard Tindell provided the Landscape Architect's Field Report dated July 7, 2011. (See attached) He reported the following: • The Beach Sunflower on Collier is very sparse and weeds under control. • Crown -of -thorn beds along Collier have not been attended to. • One tree and several clumps of ornamental grasses on the north side of the bridge by Tropicana are dead. • There are no signs of repair work at the bridge irrigation crossing. • A dead palmetto, ilex and juniper on Collier should be replaced. • All planting areas continue to need trimming to meet County and FDOT standards. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado — Addressed previously V.B. IX. Old Business Pat Spencer presented the Pathway Advisory Committee's Proposed Asphalt Pathway's 5 -Year Plan for the Golden Gate Advisory Committee's review and recommendations. Discussion was ensued on the proposed pathways, MPO Grant, short cut pedestrian bridges to keep automotive traffic out and pedestrians safer. Staff indicated an engineer would need to design pedestrian bridges. It was suggested to prioritize the pathways. X. New Business — None. XI. Public Comments Concerns were expressed on Mike McElroy attendance record. Staff will send a notice. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 P.M. 3 161 2::iain Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Richard Kim—S, tVairman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented or amended The next meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 4 III. IV. 16 A 2" K14� GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 12, 2011 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS Approval of Agenda Pat Spencer moved to approve the July 12, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Approval of Minutes — May 10, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the May 10, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report C. Master Plan — Final Approval for submittal to BCC Darryl Richard reported revisions to the Master Plan included minor language tweaking and updated cost factors and miscellaneous items for projects. Richard Sims moved to direct Staff to submit the "revised" Master Plan to the BCC for approval. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. 1 F� N Z O Q U r a 2 W D O a mMOm�e�amobooNO ono 6 M m o c o O o rn r o nr-oai 6o— o oo�acoo �Nr bomm mvoo vo�m nmrn Boa mr ioa�n mNn ran Q O m 00000 N Y o r,opooO�c�ry N m oc t O i n O N b ti c� �nmc'�mn .- v vi ni w H w w w w w w H H H w H w H H H w w w H H H w w w w w ' V 161 2 ° "! g�g �i i� d 6E Cqj� 9 _ m a- N 4uxe° >v)n f 55 as vw ¢ v o yy @@yy �¢ _ Jicc'.iL NSU N W ttNQ CS '!s rV} C�AVi rp fhLLLL.WiYZ t�...t t]- -s�(7I i.i m p N i(5 r u O (6 C1 N NM ry Vp tlS m N N v h OJ tv N tarn � mrN�y � N O SOCY W � r r ohD a v A N � N�C'f N� f4 V 4'+ � t0 CO'1 LLOY N N M f00 8' try O O N M Q w w w H gu a v wwwww�w' H x w7m C,s 4az t; LX w rw > >= vs;D az zW %au � r N M b m w H H H w�w w w w w an w H w w w w H --- w w w 4 wwwHH�ww� 00 0 oi�i 004; b�N�Y'f�14p�$ r � f wwHwaa.HpH �3 ryUZy at E cc mZ0 Lu-- O W w w z zz�s *z zUrr� 9 1 f U' O O m Q t h O- V O A N O f N O m� 0 0 0 � p� m b0 N m 0>000 n O O nN H� mH O>baOO O •-� N�OfpO � lV m O N b w H w w H w w w H w H H w H w H w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O g g o o 8 0 oo --- N O O o0000 '880809 9,666 O O V ON O q ? o m Q 0 O m N O ! N r N � N Ymf M ViH ww H ------------ s - Z O O mt-a' -T1 q2Z O snw 2 �Id .y zr,W~ Qoa" —' Su�.t tau v 'z ; u�i u�sz 4' u U O u ZZZ mSff i[3.S CC ,Z,tt>QU.i W. rLLP1�„,t i.,_a�wFU?z�- � °szw`�SWs���w�aa aoo�viai'C' w Joi3a,_v0._ ♦♦:v t- rmms -.mm 16I 12 N m W V O L N V !C O LL' U O O 000 O MO O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N D7 O O N � Q A NOO v?Or n! 07 ONy O N N y 4M'l N N MN N M h N d N a0 O O Y t0 N N O O O M N O O O EW N N O t�D N tOp M E M O N y O h tN+I y y N y N N d O N f0 A 0 f0 m M t00 Lo O IWO A N J Y! N MOO y N N O r c 10 N N O LL N N N N N N N N O O N G W O C tD Lap No OO L N a a0 O � N ci N N o h y o O N N MOM O �Npp O d' O OM1 N N � N M 10 NNN A N Y N N cc l0 d' O (� O O t0 07 aD O w /0 N p A O I'- M m N O A o) O O m r O O O (0 m m tD N N r N A N m N N MN y OW NNN N A N A N i� i� Z m cl V O O V W M N O O J A M t0 N y YOi V 117 O It N N N N N N N N O O N ,e O O V' tO+J c0 l0 p m N O O 0 0 N N W w n N N O v C-4 O O a0 O M y > N N h NyN N N N N C tf u c o a6 a `mz LL L0 O 10 O It X w _C O o O N 2 d a N U O �T d F �+ o O 49 C ' a� me N O OF �m � m 1n dymd V y (q M l0 L C N to > c o 'C 'O a!V > > N > > R' L W O A Aa a m m `) 1> > c > > a ?c Uml.� ��et{�� o H x x x W O W W o H W LL m > C O C Q +p N fn m M r •' y C {y=1 G m m 6 D 7 d U w W C W W W W U z > N p d O O O U A VI Q.' m N W N N N 0 161 Coronado Parkway And Hunter Blvd. Phase II Median Landscape And Irrigation, Installation Bid Number 10 -5595 Change Order Number "Two" Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Date: July 11, 2011 Item # Qty S m. Description 5 ec unit toost I otaI 31 -5201 1 W PVC 1120 -1220 Class 200 Gasketed Main $ 2.42 $ 1,258.40 new 520 3" HDPE class 150 SDR -11 black with $ 8.50 $ 4,420.00 purple stripe, backhoe with rock hammer, mechanical ioint couplings, screening By: Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. Total Additions $ 4,420.00 Total Deletions Net Chang e im 16 I uA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan revisions. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners for the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan revisions. CONSIDERATIONS: On December 20, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance 83 -55 for the creation of Golden Gate Parkway Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). A majority of voters approved to levy taxes through referendum held on March 13, 1984 to providing curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance for that portion of Golden Gate Parkway lying between Santa Barbara Boulevard and County Road 951. On September 3, 1996, the BCC approves Ordinance 96 -51, changing the name of the Municipal Service Taxing Unit to Golden Gate Beautification MSTU with the Advisory committee name being changed accordingly (Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee). The Ordinance also modified the boundaries of the MSTU to include the area bounded by Green Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard, Collier Boulevard (County Road 951), and Golden Gate Canal. The authority granted to the Advisory Committee was also expanded to allow for general landscaping improvements within the road rights -of -way including accent lighting. Since the Committee's inception, the Golden Gate MSTU has focused on creating a unified community identity characterized by curbing, pavers, decorative street fixtures, sidewalks, and plantings. The vision of the Committee was documented in the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan and approved by the BCC on May 27, 1997, Item 8B(1). The MSTU began implementation of this plan in 1998 with a 50150 funding partnership for 951. In 2003, the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan was referenced in the Collier County Land Development Code in section 4.06.00 Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention to serve as a guideline for improvements within the Golden Gate area rights -of -way. The MSTU has worked diligently to complete the projects identified Beautification Master Plan for their community. Santa Barbara Boulevard from the Golden Gate Canal north to Green Boulevard had been identified as a project to be completed by the MSTU in the original Master Plan but is being recommended for deletion in this revision of the Master Plan. The final two projects identified in the Master Plan, Coronado Boulevard and Hunter Boulevard, are underway and expected to be completed by December 2011. The attached revision to the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan is presented to the Board for consideration to recognize the completed landscape improvement projects. In addition, the plan has been revised to include updated future project information, completed construction costs, and a revised project priority list. The Golden Gate MSTU has successfully installed 4.1 miles of landscaping and irrigation utilizing the Master Plan guidelines which have been developed and refined through 27 years of existence. 161 Z p140 FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with recording will be incurred by the Golden Gate MSTU (Fund 153). LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board approve the Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan revisions. Prepared By: Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager, Alternative Transportation Modes Department Attachments: (1) Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan with strike - through and underlines; (2) Golden Gate Communities Roadway Beautification Master Plan without strike - through and underline. 16 1 A 14'0 J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 July 7, 2011 0&HC Z@&[PC@ gl3(@U �J U,(@n Lr- p� COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - PO# 4500126569 REPORT NUMBER: 17 CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping — Manuel Gonzales JRL COMM No: 11003 Date: 6/14, 6/21, 6/28 Weather: Clear Estimate % Complete: N/A & 7/5/2011 Time: 12:30 —1:30 Temp Range: 94 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: June 14: Darryl Richard, Pam Lulich, Mannel Gonzales, Nicki Charette, & Richard Tindell June 21, June 28 & July 5 : Richard Tindell, landscape architect WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Site shows little change from last month, Some trash observed on Collier Blvd, and Sunshine, Routine maintenance work has been performed. Santa Barbara median Site lines on over hanging branches are being addressed. Bus stop shelters and benches have not been painted. No sign of repair work a bridge irrigation crossing along Tropicana. Irrigation usage readings have not been received from Hannula. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions, designs and work orders. REPORT: Reviewed last reports, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Damon, A detailed observation with Staff and Contractor was performed. There is continued steady improvement, however (Repeating from last 11 reports as un- resolved) The beach sunflower on Collier is very sparse weeds seem to be under control. At the August pre MSTU site review we agreed to try Beach Sunflower on more time and received approval of the Board. Crown -of -thorn beds along Collier have not been attended to. Several clumps (perhaps 12) of ornamental grasses on the north side of the Tropicana bridge are dead as is one large tree. There is no signs of repair work at the bridge irrigation crossing. 161 2 A 141 On Golden Gate the new confederate jasmine beds are filling in nicely. There is a dying pine tree near 45'" Street. Dead palmetto, ilex and juniper are still observed on Collier and should be replaced. There is a dead sabal palm near weir #].Recent cold weather will add to the distress especially to the crown -of- thorns. Much of the bougainvillea has re- sprouted and trim back of dead wood has been scheduled. A patch of dead grass on Sunshine has been covered with mulch rather than replaced as directed, several junipers have not been replaced. Two Pink Tabebuia have been replaced on Sunshine (from January). Grass has been mowed on Santa Barbara. All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Ornamental Grasses still over hanging the roadway and a few low hanging tree branches require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between 24" and 72 ", FDOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10' clear over sidewalks. Continued meetings with the Project Manager and Hannula is needed to address these issues. New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested. Current rain events have greatly improved the situation. ACTION REQUIRED: Review with county setback requirements for mountable curb as along Golden Gate. Meet with staff and landscape contractor. Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to Hannula. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 '� Hannula Landscaping, Inc. k M #2 immw 28131 Quails Nest Lane ANNULA Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 tahosc t '4AT 'v'roc Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 j darrylrichard@colliergov.net 4 KI ' } Ea 9 -16691 Golden Gate MSTU In... Golden Gate MSTU: Tropicana Blvd. pricing from 09 -5153 contract Fund 153-162521 PO # 4500122599 * Replace (1) gate valve on clock #3402 zone #7 and (1) gate valve on clock #3402 zone #2 * Repair main line by the bridge (leaking) * Install a spring loaded pressure relief valve at both ends of medians, on the last valve. (1) Irrigation Supervisor 8 55.00 440.00 (3) Irrigation Technician 24 55.00 1,320.00 10 gallon: Ligustrum (4 bags Pea Gravel) 4 7.50 30.00 10 Gallon: Jamaican Caper (Filter Fabric, 50' roll) 1 48.00 48.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature, Title Date Page 1 Total '� Hannula Landscaping, Inc. kFamwvilk Q .Now 28131 Quails Nest Lane ANN'UL Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 N Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard @colliergov.net Materials to be supplied by Collier County: 140' of sch 40 purple pipe 2" 1- 2" couplers 2- 2" 45 2 -3" T's 2 -3 "x 21/2" reducers 2- 21/2" 90 2- Jumbo valve boxes with green lids 2- 21/2" male adapters 2- 21/2" model # AA -6 Pressure Relief Valves 2- 1" Brass Gate valves 1- 1" Brass valve 2- 1" Male adapters 2 -1" couplers 1- 1" Male pipe thread x 6" long x 1" Male pipe thread (Nipple) 1- 1" Male pipe thread x 4" long x 1' Male pipe thread. (Nipple) PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE ,. ,r9-16691 13����-cn Golden Gate MSTU In... Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature. Title Date Page 2 Total $1,838.00 161 z A 14' I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes —July 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 September 13, 2011 at 4;00 p.m. At Colder Cate Community Center - Naples, FL 1 16I Z.'- A14 GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY Fiala —4LC� Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta COMMITTIMEM 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 August , 2011' MINUTES RE Co- EIVEn � ll BY: ....................... I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:09 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy (Absent) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich — Landscape Operations Manager, Rhonda Cumming — Contract Specialist Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Carlos Herrera — Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff All documentation was submitted to Staff prior to meeting and was provided to the Advisory Committee and other attendees with an overhead projection screen to hem provide a pyperless environment via MSTU's request. III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. Purchasing - Selection of Landscape Architect X. A. Improved Lighting Richard Sims moved to approve the August 9, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — July 12, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the July 12, 2011 Minutesk6saab"Wted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. Date:'\ \ Jk k Item #: � L,= 2 %A \L- A C.pies to: 161 2 A14" V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report Darryl Richard reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated July 12, 2011. (See attached) He gave additional explanation on the following line item charges: • Forestry Resources covers mulch installation. • Charges to Remove Pole on Coronado is as stated and New Electric Pole & Riser was worded incorrectly and was for electrical power pole with meter. He reviewed the following: • Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $263,126.03 • Operating Expense Available - $76,123.81 • Improvement General Available - $404,910.19 • Purchase Orders Paid - $683,945.52 • September 30, 2011 is the last day of fiscal year. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported a Work Directive Change was issued to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation on July 28, 2011 to install 3" HOPE class 150 SDR -11. This was to address subsurface rock condition found on Hunter Boulevard in order to install mainline for irrigation. Staff provided the following documentation to Advisory Committee prior to August 91h meeting: • Work Directive Change dated July 28, 2011 issued to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation • McGee & Associates Landscape Architecture letter addressing Proposed Change Order for subsurface rock dated July 27, 2011 recommendation to proceed forward on Option A • Cost estimates for Option A - $3,161.60 and Option B - $24,245. 00 • Engineer' Option A Recommendation from Trebilcock Consulting Solutions • Change Order Tracking: 10 -5595 Part I (Curbing) & Part II (Landscape & Irrigation) Report Mike McGee reviewed the proposal and recommended Option A. Darryl Richard requested the Advisory Committee approve cost estimate of $3,161.60 received from Hannula Landscape. Pat Spencer moved to approve the bill ( Hannula proposal in the amount of $3,161.60.) Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. C. Purchasing — Review of Landscape Architect Selection Darryl Richard stated the Advisory Committee has an option to select a Landscape Architect Consultant. At a previous meeting, the Committee indicated they preferred to interview only McGee & Associates and JRL Design. He asked Purchasing to research the Committees' request and 2 1 2 1A14' invited Rhonda Cumming, Contract Specialist to meet with the Committee and answer questions. Rhonda Cumming clarified the Committee could select Landscape Architect Consultant. Richard Sims reported receiving a telephone call from Darryl Richard saying the MSTU needed to renew the JRL contract. Richard Sims reiterated he wanted a proposal from JRL Design and McGee & Associates for the Committee to evaluate. Rhonda Cumming responded proposals submitted cannot include monetary information. Discussion was made on how and when to hold interviews and it was decided both Landscape Architects will submit documentation to Darryl Richard prior to Interview Selection at the next regular meeting. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula Manny Gonzalez reported ongoing maintenance issues and outstanding Purchase Orders. He cited ongoing issues were due to Hannula' Staff changes over the past year. Darryl Richard responded Hannula had 3 Project Managers over the past year and noted "We have the best one now." Manny Gonzalez introduced Carlos Herrera, Irrigation Maintenance Manager. They gave a history of their landscape experience. VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Richard Tindell provided the Landscape Architect's Field Report dated August 6, 2011. (See attached) He commended Hannula for making improved progress and reported the following: • Site shows positive changes from last month - - Trash observed on Collier and Sunshine. - Tropicana median site lines on over hanging branches are being addressed. - Bus stop shelter and benches have been painted. • The Beach Sunflower on Collier is very sparse and weeds under control. • Crown -of -thorn beds along Collier have not been attended to. • One tree and several clumps of ornamental grasses on the north side of the bridge by Tropicana are dead. • A dead palmetto, ilex and juniper on Collier should be replaced. • All planting areas continue to need trimming to meet County and FDOT standards. He stated the Collier Boulevard median tips off I -75 look forgotten and offered options to improve: • Mulching • Sod ■ Ground cover 3 161 Z 'Alb Pam Lulich requested a revised quote using Fund 111. Revised quote should be provided by vendor within the next week. She stated initially the plan was to move the Crown -of -thorns around but it is not feasible at this time. Discussion occurred concerning what option to use to replace Crown -of -thorn beds with and the cheapest way to make the median green. Road construction has been scheduled at this location in 2013. The Committee will trust Pam Lulich to make selection. Pam Lulich suggested mulching the tips, where the Crown -of -thorn beds are and a minimal planting of Saw Palmettos for the next 2 -3 years. She mentioned the County will have a plant and tree inventory for CR 951 and Golden Gate Parkway with species, ratings, maintenance information and value. The inventory can be saved move to different locations. It was suggested the Committee request funds to re- landscape torn up medians with a formal motion to make recommendation to the BCC. The CR 951 Project is Design Built and will not have much median left. Staff expressed concern over having too much concrete. Staff strongly recommended a representation from the Advisory Committee to become involved in the future SWFL Water Management 951 Project - Ad Hawk Committee. Mike McGee agreed with Staff s recommendation and pointed out making canal (e.i.Grey Oaks off Airport Road) more attractive is worth getting involved. Richard Sims requested Staff make sure SWFL Water Management District is aware the GG MSTU exists and has a vested interest in CR 951 medians. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee gave an update on the Project as follows: o Bonness indicated they were on schedule to finish up on August 21St o Curbs are all installed. • Staff is researching final payment documents to eliminate issues. • Timing of when FPL removes pole may affect the Project schedule. • Palm tree planting is scheduled for August 121H • Hannula may be required to provide truck watering until electric for pump system is set up. • FPL will take approximately 1 -2 weeks to set irrigation meters. • The final completion date for Hannula is September 30, 2011. IX. Old Business — None. X. New Business A. Improved Lighting M 161 2 Pat Spencer reported in 2008 she sent a request to the County to illuminate the Shopping Center to improve lighting and provide a safer environment. Staff indicated FPL may charge new transformer costs and will require the County enter into an agreement with an annual cost of $175. The County would need to sign agreement on behalf of the Advisory Committee to cover electrical costs. The Advisory Committee did not agree to enter into an FPL Agreement and formed a consensus to use the Sheriffs' Office, Fire Department or/ and Task Force as alternate sources to provide a safe environment around the shopping center. XI. Public Comments Darryl Richard set a deadline of September 6, 2011 for submission of Landscape Architect documentation to be considered for Consultant selection on September 13tH There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Rich rd Sims, Chairwn These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented l�-- or amended (O - //— The next meeting is scheduled for September 13, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 5 A 14 f4 161 2 A14 GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEmE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ,August 9, 20,11 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. Purchasing - Selection of Landscape Architect X. A. Improved Lighting Richard Sims moved to approve the August 9, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes —July 12, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the July 12, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard requested the Advisory Committee approve cost estimate of $3,161.60 received from Hannula Landscape. Pat Spencer moved to approve the bill ( Hannula proposal in the amount of $3,161.60.) Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. N Z O T v_ T � � O m � 4 4 Z W 0 0 o� gs� o Woo W Ro��PWO o0 oN °o mno c�,�6P O °o,om�fry ,I+n O N r O R ' Ty M T O 1° r��moo �rW.mv�o WNnonva0i n"oxonnmm�r m q�N O .- �- W W N � W A ORNN Qr NE � iS {j 7. c ) t• vg Tom-.' rv.... �ux +ri at3 e3 � a3 � s rs: .v'z v� vs yr » a: ve >6 a> +�, � sr �- e: n d> �•: •s, of o-.�w m w La aE ✓ � m� �� d+ ° FU? � a in u Q CA2 all q j vWzcr�c� ua�r� J vawWCO�t�LL;� Q ♦��N�ppf�� iWB 4>M 0�6 t�Qy�Oa WO N tfNpO {M1( ♦�pOO v Ci (tOyp> �TN ��cyNO3Q � R. i 6 M1 '_ti M SN16 N N m h N, 2 pt N E _N i_V . O_ .� N pppppgrq r � b pppppp +ORffRffQ Pf etQQQVRf <'rtRRRQ I ♦ � I o I B (Y � G C Z1 11A j S V N O N e) d 6 za .n nva's °o ��� , o oroo Ro oar 00000 O O W 00 4? 00 00 000 ��NfGf ', N �M�N Nt00.0� K01�OOO OON t: r Y ♦ t� HW &98H lH fiY HH H H IA ry N. HwHw °o °o 8 O O O H H H wwHUr 0o O co � r O � N w w w w a ZO W W Z guns LL MMO--yy(( K X a8 C7 a Z dF LL LL F Z cc u�u�kw w %. >-go z {yy�T Q Z •-N MQNN rae OS� � r � � H H HHH ViwHHHH HHH HHHfF N •- r � H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H w 000�0000000 oob g 000MOOCOOOO G 000 O N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 O O f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O G O P O w Htlf HHHHHHHHH HH H wH 0. LU z �vawwzzz�Y zo -z 2 (x7 O W ppii y Qfl- }� fDa V` r Wuo Ti F Q.{1, "-ZE 6C�S2. U, WOE ->tia U.Fr- .�Wi. >.� w W rU,mt wgZSNzt- -`fit! V31KR.d Q`dr. V} fq W�(W}Z Z T M�Z d.qq�,,. Qzc� Z{ Gi Li +Q fA rJJ Z�s(F = a.� C3 r it W !em u. ,31 r-a a-, K^✓�R W11! �� ���NN HN N hHNN HA�eNO ens M)tw+! ea! M Mnf < V A14 Y. 44 D O U. e o 161 A 14 W 0 °00000 0000 00� 0 O O 00 O N O f0 O tW0 Yf O Np O O O V < �C pp t0 f9 Vf MM �p p �H M a0, f? w .0 M Y O N O O N C O A V O W LL') O O M O fh N n n 00 O N o n V m O A IO (O m t�9 to LO w f0 y N M pp fA .0� m W t N N N o fD EA ID Vi r' Ni N h LL y d! to W M tl! O O N O W O OD N m n m o 0 R C < O m O N A W N h m O e O fp di to M M 19 O T j -S tOO T O O m O N N f"1 to f9 69 � EA N H W W rn�coy a o m M M y 61� M di M O O N O N N O W N O N q W O G N O V n fap co W N m W � b Vi M M W � W N G 3 O aS N ^y 3 y mo -ia f2 o LL C W U CI ` H O O o A N M p •n y y j O A x L- v 'o: a °' m : m o 0 m O y C E d 0 U O FD O � i y i •O N C^ (9 �m yymd y Jrn U c W Ti m W,s y a� `Ym Iry i ic> > IV a+ i6 n�nn'� o a w r v o m d d x x x W O W W o F W:i m C E d N ° m v m N d U } O 0 C W W W j U Z N O M O O O > m m o x o 0 0 it LL w m N W N N N Y. 44 D O U. e o 161 A 14 161 2 'A14 J, U", a N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 August 6, 2011 offindwMPS f i hooft @290 90080 d irap @N COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® —MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - PO# 4500126569 REPORT NUMBER: 18 CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping — Manuel Gonzales JRL COMM No: 11003 Date: 7/12, 7/26 & Weather: Clear Estimate % Complete: N/A 8/5/2011 Time: 12:30 — 1:30 Temp Range: 94 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: July 12: Pam Lulich, Mannel Gonzales, & Richard Tindell July 25, & August 5 : Richard Tindell, landscape architect WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Site shows positive changes from last month, Some trash observed on Collier Blvd, and Sunshine, Routine maintenance work has been performed. Tropicana median site lines on over hanging branches are being addressed. Bus stop shelters and benches have been painted. Repair work a bridge irrigation crossing along Tropicana. Irrigation usage readings have not been received from Hannula. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions, designs and work orders. REPORT: Reviewed last reports, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Damon, A detailed observation with Staff and Contractor was performed. Necessary improvements noted have improved markedly. The beach sunflower on Collier is very sparse weeds seem to be under control. This has been as issue for 12 months Crown -of -thorn beds along Collier and Tropicana have not been attended to. Several clumps (perhaps 12) of ornamental grasses on the north side of the Tropicana bridge are dead as is one large tree. There is a dying pine tree near 43'h Street on Golden Gate - reportrd last month. Dead palmetto, ilex and juniper are still observed on Collier and should be replaced. Recent cold weather will add to the distress 161 Z A14 especially to the crown -of- thorns. Much of the bougainvillea has re- sprouted and trim back of dead wood has been scheduled. On Sunshine several junipers have not been replaced. Santa Barbara and Green medians have been mowed. All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Ornamental Grasses still over hanging the roadway and a few low hanging tree branches require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between 24" and 72 ", FDOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10' clear over sidewalks. Continued meetings with the Project Manager and Hannula is needed to address these issues. New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested. Current rain events have greatly improved the situation. ACTION REQUIRED: Review with county setback requirements for mountable curb as along Golden Gate. Meet with staff and landscape contractor. Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to Hannula. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 PROJECT NAME: 10-5595 Part H Landscape & Irrigation DATE OF ISSUANCE: 7-28-11 OWNER: Collier County Board of Commissioners CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc. EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-28-11 PR03ECT#: 4500125724 ENGINEER: McGee & Associates You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s): Description: Per proposal received on July 11, 2011 (see attached) Install 3" HOPE class 150 SDR- I I black from Sta 19+50 to Sta. 27+00 on Hunter Blvd. or about a 750 ft. distance. Tools to be utilized: backhoe with rock hammer. Provide for mechanical joints as necessary. Purpose of Work Directive Change: To address sub surface rock condition found on Hunter Blvd. in order to install mainline for irrigation. Attachments: Contractor Proposal, Consultant Recommendation, Engineer Sub-Consultant Recommendation, Contractor Cost Evaluation of Alternative Solution, Tabulation of all changes to Contract 10-5595 to date (including this work directive), Minutes from May 10, 2011 Golden Gate MSTU Meeting. If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Times any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more of the following methods of determining the effect of the changes(s). Method of determining change in Contract Price: Method of determining change in Contract Times: 0 Unit Prices E Contractor's records ❑ Lump Sum Z Engineer's record ❑ Other ❑ Other Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price Estimated change in Contract Time: $3,161.60 Increase or decrease by (zero) 0 calendar days. RECOMMENDED: AUTHORIZED: By: Mike McGee, RLA By: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, RLA Design Consultant Owner's Representative 07/28/11 3:31 PM W4�6 &..,4,UMWe4 Landscape Architecture July 27, 2011 Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager Department of Attemative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 161 7�. A14" Subject: Coronado Pkwy. & Hunter Blvd. Part II Landscaping & Irrigation Installation Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc.'s Bid # 10 -5595 Part II, P.O. #4500125724, Project No. 4600002759 Proposed Change Order for subsurface rock. Dear Mr. Richard, The follkwing is our evaluations for justification and recommendations with regards to the proposed change order Items, As you are aware existing subsurface rock conditions that have been uncovered along Hunter Blvd. from approximately Sta. 19+50 to 27 +00 or about a 750 ft. distance. The depth of the rock is no issue with the median excavation and planting soil and curbing installation, but it is a major issue for the irrigation main line being installed at the pre-determined and typical depth of 36 inches. We instructed our Engineering sub - consultant Trebikock Consulting Solutions, PA to prepare an evaluation with recommendations based upon the following two options. Option A to raise the installation depth of the main line to a 24 inch depth and change the piping material to the stronger HDPE type pipe or option B remove and/or lower the rock by mechanical means and install the irrigation main line per plans and specifications along with an additional 6 inch depth of bedding material under the pipe. As per the Engineers evaluation and recommendation email dated 7/11/2011 we are in agreement that option A is the most cost effective, less potential damaging and time saving manner to resolve the rock issue. The raised irrigation main line will be located in the median landscape area and not under any pavement areas. We have additionally instructed the contractor to install locator devices on 25 ft. centers along this section of main line. Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. was asked to prepare cost estimates for both options A & B and as anticipated option As net cost of $3,161.60 is a much lower price compared to the option B's net cost of $24,245.00. Based upon the potential problems that could occur to the existing roadway; the additional project time changes, and the amount of additional costs to resolve the rock issue, it is our recommendation to proceed forward with a change order to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc.'s contract for a net cost change of $3,161.60 as they submitted. If you need any additional information please let us know. c RECEIVE,.-!'.- ichael A. M isa I_ President, & Associates JUL j a'r), Deoi. Design * Environmental Management " Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail Fast 1 P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417-0707 " Fax (239) 417 -0708 FL LCC 098 • FL 1023A 400-c or C- Gn e T-1 os f C� g � 161 2 A14 Coronado Parkway And Hunter Blvd. Phase 11 Median Landscape And Irrigation, Installation Bid Number 10 -6595 Change Order Number "Two" Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Date: July 11, 2011 By: Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. Total Additions $ 4.420.00 Total Deletions (1,268.40) Net Chan $ 3 161 .60 , � L , a rpUe� 16 1 1 not i SC�ec C.wonado Parkway And Hurter Blvd. Phase 1! Mdiatt Landscape And Irrigation Installation Change Order Proposal 25- Jul -11 Date: If am # CJty Sum Desr-rintinn Snar- Unit Cost Total Total Additions $ 24,245.00 Total Deletions Mobilization ® .. 11 •. 11 © ©� M• - • ••• -• • 1 11 1 11 - -_ 1 -- ' Total Additions $ 24,245.00 Total Deletions $ - Net Change $ 24,245.00 By: Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. 25- Jul -11 � 11�� 161 2' A14 Meeting Follow Up Recommendation Project: Date Time of Meetin : Golden Gate MSTU Coronado Parkway and Hunter Boulevard Median Improvements; July 11th/ 8:30 am. Location of Meeting: On Site Item Discussed: 1. Extensive rock has been encountered on Hunter Blvd by the irrigation contractor and verified by the earthwork contractor. The limits of the rock encountered are from approximate station 19 +50 to 27 +00, a distance of 750 ft. 2. Option A is to allow the rock to remain and to install HDPE (increased strength) irrigation main at an approximate depth of cover of 24 inches. Also, an additional 6 inches (at the center) of topsoil would be added. This would result in a change order in the $5,000 range. No additional time would be requested by the contractors as a result of this option. 3. Option B would be to remove the rock by mechanical means and to replace the material with suitable bedding and the irrigation system would be constructed at plan depth and per plan specifications. The estimated cost to remove and replace the unsuitable material is in the $15,000 to $20,000 range. The rock removal process may impact the existing road bed, given that some of the underlying rock extends underneath the road bed. The contractors would request additional time for this option, which would be estimated at 2 weeks. 4. Engineers Recommendation: Option A is recommended as being more cost effective and time sensitive. Page 1 of 1 Meeting Follow Up Recommendation Prepared by Norman Trebilcock — Trebilcock Consulting Solutions— email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz; Phone 239 -566 -9551. 161,2 A14 u * X a) � vUi C m a a, 41 m m > L a% CQ U U U O IS O u O Ln . i r` LL J V? ci M L O Ln O H _0 m U, a) LO 7 N N N O- N N n aJ WLn Ln Ln L N N N — O O O 3 Z [t 1:11 � m O 0 00 CL a a a ri O N O C C O O > ;_ ;_, m W '� •i C L L 0 Z a 66 O O a) aJ 4. F- C- a O °. U C bD U E az `" Ln c U - C O m 0 J u J F O U O W +' � _ C O t' t O OC m m m E a a a a m aj t aj O N m O U t` a) O1 � m 0 Z — `^ W Q L L > O O N � i U W o o lu H Z °a W Q O O L O = m m O u U U 3 Z 161 ? �� June 6, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, June 6, 2011 BY: ........ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Misc. Corres: Date: %A-\ 21 Itemt �� :2W \S Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 Fiala 1 J CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug Hiller VICE CHAIR: Kaydee Tuff Hennin Coyle —' Bill Arthur Coletta Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Date: %A-\ 21 Itemt �� :2W \S Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. 161 2 A IS June 6, 2011 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM by Chairman, James Klug III. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was determined. 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. 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. Public Comments None 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. 2 161 2 s June 6, 20A 15 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'* at 6:00 pm and invite Cheryl Pryor to attend. (Advisory Board will reschedule if necessary.) Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. 161 2 tne 6 111 A 15 C. Summer Recess To be addressed at the next meeting. 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 These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board onw J as presented =� or as amended 0 su N F 60 2 , A 115 JL Code Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 GovMax V5 1 6/6/2011 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 1157710-130 Golden Gate Community Centel• 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 157710 -130 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes Millage Neutral Ad Valorem 1 276,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347230 Permit Membership Sales Parks And Rec NBL Memberships - 100 x $45 1 4,500 0 0 0 0 Wheels Memberships - 150x $25 1 3,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347230 8,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347270 Athletic Programs Parks And Rec Futsal tournamentl5 teams x $200 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Adult Basketball League - 8 teams x $150x 2 1 2,400 0 0 0 0 Futsal soccer 300 players x $40 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 Summer Teen Basketball program 10 teams x $150 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Youth Basketball League - 50 kids x $30 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347270 20,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347400 Special Events Community Yard Sales 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 5th Grade Dances 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 BMX races - 23 x 26 racers x $12 1 7,200 0 0 0 0 Frontier Days 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 Halloween Howl - 200 x $2 1 400 0 0 0 0 Senior Expo 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Spring Wing Ding - 200 x $2 1 400 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fest 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347400 24,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable Wheels resale merchandise - $10,000 + 20% mark up 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347905 Admission Daily Admission to Wheels- 400 walkins x $5 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347908 Concession Fees Vending Machines 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347940 Facility Rentals Culture Rec Facility Rental 1 23,000 0 0 0 0 Senior Food Program $350 x 12 months 1 4,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347940 27,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec BMX clinics 16 sessions x 10 participants x $5 1 800 0 0 0 0 Cheerleading 12 sessions x 50 participants x $40 1 24,000 0 0 0 0 Karate 8 sessions x 34participants x $45 1 12,200 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports- 3 sessions x 15 participants x $36 1 1,600 0 0 0 0 Yoga /Aerobics/Zumba -100 sessions x 10 participants x $7 1 7,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 45,600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 366900 Contributions Private Source Cool Cruisers Annual Donation 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 425,900 0 0 0 0 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 157710 -130 347290 Recreation Camps Parks And Rec BMX/ Camps - 6 campers x 4 wks x $110 =$3520 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 Holiday Camp - 35kids x $65 1 2,300 0 0 0 0 No School Camps - 18 kids x $15 x 5 days 1 1,400 0 0 0 0 Spring Camp - 30campers x $85 =$3000 1 2,600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347290 9,800 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 1 6/6/2011 161 2 JL Code Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 536,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec Report Grand Total 536,700 0 ASA - 36 x $500 x 2 sessions 1 36,000 0 0 0 0 VPK- $2710 x 24 1 65,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 101,000 0 0 0 0 180703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 110,800 0 0 0 0 '57710= 20 Golden Gate Cc^mun €ty Centes 5:36,700 0 0 U 0 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 536,700 0 0 0 0 Report Grand Total 536,700 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 2 6/612011 16 A Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government 1 500 Fiscal Year 2092 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 1,000 08 Public Services Division 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 342 0 0 0 0 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 1 500 0 0 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries Snowfest 4 x $9.77 x 10 hours 1 400 0 50001347 - Salary - WILSON VICKIE 1 64,694 0 0 0 0 50001740 - Salary - Vacant 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001741 - Salary - Rafaela Zapata 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001743 - Salary - ALLEN JULIE 1 43,645 0 0 0 0 50001744 - Salary - TORRES GREGORY 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001745 - Salary - Vacant 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001746 - Salary - CORIANO RAMON 1 32,753 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries 248,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 50001347 - DC50 - WILSON VICKIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 50001743 - DC50 - ALLEN JULIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 1 342 0 0 0 0 Breakfast with Santa 8 x $9.77x 6 hours 1 500 0 0 0 0 Snowfest 4 x $9.77 x 10 hours 1 400 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fast 8 x$9.77 x 8 hours 1 700 0 0 0 0 Wheels - 2 x $11.30 x 30hr x 52wks 1 36,000 0 0 0 0 Wheels camp counselors - 2 x $9.77 x 40hr x 10 wks 1 7,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 45,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment rounding after retirement rate change 1 8 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 50001347 - FICA - WILSON VICKIE 1 4,053 0 0 0 0 50001347 - MEDI - WILSON VICKIE 1 948 0 0 0 0 50001740 - FICA - Vacant 1 1,461 0 0 0 0 50001740 - MEDI - Vacant 1 342 0 0 0 0 50001741 - FICA - Rafaela Zapata 1 1,461 0 0 0 0 50001741 - MEDI - Rafaela Zapata 1 342 0 0 0 0 50001743- FICA -ALLEN JULIE 1 2,744 0 0 0 0 50001743 - MEDI -ALLEN JULIE 1 642 0 0 0 0 50001744 - FICA - TORRES GREGORY 1 1,884 0 0 0 0 50001744 - MEDI - TORRES GREGORY 1 441 0 0 0 0 50001745 - FICA - Vacant 1 1,884 0 0 0 0 50001745 - MEDI - Vacant 1 441 0 0 0 0 50001746 - FICA - CORIANO RAMON 1 2,036 0 0 0 0 50001746 - MEDI - CORIANO RAMON 1 476 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 19,155 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 50001347 -HA- WILSON VICKIE 1 3,448 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HA - Vacant 1 1,253 0 0 0 0 50001741 - PA - Rafaela Zapata 1 1,253 0 0 0 0 50001743 -HA -ALLEN JULIE 1 2,326 0 0 0 0 50001744 - PA - TORRES GREGORY 1 1,615 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HA - Vacant 1 1,615 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HA - CORIANO RAMON 1 1,746 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 13,256 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 50001347 - HLTHall - WILSON VICKIE 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HLTHall - Vacant 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001741 - HLTHall - Rafaela Zapata 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001743 - HLTHall - ALLEN JULIE 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001744 - HLTHaII - TORRES GREGORY 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HLTHall - Vacant 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HLTHall - CORIANO RAMON 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 89,222 0 0 0 0 GovMax V6 1 6/6/2011 161 2, 1 r' JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government 1 1,800 Fiscal Year 2012 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 21,100 08 Public Services Division 0 0 0 157710 -130 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 1 5,000 0 0 157710 - 130 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Term 157710 -130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 50001347 - LIFE - WILSON VICKIE 1 175 0 0 0 0 50001740 - LIFE - Vacant 1 63 0 0 0 0 50001741 - LIFE - Rafaela Zapata 1 63 0 0 0 0 50001743 - LIFE -ALLEN JULIE 1 118 0 0 0 0 50001744 - LIFE - TORRES GREGORY 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001745 - LIFE - Vacant 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001746 - LIFE - CORIANO RAMON 1 88 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Tenn 671 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 524100 Workers Compensation Regular Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 3,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634207 IT Capital Allocation Per IT Budget Instruction - Capital 1 1,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation Per IT Budget Instruction - Shared 1 21,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation Moved from 634210 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement Indirect Cost Plan 1 125,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services Excercise classes (347990) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Cheerleading (347990) 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 Entertainment Skate /BMX events (DJ, bands, etc) (347990) 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Family Special events 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Futsal 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 Karate (347990) 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 Marcia Galle Dance Class (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Referees 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Security for events 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fest 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services 49,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular Mileage 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel FRPA Conference 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 NBL BMX Conference 1 900 0 0 0 0 Other OOC Training 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 2,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641230 Telephone Access Charges Per IT Budget Instruction - Telephone 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641700 Cellular Telephone Supervisor - $57 /mth x 12 1 700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation Per budget instructions 1 5,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641951 Postage Postage for letterslPackages 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644170 Rent Temporary Storage Guardian Storage 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment BMX Qualifier (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Halloween Howl 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Misc Events costumes,equipment etc... 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 2 616/2011 161 JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government 1 2,400 0 0 Fiscal Year 2012 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 08 Public Services Division Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 157710 -130 Golden Gate C®MMUnity Center 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center benches 1 1,000 0 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment 0 0 157710 -130 646710 Office Equipment R And M Senior Expo (347400) 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Sound System $2000 (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Spring Wing Ding (347400) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Festival ( sound system,tents & generators) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 (347400) 0 0 0 157710 -130 648160 Other Ads 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment 13,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644620 Lease Equipment Copier Lease agreement 1 2,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 5,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 21,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc benches 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646710 Office Equipment R And M Copier Maintenance 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance Security Cameras R &M 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors Printing and or Binding Outside Vendors 1 8,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648160 Other Ads Yard sales advertising 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional Tropical Fest and seasonal events 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Marketing 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits Frontier days (347400) 1 200 0 0 0 0 Right of Way for special events (347400) 1 200 0 0 0 0 Special events (347400) 1 600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Pennits 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649035 Judgements /Fines And Costs False Alarms 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee Credit Card Fees 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services Miscellaneous NBL Services (347230) 1 400 0 0 0 0 Movie privileges for outdoor movies (347400) 1 400 0 0 0 0 NBL Insurance (347230) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Memberships (347230) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Race Report Fees (347230) 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 7,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General Misc. Programs 1• 1,900 0 0 0 0 Office supplies 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General 4,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651210 Copying Charges Program flyers 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651910 Minor Office Equipment GovMax VS 3 616/2011 161 JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 08 Public Services Division 1157710-130 Golden Gate Cormunity Center 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 157710 -130 651910 Minor Office Equipment Scanner /Printer 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases Athletic program shirts 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Nametags - 15 staff x 1 nametag x $12 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 1,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 5th Grade Dances - 3 x $400 (347400) 1 1,200 0 0 0 0 Late Skate Nights (347230) 1 400 0 0 0 0 Programs and Special Events Food (347400) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Festival (347400) 1 1,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 3,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 5,200 0 0 0 0 Paper & Cleaning Supplies 1 3,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies 400 0 0 0 0 First Aid Kits 1 700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 600 0 0 0 0 Audio equipment 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs and game room 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Remove tables & chairs to balance budget 1 -4,000 0 0 0 0 Tables & chairs 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 157710 -130 763100 Improvements General 51,500 0 0 0 BMX Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 Skate Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies BMX/Skate (347400) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Game room equipment 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Lumber, building supplies 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Reduce supplies to balance budget 1 -2,800 0 0 0 0 Senior expo 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 5,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654110 Books Publ & Subscriptions CPR books 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654210 Dues And Memberships FRPA - 3 x $200 1 600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp CPRP certifications 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 763100 Improvements General Access to Wheels Driveway 1 7,000 0 0 0 0 Playground replacement 1 60,000 0 0 0 0 Remove Wheels Driveway & $8,500 from playground 1 - 15,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 763100 Improvements General 51,500 0 0 0 0 080703 -10 Golden Gate Community Center 814,612 0 0 0 0 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 157710- 130 512100 Regular Salaries 50001735 - Salary - REYES JACQUELINE 1 10,658 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages GovMax VS 4 616/2011 161 2 i A�'� JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 08 Public Services Division 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 157710 - 130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages ASA counselors - 1 x $9.77 x 20hrs x 40wks (347990) 1 7,800 0 0 0 0 DCF Training - 3 x 10hrs x $10.38 1 312 0 0 0 0 Early Release - 1 x $9.77 x 3hr x 7 days 1 206 0 0 0 0 Holiday Camp - 2 x $9.77x 4 days x 11 hours(347290) 1 900 0 0 0 0 No School Days - 2 x $9.77x 4days x 11 hrs 1 900 0 0 0 0 rounding 1 82 0 0 0 0 Spring Camp - 2 x $9.77 x 11 hours x 5 days (347290) 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 VPK 2nd Instructor- 1 x $10.38 x 540 hours(347990) 1 5,600 0 0 0 0 VPK lead teacher 1 x$14.57x 790 hours 1 11,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 28 ,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment adj - rounding 1 24 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 521100 Social Security Matching 50001735 - FICA - REYES JACQUELINE 1 661 0 0 0 0 50001735 - MEDI - REYES JACQUELINE 1 155 0 0 0 0 Addtl FICA on Other Sal per Schedule 1 5,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 6,616 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 50001735 - HA - REYES JACQUELINE 1 568 0 0 0 0 Addtl Retirement on Other Wages 1 4,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 4,768 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646910 Data Processing Equip R And M Flex care and Child Care Station 1 800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits DCF License (347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 Health Dept.(347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Pennits 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General ASA 1 200 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General 300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651210 Copying Charges ASA flyers 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 5 1 100 0 0 0 0 Pre School Shirts - 4 x $5 x 5 sessions 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Unifonn Purchases 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies ASA Food 1 100 0 0 0 0 Preschool (347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies VPK 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies First aid re -stock 1 700 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies 800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies Art Supplies (347990) 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 ASA (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 5 616/2011 A IS JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government 1 1,514 0 Fiscal Year 2012 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0 08 Public Services Division 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short -Long Term 1157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 1 77 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 0 157710 -130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies Preschool supplies (347990) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 6,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp Per Fleet schedule ASA training 1 200 0 0 0 0 DCF mandated 40 -hr training and in- service trainings 1 200 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 600 0 0 0 0 080703 -20 Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 60,266 0 0 0 0 080703 -30 Community Center Maintenance 6,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries 50001564 - Salary - ORTA ROGELIO 1 28,406 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 0 157710 -130 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors Frontier Days 8x $9.77 x 10hours 1 800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 0 0 0 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 50001564 - FICA - ORTA ROGELIO 1 1,766 0 0 0 0 50001564 - MEDI - ORTA ROGELIO 1 413 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 2.179 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 522100 Retirement Regular 50001564 - PA - ORTA ROGELIO 1 1,514 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 50001564 - HLTHaII - ORTA ROGELIO 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short -Long Term 50001564 - LIFE - ORTA ROGELIO 1 77 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies Locksmiths Services and Supplies 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge Per Fleet schedule 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643100 Electricity GGCC Electricity 1 68,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal GGCC Trash Pick ups 1 6,500 0 0 0 0 1.57710 -130 643400 Water And Sewer Per budget instructions - actuals x 1.0523 1 15,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors Facility Painting 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings Special service repairs on skate park/BMX track 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance Sprinkler Maintenance 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint Clay for BMX track 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Gym Floor Cleaning 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Soiltac for BMX Track 1 1,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Cowl And Ball Field Maint 4,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc Picnic Tables 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646317 Fencing Maintenance Fence repairs and maintenance 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 6 6/6/2011 161 2 JA 15, A Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 08 Public Services Division 157710 -130 Golden Gate Ccn1t~:tn ty `enter 080703 -30 Community Center Maintenance 157710 -130 646318 Mulch Playground mulch 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Red Mulch 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 6,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming Tree Trimming 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials Flowers, plants and ground covering 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead Per Fleet schedule 1 3,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Per Fleet Budget Instruction 1 2,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646452 Playground Equip Maintenance Playground parts 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors BMX starter gate repairs 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases Safety Boots - 2 x $150 1 300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental Maintenance Uniforms - 1 x $405.60 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652140 Personal Safety Equipment Personal Safety Equipment 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals Fertilizer for common grounds 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings Per Fleet Budget Instruction 1 5,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652991 Electrical Supplier Repair and replacement of electrical parts 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652992 Electrical Contractors Electrical Contractors 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652999 Painting Supplies Painting Supplies 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 080703 -30 Community Center Maintenance 195,622 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,070,500 0 0 0 0 08 Public Services Division 1,070,500 0 0 0 0 Report Grand Total 1,070,500 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 7 6/6/2011 Current Level of Service Budget 8.50 1,188,600 1,188,600 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget Increase Fee Based Facility Rentals by 2% 610 650 650 663 Increase Fee Based Program Registrations by 2% 2,326 2,400 2,400 2,448 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 Public Services Division FY 2012 Parkin & Recreation Department Program Budgetary Cost Summary Golden Gate Community Center (130) Adopted Mission Statement Current Expanded To benefit the well -being of the people, community, and environment of Collier County. Change FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Program Summary Total FTE Budget Revenues Net Cost Golden Gate Community Center 7.00 817,612 429,500 388,112 The Golden Gate Community Center serves as a meeting place for Operating Expense community groups and provides structured programming for all ages via 384,800 classes, activities, and special events and offers informal gathering 376,800 opportunities through open game room and drop -in recreation programs. (2.1 %) Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 0.50 60,266 110,800 - 50,534 Strive to meet family needs by providing a safe and supervised 90,600 environment for all children to attend throughout the year. Provide 125,300 recreational and enrichment experiences for self - esteem, self - reliance, Capital Outlay learning, pleasure, health and well being. 60,000 Community Center Maintenance 1.00 195,622 195,622 Protect resources, provide a pleasant, clean, safe and enjoyable (14.2 %) environment for community center visitors to allow quality passive and 930,289 organized recreational experiences by the public. 942,300 Reserves /Transfers 115,100 648,300 - 533,200 Current Level of Service Budget 8.50 1,188,600 1,188,600 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget Increase Fee Based Facility Rentals by 2% 610 650 650 663 Increase Fee Based Program Registrations by 2% 2,326 2,400 2,400 2,448 Fiscal Year 2012 2 Public Services Division 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 Personal Services 462,079 518,700 444,500 516,900 516,900 (0.3 %) Operating Expense 345,171 384,800 377,200 376,800 376,800 (2.1 %) Indirect Cost Reimburs 77,400 90,600 90,600 125,300 125,300 38.3% Capital Outlay 45,639 60,000 30,000 51,500 51,500 (14.2 %) Net Operating Budget 930,289 1,054,100 942,300 1,070,500 1,070,500 1.6% Trans to Property Appraiser 2,915 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0.0% Trans to Tax Collector 7,046 8,000 8,000 5,500 5,500 (31.3 %) Reserves For Contingencies - 37,000 - 23,600 23,600 (36.2 %) Reserves For Capital - 79,200 - 86,000 86,000 8.6% Total Budget 940,250 1,181,300 953,300 1,188,600 1,188,600 0.6% Total FTE 9.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.0% Fiscal Year 2012 2 Public Services Division m A m W n 'j. 16 i 0 3 a . x ID a o a O O m m ID - 0 O y < O 0 0. � c O � 3 N N O O o n a c p O a (D O CD y m O y c � a � n a a o � < c o m ° o � N X N m m CT O O N O O O O a 0 o y N n a <D C x N p d � O Q � 3 °c tD O a � `G y -TG N W a O O X X 161 o a n m m m m m c O c �„' ?' Z < o is o g m 3 y A a a 2 O <D a c m m m -+ (D m m (D m Z m m � m N J 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tam A 15 r m 0 0 N a r N N m n d D r (0 <0 10 0 rm ' O O O O O O 0 o A O cn N OX pAN - i Ti �3 X Ci N y N to 3 N O, N n - M O N y d < N T o CD O G a c 3 O 0 Z O. N d n o m m C0 c Dyi :U 7J v (n o, m Z to 161 o a n m m m m m c O c �„' ?' Z < o is o g m 3 y A a a 2 O <D a c m m m -+ (D m m (D m Z m m � m N J 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 y y N T 0 O O O O Oo a m 3 fD fJ x x O O C. 0 W m N O N A O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V m 0 0 m m 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (ti m 0 0 0 O 0 2 A 15 0 p 0 0 O N N O O (0 <0 10 0 rm ' O O O O O O 0 o A O cn N OX pAN - i Ti �3 X Ci N y C V/ O, N n - O D X o y y N T 0 O O O O Oo a m 3 fD fJ x x O O C. 0 W m N O N A O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V m 0 0 m m 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (ti m 0 0 0 O 0 2 A 15 7n J '� o m -in N N O j 3 lo 7.0 3 3 rm ' m o y y N 0 o A O cn N OX pAN - i Ti �3 X Ci N y C V/ O, N n - O D X —a n O 0 Z C0 a < C (n m Z to to O e o rn o z m m 0 0 0 0 o -q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a C m w CL 0 G) m N T O O W 0 O O O OOJ O W N O O A m( J m a X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Z� 0 w � W m 8 � m Mpg, w , _c`" 0 O O. O O O moo O O p W O 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D r m a N a oa > o o D O O ` O � n^ Z1 C7 a= 0 3 a 0 o co O V N N A (0 CD O Cn W Cn m UI CT W m N O O O O 0 0 n 0 C o a o o o O c. n < O _ t0 C X � O (D y y D1 a c tD a 000 N N lO N O O O \ • - O 10 ;'M O ri rl a) m a) 4-3 F� -H IIi •r1 r-I qHU +-) )-I O Q a) [LS O 3 O TS r-I 'Ci N •�I A Om -I U W fA ?[ O 4J N q •� � S-I O (d U Ra NO of U .H 1 N 00 U +) U O +3 a) a CO tD H OI HI QI m U W z U S O U W E-+ tJ z W 0 a O U E� z U O U W El C7 z W 0 a O C7 O 00 4-) 4.)4-) U) �ro W a-) E- O Z E- WI U _Q s� r U) OHEi 4-)zH 0) (d U z In U D � -HEX U '0 X X Q+ X00 X HUUW (d Ea H U<< ro •rIU0 4-) O Nzz -HWW IZ. .)-) 0 0 N (daa -I-) O O U m00(4. M H �6-( O 1(D O O m ul O N H r1 U) -K -k 0 4) tv H 6-I ro a) +-) o � r. o a) a -1 Ci U B N'd .H a) :3 :jO)-I p WWWWU0N h I_ CC) CO 10 M N dv Ln n `-i 0 Ln N O �9 I� o �� N 1 6 r-I I u) O M , 010 0 <" v� 15, Cf' 1316)D co � c'�1 N N 010 �c; f c0 c) '9 lO � tt) Oo V( Ln t� C-3 I � r- ! n 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I (N NIIJ)LO W 1100Ln1 0[- [- M0;T00'j"m1000N0 MLn 001 -1NG OOONOOM 'IV 001MCDMM hrl6lorrl- [nLnrrooHCOco co 'zilCD r- m�,ozz,olna" moor) Ln o LnoLnMOo oO--lcooln�D .... ............................... ....... ........ C,4 (N --Im NGOC�CO M rI OI Ln (J o1 m Ln 6;[�V'�n O m zd' Ln l9 N cn N 1-1-4 [�Ln v�ri00M c "O Oln QQ CD Ln �p�+ 1010I- LnCONNG.- iNl6m- i_r1[f)N1�rOT) lflO7mLn �mMG7rMr -i nz, OlI__ M610GC [-o 0(10 Lo C) Ln CO OON N 6l-1 10 N OD rIN 61M Elm 0. 6M id".--I r1 lO NN lzz:'L.f) N Ol Ol l9 -i rLn Ln NM�i" v NNNNrI 61 M lO --i v N MN N Ln 0 C` MM N Mco mN H mN H l0 ri N N 10 10 C' co N V' N H -I N r-I MM MN ri r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6101 CO 0o rl�nO �i^O �n [�MOr 1- IOC`00[l 11 VCDCDNOIO M Cn o61N000000 M u1MMNr r- LC) Nr 610 H CC --100 V' O r 01 (n [.f) O In C CO .-i �vm (D OLf�o LC) �' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M cn OD ONO 011�r -I M co 1- U-)co OM U-) r-I r m IV lfl (N <v C V'IO N M CD �'O ON uI �'r co co MmN[n O r N m_q[ M (Y) 1--100 Lr) N N I- (N v v.-i M[�Nm00 OO I- �Ln NO OIN mN N NOOm --I 0061 -,N. -i O co NM [.f)OIM N(-Oo IO N N'a'L C) Lo 10 N OI[n CO M ri Hl01061 NI_N061. -i10 M61 a' [�OOr• MOO N CO1M OO r-I M N N N Ln Ln r- .-i N N co r 61 cT M rl 1-1 lD O NN a'V'N ION. -i M O M O O O Ov CD CD rl OMOO -i OV'O O CO lO f'M r ION N�'061 0) m rn m 'r N co N N 10 N N N M 00 o U) m �4' N O O O m Ln O O o O O O O c M h r ....... 0000000 in r I- I- 61 N ri -i Ln M [n m Ln co 10,' L) Co co Q0 N I I I O o 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I o O O O O O O o o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ..... r-I �-i o 00 ....... 0000000 .. 00 . O .... .-1010 . O ... NOOm .... 0000 ............ . 1000000000000 O MMOOO 0000000 00 O MOOD O [ 010 100610 H00000 000000 O Ln L.nMMm Ln CD -I0 CD CD NO cn M M C) Ln NN 6101[�c-i mmNNI -lO H fn tnlOOV" 1� Ln t.n O Oo r-I N c1' Ol 0-) _11 N r- ( 1- M 00 r-I .-i i-i h W O --i Ln r-I N , i [- ":I, G 10 N II H r-I c--I N -11-1 -mi ri N co M ri 61 Q0 N m 61 CD .---I Ol 3' 1610u-) inM -1LnN vT H I I I O o 0 0 0 I I I I I I I O O O O O O O I I G o I O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O OooOO 0000OOO o0 0 0000 O 000 0000 OooOOOOOOOOO O . . . . . O o 0 0 0 . . . . . . . 0 0 0 000 0 . . O O . O . . . . O Ole O . O . . . N 00 m . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . C. . . . C. . . . O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OOOOO 0000000 CD CD O OOOO O 1 -- 010 100610 0 OOOO000o 000 O 0000cMMM u1[-- C)H00CD No [n ri1-610 [n NN mm[__1 -i :T6lNNr10r1LOLn100�v 1` Ln 1; Oo CO _ N R' 61 (3 _z N �; �' M rl ri r-I r_ OO O r1 Lc N MMr-ir -1N -i _q r-Ir Nco lnH61 10 NM m r .-I 61 d' In Ln Ln lnm oLnN C H z co a ,HW00Z UzzFC�z MR C4 1)H W m A I �;' N (-aO�mm co1-��AMz�7 w oo a w z z o Ln z rx -) 000 0 o w HM z�04N� OMHzc°�a�aoE+Ha m N °cnwUB1.4mz9co� Ea�zUZxEaI a°ao �( H�,yO U fiapHH�)MHO(OU O e'>(5-(HEI'a 0 0 HO m KHHM WWU R4HHOHz WO �� 1E-+ U HE HWHHUm(.T},` iW MMW�41�. NH zmU(/�GW�j 14UUH0 P40 O m HEIµ': hWQ Hz w ]CxH�4 (z(ZP+W(7 .�"UC'14 W. HU 1-) r� �}CH m pF4P4(4 ,J-�H m �Y,HH ( a', ",�HH 3 wHµ'0Hp(pGm a 1% P4 �wHa t4 QWwaAX 0UMHZ�°a�°a+'xp4 1- 4�01 1�P1.4a�a' °a7 A"�,P4AMOUIa EO(aa. cd C << Q R44p U)�QE4ry4NHHODU -Q(r��WUEOOHyP4m �C 14 FiH0HHo0A+ :�OzHpug � (t fC7 M WOIOC40OOQ(' 1tf�00r- 100000Ft ,'00000:OOO:b0000e- (O "OOHC�h OH0011f11000000.. aJ WOOOc t' E�' Yh010000r- 1�701C VO. OWZ0000000000001 .ntf3lflO0E- �OOrI.- Ih011Ot000� -100 O 'JZ.- tOVd'NNNcI' 6161616) 6161M61hU) O.-( �hmririr• 1Nririr- 1ODririririN�NNNN616 1016)Nf�)V'Mh PCDzF-1 i1 -1 - rl-r -E hh hhhh hr_4W0)zU7NN0404M gOD000)riNNMMMVVh "I'�*V4'�Td''zrM(A0C)C)H rl .. .- iW✓. -1 4- vC ' VP *. T --"-Pv * V� 010t0W r-( r4.- I.-( r {riNNNNNNNNwMMMMMMMM'V'*1'd''t1' I- > W M M M M M cy) M (n (y) M 0) M Cr) M (n M a4 F4 LO U) LO En LI) LO LO U) LO LO U) LO LO U) LO LO LO 04 W W tD W W W W W W W� W �OWW ( (d Lo 0 a w a O � i< X71- [- h`- iU-)NLn ON �-o Ln OMco I-o co r-I N Cl) Oi`6100 m cn �00o z --I Ln r-I 10 Lf)0 1-I 61611' -N Nf - r-- cn M zv ci , rlLn M vN MN MOLn mm N0 I I I M10061M 0000 CO CD zV O O O O M O M O 0000001 C l00 LnC000011:3' N 061 O 000 M O M 000000061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 O O 0061000/ Ln 01900 CD' CD' NOOOOOOM -I 100 Ln 161(N O a)L )00000001 -iC Un000000. -i C- II -161M CC 10 M Ln 0-10 O Lf)0616110 CD LO NMON61 -I l0 -I r-I1 MM-iM CN-iMM Ln -I MM1 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 M O O O O M O O N O M 001000v' O Lo 00 N 0 -i IOM . . . C. C. . . . . C. . . . . . . . Ln0 M O 00100 N O Ln 000 N I OM N 0610000CD -I0 N 01006100 CN1010161N061LnNLnOMOLr) N C 0000CD 006161 00 00061000MC` CC) OOOMOOLnII 6100010 MO CLn Ln 61u)M OLn 6101010 C Q r- ICr -IN -1 tn NOONC Q0 00 010 M M O MI -ICON M (D ';V ON x4C0M O 00 0000 N M 1611 Ln 10011) N . . . . . . O 070 0-10 r-I . O . O N16 Ln M Ln . ko Ol6 m(N lO IOM Lo 610 ONON . . . . . C Ln 1611 0000 NLo . M . . NO . . . -I 6lco N -I -I Ln . Lo . . . . r-i N Ln LoM . C . . LnM . . IN . . . 10 N 61 . 1 . . MO . . . . Ln N I L[i l0 M Ln N 61 N N O Lo C O 61 C O co Ln C O- M N O I M M 61 M 1 0 61 0 L) M I M 10 1 Lo Ln M -1 10 Lo IM Ln MN -i,,o Lo Lo 100 NO r1 1 MM1NN M -IM M61 IIC 61Ln N161M N 1 C O M_ C M .-Z M - N -I N r-I -I N r-1 -I Ln M 61 C -1 -I 1 1 -I 01611 LnM O 1 1 M61N N co O 1 O M NCI -ml CIA Ln 10 co MC'10 M O CI Ln 1019 . l0 . . . . . N6101061 . 1 . . N M . . . ICC . N . M . . 11 . N . . Ln Lc) -I v-" 11 M 1 Ln Ln N N -I -I Ln 61 11 M 10 O O 1 Ln 10 NLn to M O 6110 N Lo N6l C'i' r-I N -I 10 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 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 MNCo Ln10010M000100000N1- c> Ln Ln Ml06l l0 NLn�Ln Ln f-IM CN10 Ln lONN Ln r-i Qo 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 O O 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O OOO O O 0 0000 0 0 0 0 010000OOO OLo OLn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Oc- 10000000. -10-1 M N OC N 10 Ln O In Lo C O O N O Ln O O C Ln Ln OC 1061 M M OM � M6l LnM -I -I LnNM�',- 119061N N-I r -iNMOM �r�r -I M101 -I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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. . C. C. . . . . . C. . . . . . C. . . . C. . . . . . C. C. . . . . . . C. C. . . C. . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co N co Lf) 1 O C Q0 CC) O 00/00000 N 1-I O Ln MONO MNOC(N 10 U) O Ln Ln 1:31 O O N O Ln O O Ln L.n Ln O V' 1061 M 00 Lo M106110N nLn Ln Lnr MCN10 oLnNN n- MMM - M61LnM -r nNMC -100 NN- -INOO 10 10 >4 Ei {7'rT "xi (s�`�`i s�OH� ff:z z-L .7i�HW�WFIWHX ,7.i �C Gv pto UWW 'Zi dim al Ham' p W 0 P+��.._. Lam. .W.. vW WF1] ?i to �i H�'a 1-iP4H HU]UW H U]a U) =4 W U' zz u20UH H p 00H"nPr W q W UU W(r��HU W W �m Z HO a8 Zz ORWH r+31YOk�, 1iH$p4D� �a ;D tal zw: WH EOU� 0 H 'JUWF� u1WHW f�}U H O WOfli72 44NOC W Pt a S9 �c O +H OW HZZ HMO JX . ZO 14FAZHE-Iw� 000z:���+t�7��tjO�OHt -tZP4 ZE -i [Az W P4 W P.ZHH H z E % WN HP w H Wz H H z O x '°, ixi%H O H P4 HWP4 W Wq E-1 M oDEHE -f0H0 f4 E-1 ra z HcwHa94WW0 WUIX (Y,HHE -4CC HA4>+OH avoHoiWpWH,'cG}}�} CAQr�tiiP+�C'�0U �. FW7WF, UC*aHWH WWU�jG]' IWWZZOOwOR�7 :�RRZ'PGxUF�U�1�4cnHaP;xU' HP,W��4kMNHWpgpMgrp`'i),���, E UP. PrrOA0 IH4hU000��UUrNAN �x���094rA M9OHODH- -l. .O OOOOOOOOO:OOr4LO 0[- 4D.c%OOOLC)NO000000O1f1. 000000 00000000000r- ic14(M000O�qOri' O l() C? O O;O N O O r-i Ob r-i a-i i-1 ri r-i r'N M 'cP � � r-i . --[s-f L� #-i t � O s-i i•'I (� E71 s-i ri e-f (Yl r1 M dl .-1. -i 61.-i N -i �P 0161 a1 � rf r! r-i l0 � O O 6101 ri M cN t0 l0 i-i N ri t'-t (h (�fi1 M E+1.(?`tf'1 cT cl'd' stn L� � 61 r-1 r.-f.0 O O 0161:r -I N 6101 s-:i s- t.--iN f'�� tt') l 6S 61016161 01.-iN Mf�l E-� r-i to 1- 4 ri(hf7('n-V toulWtowtotototow W fpW (D%0tUttlWWr- CDMMM01Mr-ir-Ir4 i(14 NNNNNNNNNNNN04I V-VV'C'1--Ifrlm- * 14 14 1.10 V W 10 IV, lqv -P C' v ""IV Iq Kl' 1* 10 IV 1.11 14 ci' V 10 dL 1 14 10 10 V) to to to to tr► L0 to to in tn. to to to Ln to to LO (r) to to to p-I W W W tD W W W W tD Wt0WWt0WWtoWtoWWtot 4WWt 0WWWWWWt0WWWWWWWWWWt0l0l0WkOWl0 Wt0WWWWW L� v Als May 5th May26th May 27th June 10th June 12th June 13th 161 MAY 2011 National Day of Prayer 250 ( +) attendance VPK Graduation class of 18 1st Annual 5K Sheriff Run,Walk, Bike event 300 ( +) in attendance, 150 ( +) did the 5K JUNE 2011 BMX Jubilee BMX Pro Demo Summer Camp begins 16 I 2. �. A 15 �+01 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: colliergov.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 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 I X61 2 At$ June 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, June 21, 2011 BY, N.........Nw...�� 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: Fiala Hiller Henning -r Coyle Coletta e ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: James Klug III VICE CHAIR: Kaydee Tuff (Excused) Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Dale: % item t \ �sx 2 aA �5 copies to: Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Sherry Pryor, Sr. Management & Budget Analyst 1 I. II. III. IV. 1� VI. 2 161 I A June , 2011 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman, James King III. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was determined. Approval of Agenda Peggy Harris moved to approve the June 21, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried 4 -0. Approval of June 6, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the June 6, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. Public Comments None New Business A. Review & Approval FY 2012 MSTU Budget The Staff previously distributed the following Golden Gate Community Center Budget FY 2012 reports on June 6, 2011: • 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 previously 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 $147,0 70.55. To offset the cut, Staff suggested a rollover of $30, 000 from the Capital Outlay account to 2012 Budget. Jim Klug commented on having communications with Parks and Recreation Staff regarding budget questions. He distributed copies of the emailed communications with a list of Additional Questions and Observations. (See attached) Sherry Pryor explained the budget process issues in balancing the GGCC Budget. She noted the budget factors in an estimated taxable value as the actual taxable value will be available on June 28th. Over the past 3 years, the GGCC MSTU's taxable values have been additionally decreasing yearly at an average of 4.5 %. She did not recommend a rollback in the millage rate as an 2 161 Z , A 1� 154 June 21, 2011 option. She addressed all questions thoroughly asked on the list of Additional Questions and Observations. Darrin Brooks expressed concern on the effects of the historical data on the 4% decrease from estimated to the actual taxable and where the adjustments are made. Sherry Pryor responded the Advisory Board will give Staff guidance on how to proceed with the millage rate. Peggy Harris inquired why there are more purchases this year. She requested a Detailed Budget Itemization in order to compare expenditures to last year and where to cut costs. "Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center report FY 2010, 2011 and 2012" was distributed. (See attached) Sherry Pryor distributed a report on the History of Taxable Value & Millage Rates from 2006 through 2012. (See attached) She noted the deadline to set the millage rate is July 15tH. She requested the Advisory Board to make a decision before July Stn Jim Klug recommended an Advisory Board Member be more involved in the budget process. Peggy Harris suggested the Advisory Board designate one Member. Sherry Pryor stated the budget process begins in February and she works with Staff on the budget primarily through emails. She volunteered to copy the Advisory Board designated representative on future emails regarding the budget. The Board expressed additional concerns on the budget expenditures regarding Staff salaries, the additional $36,000 designated for part-time Wheels salaries, Health Insurance costs, Snowfest and the MSTU to only pay GGCC expenditures and the need to fill the 2- vacant positions. The Board requested a Monthly Budget Report on itemized expenditures, paid and unpaid purchase orders. (Similar to the monthly budget reports provided to other MSTUs) Sherry Pryor answered many budget questions and also explained the benefits on transferring funds FY 2011 to FY 2012. She agreed to attend the next meeting. Jim Klug moved to approve the Staff suggestion to transfer $30,000 from (the Capital Outlay Account) FY 2011 Budget to the FY 2012 Budget. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. Discussion was made on the $14,000 balance in the Capital Outlay Account after transfer transaction is made and the Advisory Board asked Vickie VIII. 16 i &t A 151 June 21, 2011 Wilson to research where these funds could be used to make the most difference. The Board gave Staff the option on whether to expend or rollover these funds. Staff will request quotes on flooring for the Community Center and interior surveillance cameras. Bill Arthur moved if the $14,000 does not get spent in this years budget the remaining funds are transferred to FY 2012 Budget. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. Jim Mug moved to approve the Budget FY 2012 as presented by Staff on June 6, 2011. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. A consensus was formed to have James Klug represent the Advisory Boards in the budget process. C. Summer Recess The Advisory Committee scheduled their next meeting to be held on August 291h at the Golden Gate Community Center at 6:00 pm. Member Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD I - - - 4 rl" i These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on.-7/4—/// , as presented �— or as amended in 161 2 WilsonVickie lo t A15 �,# From: Jim Klug [wjklugiii @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:07 PM To: WilliamsBarry Cc: HenningTom; OchsLeo; RamseyMarla; IsacksonMark; PryorCheryl; AlvarezAnnie; WilsonVickie Subject: Re: Questions from Jim Klug and Commissioner Henning on Golden Gate Community Center Thank you for your response of 6/15/11. It has been very educational and has generated much thought as well as additional questions and observations. I very much appreciate your time and effort. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS I Capital Reserves: A Increased from 79200 in FY 11 to 86000 in FY 12 (6800 increase all from MSTU) 1) All in roof reserves, none in A/C reserves 2) Are A/C reserves adequate? 3) Since capital reserves are 100% MSTU funded do we get the 60% funding from the 110 fund when the A/C and roof are actually replaced? II Expenses: A Indirect Costs: 1) Why is this increasing 38.3 %, from 90600 in FY 11 to 125300 in FY 12? B Capital Outlay 1) In Spite of attempts by Anne Alvarez, I do not understand the advantage of delaying the 30000 FY 11 budgeted capital expense from FY 11 TO FY 12. a) Is resurfacing the playground really a capital expense? C We should start the hiring process for the two FY 12 vacant positions and stop just prior to commitment, so these positions are filled as soon as possible in FY 12. D There have been discussions about replacing the carpeting in GGCC. Is that in the FY 12 budget. If not, should it be? III AD Valorem Needed: A It seems to me that most of the categories used to establish the MSTU millage rate (EX: cumulative capital reserves of 86000 instead of 6800) come from other sources. I believe that the calculation is correct and that i simply don't understand it. Could you educate me? 1 IV General Summary: 15, o Oil A A GGCC has a fairly flat budget that is balanced by a substantial and unexplained increase in indirect costs and a substantial decrease in in capital outlay and reserves for contingencies. B In spite of a very tight budget, the budget assumes that, at year end, our revenues minus expenses will be 227100 more than budgeted. In previous years, considerable expense was reduced by not filling vacant positions. I hope this does not occur in FY 12. (See Bia above) I am not convinced that we can achieve such savings. C Wh le the c n y's ad valoerm rate for FY 12 is budgeted to stay millage eutral the STU's mill a ate is bud g d to de e f m FY 11 .2201t FYI .199 , or over 0% his indic es hat th am u t f ad valore rev nue for he GG C is als decr sing 10 %, hen o k from a "MSTU i ge rate ". a TU milla e r e CAP .9 hile th FY 12 budgeted MSTU millage rate is only . I bring the above to your attention now, rather that spend a lot of time in tomorrow's meeting on these "issues ". Thank you again for your attempt to educate someone with very limited financial experience. Jim From: WilliamsBarry <BarryWilliams @colliergov.net> To: Jim Klug <wjklugiii@ yahoo .com >jackson @colliergov.net >; PryorCheryl <Cheryl Pryor@colliergov. net>; AlvarezAnnie <AnnieAlvarez @colliergov.net >; WilsonVickie <VickieWilson @colliergov.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:18 PM Subject: RE: Questions from Jim Klug and Commissioner Henning on Golden Gate Community Center Jim, You are correct. The carry forward line item does carry forward from one year to the next and it either grows or shrinks, depending upon how much is spent in comparison to the revenues that come in. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that each year, we must present a balanced budget. Part of that balancing is the carry forward number, which is counted as revenue (or cash on hand) to meet the next year's expenses. In any particular year, the balance of your carry forward can decrease if you do not have sufficient revenues to offset the planned expenditures. You are also correct in that the GGCC has a capital reserve for their A/C and Roof. We grow this each year based upon the estimated replacement value that was provided some time ago. This amount is set aside as a capital reserve and is protected at the amortized balance. If cuts need to be made, they are to other operating expenses and not their reserve. Currently, there is $45,100 reserved for the A/C and $34,100 for the roof. 161 +. A 154 These amounts are planned to increase in FY 12 with the A/C remaining at $45,100 estimated replacement cost) and the roof reserve at $40,900. Attached is a report from OMB that has some notes on the budget pages — hopefully that helps a bit as well. Let's keeping discussing as you need. Barry From: Jim Klug [mailto:wjklugiii @yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:25 PM To: WilliamsBarry Subject: Re: Questions from Jim Klug and Commissioner Henning on Golden Gate Community Center IT IS CONFUSING. I was told that somewhere, somehow, because we are a MSTU, money unspent in one fiscal year rolls over into the next fiscal year. I assumed it was in the carry forward line item. If not, where is this money? I just used that line item as an example. How about capital reserves (A/C and Roof). Don't they accumulate year over year. Aren't the capital reserve like a depreciation account? Jim From: WilliamsBarry < BarryWilliams@colliergov. net> To: Jim Klug <wjklugiii @yahoo.com> Cc: HenningTom <TomHenning @colliergov.net >; OchsLeo <LeoOchs @colliergov.net >; IsacksonMark <Marklsackson @colliergov.net >; RamseyMarla <MarlaRamsey @colliergov.net >; PryorCheryl <Cheryl Pryor@coll iergov. net>; AlvarezAnnie <AnnieAlvarez @colliergov.net >; NelsonTona <TonaNelson @colliergov.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:37 PM ?best estimate). Any drop in budgeted carry forward from one year to the next is simply a product of forecasting revenues and expenses well before the end of any fiscal year - -the difference comes from the forecast and the reality six months arry forward from one year to the next. Aren't Realize this is a bit confusing; however, will be at your meeting next week to clarify. Let me know if you need further information. Barry From: Jim Klug [ mailto:wjklugiii@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,20114:08 PM To: NelsonTona; HenningTom Cc: OchsLeo; RamseyMarla; WilliamsBarry; AlvarezAnnie Subject: Re: Questions from Jim Klug and Commissioner Henning on Golden Gate Community Center The understanding that I received from the staff is that the reserves on the spreadsheet are from previous years unspent budgets. I do not remember ever spending any of this money. Why did the carryforward- revenue number (for example) go down from 338,300 at the end of FY 10 to 311,800 in FY 11? FY2011 Prior Year CAP FUND 130 Commissioners $ 4,882 County Manager $ 3,298 County Attorney $ - OMB $ 1,067 Annual Audit $ 3,008 Real Property Management $ - Grant Acquisition $ - Purchasing -- _ _.__ $ 1,873 Human Resources $ 4,969 Facilities Management $ 173,405 Security Services $ 7,992 Finance $ 23,882 Property & Casualty $ 1,442 Group Health $ 248 Workers Comp $ 21 Fleet Management_ $ 460 Grand Total $ 226,547 Advalorem CREDITS $ (135,928) AMOUNT $ 90,619 161 2 S7/v X6.A 15 FY2012 Current Year CAP FUND 130 Building Use Charge $ - Equipment Use Allowance $ - BCC $ 3,802 County Manager $ 4,175 County Attorney $ - OMB $ 688 Annual Audit $ 7,416 Real Property $ - Adminsitrative Services $ - IT Indirect Fee (505) $ 2,599 Other General Admin $ 1,581 Grants Management $ - Purchasing $ 4,324 Human Resources $ 7,332 Facilities Maintenance $ 193,915 County Security $ 21,296 Clerk - Finance & Accounting $ 26,909 Clerk - Minutes & Records $ 793 Clerk - Internal Audit $ 20 Clerk - IT Data Process Admin $ 2,709 Clerk - Records Mgmt $ 2,821 Risk Indirect Fee (516) Property & Casualty $ - Risk Indirect Fee (517) Employee Benefits $ 977 Risk Inidrect Fee (518) Workers Comp2 $ 506 Fleet Indirect Fee (521) $ 836 $ 282,699 100% of allocation $ 282,700 % of CREDIT 19.4012% Advalorem CREDITS $ (54,847) ALLOCABLE AMOUNT $ 227,900 55% ALLOCABLE AMOUNT $ 125,345 FY 2012 CAP was drafted by a hired consultant, as done every three years, and is based on FY 2010 actual expenditures and actual statistical data of use, such as # of purchase orders, employees, etc. A full analysis identified several more central or administrative services for the FY 2012 CAP. 161 A154 FY 2012 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATED BASIS (ALLOCATION METHOD) 7 1 Building Use Charge Admin Bldg (F) Space GS Bldg (W) Space Purchasing Bldg (G) Space Sq. Ft. Occupied Sq. Ft Occupied Sq. Fl. Occupied 2 Equipment Use Allowance Equip Depreciation of Central Service Dept Equip Inventory GF / Central Svc Depts Only) 3 001 County Commission Administration Fiscal Administration Full Time Equivalent Employees as of 9/30/10 Amended Budget FY10 4 001 County Manager Adiminstration Full Time Equivalent Employees as of 9/30/10 5 001 County Attorney Legal Services Litigation Number of Agenda Items Gen GoVt / Unallocated 6 001 Management 8 Budget Budget Development Amended Budget FY10 7 001 Annual Audit Annual Audit Accounting Transactions 8 001 Real Property Management Lease Management Project Management - Not Billed to Depts Project Management - Billed to Depts Adiminstration Number of Leases Maint During FY10 Number of FY10 Project Hours Gen Gov't / Unallocated Direct Allocation to Admin Svcs 9 001 Administration Servces Administration Records Management Full Time Equivalent Employees Supervised SIRE Cabinet Terabytes by Dept 10 FD505 Information Technology Admin IT Dept Overhead IT Charges by Dept 11 001 Other Gen Admin Grants (E -Civis Subscription) Unemployment Insruance General Insurance Property Insurance Memberships 8 Dues Value Adjustment Board Gen Gov't Direct Alloc to Grants Full Time Equivalent Employees as of 9/30/10 Budget / Op Exp (GF only) GF Dept Sq. Fl. Full Time Equivalent Employees as of 9130110 Direct Alloc to Gen Gov't / Unallocated Gen Gov't / Unallocated 12 001 Grant Acquisition Grants Aquisition Number of Active Grants 13 001 Purchasing Purchasing RFP's / Bids P -Card Transactions Mailroom Purchase Orders Processed During FY10 RFP's / Bids Processed During FY10 P -Card Transactions During FY10 Postage Charges During FY10 14 001 Human Resources Human Resources Full Time Equivalent Employees as of 9130/10 15 001 Facilities Maintenance Bluilding Maintenance Utilities paid by Facilities Facility Rent Custodial - General Fund Custodial - Non General Fund Landscape Services Sq. FL of Occupied Space by Fund / Dept Sq. Ft. of Occupied Space by Fund / Dept (GF only) Rental Expense by Dept During FY10 Sq. Ft. of Occupied Space by Fund / Dept Direct Assigned (Non GF only) Sq. FL of Occupied Space by Fund / Dept 16 001 County Security Dedicated Security Bldg 04 -25 (F) Dedicated Security Bldg 04 -28 (H) Dedicated Security Ct Hse 0432 Dedicated Security Annex 04 -213 Dedicated Security Emerg Svc Ctr 04228 Dedicated Security Immokalee 11 -005 Non Dedicated Security Services All Oth Bldg Sq. FL Occupied Sq. Ft. Occupied Sq. Ft. Occupied Sq. Ft. Occupied Sq. Ft. Occupied Sq. Ft Occupied Sq. Ft Occupied 17 FD011 Clerk - Finance 8 Accounting Clerk Finance Accounting Transactions during FY10 18 FD011 Clerk - Minutes 8 Records Clerk Minutes Actual Expenses during FY10 19 FD011 Clerk - Internal Audit Clerk Internal Audit Accounting Transactions during FY10 20 FD011 Clerk - IT Data Process Admin Clerk MIS (SAP) SAP Licenses 21 FD011 Clerk - Records Mgmt Clerk Records Mgmt Accounting Transactions during FY10 22 FD516 Property 8 Casualty - Ins Risk Dept Overhead Expenditures by Dept 23 FD517 Employee Benefits Risk Dept Overhead Benefits Paid by Dept/ Agency 24 FD518 Workers Compensation Risk Dept Overhead Benefits Paid by Dept / Agency 25 FD521 Fleet Mgmt Fleet Dept Overhead Chargebacks by Dept During FY10 G) G) n n "n N 03 C Q ft? CD X N X CA N N O C7 v 0 CD 0 3 O O 7 N N �. O O ? O :l Cn O IV IV O N CEO O O CvOO W A 1 0) w O A O PD N M � CA CA o a�rno w w Cn CO w Cn � p I � O CA A O N N O O CA Can o cn w 161 2 A15 0CLC = � w 0) cnCD m 3 < 3 �C: �M CD M. 9 n CD CD <n CD 0 CD N X CD CD CD < CD O O cn a =r ° No m w v (aa CD o to m � a N cn O CO N � D Q N N W 0) ? 00 o ° o OV a N co Cb CA cn w o ° D CL N- m o � o o°c N v oo a N O N Cb 'O O) N D Q �O N O) O o CO O N CF) o O COO a N O_ O N O N O Q P — w 1. N 'Op IV O) V CA) W� O CO a O P, O D CD N CO 0) CO O 5L �° 00 m 0 -� a w CO � T V O O O W N O -p cn O (00 cn o cn � ° CD N C1 A15 0CLC = � w 0) cnCD m 3 < 3 �C: �M CD M. 9 n CD CD <n CD 0 CD N 161 '2 Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center ► A 15 Collier County Govemment Fiscal Year 2012 634204 It Direct Client Support 2,490 2,900 0 0 0 FY 2011 - 100.00 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total 1 Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation 0 4,700 1157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 5,000 0 5,000 6.36 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 77,400 90,600 50 Personal Services 125,300 0 125,300 38.30 634980 Interdept Payment For Sery 2,200 0 512100 Regular Salaries 252,801 291,907 228,700 287,764 0 287,764 -1.42 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1,002 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 512700 Cell Phone Allowance 181 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 512800 Taxable Deposit 25 -30 3,552 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 51,206 61,500 61,500 74,700 0 74,700 21.46 514100 Overtime 607 0 300 0 0 0 0.00 518100 Termination Pay 0 0 3,100 0 0 0 0.00 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 0 72 0 32 0 32 -55.56 521100 Social Security Matching 22,347 27,208 22,100 27,950 0 27,950 2.73 522100 Retirement Regular 30,696 38,263 29,000 19,538 0 19,538 -48.94 522800 Allowable Taxable Deposit 25 -30 -3,552 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 523150 Health Insurance 84,432 90,960 92,900 101,968 0 101,968 12.10 523151 Health Insurance - Vsip 0 1,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Term 988 790 800 748 0 748 -5.32 524100 Workers Compensation Regular 18,000 5,100 5,100 3,200 0 3,200 -37.25 527200 Allowance For Cell Phone -181 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 50 Personal Services 462,079 518,700 444,500 516,900 0 516,900 -0.35 60 Operating Expense 634204 It Direct Client Support 2,490 2,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 634207 IT Capital Allocation 0 1,200 1,200 1,800 0 1,800 50.00 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation 20,000 17,200 17,200 21,100 0 21,100 2267 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation 0 4,700 4,700 5,000 0 5,000 6.36 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 77,400 90,600 90,600 125,300 0 125,300 38.30 634980 Interdept Payment For Sery 2,200 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 634999 Other Contractual Services 59,750 46,100 46,100 49,000 0 49,000 6.29 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 639966 Pest Control 0 500 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular 937 600 0 1,000 0 1,000 66.67 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 1,893 2,000 3,000 2,400 0 2,400 20.00 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge 0 400 300 400 0 400 0.00 641230 Telephone Access Charges 0 0 0 2,500 0 2,500 100.00 641700 Cellular Telephone 434 700 700 700 0 700 0.00 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation 4,138 5,800 5,800 5,800 0 5,800 0.00 641950 Postage Freight And Ups 101 200 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 641951 Postage 0 0 100 200 0 200 100.00 643100 Electricity 63,661 68,800 66,000 68,800 0 68,800 0.00 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal 5,656 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 6,500 0.00 643400 Water And Sewer 14,091 9,700 14,200 15,000 0 15,000 54.64 644170 Rent Temporary Storage 0 0 0 3,500 0 3,500 100.00 644600 Rent Equipment 5,632 16,000 16,000 13,500 0 13,500 -15.63 644620 Lease Equipment 1,949 2,400 2,400 2,400 0 2,400 0.00 645100 Insurance General 6,900 5,600 5,600 5,400 0 5,400 -3.57 645200 Property Insurance 14,457 25,800 25,800 21,800 0 21,800 -15.50 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors 7,120 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 7,110 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 3,680 8,700 8,700 4,700 0 4,700 -45.98 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 11,038 4,000 4,000 3,000 0 3,000 -25.00 646317 Fencing Maintenance 553 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 646318 Mulch 3,286 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 6,000 0.00 646319 Tree Trimming 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646320 Landscape Materials 2,876 5,000 5,800 4,000 0 4,000 -20.00 GovMax V5 1 6/21/2011 161 2' Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center 01 A15 Collier County Govemment Fiscal Year 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total °s Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Operatina Expense 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead 2,890 2,200 2,200 3,100 _ 0 3,100 40.91 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 6,537 2,700 2,700 2,800 0 2,800 3.70 646445 Fleet Non Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 89 100 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 646452 Playground Equip Maintenance 1,944 5,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 -60.00 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0.00 646710 Office Equipment R And M 305 0 500 500 0 500 100.00 646910 Data Processing Equip R And M 0 800 800 800 0 800 0.00 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance 1,102 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 0.00 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors 8,366 8,200 8,200 8,200 0 8,200 0.00 648160 Other Ads 0 0 0 200 0 200 100.00 648170 Marketing And Promotional 8,079 8,000 8,000 10,000 0 10,000 25.00 649000 Sales Tax Expense 148 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,600 1,300 1,700 1,200 0 1,200 -7.69 649035 Judgements /Fines And Costs 680 200 200 200 0 200 0.00 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee 3,333 3,000 3,000 3,500 0 3,500 16.67 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 6,063 9,400 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 -25.53 651110 Office Supplies General 2,175 5,200 5,200 5,200 0 5,200 0.00 651210 Copying Charges 166 3,600 3,600 3,600 0 3,600 0.00 651910 Minor Office Equipment 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 651930 Minor Office Furniture 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 651950 Minor Data Processing Equipment 232 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 323 1,500 1,500 2,200 0 2,200 46.67 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 500 300 400 0 400 -20.00 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 443 400 400 500 0 500 25.00 652210 Food Operating Supplies 825 5,000 5,000 4,100 0 4,100 -18.00 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings 6,398 3,200 3,200 5,400 0 5,400 68.75 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 1,572 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 0.00 652720 Medical Supplies 74 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0.00 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 20,408 16,000 16,000 10,000 0 10,000 -37.50 652940 Merchandise Resale 8,061 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0.00 652990 Other Operating Supplies 19,504 14,500 14,500 11,700 0 11,700 -19.31 652991 Electrical Supplier 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652992 Electrical Contractors 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652999 Painting Supplies 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 654110 Books Publ & Subscriptions 69 400 2,000 400 0 400 0.00 654210 Dues And Memberships 1,064 600 600 600 0 600 0.00 654310 Tuition 1,805 1,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 964 2,300 1,500 1,700 0 1,700 -26.09 60 Operating Expense 422,571 475,400 467,800 502,100 0 502,100 5.62 70 Capital Outlay 763100 Improvements General 23,678 60,000 30,000 51,500 0 51,500 -14.17 764150 Heavy Equipment And Trailers 18,092 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 764370 Audio Visual Equipment 3,870 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 70 Capital Outlay 45,639 60,000 30,000 51,500 0 51,500 -14.17 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 930,289 1,054,100 942,300 1,070,500 0 1,070,500 1.56 919010 -130 Reserves 99 Reserves 991000 Reserve For Contingencies 0 37,000 0 23,600 0 23,600 -36.22 993000 Reserve For Capital Outlay 0 79,200 0 86,000 0 86,000 8.59 99 Reserves 0 116,200 0 109,600 0 109,600 -5.68 GovMax V5 2 6/21/2011 161 2 C A15 Public Services Division Parks & Recreation Department Golden Gate Community Center (130) Mission Statement To benefit the well -being of the people, community, and environment of Collier County. Program Budgetary Cost Summary FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Program Summary Total FTE Budget Revenues Net Cost Golden Gate Community Center 7.00 817,612 429,500 388,112 The Golden Gate Community Center serves as a meeting place for Personal Services community groups and provides structured programming for all ages via 518,700 classes, activities, and special events and offers informal gathering 516,900 opportunities through open game room and drop -in recreation programs. (0.3 %) Childcare /Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 0.50 60,266 110,800 - 50,534 Strive to meet family needs by providing a safe and supervised 377,200 environment for all children to attend throughout the year. Provide 376,800 recreational and enrichment experiences for self- esteem, self - reliance, Indirect Cost Reimburs learning, pleasure, health and well being. 90,600 Community Center Maintenance 1.00 195,622 195,622 Protect resources, provide a pleasant, clean, safe and enjoyable 38.3% environment for community center visitors to allow quality passive and 45,639 organized recreational experiences by the public. 30,000 Reserves /Transfers - 115,100 648,300 - 533,200 Current Level of Service Budget Net Operating Budget 8.50 1,188,600 1,188,600 - 1,054,100 942,300 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget Increase Fee Based Facility Rentals by 2% 610 650 650 663 Increase Fee Based Program Registrations by 2% 2,326 2,400 2,400 2,448 Program Budgetary Cost Summary FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2011 Forecast FY 2012 FY 2012 Current Expanded FY 2012 Preliminary FY 2012 Change Personal Services 462,079 518,700 444,500 516,900 516,900 (0.3 %) Operating Expense 345,171 384,800 377,200 376,800 376,800 (2.1 %) Indirect Cost Reimburs 77,400 90,600 90,600 125,300 125,300 38.3% Capital Outlay 45,639 60,000 30,000 51,500 51,500 (14.2 %) Net Operating Budget 930,289 1,054,100 942,300 1,070,500 1,070,500 1.6% Trans to Property Appraiser 2,915 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0.0% Trans to Tax Collector 7,046 8,000 8,000 5,500 5,500 (31.3 %) Reserves For Contingencies - 37,000 - 23,600 23,600 (36.2 %) Reserves For Capital - 79,200 - 86,000 86,000 8.6% Total Budget 940,250 1,181,300 953,300 1,188,600 1,188,600 0.6% Total FTE 9.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.0% Fiscal Year 2012 2 Public Services Division 16I I kv, A15 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: coliiergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA June 21, 2011 1. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — June 6, 2011 V. Public Comments VI. New Business A. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget B. Summer Recess VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting TBD at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida C ., r F % 2011 A 15 161- fr July 5, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Fiala V1 ADVISORY BOARD 0 Hiller �5 Hennin Naples, Florida July 5, 2011 Coyle Colette BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a SPECIAL SESSION in Conference Room "D" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Date: %'2-k% bk \ \ Item #: \�,aS 2 VS 'pies ,o: ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner Tom Henning Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Sherry Pryor, Sr. Management & Budget Analyst 1 161 L 5, 2011 A 1 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman, James Klug III. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Bill Arthur moved to approve the July 5, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Secondly Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Commissioner Henning meeting with Advisory Board He indicated the Advisory Board had concerns with the Budget/Budget Process with valid questions that need to be answered. V. Approval of June 6, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the June 21, 2011 Minutes as submitted Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Public Comments None VII. Member Comments Barry Williams addressed the GGCC MSTU Advisory Board and agreed the MSTU's Budget Process is complicated. • February — BCC policy 3% cut was set due to property value decrease • March/April — Department Staff enters data in GovMax to create draft budget. • May — Draft Budget to County Manager for approval. • June — Draft Budget to Advisory Board for approval. • July — Advisory Board sets millage rate. • September — Budget and millage rate submitted for BCC approval. Barry Williams welcomed James Klug to participate in the Budget Process and offered an Advisory Board Budget Workshop in March. James Klug expressed interest in being involved when budget decisions are made and prior to entering data in the GovMax stage. Annie Alvarez stated the MSTU's property values are available after June 1. Staff need the property values to complete the GGCC MSTU's draft budget. She reports the MSTU's budget status every month. • Revenue, Personal Services, Expenses and Operating Budget • Overall Report at the end of the fiscal year and the beginning of the year. • Informs Advisory Board of future possible cuts and other issues. K 161 2Y 1 Q Jul 5 2011 � ` 150 • Staff has been directed by the Advisory Board on all Capital Items. Jim Klug commended the Staff for all their cooperation in aiding him to understand the complicated budget. He noted the Advisory Board approved the budget prior to property value adjustments. The adjusted draft budget will require approval from the Advisory Board prior to submission to the BCC for their approval. He clarified the Capital Outlay account includes the funds to resurface the playground and ask what is the advantage of deferring $30,000 FY2011 to 2012 Budget. Sherry Pryor responded if the $30,000 is not spent this year, the funds will go into the Carry Forward account, which will be money that does not have to be raised FY2012. She asked for direction from the Advisory Board on which account the $30,000 and $13,600 should be transferred to and if the MSTU wants to keep the Millage rate at. 1990. It was noted the Advisory Board has until September to make final recommendations on the millage rate. Discussion was made on the transfer of funds FY2011 to FY2012 and to an account most flexible to access funds when necessary. It was decided to direct Staff to transfer funds to the Contingency Fund. Ed Rogan - GG Civic Association inquired on the type of resurfacing to be installed on the playground. He stated there was a need for a shade structure for the playground, especially during the summer. Barry Williams responded the playground's special rubberize surface is expensive and ADA accessible. Annie Alvarez stated the Staff has researched shade structures and has received a quote for $120,000 - $150,000. Staff is working on a matching Grant opportunity. Jim Klug reviewed the "FY2011 Prior Year and FY2012 Current Year CAP for Fund 130" — An Indirect Cost by Line Item. (See attached) Sheryl Pryor noted this report was drafted by a hired Consultant and is based on FY2010 actual expenditures and actual statistical data of use. He compared the percentile differences on line items and asked several questions. Staff indicated the Ad Valorem on the report was incorrect and has since been adjusted. Sherry Pryor assured the Advisory Board there was no duplicated Indirect Cost line items within the budget expenditures. Commissioner Henning asked Staff what GGCC charges for Wheels participants living within and out of the MSTU District and what is the Center's benefit for the MSTU. 3 16i 2f -- A 15M July 5, 2011 Jim Klug responded the Advisory Board has that same concern and will address the issue in the near future. Darrin Brooks left at 7 :00 pm. Staff will have Ilonka Washburn research what indirect costs are covered under the $193,915 - Facilities Management account. Further discussion was made on holding a Budget Workshop in March, before data input into GovMax. Staff will bring the Indirect Cost Book for the Board to review. Annie Alvarez suggested the Advisory Board review the GGCC Fee Policy and make change recommendations to be submitted to the BCC for approval. Vickie Wilson distributed "Wheels Skate & BMX Park Membership Status per Zip Code — Active Memberships" and "Wheels Skate BMX Park FY2011 Expenses" reports. (See attached) Jim Klug reviewed the reports revenue and expenses for Wheels. He was concerned the facility is operating at a large loss. Annie Alvarez stated revenue from room, amphitheatre and green space was not included in the revenue report. She also voiced concerns and reported cuts in Staff and Staff hours, plus the cross training for the facility. Kaydee Tuff suggested additional County wide promotional efforts to advertise Wheels in lieu of raising the fee structure. Jim Klug suggested Staff research the square footage on all the GGCC facilities to attain the actual percentage on County /MSTU split. Barry Williams noted the 60/40 MSTU split was a verbal agreement and not covered in the Ordinance. Discussion was ensued on how the Carry Forward has been increased by not filling the positions and the importance of filling the 2 -vacant positions. The Board directed Staff to fill the positions by October 1St. Staff will make the request recommendation to fill the positions for October 1St. A suggestion was made to use Job Bank Employees as a possible resource. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD in 16ll Y ul 520h i These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on as presented __,x __ or as amended 161 2 A15 WHEELS SKATE & BMX PARK MEMBERSHIP STATUS PER ZIP CODE (Active Memberships) TOTAL MEMBERS PERCENTAGE 4101 ffCODE 2 .48% 4102 7 1.7% 4103 6 1.4% 34104 26 6.21 34105 8 1.9% 34108 4 .96% 34109 22 5.31 34110 8 1.9% 34112 15 3.6% 34113 4 .96°I 34114 2 .48% 34116 150 36.1% 34117 29 6.9% 34120 47 11.3% 34119 35 8.4°I OTHER ZIP CODES 52 12.510 TOTAL 417 100% U) w�/� NI Z a x w 0 N x IL d x W w VI UJ w wwrr r f ' fJA Q O tN0 M en a W a 46 01 `� ice/) M N °° iN/► rn Ln Im t» 14 00 t0 N of N N a W N Q J ' co co N a 01 V1 ' co C� co O rl l0 O Q` ko 00 co to 00 o o ri en m Lo C! 0I N cn o o LA `n v m � LL l0 00 Lnn V). In N � Q oq m m N m 0) Ln O ^ t m a N en to N N 46 N WLnn D N O ri 01 00 O O 2 CD O 0 Ln tD LO ° N o 0 v O O � V). O CD 0 M Ln N o 0 v a O O 0 00 N O N o o xX O v O CD 00o m m N o o a O rn � o o a m Le! o N O o oo Ln L, N ar N r L a Q . Q U 0 U ? Q C- N byi v N w i o 0° �- J Co Z m -3p _ U c in a a a a 9A LM � O O H LO 0 a W to Q Z O O C) M vl? N? Cl Q CL Q m M V). {? o: Q m 00 OR LU n n LL 0) V? N Z Q u v a W D l0 to if) 4R O Z 0 h 10 O L CCc C 4 a U a 161 2 A15 °1 . 161 2 A 15 • 06/14/2011 q3 03 18774686778 PROCESSOR PAGE 82 / S < , N m k k \ / /O / ƒ' n U gU0f CL . R ' n�2 L �S7/ ' CL q @ .c q o d 72to C � / t k 7nq R d � < //7 C6 co to ¥ . o�� . N x 2 g m cq CV k k C m 7 _k ' . m G E cli _ . E 04 . 7 2 ¥ @ Q a & Q q ? % t CR $ \ Q S D � — ¥ k . N C) / \ CO ~ < d 7 V- # S 2 � co a 2 7 E R && § '� E S § § ® 2 q 3 � S . C) 0 =2 o %�X . co a R $ . $LZ ƒ _ED k < , 00 N N o N O \ ••O 16114 O (D d-1 0)m 0I 4.) 0 •r1 ro'ri ri QE+U 4J N O a a� a b ri 4 •rl Q N O to rZL m 0 :3N Oro Ufa 4)U 1111 0 'a UU 04 4J 01 btyl G�0 Z a H O� HI co U p z U O U W H CD z W Q a O U H Zi U O U W H C7 z w Q a O O 00 V 434-) 1x ro W +-) zh u A OPP 4-) Z H 0 10 U z to U D !~ xx 0. 000x HUUW rl w W 'o U�< � •ri0CD 41 a) aazz �:s •11ww:~ Iaaa > +3 0 0 0 OC70ix 14 0 1 0 O 0 4.) 1i o r ,-I O O r O M Lo Q N -11-1 U) -k x 1 FI 64 H Ul ro a1 4-) O W O0 a I-0 U B O'd O •H'd'd 1 0100 W N W U UL W ',O014ri� LnOD00rr00 61M O 0014(140 O N-1 000 d• Ln O N 0Lf) N-10 OaD 610161 rMMC'OOM r Ln N00 M 00 O Co C) r co 0) 000 61 N O 14 U-) Ln 0 Ln -7'N 000(D 1 U)610 Oo01 MLr) 61140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rr141-14OL 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I MMMMu-)LnMO ,flCDU)CD -i0[ -r 00 Mr 00 I I I I I U-) NCOOOV'ONNOO 1 1 �l10 I I I OWOOLnCDC3 Or,lO rrV V'rU6100061LnmCDr-m NV 00 OINMMOr0C r00- 0 . . . . . . . rV 6100 . . . . . 0610CD MLn000M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rrOD NIOO�rIO.-- I[�I�lO to 00 U101M NM . . . . . . 1 I r -I.-7N Or- I d'1fl I'kO11; I 0616100 06100r:r: N N 00C' M N r V' 0 0 0 N C'r-i Ln M M O M -MN0 Mn- 40Lnr-ML0 MN0000 O11;VOOMOO101061 Cf)MI-f -r-M COMC 061LnN 1-IO 1;31tl) Or61 1- iLnC1 0Ln0rU) r-IMC r 1i N00LnMu -)HN0 Q101r r-1 rrLf)NM N 0V' Ln rCO61 M1-I OV`NM t.nN C'C' NC'c-i 1-I Mr1 NOM C' 00 NNO rN61 r-i r-41 -1 -11-4 C' 1-11-4 N r r1 -_... _.111W1 11W11.. z U)fxaHWOUzM UWzWzzW�ry�'Z�4 �mH fxQ U 04 U xOP+fxwF4 WcAx U UOO�j>i �az�w OtZCY0E4�a WN UHFltn Orl HC9U Hu1lYaWWO�7H C9 z�FCa+ OWHzU H Ha W 2 ULwzf�'�7!z U4 HOz H;ZZpM( O H z�El U HFifiA�-qHH�)PH HWHHUMMWHOr4W MWEn Q �L!E -4 Z( c)cAw4uw°Howaa opC HOfZL��C9CIH- IW Wl li7i- l( x0 1�- ))1Ui�(�QR�Ha�W'L�HHaiaHUHUC�a xL*a lc 11 �a+:n Q a a s l �WHwp;a4OO zuwax uuwpzHwwH�c7�a'(y���x`�HHWHa�a ' a° Qi -- IAPZUMO Paaw HI [UsLg.QOUQ�Cf3LFCQ;CA �C�HC[:gZZO�F`.,��W WUHOO�t /lfx�Cxa3�UHGuHzzHOWH�OWWO AU) HOHHHO14NXHXUHW £} 1'0(7 C-Iook00000MLnODH000000)0 fz�0ooOOO0000000OI -,dpo.- 4000)LC)k0000000 Ej +► w oovMrrn0000l4crnNOONOw�0000000000Ln�000r_ o.414rmrn�o�o011ooLn O O 'J.rINC'NNNC' 610) 01610) 01146) MLOrU )O1itOrOD14.iNr1r107.-- IrI1iNr- NNN6)Q161010)NMV�rO)Ol U; HOzwHH,- 4rrrrrrrrrrl- ILO01(n 01ZU )NNNNM"YODH04NMMtl'r14V'd�Pd'd'' 4MM000Hr -irl -4I:Q 1- 1 .4-zfVV"7 V'cP '41 V"01001OWW1i1'H.- ir- grl-1e -11104 NNNNN N I. L7 M M M M M M M M C'C� v tN CSC \� r>L IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWWLOLnLni !)Lf1U)LoinLnLnLnLnLnLo tDwl00101DwwwtOlO0lOW r- r4 Xas n .I N�� C:l 0 * =: I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rr.11lC-1 'OU)0610rrNrr00 MMNOO-Z3�OMN I I 0MOOO(DUn000 OON L)0 NMI' OCDMLo NLOO.- 1061t.f)00r00�wr-�v00 mm r-Or 0Lr)r . . . . . . -7'N 000(D 1 U)610 Oo01 MLr) 61140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rr141-14OL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC t4 -CNC d4NOOMOMNM . . C. 14C O CONO.-IM0 r0 iN00000610 Oo61 rN MOOO If1 Ln M M Ln 61 r N U) 061 14-1 T1-1 Ln0MOM H0D r OOOO Ln 00 V' 61 Ln M 00 O 01) r OD 0 (D CD C' 1461 MMO (A a) M MOtf) OD 14N0V'C'N 1-1 V' C'tf) N(D 00 C) -i Ln N0 MO U") "T 6101 -I LO d'O d'Nr Old .-1 -1 00016100 C'M r r 001-10 rN -i ONN 1-1 Mr1 NOM C' 00 NNO rN61 r-i r-41 -1 -11-4 C' 1-11-4 N r r1 14 0 Ln Ln N M OD 11 N N r U7 Lf) LnM 61C'N O o O o N N N O Ln Ln Ln o 141-1 1-1 0 OD m 00 o rr r 0000U OOOOOOOO OO O OOOO o O0U OoU o ooO OOOOOOOOo O000O OOOOOOOO OO O O000 o OOO ooU Co 000 000000000 OOOOO OOO0000o 00 O ID C; O C'V'O N000 O 000 000000000 '17 00000 O000o000 00 O 0000 N Ln NN MCOO O 000 000000000 e-A �,- 11-40D 14 r tf)OOM V'00 CD f) O NOOrO 0 Ln(Dv C'610 M MrI C' 1-I O Ln O V'1i r 00N In Ln I-- r- 61 NO-IO NNC' H 0 NONH N OrM v OD N Ln d'r LnH 14 LC) LO 0 0 0 0 ri 1-I 1-i N N N 00 (yi Ln O r -i N M 00 1-1 C' r-1 r C' (D In Lf) Ln Ln 14 r-i L) M C' 14 a) i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OOOOO OOOOOOOO OO O O000 o OOO OOO o ooO OOOOOOOOo O O o 0 0 O o 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 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000000 C; C O oONO O C'C'O NODO O 000 000000000 iS ! 00000 00000000 00 O 0000 N Ln NO 14000 O 000 000000000 H 11 r1 r-I CO s-4 r Ln 00 MC'00 CD Lo O NO0rO 0 Lf)O C' V'Ol0 61 Mr-i 'IV -4(D f)0C'rIr OON N O r M V' Cu N Ln C' r N r-i M Ln w0000 -114 -1 NN NCO MLoO r r-I NM O 11 C' r1 r C' a) Lo Ln Ln Ln M c-I Ln M C' 4J ', O I r-I mil -_... _.111W1 11W11.. z U)fxaHWOUzM UWzWzzW�ry�'Z�4 �mH fxQ U 04 U xOP+fxwF4 WcAx U UOO�j>i �az�w OtZCY0E4�a WN UHFltn Orl HC9U Hu1lYaWWO�7H C9 z�FCa+ OWHzU H Ha W 2 ULwzf�'�7!z U4 HOz H;ZZpM( O H z�El U HFifiA�-qHH�)PH HWHHUMMWHOr4W MWEn Q �L!E -4 Z( c)cAw4uw°Howaa opC HOfZL��C9CIH- IW Wl li7i- l( x0 1�- ))1Ui�(�QR�Ha�W'L�HHaiaHUHUC�a xL*a lc 11 �a+:n Q a a s l �WHwp;a4OO zuwax uuwpzHwwH�c7�a'(y���x`�HHWHa�a ' a° Qi -- IAPZUMO Paaw HI [UsLg.QOUQ�Cf3LFCQ;CA �C�HC[:gZZO�F`.,��W WUHOO�t /lfx�Cxa3�UHGuHzzHOWH�OWWO AU) HOHHHO14NXHXUHW £} 1'0(7 C-Iook00000MLnODH000000)0 fz�0ooOOO0000000OI -,dpo.- 4000)LC)k0000000 Ej +► w oovMrrn0000l4crnNOONOw�0000000000Ln�000r_ o.414rmrn�o�o011ooLn O O 'J.rINC'NNNC' 610) 01610) 01146) MLOrU )O1itOrOD14.iNr1r107.-- IrI1iNr- NNN6)Q161010)NMV�rO)Ol U; HOzwHH,- 4rrrrrrrrrrl- ILO01(n 01ZU )NNNNM"YODH04NMMtl'r14V'd�Pd'd'' 4MM000Hr -irl -4I:Q 1- 1 .4-zfVV"7 V'cP '41 V"01001OWW1i1'H.- ir- grl-1e -11104 NNNNN N I. L7 M M M M M M M M C'C� v tN CSC \� r>L IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWWLOLnLni !)Lf1U)LoinLnLnLnLnLnLo tDwl00101DwwwtOlO0lOW r- r4 Xas n .I N�� C:l 0 * =: )[�0tn ri00NN r-'l0[ -N 1: -' 0[-N0 [-NM M d1ONN10 OU)d>0000000[OOOtnOlfl )000,iN aN[�Ori0000r- 1O0 Cl) N067 . . . . . M. O . 41 0. 0. 00 9 M O - O lfl c\ . O -. 1- v0110tn CNOONM r .-4 O NmM0to 00 100 0 -' -IT 10'A 1-1 a 00 0 -'r- a 1-16\'A to cM 19 N ri M rl r-Il0 0 to MOO M ri l0-cT N Nr-1 lfl� rl ri ri r1 N � ol- (D(OaCDmWLn0000tnal0o0 -1O CDHM000r- iOl- r- IOONOONLn OMN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0 10 41 00 0 0(1;- '4 'O O Nr�( (C7 to 00000 6110[--qw0 CC) MMNMOO M[-- O- v[ -O4\N 0 r-I r-i V Ifl M M O V to O N ri U704 1- CD to 00 rl MMM ri r-I -'NN cr[ -O-' [-l- HOO lfl l0r- N tnM .--Ili vmHw01- r-I r-I rl r-i 000co Orio(o(y)l O ri 0110 OOOMOMO -stn 0D0O . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . 100000MO00 ri -'L- 14 L71 -:400 NOMOOOOMOOM- '[-00M m(D to l.f)O M-'OMO rIr-i 0) rl .--I d+[�tf)NNr -I HriM Nr-I N-A r-I ri O- 'N0- 'OOtnm "000 M(DC>aU7 10 O[- 00004\NLnCD OUl 100 -'O 6\1010[-- 1004'00- -i Nl- nMMMl -OON[- MCDON 000M1- M Or-i M000riM NM (N 0) Ntn C'70 0\ -1010 Ifl OMO -VLn 6101 �tn0r -1 OD 01001 0100 M10 tl)Ol0 O1M -' N 100\ 0000 MNUltn NN M-' 0r-i 1Y70 -1 (1) 0-'tn a'01t� ri 0\ O 1n 61M -`0117 N0 1-M LO OD [-0\M CO V' O O lO[-d'000 M10 r- 110 MN -'N 0\l� l�O100 1010010 M[-D 0\10 010010010\ -v r-I ri 100tnN OD CO LO 0\ M ri M O r-I 10 lO M O r-iH NM -'00 Mtn d'Otn 0 00 01 10 10 C) 00 ht17 -�N ri0 -'t`t` Mr-f M NNw H 1-l0 OD ri M10N lfl r-1 006\ -4H t.()M 0M O O O O N N O � � O O 0 O � M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otn Or1-' M r1000 to 000000\ -W C) LO ONO N O-'N l0 LO C) Mtn N000 -' tnOOtn Ull!)O -'l0 Mtn to 000 014 rl lfl N100U)tn r- I -'�t'N -'N to Nri MODCO -I M0\t11M rl r-1 tnNMN r-i 1010 -'NNrI NNr- itnr-IUl lfl r-I -1 M r-I r♦ r A M N 00 N .I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOO 0 0 0'a 0 0 000000 O00000000000000000 0o Oo0 O 800000 0000000 Oooe080008 oe088800 00 000 O 800000 0000000 800000000 000000000 000000 000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o0 008 O o0000o O- 'Nl0tn0 O000000 tnU7NOON -' tnOOtntnU70 -'-O M1.OU1000 Ot170ri- '01- 1000tn000000\ V Otn ONO N 010 ri 1D N100tn to rl- ' -'N-'N tS) Nr-I M(000 r-I M0\tnM ri rl to NMN - 11010 -'N N r-i NNr-I tn -Itn M N 0 N lfl r1 c-i M r-I r-i ri 1 4 jzZ Z� D0Hw W C9 Er' H04 H0W P4 04 L344HC9 P4A HWCWZW wf4gHP4HtDOa�� z WRC �IUU]FaC7Zfj WOUH H HH W1a x U1 Ua HHrt;r�(YW4 0H'D7 D U7 Wi�U1�F. H zaH [ri oHCna w�C wa UU 4HwU r� p aH H U� zz 0xD H HpW LY, W WHHz HODU C7 ?S H U1pU4444P fY1 tOU�WHW !� AUK U AOU>+00r4U'l Har� O WOOD �z HU) Ga[=rCC9C9a1�W a a UC7 fx C90H $OW HZZaHPaC7 R £ z0�7 a'WZHHW x 000nzzRCaW >+a0 OHHza zH zw> P4 W P4HHxH z H Pl,zwa H W) P Wz HHZOX$ zC4H O �H HxR4 W WAA WHHx wHHHU'HU 04H WZWH14 UHP4P4axx0 W Ufx Q;HHE-Im HP4NOH O UWWHU] aaaHazUUWW WWW>+xH4wz `WWC9pAW�WH>+000HHUTAH��j7UI HOUWUUZPLUIHW P�4x�H ap� HWZ Irv- +WHHDNPH �a[a -t fay[a�.layf1t�000W U�a�UOO°HHHOOaOwwGux����OW WP�iWAHO �[+ax� WEA fC t44HNWC]Aa4 W 0 000000000 -1 nl0(-0(A 00011 )N00000000Ln00000000000 0 0 O00a00 H N0)0000ra01-i00 0000 00lWrlriririr-1rBNM-' -tnH iHr-H l- 0.- 1MMOlririHmmT1m.*Hr-mHr-I Nric*m m mo�HHr -iw 00tn[- '.. -iMd' 1010r- 1Nr1riMMMMf �7 MM-" d'-'-' tn[ �0101r- iri0000301riN010141r- iririNMV�tf) lO1�010101610101rINMMF- Hrlt!)riM Cr1MM-' �J' lntn101010101Ot010�D1010101 O1OtD101010C �m�����' �rlr- irirINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNd '- 'rl'd'�MMd' -' cM-' d'-' C' ct' cP-' V'' �l'' ad' d" d' V'-' ci'C'V'�PV'efd'�d'd'- '- 'd' -''cP til to In Lf'l to In LCllnl.f)Lnl['11.[1l!)In In In In In t!)In to In ll'11n C'a l0 101010 tD w kD W w w kD lo w w w %D w w w1 D kD kD w w kD w w w w kD w kD W W kD W W kD W W WWkD101OWWkDl0tfll0101O101010101010 [- L- [- C- U A15 -i O M N N H M O N O \ ••O 1� 6l M O O Glmd V �•rI ro•rlH 0HU O m a 9 r� 1� r� 'L3 N $a O ca 41 m ?I O +� m �N U R 0)U rH-I b U� O 4J 41 4► tT V CA r Q qH �I H z U O U W H z w q a 0 CD H z U 0 U W H U z w ra a O 0 O Oo 4J 434-) CO xro w +-) z° U H >-' (n 4-)zH (1) roUZ � U z s~ 000 x HUUW U�< r. 4UU N mz2 •ri W W � 4-)CaQ N roaa �> X00 Q) U)0004 M r-i O o 0V4 Ooor O MLnZ N 1-11-1 CO * -K W 4.) H �1 b N iU O 410 agi a ri'O U 13 ul'O m1400 (dq a ... \ N N 0 U',rrrnrnrn kJ d� O ri H ro a f +1 m 0 U il 0061 61400LnO 4rl 6l 410100 4 N10 C; C;4 1� ( 4 1000NON N IV H .-A LO V+ 1- O r- N 001` 1` O O 1` 1` O O r-1 M O r-1 CO N O l0 N M N r-i H 'A r-i r-i ri r-i _ ri r-i -i r-i I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1— i' 'pr I I MMr -- ir- IMNMLO).000000000NQ0LONN LOMwVMr -1 ONM00061N OOOr-Id OOaLOaLn00u,)MG Of 01[ 1-I-IV V'O 1-1 (n d'r- NMOIV M010 -i [-OIO 10 ri ONLO CD CD dr LnN 000000 �w 00-i Ln ri d'1-NN In Ln CN d'10110 -i a; OIO 0IOC 4 M N 01 ri OlOO r1 OMNOO ri r-iM 1 00014 x100011. ri N O1M0 1- MM10�wN10r- Ln1001 -NmClm m HLn OMOr -to 00 0�OO1NM0 NODON[- rPOOOl i 10i -(D 10 N N't`i'c -i Ol 1.f) M[ -OItn M CD 00 0000 r- (-OVA .-i O OI OD O LO0)O r-i r-A 0000 OD [-O LOC\l r-i N[-N M MLn Lfl w -1 lO ri d+N 0)rIN 1-1N -4 OD LO 00 r- r- ZT 0000 [, [-ON Ln r-i N r- 1` -A rI r-i H -i N O M r- ri r-i -i r-i Ln T-1 r-i -i ri tp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r, r-mmr-NMLn .Cal d OOOOON10LOM" OONNNI 'IV CDMO-:4+[- NI- O;TMOM-1 4�T* - I`LnLnO11o00 01000N4(x:01 N N 1010 M A N 10 N X1'1001- 1-- -100) M OLn 01011010Ln O1Ln C\j r- 00610 00 V O O 61 011` -A L9 ri L- O M LD Ln dl Ln Ln Ln Low NN-1 NL- �r i �v Ln Ln M I I LnOIOr MCDC)N1- r- OMMCOOONC' 1- Ol r4 O0IO O( 9 OMMNNOOOLO r- Ln10MOr ocD 1- CO Ln IT -i ar N r-1 Vr Lf) OV N r-1 1 I Or- IN0000 0100 to N 0000 O100� C �MM O(MO O�Or -I ONOO-Lrt -O r r- CD p OOOarOl6l -i OIONI- -- 1O1I'N r-i N NNMU-) NN m r- OV Ln N Ln O Lo N Lnl- ar O Ln r-1 N 1` 1` N O C-i r-01100 OOOMN011O 10 l-D m Ln IV 0 v H �51 -_ "'H4124 CD PU) WELH _ E-1 U) MW cnH W UWxd HHUW gwwWU] z fn Lx HHW00Z Uzz <NHzy1 I H mq a(nrCv,a Pia�+El w OohW a w ZWWmWz -,C -40w Ln PS a Uo OHW Wcnx U 0 w�+DH NZ w Ofxfx0HHH N OUHacn jPZ4a4 Oa0 UHU20a 04H U ,- a; 9la4 o,W1HZU H UHa U) �Z wwzpz Uaw H zxH�ao Oros (>�Q>WUGHH�rW�aHH�c�A]w Hr°y sU raA���WHxHaU�UO Xco�CWrlaa�OWW HU.I -L�llr r.� H',k', H W�]HxU? aaaWwQ�i.. �H 111 cx H 0x �a rxgH [] a�H Pz cn 4 aQa U 0W rC�Ya�Lo����--,, affW��UUH HHHWUJ O� C'af�af7SLwRwHHo�wSyow ggH(�wxElwr�r��oawH�y ..., fU=+�.ciO�Qfs,t�LNP1�W nMggzzw �iCW/)WwUNoo�Omm WHOaW�HHHOWHPOWWO� H 1 1 Q �a a3�a�a� 04NX ZUPNM H U) U) a z WD wl000Mf DOOOOML WH(D00000 9000000000000000,'q<D MLD0000000 41 WDOONN,�tMI-ciOOOOriV01N0)Q wz0000000000mw000Hor mw%DOOHOOMO O :, O .'7 Z+- INNN�NNNV'Qi0101010101Mri U] Orilo[ �Wririr- Ir- irlODriririNO�rNO1O101O1NMe1 'I�OIOIr -1 U HOZWr- irir- I"Tri[- r- r- t- - r- r - - r- r- 4N ZmNNNNm- *m- iNNMmz?r- o2V "-::rOIO)OOOrir-HN r- iW >.- 1rAmmCCd'd V vv.z}I�?Vrd w w WWF-WP .-iHH iriri--INNNNNNNMr- JMMMMMV-�fl .I,* \ Vr- > WMMMMMM MMMMM M MM MM M MM04 WWOM MLnLnLf W M Lr) Ln 0 MMLnEWtD W WWkDWtD W W Wt D O t` W Iz N 134 O N j (d Ln 0� W 4-) +� O it -k 15 I I I I I V I I I I I 1 I OS�ooO o0 0000a OO o O000 OOOOO ooO O0 0000000000 a1 06000 C) CD 0000O O0 o O000 OOOOO ooO (D CD o00000000O N tp 00000 00 00000 00 O 001:0 0001010 MOO 00 0000000000 -0 00000 -, 00 00000 00 O 00610 OOOIOLn OHO 00 OOOOOOOOLOO �l NN r-i -4 r- r-i l0 Ln Ln,3,00 OM O Mr-1 -0 OOO Vr 6l V+O1r -I 00 NO O Ln (5)O M1-I -M j NNLn Ln ri N NI-- N Nd' d'N 10 I-ON -i OI-Ir O[- (N r-i 0 r--Cl) OlO r-I N M •ly M M 1` r- 0 ri r-i H N r-1 O O O M Ln ri r-! M M 01 N r-I N O QI t010 Ln Ln M ri N Ln M Co N N �i OOOOO 00 O0000 C) CD O 0000 00000 OOO o0 O00000000O u 00000 00 00000 00 0 0000 00000 000 00 0000000000 N t3l; 00000 c; 0 00000 (Z; (D O OO r�O 0001010 MOO 00 0000000000 '0 00000 00 00000 00 0 o0rno OoOloLn 0;;ZP0 00 0000000OLno �j NNr-f r-i r- r-i lfl Ln L O W 00 OM O Mr-r-O OOO c'm Vr Olr -I 00 NOOLn Ol O(n I- I - M NNLO Ln r-1 N N1-NNar VrN 10 r -C:) -I 01 -'�POI- Nr-10 (-M 010 ri N M TI � MM[�(�O W10LnLnM -I -i IN ri0 OOfr") NLnM Lnr -Ir1MM m N -1N OVr 41 r-i w N 041 ri 0 v H �51 -_ "'H4124 CD PU) WELH _ E-1 U) MW cnH W UWxd HHUW gwwWU] z fn Lx HHW00Z Uzz <NHzy1 I H mq a(nrCv,a Pia�+El w OohW a w ZWWmWz -,C -40w Ln PS a Uo OHW Wcnx U 0 w�+DH NZ w Ofxfx0HHH N OUHacn jPZ4a4 Oa0 UHU20a 04H U ,- a; 9la4 o,W1HZU H UHa U) �Z wwzpz Uaw H zxH�ao Oros (>�Q>WUGHH�rW�aHH�c�A]w Hr°y sU raA���WHxHaU�UO Xco�CWrlaa�OWW HU.I -L�llr r.� H',k', H W�]HxU? aaaWwQ�i.. �H 111 cx H 0x �a rxgH [] a�H Pz cn 4 aQa U 0W rC�Ya�Lo����--,, affW��UUH HHHWUJ O� C'af�af7SLwRwHHo�wSyow ggH(�wxElwr�r��oawH�y ..., fU=+�.ciO�Qfs,t�LNP1�W nMggzzw �iCW/)WwUNoo�Omm WHOaW�HHHOWHPOWWO� H 1 1 Q �a a3�a�a� 04NX ZUPNM H U) U) a z WD wl000Mf DOOOOML WH(D00000 9000000000000000,'q<D MLD0000000 41 WDOONN,�tMI-ciOOOOriV01N0)Q wz0000000000mw000Hor mw%DOOHOOMO O :, O .'7 Z+- INNN�NNNV'Qi0101010101Mri U] Orilo[ �Wririr- Ir- irlODriririNO�rNO1O101O1NMe1 'I�OIOIr -1 U HOZWr- irir- I"Tri[- r- r- t- - r- r - - r- r- 4N ZmNNNNm- *m- iNNMmz?r- o2V "-::rOIO)OOOrir-HN r- iW >.- 1rAmmCCd'd V vv.z}I�?Vrd w w WWF-WP .-iHH iriri--INNNNNNNMr- JMMMMMV-�fl .I,* \ Vr- > WMMMMMM MMMMM M MM MM M MM04 WWOM MLnLnLf W M Lr) Ln 0 MMLnEWtD W WWkDWtD W W Wt D O t` W Iz N 134 O N j (d Ln 0� W 4-) +� O it -k 15 lfl d�V�N �'N MM Lo ONNO M G' xi v'lfl N [�N rl to xa ct'i� 0000OD Ln Ir1-lOM QOtnr-I 6lo rn x-I -iLOM to I- NcoM61 M1- OOD0061001 -00000 001000[ ODr61OMOOtn kJOMOOONWLntnLO C 1L O 10000M OOVWOOtnMkoLONMCD(D LOL0000[- OD. -IM. -I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . tnr - r- w Ir- I.- 1op 61000061 00100c)cr) 0r- cDC) InNc;C;( V d �[: 061 M i- M QO to M O 000 to rH OOc- -100. - it -Cl-10 to NM QO COO(D M NM C) M x-16110100110 Lo m M to l-ONN ONN Oto c) Lo to NN MLnco (D6 C)Loc to -i OO xi x� xi x-I x� O x-I M x1 N r-I r-i N H N N M M M M r-I x-I xi M x-i ri I-MONOD x-100M 00000 w Mm M x-IO MO Otn 3'1- OD LO Ln to aD Ol 61610 V�000 (D C) OC -O V C'M MIty ODMOO NcUN10O0 C NC .1 IaD61N0 00000 1fl OQOMNMNOO 4ri C 4 Ln - 1N 61010 NOM V'kD 01 OOLn ODO x-1 Ml-to NM Lo N OD Mtn ON061Q0 OD -;:V -1 (1) 610100 x410 MON[ -O to Mtn d'61N OLnM NN LOW a'a)dw N to 61 N ri C l� M r-i xi x-i N N N N N M O x-i M 1fl M [� N O O O O 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 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 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 0 0 0 O 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 CD Ln O O O O 0 C. 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 O cl'ODO 10 v O O to O 00000 N M O to M ONLn O (Y) N O to O H Ln to 00 to �100� QOOOtntn ; OD N 61tnH .-�N to x-1 00 r-i M O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 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 O O O O 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 Ln 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ";V00 QOM O O Ln O O O O O O N M O to M ONLn O MN Oto O r-I Ln to OLn d;QOOV; QOODLn In NNNMNNxi x-INx -IN �'r- OC N 60tH xi xiN to x-I 00 H M to r� t: 1fl 00 o 4 oo t� Nr- 61M O7C C61 �[- O� 1,6 1fl M Ln M 0000 O O 0010000 MHd 101n m 610000010000 . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . O t: i� l� kfl H 0000100 NOO IO MN ct Ln to lfl C O Q0 M �' 0000 Mtn Ln O d' 61 N O r111 Ln x1 ODw lfl N lfl x-I r1 N N a'x -Ito N O O 00 O O O 00 O Ifl m Lo M Ln 0610 00x-1 ODO LoO1NNN00HN 01010N M 00 L to d' to 00 to 00 00' x-I xi O V�d'61 v'61N MC�toM Nxi MMONN r-I r-I x-i N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Ind' to O O O O Ln O N 00 Ln QD OO NN OlO V�NNx -I x-INN 0 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 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 to V, to0000tnaN00 LOMM NN OIOCNNx -i x-INN r-i r-I r-I 43z[�z�OHw wH 0E-4H0,000ZHPY �a HwHaH0 Hwzwo ww 4Ha'H,.7oa�� z H caw(� Pjawcn�ry+�y+yi xz z W cn x 44 [z�aa ww �zC,�wHx zaH PMUa H w W P4 '� E-i �WHUHWWwO <H H zz OQWH w�I AUa HH WCnHUHto H.D cn9,�,� w H w H gH�W a' W.4 �WHH HOU.'7 ux H ww1 )UGu[�I R� cnWHW PQ r� U U 5oU�1�c�wUa Ha woOC�z �nzUcnHCn wG c7 c7 w w a aUUC.4 a O H/� OW Hzz HMO Pz4 OW 04W',ZHHW 0 zz�aawx O OHHza zH 04 H4 W p4HHaLH z HU 04 04 HH cn�H W7-, HHzOxU IXPxH 0 a Hx04 W WQQ WHHx to HH U'H0 04H cnzWH PWH04(xxxO WU04 P4HHHcn HC4.1 UMWPW aaaHazUUwggqqqqWW�XHgWz wwi7Q WH�tOOHHCngHr7rac /lHOUWUUZ`NGcnHW�� W Ei',Z4u)OHHf4MHza WW,�U[uHxH U WW Hx[vazz00040W10 QQz04xwWHO Hx,IH W�lic �4HNwmwg Cu Ea+ r3444a OQOa cJ V4 Up OOOUZZUUa[uGua x �OWWaPnopo Q OOOOOOOOOr -IM%D - MMOOONOOOOOOOOI!'1 000000000000 .- IOOOOOOHNM0000,�10 OOOONO O.-1 OOH r-iHH`4 HNM VInHH H[- r- i1 -OHMM OD M.-iH HM r-IMd?r-1' -1 H 61 r-1 N H d' M 016161 r-1H H w <O H M cM lD W H N r- H m M M MM M M d* - gmr-m61r-1r4000010161H NM Mr-I r -IT-iN MM d'to[- 0) 0) 0) 0) (3) 01 H N M M MMMd zWOM 00000WWkD00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00WWr -W01Q1616101Mr-Irir- HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN q": 'zT'cP IV .q Iq C? zl :Iv -11 v%T'IT v v Z? ?d'lzPv'7'v vC iC'rJ'q v4 zr G'V'cT V to o to Ln In Lo o Lnm Ln U') Lo to to In to Ln Ln to Ltl to ia4W 0D 000000kowwwtDwW00101OQDtD00100Dkokoko W W kO kD W IZ W W kD 1,0 W 1,0 W W W W W kO W W W WWkD%DW10WLDW0010<P,[- U ! A15 16 1 k. A i ugust 29, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Fiala � ADVISORY BOARD Hiller 3039WR Hennin l�� Coyle Naples, Florida, August 29, 2011 Coletta 6i BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "A & B" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris (Absent) Misc. Corres: Date: V2 - \%'b\ Item #: \y= -I-'A S Curies to: ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 A15" August 29, 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 James King requested the following items are posted on future agendas under Old Business: ➢ Current MSTU 60/40% Split ➢ Wheels Funding ➢ Indirect Costs James Mug moved to approve the August 29, 2011 Agenda as submitted with the future agenda additions. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of July 5, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the July S, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported the following program highlights: • 145 children were registered weekly from elementary & middle school for Summer Camp was held from June 13 through August 19. • National Night Out held on August 2 had 1800 participants. • Parents Night for Camp was held on August 9 had 150 parents in attendance. • VPK Program is offering both a morning and afternoon class. • VPK enrollment is currently at 27. • Facilities have replaced the peanut pavers with a flexi pave walkway as been installed on the east of building. • Indoor Farmers Market is going great. • Harry Chapin Food Bank is scheduled for September 1. • The carpet in the Center is in the process of being removed and vinyl tile installed. • The oak tree at the corner of Golden Gate Parkway may need to be removed due to roots causing a problem with sewer backup. K VII. 61 'A'u gust 29 2011 Discussion was made on the pros and cons to removing the tree. Staff asked the Advisory Board for direction. Bill Arthur moved to request the oak tree be removed. Second by Kaydee Tuff. Motion carried 4 -0. Jim Klug reported attending a Lions Club meeting in Bonita Springs. The Lions International Club plans to plant 1 million trees this year. It was noted the States' Department of Forestry has a program where you can get free seedlings. The seedlings are typical Florida native trees but availability was unknown. B. Playground Update Vickie Wilson provided a quote from Spectra dated July 25, 2011 to furnish and install playground surface for $36,763.23 with an alternate walking paths from gates to connect with surface for $3,602.89. Staff reported they plan to have the paperwork ready to submit for October 1 to expedite completing this project before season starts. The rollover funds will be available. New Business A. Monthly Budget Annie Alvarez distributed the 130 Monthly Budget Report dated August 22, 2011 and reported the following: ➢ Expenses to revenue ratios are good. ➢ Closeout for the year will be on September 16tH ➢ Rollovers must be in by September 16th Jim Klug requested a line item from GovMax on the Carry Forward rollover to understand how it is composed. Staff will provide the rollover Carry Forward General report at the November meeting. B. Budget Items for Research — Annie Alvarez 1. Flooring — Previously addressed VI. Vickie Wilson will give a tour after the meeting is adjourned. 2. Vacant Positions Annie Alvarez reported the job descriptions for the Program Leader and Assistant have been completed and are expected to be signed off by next week. The jobs will be posted for 1 week in Mid - September. It was noted the process will take 5 weeks. The positions are expected to be filled mid- October. VIII. Member Comments 161 2 .A 15 August 29, 2011 Jim Klug made an official request to have Vickie Wilson notify him at least 2 weeks in prior to events. He would like to use his own contacts to get publicity out on events. He asked if anyone has any concerns or objections. Staff responded they have to follow the Media Policy. Members were okay with Jim's request but voiced concern consequences could arise for Staff. Darrin Brooks requested a copy of the Media Policy. He asked Staff to invite a PIO person to come to a future meeting. He would like to know what media options the Advisory Board has. Staff will ask Shari Ferguson to a future meeting to answer the Advisory Boards questions. Kaydee Tuff noted she has sent out previous notices on Frontier Days. Jim Klug noted Jim Cowicki; an Officer from the Sheriff s Department would like to work with the GGCC on movie nights and recommended supporting them. Kaydee Tuff announced the September 11th Ceremony to be held at 9:30 am. She requested some folding chairs from the Center to be used for the ceremony to be moved to the Sheriffs Substation so they are readily available. Flyers were posted and emailed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD I-T) James ug III, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on 16-3-11 as presented IN, or as amended i 161 2 fflwwm ffla& WAUW Zwd=w Monday, October 10, 2011 6 :30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Committee Members Chairman: Jeff Curl Vice- Chairperson: Karen Acquard Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries Member: Vacant AGENDA I. Call to Order - Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes August 11, 2011 IIL Approval of Treasurer's Report N. Interview W. James Flanagan, III — applicant V. Reserved List to the Board of County Commissioners VI. Max Hasse Park Expansion - Amendment to Agreement VII. David Farmer and Pat Humphries Expiring Terms (October 13,2011) VIII. Election of Officers IX. Public Comments/Other Discussion X. Next Meeting Date- November 28, 2011 XL Adjournment A16 F r"11 O �` = x.61 2 Memorandum To: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Fiala -- From: 'nni A. Mott, Manager HMer JAeal Property Management Handing ccyle Date: October 12, 2011 Subject: Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting Minutes — Signed by Chairperson Ian, Please find attached to this memo the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee meeting minutes signed by the Chairman along with the meeting agenda. The following minutes were signed by Chairman Jeff Curl. August 11, 2011 Thank you. Attachments as stated BY: ....................... teal n. misc. Come: 'rrnr \Q Real Property Management Department Copies W. b� A161 NWom Nate & Zand=0 / r r r c Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 g R Jason Bires — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management If Ir i� Distribution: Executive Summary for Reserved List Memo Re: Facebook 1. Call to Order - Tonight's meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:35 p.m. The first order of business was for the approval of the agenda as presented. Chairman Curl called for a motion to approve the agenda. Karen Acquard made a motion to approve the agenda as presented and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the agenda was approved unanimously. 3 -0 U. Approval of Minutes - May 23, 2011 - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the May 23rd meeting. All committee members have reviewed the minutes and Chairman Curl called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Pat Humphries made a motion to approve the minutes and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved unanimously. -3 -8- - 111. Appro +01 of'Treasurer's Report - The next item on the age- ff&'is•tlie presentation of the Treasurer's Report. �sS$afF advised the Committee that they did not receive a Treasurer's Report 01.1 A 1 1 161 2o Al from Finance today. Staff did however have an email ` from Derek Johnssen in Finance explaining the market adjustment that is on the Treasurer's Report, Staff explained from the email that the market adjustment has nothing to do with the total cash balance that is available to the Land Trust. The market adjustment is an accounting figure that only changes once per year at the end of the fiscal year. This number is strictly for accounting purposes. The Land Trust Committee still had some questions as to why it is on the report if it does not affect the cash balance. Staff advised that they were not qualified to answer that question and stated that we may want to have Derek Johnssen from Finance come to a meeting to explain in greater detail what the market adjustment is. Staff and the Committee also discussed making the Treasurer's Report more simplistic by only reporting what is necessary for the Land Trust Committee to avoid confusion and further questions. IV. Reserved List to the Board of County Commissioners in September - The next item on the agenda is the issue of taking the Reserved List to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff advised that at the last meeting this item was mentioned however, Staff did not know that it required a vote from the Committee. Therefore, Staff is bringing it back for the Committee to review and vote. Staff provided the Committee members with a draft of the Executive Summary that is going to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff advised that this Executive Summary was a draft and would be finalized before presenting it to the Board. Staff advised that they were in the process of confirming figures for the Executive Summary. The Committee stated that they did not feel comfortable voting on an item that was not complete and stated that they would not vote to approve the Executive Summary at this time. The Committee also questioned why some agencies have more land and larger parcels than others. The Committee stated that they would like the agencies that currently have parcels reserved for them to come before the Committee to discuss their plans for the parcels. This would include the Collier County School Board, the Collier County Sheriff and the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. The rest of the reserved parcels have been set aside for Future Marketability. V. Big Corkscrew Fire District PPE Funding Request (Update) - The next item on the agenda is an update on the status of the Big Corkscrew Fire District PPE funding request. Staff advised that this item has been completed. All equipment has been received by the District and all funds have been reimbursed and delivered to the District. VI. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) - The next agenda item is an update on the status of the Max Hasse Park Expansion project. Staff advised that this particular item will require an Amendment to Agreement to extend the timeframe for the reimbursement. Staff advised that the Parks and Recreation Department will be in attendance at our next GAC Land Trust meeting to make a presentation and to request an Amendment to the Agreement to extend the timeframe for the reimbursement. VII. Public Comments/Other Discussion The next item on the agenda is public comments and other discussion. There were no members of the public in attendance however Staff had some items to discuss with the Committee. The first item is the Golden Gate Fire District's plans to build a station with the Sheriff and EMS. Staff advised that at this time there are no plans to do anything as this is in the very early y 1 A16 -1 4 , planning stages. Chief Metzger stated that while the Sheriff and EMS are interested in a shared facility, there are no immediate plans for it at this time. Staff has provided the Committee members with the minutes from the workshop that was conducted with the Board of County Commissioners, the Collier County School Board and the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, Staff advised that this was simply for reference and the Committee members could read it at their leisure. The next item is the Facebook/Social Networking issue. Staff received a packet from Chairman Jeff Curl and in turn Staff provided it to the rest of the Committee for reference and discussion. Staff advised that the gist of the information in the packet is not to do Faeebook or any other social networking websites. Staff and the Committee briefly discussed the issue and it was agreed that Facebook and social networking was not the best option for the Land Trust Committee. The final item to discuss was the proposed article for the Naples Daily News. The Committee has read the article that was drafted by Staff and their opinion was that it needs to be slimmed down. The Committee stated that in addition to the write up Staff should also include some photos of some of the things that the Committee has funded over the years. Chairman Curl brought up one more issue with regard to a letter to the editor provided by a citizen. Chairman Curl stated that the letter talked about taxpayer funds being used for the sunshade structures at Sabal Palm Elementary School. Chairman Curl stated that he wrote a responding letter correcting the original letter to advise that the sunshades were purchased through the GAC Land Trust and not with taxpayer dollars. This was also an opportunity to get the Committee's name out to the public. Chairman Curl asked that Staff provide the rest of the Committee his letter for their reference. VIII. Next Meeting Date - September 26, 2011_ - The next agenda item is the discussion of the next meeting date. With the issue of the reserved list, Staff and the Committee discussed a special meeting or the possibility of moving the regular September meeting from the 26th to the 12th to give Staff time to get the item on the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners after the item is approved by the Land Trust Committee. Staff advised that they would have to look at the Board of County Commissioner's schedule to verify the deadline to get items on the agenda for the September meetings. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for September 12th in order to get the item approved by the Land Trust Committee with enough time to meet the deadline for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. IX. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, Chairman Curl called for a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. A motion to adjourn was made by Karen Acquard and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. The motion to adjourn was made unanimously. Tonight's meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was officially adjourned at 7:20 p.m. 3 -0 i rrman N L' Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board March 2, th, 2011 6:00 p.m. BY: """""""' "" " "' Collier County Boardroom — Building F A 171 1' Members Present: Chairman Mario Ortiz; William Forbes; Manuel Gonzalez; Valaree Maxwell; David Correa Members Absent - Excused: Alejandro Balan, Zetty Rivera, Ileana Ramos, Renato Fernandez Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison. Call to Order: Chairman Mario Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:08, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Valaree Maxwell motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by David Correa. The motion was carried 5 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of February 24th, 2011: Bill Forbes motioned to approve the minutes, Valaree Maxwell seconded. The motion carried 5 -0. Guest Speaker Cristina Perez — Code Enforcement Representative Guest speaker was not present at this meeting. New Business Education report by Valaree Maxwell Fiala Hiller` —� Henning Coyle Coletta TG GED is offered in Spanish and this is not helping the students. If students want to go to college they need to be able to speak English. It is hard to being switching from English to Spanish and vice versa, and many times people have phobia to tests. We (Collier County) do have the highest rate of dropout of the country. In regards to the census, not everybody that was counted is here legally. The county is not investing the money in the right way. Valaree doesn't agree that students take the GED in Spanish because it doesn't help them. She gives the example of Jesus Bustamante who is not prepared. We are placing kids out in the streets with a 9th grade education, because FCAT is equivalent to that grade. This is not an ethnical group, this happens all Misc. cress across the board. Many kids do not know the basics, when they are faced to test without calculators they fail because they cannot do basic math. Date: %2A1-t:k \ 1 Item 911 =- 2— EA \ -1 C Dies to: k Kids are not prepared; they have not been thought to learn. I Governor Scott is turning our state into a voucher State, that means that students that are considered exceptional students, this was called special ed. This is established by the district. There is different classification of disabilities that is categorized by a matrix. The higher the score in the matrix the greater the disability there is. For example dyslexia is a color pigment in the eyes that is missing. This is one type of disability. Rick Scott is allowing that any child, from the moment that they are born, is being counted so they know that they have to provide for future education. If that child decides to go to school that money goes to the public school. Students with disabilities can apply to the McKay scholarship for the school of choice, and the money goes to the school of their choice. Schools are trying to keep student, if they know that the student don't have hope they place the student in a program where they can work. This work program allows the school to still receiving funds. Rick Scott program works in a way that if the kids are unhappy and not getting what they need, they can take those dollars somewhere else. The Supreme Court judged that no child will be denied any service of education. If an individual have been in school in the last five years the student can get the McKay scholarship based in the Supreme Court. There is a new bill where the teachers are going to be paid in accordance with performance; the new system is called merit pay. Teachers will be paid in accordance with the success of the students. Before the merit pay was in place, schools were pushing the teachers for the kids to get good scores in the FCAT. If they did well the school will get bonuses. The new system is different, this rewards the individual teacher. The system will create chaos. In the country there are 2,000 schools with highest rate of dropout. In Florida we have the second highest rate, and there are four schools within Collier County with high dropout rate. You can look up information for expenditures in education, jails, etc. Look up PEW in the internet. Members and Staff Comments The members were discussing about the results of the census. What are the BCC going to do in regards to the increasing Hispanic population? Approximately 10% of the business in Collier County is by Hispanics. Black population is the most discriminated in this country. Hispanic is the second group most discriminated against to. 0 A 17" Some conversation was on the table in regards to communication, cell phones and texting. Information in regards to the Hispanic population workforce in Collier County was provided to the members as requested during last meeting. Manny Gonzalez shared information about internet crime. Top ten types of internet crime: ✓ Not delivery of merchandise ✓ No delivery of payment ✓ Asking for information ✓ Identity Theft ✓ Sending money in advance ✓ Spam ✓ Auction fraud ✓ Credit card fraud ✓ Payment fraud Most of the victims range between 40 -49. Florida is among the top 10 states with internet crime. One crime in Collier County is craigslist, an add is placed in internet for rent and charges for rent . Adjourn: Motion to adjourn made by David Correa to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 p.m, second by Bill Forbes. The motioned carried by a group vote of 5 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on April 28`h, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. Chairman, ario Ortiz Date 161 Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board April 2g 1h , 2011 6:00 p.m. 2 OLA.1il Collier County Boardroom — Building F Members Present: Chairman Mario Ortiz; Manuel Gonzalez; David Correa; Zetty Rivera, Ileana Ramos Members Absent - Excused: Renato Fernandez, William Forbes and Valaree Maxwell Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison. Call to Order: Chairman Mario Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:11, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: David Correa motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Ileana Ramos. The motion was carried 5 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of March 24th, 2011: minutes, Mario Ortiz seconded. The motion carried 5 -0. Guest Speaker -No guest New Business Law Enforcement report by Manny Gonzalez David Correa motioned to approve the Fiala ✓ Hiller Henning _ Coyle Coletta - c. Mr. Gonzalez attended the meeting for the minority task force, the subject of the meeting was "drugs ". These drugs are not the typical drugs but regular pills that now are killing people, pills such as oxicodone among others. Kids from other states, sell them at college campus for $20 to $25 per pill. There are ways to buy the pills legally with a valid prescription. We have a problem; we have doctors with license that sit all day long writing prescriptions for pills like oxicodone without treating patients. They are just making money not taking care of patients. The new governor does not want to violate the rights of the patients by controlling the issuance of the prescriptions, the real patients have the right of privacy. When sheriffs office goes after drug houses the money collected can be used to start a task force to combat this type of problem. This pill is killing a lot of people through over doses. This is a problem that is affecting everyone and that's why the sheriff office is getting involved. Specially to make sure that high school kids are protected from this drug. Date: % L-k %31 k v Item #- 1 L= —v,4 \--) _'���s te: 16 i z r snit The law cannot do anything against these doctors that are circumventing the system. They cannot prevent the business of selling the drug if they have a prescription for it. The doctors keep the records. They consider Florida the pill mill for other states. Oxicodone makes you very comfortable and relaxed. Question: Does the FDA require that after so many times of prescribing the same medicine to the same person can do something about it? Manny indicated no, it will be like checking aspirins. If you have information about this type of businesses, you can contact the Lieutenant Sheriffs office. It was also mentioned that there are some campaigns to eliminate the unused drugs from households to prevent teenagers from misuse of them. Census report by David Correa The 2010 census results were released. David present details about the census and the relation of the data to the Hispanic community. David read an article with regards to the census (attached to the minutes) Collier county needs to establish new boundaries with new districts. Districts didn't grow equally so there must be a redistricting. Collier County has 331,520 habitants The Hispanic population in the United States is close to 50 millions. The illegal population in the United States is over 12 million. Mario Ortiz — Redistricting There are three phases for redistricting, first there is the consequences from the last census. Florida was recognized from one of the few states to comply with dealing with minority. Amendment #5 alluded to legislative redistricting Amendment #6 alluded congressional redistricting What is redistricting? The redraw of political boundary lines Why is so important? For additional information please visit www.mvdistrictbuilding.org Florida is a State of concern. Mario passed information about regional redistricting and how you can participate in the process. Mario provided three websites where to get additional information about redistricting. It is an interesting process; there is a lot of politics. Minorities are in disadvantage, they don't have the number, and they don't have a voice. 161 A174 If any party would like to present something to the board, we need to make sure that both parties have the opportunity to present to the HAAB board. Right now Florida has 25 districts. Because of the increase in population Florida has gained 2 new districts. Manny asked if we can identify where the additional population is located. Mario indicated that there are 7 counties that gain population while others loose population. Lee County has an increase in population. Lee County had an increase of 40% in population since last census. For the redistricting it does not make a difference about if the population is legal or illegal. It has to do with the census not with votes. Congressional districts are based in the number of people not in the number of voting members. Members and Staff Comments Letter of resignation from Alejandro Balan was presented to the board. Mario indicated that three board memberships are expiring on June 2011. Renato Fernandez, Manny Gonzalez and Bill Forbes. They will be applying and board members will be reviewing the applications in a future meeting. Zetty will be preparing a presentation for next meeting. urn made b David Correa to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 .m, second bygiUl Adjourn: Motion to adjourn y 1 g P —F�. The motioned carried by a group vote of 5 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on April 28th, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. OA& Chairman, Mario Ortiz r — 2 � —z0 //dp Date 161 2 17if The Census Bureau recently released the population totals for Florida, including the racial and ethic backgrounds by County. Collier County had 321,520 residents, of which 83,177 were of Hispanic descent, 269,596 were white, and 21,087 were black. In the 2000 census there were 251,377 residents to bring a 27% increase. Lee County had a much higher increase from 440,888 to 618,754 a 40% increase, Hispanics totaled 113,308 and growth is expected to continue. The economy may cause greater damage to the Hispanic population due to the lack of employment in the Housing industry and the meager skills that the newly arrived possess. Tourism which is the other leg in our economy is seasonal and cannot sustain an individual or family. Due to the state's increase in population now I 8.8million we will have 2 additional congressional seats to bring a total of 27, providing a power base to the state. Each member of congress represents on average 710,767 people. The Florida legislature will be responsible for the redistricting, it will be all political. Hispanics should benefit from the redistricting as they are responsible for the growth due to the 40 %increase in Hispanic population since the 2000 census. Hispanics now make up 22.5 %of the 18.8million residents. This brings us to the issue of, Collier County establishing new boundaries for the five Commission districts. State law requires that after each census, County commissions must divide the county into districts that are contiguous territories, (touching, next or adjacent to) as nearly equal in population as practicable. The redistricting must be done in a odd- numbered year as 2012 is an election year, time is crucial. Collier County's total population is 321,520,while all the districts grew it was not an equal growth ,therefore district lines will have to be adjusted to reflect the new growth as Commissioners must represent an equal number of persons. The magic number needed is 64,304 or as close as possible. Districts 1, 2, and 4 need to increase, Districts 3, and 5 will need to downsize in order to meet those numbers. The County staff will provide the new maps, after analysis, description of proposed boundaries, communicating with knowledgeable individuals, and diverse members of the community including the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, the Black Affairs Advisory Board, and the Commissioners prior to final approval. The Federal Government may also express an interest in the process. In order to ensure minority voting power is not unreasonably diluted, under the Federal Voting Rights Act, political maps must be preapproved. 16 I 2 �011 A 17 Florida Redistricting. Info compiled for HAAB, by Mario Ortiz. Thursday, April 28, 2011. In the Florida 2010 elections, two important amendments were approved by the voters. Amendment 5 Legislative Redistricting Won Option Votes % Yes 3,117,636 63 No 1,866,009 37 Precincts Reporting - 6880 of 6881 "Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. " Amendment 6 Congressional Redistricting Won Option Votes % Yes 3,115,712 63 No 1,838,142 37 Precincts Reporting - 6881 of 6881 "Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. " Early in March, 2011,Governor Rick Scott requested assistance in determining who was the proper authority for preclearance for Amendments 5 and 6 (Article III, Sections 21 and 20, of the Florida Constitution), as adopted by during the 161 2010 General Election. Because Amendments 5 and 6 were retrogressive to minority voters in Florida's five "covered jurisdictions," Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough and Monroe counties. Florida Redistricting, Amendment 7 did not appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Florida as an legislatively- referred constitutional amendment. The proposal, known as HJR 7231, called for barring lawmakers from favoring a political party or incumbent when redrawing legislative or congressional district lines. However, the proposal would allow lawmakers to continue basing districts on "communities of common interest." [1][2][3][41 On April 26 the House voted 74 -42 to refer the amendment to the ballot.[51 The Senate voted 25 -14 on April 30; qualifying the measure for the ballot.[6][71 In order to qualify for the November 2010 ballot the proposed amendment required a minimum of 60% in the both the House and the Senate.[81 On July 8, 2010 Circuit Judge James Shelfer ruled that the legislatively - proposed amendment would no longer appear on the 2010 general election ballot. According to reports, the ruling will be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. However, a final decision must be made by September 2, the deadline for measures to be added to the ballot before ballot printing begins. 19111011111 Text of measure According to the Florida Department of Elections the summary of the measure read as follows:[121 In establishing congressional and legislative district boundaries or plans, the state shall apply federal requirements and balance and implement the standards in the State Constitution. The state shall take into consideration the ability of racial and language minorities to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, and communities of common interest other than political parties may be respected and promoted, both without subordination to any other provision of Article III of the State Constitution. Districts and plans are valid if the balancing and implementation of standards is rationally related to the standards contained in the State Constitution and is consistent with federal law. On March 29, David Bishop, Communications Director, Office of the Senate President and Katie Betta, Communications Director, Office of the Speaker announced that both bodies had submitted a Preclearance Application for Amendments 5 and 6. 161 In this application, the Legislature is requesting that DOJ preclear (that they do not dilute) these amendments, under the interpretation that they are beneficial for preserving and enhancing the rights of minority voters. SUBMISSION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Florida Legislature submits for preclearance two recent amendments to Florida's Constitution (collectively, the Amendments)). The Amendments appeared on the 2010 general election ballot as Amendment 5, entitled —Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting,l and Amendment 6, entitled — Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting.) The Amendments are now Article III, Section 20 (Amendment 6) and Article III, Section WHAT IS REDISTRICTING? The redrawing of Florida's political boundary lines, every ten years, to reflect changes in population. The Florida Legislature must redraw the State's Congressional and Legislative boundary lines prior to the 2012 Elections. WHY IS REDISTRICTING IMPORTANT'? Everyone lives in districts... Congressional, Legislative, etc. Those districts tell the stories of their communities. Those communities shape representation at all levels of government. HOW CAN FLORIDIANS PARTICIPATE? The Florida House of Representatives is currently developing MyDistrictBuilder, the online tool for Floridians and their Legislators to propose new boundary lines for Florida's Congressional, State House, and State Senate districts. Legislative Calendar JANUARY 28, 2010 Florida House presented plans to develop a web -based district building application to Florida media APRIL - JULY, 2010 Florida House's MyFloridaCensus initiative; April 1 was the official U.S. Census Day SEPTEMBER 28, 20 10 161 2 OR At? Public release of "alpha" version of MyDistrictBuilder at the National Conference of State Legislature's Fall 2010 Redistricting Conference DECEMBER 21, 2010 Apportionment of 27 Congressional seats to Florida MARCH - MAY, 2011 Public testing of "beta" MyDistrictBuilder APRIL 1, 2011 U.S. Census Bureau's delivery of redistricting data to Florida must be completed JULY, 2011 Launch of MyDistrictBuilder SUMMER - FALL, 2011 FL Legislature will host statewide redistricting meetings to take public input OCTOBER - DECEMBER, 2011 Likely time for House committees to begin reviewing public input JANUARY 10 - MARCH 9, 2012 2012 Legislative Session; Legislature officially approves new district plans Sources (among many): http: / /www.facebook.com/MvDistrictBuilder http://www.youtube.com/user/MyDistrictBuilderFL?blend=22&ob=5 http: / /www.floridaredistricting.org/ *Florida House Districts - 120 *Florida Senate Districts - 40 Florida Elected Officials 2011 -2012 Florida Senators (U.S. Senators) Bill Nelson (D) 716 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202 - 224 -5274 Fax: 202 - 228 -2183 Website: http://billnelson.senate.gov Marco Rubio (R) B40A Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202 - 224 -3041 Website: http: / /rubio.senate.gov/ Florida Congressmen (U.S. Congress) 16 1 2, V F, A 17 Connie Mack (R) District 14 115 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-2536 Fax: 202-226-0439 Website: http://mack.house.gov/ 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 105 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Phone: 239-252-6225 Fax: 239-252-8065 David Rivera (R) District 25 417 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225- 2778 Fax: 202-226-0346 Website: http://rivera.house.gov/ 4715 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite One Naples, FL 34116 Phone: 239-348-1620 Fax: 239-348-3569 Florida State Senators Larcenia J. Bullard (D) District 39 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 304 Miami, FL 33143 Phone: 305-668-7344 Fax: 305-668-7346 Statewide: 1-866-234-3734 bullard.larcenia.web@flsenate.gov Garret Richter (R) District 37 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 203 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Phone: 239-417-6205 richter.garrett.wcb@flsenate.gov Florida Representatives Denise Grimsley (R) District 77 205 S. Commerce Ave., Suite B Sebring, FL 33870-3604 Phone: 863-385-5251 denise.grirnsley@myfloridahouse.gov Matt Hudson (R) District 101 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 212 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Phone: 239-417-6270 matt.hudson@myfloridahouse.gov Jeanette Nunez (R) District 112 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 305 Naples, FL 34112-5764 Phone: 239-434-5094 jeanette.nunez@myfloridahouse.gov Kathleen Passidomo (R) District 76 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 304 Naples, FL 34112-5764 Phone: 239-417-6200 kathleen.passidomo@myfloridahouse.gov Trudi K. Williams (R) District 75 12811 Kenwood Lane, Suite 212 Ft/ Meyers, FL 33907-5648 Phone: 239-433-6775 trudi.wilhams@myfloridahouse.gov flor org As MyDistrictBuilder is developed and redistricting proceeds forward, the Data House will provide Floridians with links to the code and data that represent the framework of the redistricting process. Questions, comments, need assistance? Email:.mvdistrictbuilderC@mvfloridahouse.gov. April 8, 2011 — Data from the American Community Survey & the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles • The American Community Survey, as conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, contains thousands of demographic data points for Florida, for the period 2005 -2009. The data available for download here is available as used in MyDistrictBuilder: https:HcensusvaIidator.blob. core. windows. net / mvdistrictbuilderdata /`tl10AII10Data ACS 2011-03 - 25.zip (614,042KB) This word document explains how the American Community Survey data in MyDistrictBuilder was produced: https: / /censusvalidator.blob. core. windows. net /mvdistrictbuilderdata /American Community Survey Data Process rev110128.doc Data here was taken from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles on April 1, 2010, the same day as the 2010 Census. The data provides aggregate counts of people in Florida who had an active driver's license or identification card and were 18 years or older. The data is viewable by the different layers of census geography. The data does NOT include any personal identifying information. The data available for download here is available as used in MyDistrictBuilder: https: // censusvalidator .blob.core.windows net / mvdistrictbuilderdata /`t110A1110Data DMV 2011-03- 25.zip (18,033KB) April 6.2011— 2010 Census Data & Census Geography as used in MvDistrictBuilder • The 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law data) contains Florida's basic population information as of April 1, 2010. The data available for download here is available as used in MyDistrictBuilder: https:// censusvalidator .blob.core.windows net / mvdistrictbuilderdata /t[10AII10Data PL2010 2011 03- 24.zip (79,524KB) Contact: House Redistricting Committee at 400 House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1300. Phone (850) 488 -3928. Email: mvdistrictbuilderomyflorida house. gov Florida House of Representatives: www.mvfloridahouse.gov Home: www.florida red istricting org "Beta" version of MyDistrictBuilder: florid aredistricting cloudapo net /MyDistrictBuilder asI2x Facebook: www.facebook.com /MyDistrictBuilder Twitter: twitter.com /FLRedistricting YouTube: www. voutube.com /MyDistrictBuilderFL 0P www.flor It AL org The 2010 Census geographical files (map data) define the layers of geography — Counties, VTDs (Voting Districts), and Census Blocks — that MyDistrictBuilder provides for drawing new districts. The map data is in "Well Known Text" (WKT) that can be imported into Windows Azure or Microsoft SQL Server. The data available for download here is available as used in MyDistrictBuilder: https:// censusvalidator .blob.core.windows. net / mvdistrictbuilderdata /t110A111OGeo 2011- 04- 04.zip (138,936KB) This is a helpful look -up table that cross - references the three layers of census geography — Counties, VTDs (Voting Districts), and Census Blocks — that MyDistrictBuilder provides for drawing new districts, with our internal ID for each piece of census geography: https: / /censusvalidator.blob. core. windows. net / mvdistrictbuilderdata /t110uogidiist 2011- 04- 04.zip (2,939KB) March 18, 2011— Online District Viewer: Summary View of 2010 Census Redistricting Data • Florida's current 120 State House districts: http: / /www.poogle.com/ maps? f=g &hl =en &g= http: // censusvalidator .blob.core.windows.net /mvdist rictbuilder /House2002.kmz • Florida's current 40 State Senate districts: http: / /www.google.com/ maps? f=g &hl =en &g= http: // censusvalidator .blob.core.windows.net /mvdist rictbuilder/Senate2002.kmz • Florida's current 25 Congressional districts: http: / /www.google.com/ maps ?f=g &hl =en &g= http: // censusvalidator .blob.core.windows.net /mvdist rictbuilder/Congressiona12002.kmz March 17, 2011— 2010 Census Redistricting Data [Public Law 94 -1711 Summary Files • The U.S. Census Bureau made Florida's 2010 Census Redistricting Data available to state government leaders and the public on March 17, 2011. To download the data, visit: http: / /www2.census.gov /census 2010 /01- Redistricting File - -PL 94- 171 /Florida /. • Visit the Census Bureau's American FactFinder, http:// factfinder2 .census.gov /main.htmi, to search through Florida's 2010 Census and American Community Survey data for answers to demographic questions. Contact: House Redistricting Committee at 400 House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1300. Phone (850) 488 -3928. Email: mydistrictbuilder(&mvflorida house. oov Florida House of Representatives: www.mvfloridahouse.aov Home: www.floridaredistricting.org "Beta" version of MyDistrictBuilder: floridaredistricting. cloudapp .net/MyDistrictBuilder.aspx Facebook: www.facebook.com /MyDistrictBuilder Twitter: twitter.com /FLRedistrictino YouTube: www. youtube.com /MyDistrictBuilderFL ,J APIL. F, 010 • To view underpopulated and overpopulated figures for Florida's current state legislative and Congressional districts, Click Here. February 18, 2011— MvDistrictBuilder on CodePlex • MyDistrictBuilder's code is open and available to the public at www.codeplex.com. The public can inspect the code, ask questions, comment, and even participate in the development of MyDistrictBuilder. • Visit: http:// mydistrictbuilder.codeplex.com/ • About CodePlex: "CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. You can use CodePlex to create new projects to share with the world, join others who have already started their own projects, or use the applications on this site and provide feedback." Contact: House Redistricting Committee at 400 House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1300. Phone (850) 488 -3928. Email: mydistrictbuilder (&mvfloridahouse.aov Florida House of Representatives: www.mvfloridahouse.gov Home: www.floridaredistrictino.oro "Beta" version of MyDistrictBuilder: floridaredistrictinci.cloudar)t).net/MvDistrictBuilder.aspx Facebook: www .facebook.com /MyDistrictBuilder Twitter: twitter.com /FLRedistrictino YouTube: www. youtube.com /MyDistrictBuilderFL erg Redistricting Timeline i 1 A � _ Legislative Calendar JANUARY 28, 2010 Florida House presented plans to develop a web -based district building application to Florida media APRIL —JULY, 2010 Florida House's MyFloridaCensus initiative; April 1 was the official U.S. Census Day SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 Public release of "alpha' version of MvDistrictBuilder at the National Conference of State Legislature's Fall 2010 Redistricting Conference DECEMBER 21, 2010 Apportionment of 27 Congressional seats to Florida MARCH — MAY, 2011 Public testing of "beta" MvDistrictBuilder APRIL 1, 2011 U.S. Census Bureau's delivery of redistricting data to Florida must be completed JULY, 2011 Launch of MvDistrictBuilder SUMMER — FALL, 2011 FL Legislature will host statewide redistricting meetings to take public input OCTOBER — DECEMBER, 2011 Likely time for House committees to begin reviewing public input JANUARY 10 — MARCH 9, 2012 2012 Legislative Session; Legislature officially approves new district plans FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE WW W.FLORIDAREDISTRICTING.ORG Between January 10 to March 9 — Legislature approves Legislative plans 15 Days — Attorney General submits Legislative plans to FL Supreme Court 30 Days — FL Supreme Court upholds the Legislative plans 60 Days — US DOJ preclears the Legislative plans June 18 -22 — Qualifying for state and federal elections in Florida Between January 10 to March 9 — Legislature approves Congressional plan 7 or 15 Days— Governor signs Congressional plan into law NO AUTOMATIC COURT REVIEW V 60 Days — US DOJ preclears the Congressional plan 0 June 18 -22 — Qualifying for state and federal elections in Florida DID YOU KNOW... ... The Legislature is specifically required to redistrict the State House and State Senate districts during the 2012 Legislative Session. Florida Constitution. Art lll, s.16 (a) ... Qualifying for state & federal elections occurs in the same week in redistricting years. s. 99.061(9). Florida Statutes 161 2 1, Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee'` a www.floridaredistricting.org How Can Floridians Participate in Redistricting? ✓ Take part in the Legislature's public meetings on redistricting, throughout Florida, beginning summer 2011. ✓ Use MyDistrictBuilder to submit ideas for new districts to the Legislature, beginning summer 2011. ✓ Learn about and follow redistricting at www.floridaredistricting.org. ✓ Follow @FLRedistricting on Twitter and MyDistrictBuilder on Facebook. ✓ Share ideas with your State Representative and State Senator. Every ten years, Florida redistricts, reshaping the }7agwr -m- political boundary lines of every state legislative and W.i► congressional district in the State. Those lines can fundamentally change a community's portrait of representation at all levels of government. In 2011 -2012, the Florida House of Representatives is giving you an .i unprecedented ability to participate in the upcoming redistricting process. A Beginning July 2011, the House's MyDistrictBuilder will be the tool that the Public and Legislators alike will use to propose new districts. The Florida Legislature will also host dozens of public meetings throughout the State to take citizen testimony on the needs of Florida's many diverse communities. In addition, MyDistrictBuilder, www.floridaredistrictin4.oro, and additional open government efforts by the Legislature will enable Floridians to collaborate with other interested Floridians, monitor the progress of redistricting, and suggest improvements as the districts develop. Revised 2/23/2011 1 161 Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee wmMoridared istricti ng . org Start the Conversation and Start Sharing Your Ideas Step #1 Contact the Redistricting Committee at mvdistrictbuilder (&myfloridahouse.gov, and request to be added to the redistricting email list. Step #2 Bookmark www.floridaredistricting.org for redistricting news and resources. Starting July 2011, Floridians can also use www.floridaredistricting.org to compare their ideas with those shared by others. Step #3 Learn, share and join in the two -way conversation on redistricting by following MyDistrictBuilder on Facebook and @FLRedistricting (MyDistrictBuilder) on Twitter. Step #4 Test -drive MyDistrictBuilder at http:// floridaredistricting. cloudapp .net/MyDistrictBuilder.aspx. MyDistrictBuilder is still in development, but this alpha version of the application gives the opportunity to learn about redistricting and practice building districts. Step #5 Get your community ready to participate in Florida's redistricting process by: ✓ Including information about www.floridaredistricting.org and MyDistrictBuilder on community websites, in newsletters and in other publications. ✓ Inviting others to participate in testing MyDistrictBuilder. i • Forming a team of district map drawers around the State to collaborate on creating redistricting plans with MyDistrictBuilder. • Encouraging other community leaders to partake in the Legislature's public meetings on redistricting. Revised 2/23/2011 161 Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board May 26`h, 2011 $' ........................ 6:00 p.m. Collier County Boardroom — Building F 2 A 17 t-.& Members Present: Chairman Mario Ortiz; Manuel Gonzalez; Renato Fernandez; Zetty Rivera; Valaree Maxwell; William Forbes Members Absent - Excused: Ileana Ramos Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison. Call to Order: Chairman Mario Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:03, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Bill Forbes motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Renato Fernandez. The motion was carried 6 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of March 24th, 2011: David Correa motioned to approve the minutes, Mario Ortiz seconded. The motion carried 5 -0. Fiala Guest Speaker Hiller G Henning David Weeks - Comprehensive planning Section - GMD Coyle _ Coletta - Mr. Weeks Weeks presented to the board members statistics of the population based in the last census report. Pages were taken from a power point presentation used by the supervisor of elections. Mr. Weeks went through the results of the census provided in the 2 "d page of the document. Member asked what the VAP means ? Voting age population Mr. Weeks explained about the district distribution due to some of the areas have less than the ideal population while others exceed the ideal population. He also explained that the boundaries will be moved east and north. Page 5 shows the redistricting criteria. The BCC approved 4 criteria • Maintain the population number • Keep the income for commissioners usc. Corres: • Keep district as compact and regularly shape as possible • Comply with Federal law with regards to minority population Date: Item #:I Laze 2 �A -, 161 2 A17' Collier County does not have a district with a majority of minority population. The Hispanic ethnicity is a significant amount currently present at Collier County. David Correa joined the meeting at 7:12 Mr. Weeks explained that there is the need to maintain boundaries, if possible they will maintain a community within one district but it is possible that because they may not have a physical boundary the community get split if the boundary is placed following a street. Mr. Weeks will like to present to the HAAB during July or August the proposed boundary maps as well to the BAAB. Mario asked to Mr. Weeks if he was meeting with the SWF district. Mr. Weeks explained that the Federal redistricting is completely different than the ones for Counties. By Florida Statutes we can adjust boundaries only during odd years so this has to get done this year. The process started in late March and it has to be done before the end of the year. How do you correlate the boundaries to the legislative boundaries? Mr. Weeks explained that they don't, they are completely different and independent. The boundaries will move East and North. Redistricting for Collier County is absolutely independent from the congressional. Will this go to the congress to seek their approval? Mr. Weeks indicated that yes the map after the approval, is sent to the judicial department for comments. Two of the districts have to get smaller and the other three need to get larger. End of Mr. Week's presentation. Mario clarified that the information provided last week with regards to redistricting was related to the congressional redistricting not local redistricting. Mario provided information to the board members about scheduling another meeting concerning future redistricting. If the HAAB would like to participate in the State Hearing, they will need approval from the county commissioners. The question is if Hispanics within the County would like to participate not if the members want to participate. Discussion with regards to what type of input the HAAB can provide to change the legislation. Members expressed that they don't want to participate in the State hearings. They can participate as individuals but not has a board. 16-1 2 A17 Mario indicated that there are hundreds of bodies that have been invited to participate in these hearings. David Correa would like to place a motion for the HAAB to meet in August, to meet with Davis Weeks to discuss the Census plan. Manny Gonzalez second the motion. Renato open the discussion indicating that they don't need to have a specific agenda. David proposed the agenda to find out the time limitations that Mr. Weeks has. Manny does not see the purpose of the meeting out of order, because Mr. Weeks will only present the information and they are facts. The board will not have the opportunity to move the boundaries, it will be only informative. The members of the board provided their availability for August meeting. Mario would like to obtain additional information prior the meeting. Motion was carried 5 -3. Opposed Mario, Renato & Bill. Old Business It was already provided. New Business Mario made a motion to have summer recess during the months of June & July. Motion was second by Valaree. Motion was carried 8 -0. Workshop update by Zetty Rivera Zetty created a Flyer inviting the Hispanic Community to an informative meeting. (See attachment) The location proposed was the Golden Gate Community Center. The date and time is open. Valaree brought up that it may need some fee or insurance fee. Tatiana will find out if the community center is available for any time during Hispanic heritage month. Ask to the County attorney when there is a public meeting, how everyone is covered in case of accident. Members and Staff Comments Application to renew membership to HAAB for Mr. Gonzalez. David made a motion to approve the application, motion was second by Valaree. Motion was carried 7- 0. Recommendation that Manny is reappointed made by David, seconded by Valaree. Motion carried 7 -0. 161 A17 Renato Fernandez will not present application to renew membership. He provided an explanation of his decision to the other members and thank the board. Mario thanked in name of the board for Renato's participation in the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. David, ask Renato to reconsider and think about his decision. Member Comment Manny provided information about an article from friends of the library about one of our HAAB members, Bill Forbes. Action Item Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to reappoint Manny Gonzalez to the HAAB. Adjourn Motion to adjourn made by David Correa at 7:09 p.m, second by Bill Forbes. The motioned carried 8 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on August 25th, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. Chairman a �T Date 161 2 A 17 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08 -341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request reimbursement, please follow the instructions below. 1. Complete the attached form clearly and legibly using one line for each regularly scheduled meeting attended on or after the effective date above. There is no need to complete the column for Reimbursement Rate or Amount requested. Attach a copy of a map indicating the driving distance to and from each meeting. Only one copy of the map to or from each location is required. Maps can be obtained and printed using any computer generated map program such as MapQuest, Yahoo, or Google Maps. 3. Submit the completed form to the Advisory Board Liaison for processing before September 16. Checks will be mailed to the address shown on the form no later than October 31St 4. Incomplete or illegible forms will be returned unprocessed. 0 N O O O O O O O z 0 Q � a W Li a. Q Q O O � � U w O � b CL Q V) oz C4 W U C4 F- O o W W W Q W a 161 2 V' i A 17 0 C U E U 7 G N N cd fL� (yi bA ai R �v 0 N h O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O bA R G d rR G G p R •G D 0 C •L W O C O a E 0 w ,D v E w L a a L U R 0 'O � (V h Y N V] U .fl •� 3 t A � U � � 3 w O N c E c o E 'Y x R � > r V) L Y� n•EU E cli (4y L N bA . U > o a- EA W V) U z O T ,D � Q � yy L !~ O � Q � � Q F- z a¢ m C7 W Q � uj w a >- W Q . � Mitchelllan 161 2 A 17 . From: call.walter@yahoo.com @yahoo.com Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:48 PM 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: 7/12/2011 1:47:35 PM. Name: J. Walter Call Home Phone: 39- 431 -639 Home Address: )580 Chestnut Circl City: a ilZip Code: Phone Numbers Fax: Business : 239 -216 -7831 e -Mail Address: �all.�- ��alter�Lahoo c()i7 Board / Committee Applied for: irs Advisory and Category: of indicate Work Place: Prudential Florida Realty 5th Avenue Naples Fl How long have you lived in Collier County: ore than 15 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? Not Indicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and /or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 161 recommendations made by this advisory board? Eof [ndicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Ye Do you currently hold public office? N� Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? N�o Not Indicate Please list your community activities: ICurrently Active liasonl artici pant at First Hispanic Baptist church of Naples, Mi uel Cruz pastor Previously active coach of youth basketball Collier County, YMCA, Parks and Recs. etc. Associate member Collie County Bar Association CBA Member Naples Area Board of Realtors NABOR Active in Parent/Teacher. association when children attended Collier Public Schools K thru 12 Previoulsy involved in Spanish outreach Pine Ridge Middl Education: University of Bridgeport Connecticut degree in Marketing Bridgeport had the large Hispanic Popular outside of MY, city and I was 1 an active supporter of the first Hispanic Superior Court 1ud e (native o Bridgeport) elected in Connecticut before movie, to Collier County over 20 ears ago Advance Parale Studies Edison State Private Pilot Eaf;le Scout Experience: tr t , luent to Spanish after many years of study First became interested in the Hispanic Culture in the mid -sev( working for a travel company that developed tours in the hinterland of Central America to previousIJN undiscovered Mayan Ruins. Traveled and lived throughout Central America and South America. Lived bri in Spain in the Costa Del Sol area, Malaga. The continued success of America socially and business wise i very uMendatn upon the assimilation of the Hispanic community socially and business wise It is es eciall 4nn ortant for our area of south Florida to set an example for the rest of the country that this can be done in c tal civil and positive manner. South Florida is a gateway to Central and South America and we also have- Vs onsibility to the fenerations of Latinos who came here originally m the agriculture business under less tesirable circumstances.) 2 f. 1A �— F-A • ^N • w 14- O W N O N O O 0 (D 161 2 A17 c '0 0 1 m , M n rt O r � v7 m vi N A17 c 70 iw 0 0 m n r-h O r � v7 N • 161 2 �-i 0 �� O (D 0 r 0 ►�� `b �d O P--► r+ O O O O O 0 W Ch CUNT W �-► O a Ch W CJ1 N O � N W O N 0. N .. 00 CYI ts A17 c 70 iw 0 0 m n r-h O r � v7 N • V �1/ W n n W n n N W n n W n n n n 161 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0o °o °o 00 00 A17 -1 CD 0 0 0 0 c (D O s O M CD n rt O N Im o w 0 — w O O c � O O N N O O O � Ilt"') co co 00 Go 0o 00000 00000 ��C3� of � W N -X 161 2 A 17 4.1 ��C3� -PCB V 00 V �I V Co V N V CnCOO--1CO cowWN---I- 161 2 A 17 4.1 am (p, cD co c� r+ r+ 1N • 1-A. r+ co o� C• O n O r-r PmA * CD 0 r+ co r+ 0 0 n (u 161 2 A,17 C� N m rD `v n �r 0 D cn _ m �d �..c 0 0 ,.o (D d r-r- 0P-4.00 �• (D n r+ CO ?�' N • 0 M� r+ O F� A,17 C� N m rD `v n �r 0 D cn _ m 0 O 0 0 15 161 H 0 0 F0 Fj CW V/il `W^ V1 • v v v OW V l 2 A17 0 O o m rt O 0 74 m N) /Cil V •M OW V l 2 A17 0 O o m rt O 0 74 m x.61 ,?8, 20 r A 18 t June 11 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, June 8, 2011 II i 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 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala 1� Hiller _ Henning CHAIRMAN: Coyle VICE CHAIRMAN: Coletta ?►-T— Craig Woodward William Dempsey (excused) Pam Brown (absent) Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (absent) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor STAFF PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager- Zoning Services Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison, Zoning Services ALSO PRESENT: Bob Carr, John Beriault and Edward Barberio of the Misc. Corres: Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC) Date: k-l- \ �� ` Jenna Buzzacco Foerster, Naples Daily News Item is k U-X 2 aA $ :pies so- , 10 G, .eto, June 812011 I. Roll Call/Attendance: Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:17 A.M. Roll Call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda: 1. ADD: -Under Old Business —Item E. -Pam Brown Position on HAPB 2. MOVE: - Under Old Business — Item A. Bula Mission to Item D and Item D. Chokoloskee Island Update to item A. 3. ADD: Under New Business — Item B. Discussion of language revision to the LDC regarding the triggering mechanism that requires an Archaeological Survey and Assessment III. Approval of Agenda: Betsy Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda, as amended to include the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 23, 2011 (No formal minutes were taken at the April 20 and May 11, 2011 meetings, due to lack of a quorum. However, notes of the discussions at those meetings were taken for the record.) Rich Taylor moved to approve the minutes of March 23, 2011, as presented. Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Fred Reischl arrived at 9: 23am. V. Old Business: A. Chokoloskee Island Update (handouts) BACKGROUND, with explanation by Patty Huff. The handouts consisted of copies of a series of letters from Florida Division of Historical Resources dated: • September, 2008 from the Director and State Historic Preservation Officer to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection • May 1, 2009 from the Director and State Historic Preservation Officer to the Fort Myers Regulatory Board Jacksonville U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) • July 29, 2009 from USACE to the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer • August 17, 2009 a reply to the USACE • January 21, 2011 from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer to the Fort Myers Regulatory Board Jacksonville USACE All regarding the Applications from Florida Georgia Grove LLC for a. Blue Heron Basin Reconstruction b. Seawall Replacement And from Ted Smallwood Store, Inc for Smallwood Store Driveway Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams briefed the Board Members on the progress of Collier County's nine -count complaint in joint action 2 161 2 1 A18 June 8, 2011 with Ted Smallwood, Inc. in a lawsuit against Florida Georgia Grove LLC and their lenders. No response had been received to date. The Judge had not granted the injunction requesting correction to, and replacement of, the damaged Mamie Street road. He stated the 20 -day waiting period from the May 26 filing, servicing and mailing dates were not up yet. He will send copies of the complaint to the Board Members. Discussion followed on the permitting that took place, the requirements for ground disturbances in designated areas of probability and the need for cultural assessment of the property in question. Ray Bellows explained the demolition permit and other County permits issued and the current requirements that generate an archeological survey. Patty Huff supplied copies of a letter from Marsha Chance, an Archaeological and Preservation Consultant, hired by the Developer, which stated her observations and opinions on the historical and/or archaeological objects, shell mounds and black earth middens, etc. discovered in her search. The letter briefly referenced two articles "Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast" reprinted from The Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Volume XI, Philadelphia, 1900 and "The Anthropology of Florida ", the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., published by The Florida State Historical Society, 1922. Both publications referenced the numerous artifacts and relics found and many references to Indian habitats. Conflicting statements regarding sacred wells were stated. Patty Huff strongly commented a full assessment was needed as many violations appeared to be occurring. At this time Bob Carr and John Beriault from AHC, were invited to speak. Bob Carr commented the State of Florida had specific requirements regarding archeological site surveys and assessments; a Reconnaissance Level and a Phase I Assessment, which he explained. In most Counties, ground disturbing activities must stop if an archaeological discovery site was uncovered. He noted all of Chokoloskee Island was an area of archeological significance. In this case, no stop order was issued; nor did the County request a Phase I Assessment. In his opinion, it was not consistent with State or County codes. According to an Archeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Newsletter published in the fall of 1997, Collier County did issue a stop order and require an archaeological assessment on Chokoloskee Island; so there was an actual precedent set. He did state that Ms Chance did what she was asked to do, namely report on human remains findings. However, it was his opinion a Phase I Assessment was in order to set out guidelines to minimize the impact to the parcel concerned. Three different components to consider examining were the shell mounds, the black dirt (earth) middens and the wells —done in accordance with existing County codes and requirements. John Beriault gave a background on the wells' history. They were artesian wells dug by the Smallwoods and should be culturally identified on plans. 161 2 I" June 8, 2011 A IR Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams commented on Marsha Chance's "Conclusions" paragraphs — noting the reference to her client and the citing of opinions and hearsay was not typical in a cultural assessment report; to which, Bob Carr concurred. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams left at 9:57 am. The HAPB members asked what they could do to institute a Phase One assessment. Ray Bellows responded it would be generated only if the developers apply to build as written in the County Codes. He noted that demolition had stopped at this time. Bob Carr stated it was clear that an archeological site had been disturbed. He suggested the HAPB go on record that the Report of Observations was not a Phase One Assessment; also, to look at revising the Code to conform to other Counties' Codes. The triggering words to generate that assessment should be "ground disturbing activity ", the same as other Florida Counties' Ordinances. The HAPB readily agreed. Patty Huff moved to recommend the acknowledgement of the Report of Observations by Marsha A. Chance, Preservation Consultant, to Dr. Ryan Wheeler, Florida State Archaeologist, as an opinion only, of her observations, and not a Phase One, Official Reconnaissance Level nor Cultural Assessment. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams returned at 10 :10 am. Chairman Craig Woodward asked Bob Carr if Will Dempsey had contacted him about his Rock Creek findings. Bob Carr replied he had received an e -mail but had not yet discussed it. John Beriault commented there was a burial mound found in that area near the NE side of Shadowlawn and Estey. Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Carr will confer on the find. The AHC representatives left at 10:11 am. B. Interlocal agreement Draft Document Chairman Craig Woodward had contacted Kris Van Lengen, City Planner for Marco Island on their progress with creating the City's Ordinance. From there, Craig and Will Dempsey will work on the Interlocal Agreement language. The goal was to get an Agreement in place by the end of the year. C. Corl &crew Settlement Update Patty Huff noted in the updated copy of the Brochure, she had added the Corkscrew Settlement along with photos. A copy of the updated Brochure will be e- mailed to Mr. John Ban. She had also added a third cemetery in Chokoloskee, the Santini Cemetery. 161 21 A18 June 8, 2011 Chairman Craig Woodward mentioned a plaque once erected across from Monroe Station denoting the historic meeting of the Copelands and the Seminole Indians which took place there in the 1930's or 1940's. He suggested that item and Turner River could also be added to the Brochure. Patty Huff asked that any other additions be e- mailed to Ray Bellows. Then she will add them in. D. Bula Mission Update Patty Huff reported on her contact with the Edgerin James Foundation and will be speaking with him next week. His Orlando Foundation works with a summer camp in Immokalee. Other contacts for support she had contacted were the New Hope Ministries who agreed to mention the project in their bulletin and the Triumph Church, which Annie Mae Perry was connected with. E. Pam Brown Attendance — Addenda Item Patty Huff requested the Board to take action regarding the lack of attendance at HAPB meetings over the months of her term. Following a brief discussion: Patty Huff moved to recommend that a letter be sent terminating Pam Brown's tenure on the HAPB and a new application for the Archeologist category be advertised Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams left at 10:26 am. VI. New Business: A. Webpage Improvements Chairman Craig Woodward pointed out the problem with the scanning in numerical order. Ray Bellows explained the Publisher Program was the problem. The IT employees will be working on it with Patty Huff. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams returned at 10:29 am. B. Discussion of LDC Language Revision — Addenda item Chairman Craig Woodward stated the "ground disturbing activity" wording suggested by Bob Carr sounded very good. He asked if a special meeting was needed. Ray Bellows suggested contacting Bob Carr to ascertain which Counties had Ordinances with the proper wording that he knew of, looking at those and go from there. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams spoke to the matter, stating the language change itself would not be a problem with careful wording. VII. Public Comments Ray Bellows noted the owners of the Historically Designated Hart Cottage were having problems rehabilitating the property. They have obtained some professional assistance and provided with information on administrative variances. He will keep the Board informed on their progress. 161 2' A18 June 8, 2011 He also informed the HAPB that all Officially Designated Historical sites as well as those of Historic Significance were now listed on the website. Patty Huff asked if any a -mails had come to Mr. Bellows from any of the Tribes. If so, she would like them forwarded to her. VIII. Board Member Announcements: Chairman Craig Woodward spoke about a speaker series at the Marco Island Museum in the Rose Auditorium. Rob Davis of Florida Atlantic University, professor of movies, talked on movies made about the Everglades. Two of the old movies being shown at 7PM were: 1. Tonight - "Wind across the Everglades ", inspired by Kappy "Bud" Kirk who (according to Elizabeth Perdichizzi) had given "technical assistance" (snake handling) to the cast. For its 501" Anniversary, the movie had been shown in Miami. 2. Tomorrow night - "Distant Drums ", filmed in Naples with many familiar local sites shown. Rich Taylor stated Nick Penniman was out of town until the Fall and will be invited to HAPB at that time. Patty Huff reported on the Kid's Art activities in Everglades City. IX. Adjournment: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:45 A.M. Ray Bellows will contact the 1YAPB members regarding their summer schedule plans for Board Meetings. Barring any notice to the contrary - The next scheduled meeting will be held Wednesday July 20, 2010 at 9:15 AM. COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRES VATION BOARD U+te-Chairman C These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 8- r7-1 as presented or as amended V C 6 161 2 August 17, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, August 17, 2011 11W39W3D 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 in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Fiala T Hiller Henning Pl- Coyle Coletta Craig Woodward (conference call) William Dempsey Sharon Kenny Pam Brown (absent) Patricia Huff Elizabeth Perdichizzi (excused) Rich Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison- Senior Planner, Zoning Services Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Mise• comes: C40" b: 161 2 0 Al 8 August 17, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance Vice Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:14 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. A motion was entertained by Vice - Chairman Dempsey to accept Chairman Craig Woodward's attendance via conference call. Patty Huff moved to recommend the acceptance of Craig Woodward's attendance by conference call Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Chairman Woodward requested Vice Chairman Dempsey to conduct the meeting to more easily facilitate the flow of discussion. Vice- Chairman William Dempsey assumed the running of the meeting at 9:17 A.M. II. Addenda to the Agenda- None III. Approval of the Agenda Craig Woodward moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of the Minutes: June 8, 2011 (No meeting in July) Craig Woodward noted a missing page 4 of the e- mailed copy of the minutes. The approval was tabled until staff could obtain copies of the missing page. V. Old Business A. Bula Mission Update Discussion revolved around the feasibility, funding efforts and desirability of salvaging some of the remaining building material at Bula Mission. Ray Bellows noted the County deemed it a health and safety hazard, with the plan to demolish the building. However, the owners were unable to pay for it. He also noted its County Designation as a Historical site. Patty Huff reported on her efforts to contact the Edgerin James Foundation for funding. She pointed out the Copeland community, while looking to honor Ms Frances, was unable to raise enough funds to preserve or restore it. (They raised only $1,200.) Being outside the City limits, the mayor was not able to commit City funds. Results of the discussion were: Patty Huff will contact Commissioner Jim Coletta, in whose district the property lies, to make known the condition of a County Designated site. She will also contact Collier County Museum Director, Ron Jamro for his input. Ray Bellows will contact Jim Seabasty regarding holding off demolition plans until the Board has time to pursue other avenues for preservation and site recognition. Sharon Kenny will contact Paul Arsenault, who had expressed interest in its preservation as depicted in paintings he had done at the site. Craig Woodward suggested the property be fenced if there were safety/health issues. Both he and Cory Cabral, who had previously spoken to the Board on 1 2 1A� 16 8 August 17, 2011 the condition and restoration possibilities of the property, had expressed interest in any salvageable wood, should the building be demolished. Craig Woodward moved to hold off making any final recommendations until the next HAPB meeting, when reports from the contacts made will be presented Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. B. Interlocal Agreement Draft Document Ray Bellows reviewed the reasons for the creation of an Interlocal Agreement. He reported Marco City Planner, Kris VanLengen had taken a new position and would be replaced by Bryan Milk. Kris had been in the process of integrating the City of Marco's Ordinance with the County's Ordinance in regard to historical and archaeological preservation issues as they relate to the Land Development Code, rules and procedures. Renovations at the Old Marco Inn may require presentation to the HAPB. Craig Woodward stated the HAPB will look over what is presented and provide their comments to the City of Marco regarding the Old Marco Inn. He will also check to confirm if the Planning Board had agreed to the Ordinance Mr. VanLengen was preparing and will speak with the City Council on their ratifying the concept for the Interlocal Agreement, prior to the creation of the actual agreement he and Will Dempsey will prepare. A report will be given at the next HAPB meeting. C. Chokoloskee Island Update Assistant County Attorney, Steve Williams provided an extensive report on the background, law suit progress and what has thus far transpired at the property site. He noted the upcoming hearing for a temporary injunction on September 8 at 1:30pm in Judge Hayes' courtroom. Witnesses will be interviewed and site background and history researched. Patty Huff commented the developer indicated a private marina was to be created. To the County, however, it was to be single family homes. She read from an e -mail from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding their consultation with tribal representatives who had issues with the demolition at Chokoloskee. Discussion followed on disturbance of archaeologically sensitive areas, site replacement, right of ways and State and County rights in the matter. Attorney Williams will keep the Board informed and updated. VI. New Business A. New Member Candidates replacing Pam Brown (handout) Ray Bellows announced one candidate, Matthew Betz, responded to the advertised position on the HAPB, formerly held by Pam Brown. The Board reviewed the application, asking several questions. Patty Huff moved to recommend approval of Matthew Betz as a candidate for service on the HistoricallArchaeological Preservation Board. Second by Craig Woodward Carried unanimously, 5-0. 161 2 A18 August 17, 2011 VII. Public Comments- None Approval of the minutes of June 8, 2011 was taken up at this time. Spelling correction —Page 4 last paragraph Item C. Corkscrew Settlement... Craig Woodward moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of June 8, 2011, as amended Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Board Member Announcements Craig Woodward inquired about the Santini Cemetery being in the brochure if it was not there to visit. Patty Huff noted it was located at the top of Calusa Drive. It was decided to discuss that topic, and the brochure, at a future meeting. Will Dempsey briefed the Board on the Rock Creek discovery of Calusa pottery he had found at low tide. He had shown some pieces to Ron Jamro at the Collier County Museum and was told they were not unusual, as there were several mounds along that area. He will connect with Bob Carr for his input and report at a future meeting. Craig Woodward announced Rookery Bay, SW Florida Archaeological Society and the Marco Historical Society were in a joint venture funding effort to examine the discovery in Rookery Bay of the remains of a sunken Spanish ship. The group had also approached the Marco Museum for funding. They plan to determine exactly what is there, the extent and age of the find. He will inform the HAPB on their progress. There will be no September meeting. The next scheduled meeting will be October 19, 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 10:20 A.M. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board Chairman, Craig Woodward These minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , 0//q/11 as presented , or as amended V 4 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Cots Home 1 Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepared by: Penny 11ippi, Execu ' Director Immo ee Community Redevelopment Agency 161 Al 1914 �L(�l13Y . ....................... �IImlg� Approved by: Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the July 20, 2011, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on August 17, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held September 21, 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 5`l 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 Tumor 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. Fiala Hiller —r� Joe Henning -T' Coyle f Coletta ►� Misc. Corres: Date: 12\X11 Item '--pies to: 16i 2' A19 Enclosure 1 MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency — July 20, 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, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, James Wall, Jeffery Randall, Lt. Drew Lee, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Robert Halman, and Daniel Rosario. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Melissa Martinez, Eva Deyo, Floyd Crews, Julio Estremera, and Carrie Williams. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Steve Hart, Tish Roland, Clara Ayalya, Myriam Brown Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Christie Betancourt and Rosemary Dillon. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting — June 15, 2011 b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report — June, 2011 Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. 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. August 17, 2011 I. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 A.M. 1 CRA Board IMMOKALEE RA Commissioner i The ftce to Call Home 1 James N. Coletta Chair (1 3 0 Commissioner EZONE MEETING AGENDA U zJ Tom Henning Commissioner State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Donna Fiala BY : ....................... Commissioner August 17, 2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Fred W. Coyle Immokalee CRA Commissioner 1320 North 15`h Street Georgia Hiller Immokalee, Florida 34142 State Enterprise Zone Development Ageney A. Call to Order. 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 Meeting — July 20, 2011 (Enclosure 1) Ex- officio Julio Estremera b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - July, 2011 (Enclosure 2) Kitchell snow c. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Activity Report (Enclosure 3) Floyd Crews E. Old Business. Ana Salazar F. New Business. James Wall a. Incentives Workshop Eva Deyo G. Citizen Comments. Carry Williams H. Next Meeting. September 21, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. Melissa Martinez I. Add urnment. 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 Collier County Community Rede�relapmeni A 6 1 2 A19 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 161 21-- A19 IMMOKALEE CRA Enclosure 1 i The P4oce to Call Home ! 0 MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency — September 21, 2011 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Carrie Williams at 10:30 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present: Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, Jeffery Randall, Robert Halman, Lt. Drew Lee, Carrie Williams, Edward "Ski" Olesky and Kitchell Snow. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Michael Facundo, Eva Deyo, Dan Rosario, James Wall, Julio Estremera, and Melissa Martinez. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry and Tom Vergo. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, and Christie Betancourt. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. C. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting — August 17, 2011 Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Ms. Eva Deyo seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. D. Old Business. Fiala --� _ E. New Business. Hiller r— 14 HenningT% —� ._ a. Incentives Workshop — Time to be announced. Coyle_ Coletta F. Citizen Comments. G. Next Meeting. October 19, 2011 at 10:00 A.M. H. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 A.M. Nusc. Corres: Date: kl 2c. \ \3\ \\ Item #: \ 1j-' 2 VA k9 Copies to: Collier Cowbi Community Redevelopment Ageocy IMMOKALEE CRA i The place to Call 1-tome! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Icy 161 Approved by: Z' A19 U--V- Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the September 21, 2011, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on October 19, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held November 2, 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 5'" 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 -867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: 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 161 Z A 19 IMMOKALEE CRA Enclosure 1 i The Woce to Coo Home ! MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency July 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, Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, James Wall , Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Jeffery Randall, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Robert Halman, Lt. Drew Lee, and Daniel Rosario. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Julio Estremera, Carrie Williams, and Melissa Martinez. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Tish Roland, Clara Ayalya, Myriam Brown and Joanne Markiewiez. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Christie Betancourt and Rosemary Dillon. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. D. Announcements. The Builders Expo E. Adoption of Agenda. Changes to the Agenda: Item GC was pulled from the Consent Agenda and moved to Item H.i; three items were added to the Agenda, Item Ib — Feasibility Study Quote, Ic — Pedestrian Zone, and Item Ic — Report on Washington DC trip. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to accept the Agenda with the changes as noted, Mr. Olesky seconded the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices, various news articles, and a flyer for the Builder's Expo. G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes for the June 15, 2011 CRA Advisory Board meeting. Action: Mr. Olesky made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Mr. Randall and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. H. Old Business. a. RWA Deliverables. Ms. Phillippi reported that the RWA contract ends at the end of this month. All of their work has been completed with the exception of the Capital Improvement Plan. Chris Scott, the person that drafted the Land Development Regulations has been laid off. Any further changes to the document will be made by staff. It is vitally important that you alert staff to any concerns you have regarding the LDRs and CRA staff will work on those items. Mr. Crews requested a Workshop to review the LDRs line by line. As to the Master Plan, Ms. Phillippi reported that the Governor signed a new comprehensive planning law that requires all Comp Plan Amendments to be submitted 120 days the receipt of the ORC report. Because we could not meet that deadline, the Master Plan will need to begin the circuit again. Once resubmitted, it will take another 18 months to reach final approval. She further reported that the Capital Improvement Plan was changed to simply a document that will show the Capital Improvements we want to implement over the next 5 years, potential funding sources and a timeline. It will contain the plazas, the Stormwater Master Plan, Roads, etc. (in priority order). The Director will take this list to the BCC each year to request budget assistance for the projects. b. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan. Brad Muckel, CRA Project Manager, reported that the RFP for the Stormwater project has hit a snag. The request for bids has not been released due to the HUD enforcement of the Section 3 requirements. He further stated a 161 2 A19 30 day advertising period is required, select and award (approximately an additional 30 days. C. Immokalee Business Development Center Manager Report. IBDC Manager, Marie Capita, requested that the CRA Advisory Committee delegate its selection of participant authority to the CRA Executive Director. Action: Mr. Wall made a motion to delegate the Advisory Committee's authority to select participants in the IBDC to the CRA Director; Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and the Committee voted unanimously to delegate its selection authority. d. CRA Office Move. The BCC approve the lease for the Barron Collier Building on North 15th Street. Christie Betancourt provided an update on the progress of the move to the new office. e. MSTU Activity Update. Ms. Phillippi reported that the MSTU Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend to the BCC that the CRA assume the administrative duties of the Immokalee MSTU. The CRA Director will take a budget to that Committee with costs for a full time person to manage the MSTU. In September, she will take the recommendation to the BCC for approval. f. Code Enforcement Highlights. Kitchell Snow, Supervisor, advised the Committee that there will be a clean up this weekend in the area of the Davenport Nursery from 8 until noon on Saturday. g. Farmers Market Report. Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, reported that the State Department of Agriculture has agreed to try to assist the CRA in putting the Immokalee trademark on the buildings. She is currently seeking bids for that sign project. Mr. Floyd Crews recommended that the CRA Director find out if a new Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Farmers Market could be created as it had been extremely helpful in the past. h. Response from FDOT. CRA request for a stop light at Westclox Street and Hwy. 29 was summarily denied based on various traffic studies. Your Chairman has asked staff to request the study referred to in the letter. L Commercial Fagade Grant Program. Brad Muckel, Project Manager, reported there had been a complaint to a Commissioner from Earnest Freeman on his mother's Commercial Fagade grant. Cash receipts were received as proof of payment to the contractor and these are not an acceptable form of proof of payment. The recipient was asked to submit a Cashier's Check or a cancelled check as proof of payment. 1. New Business. a. Collier County Purchasing Department Presentation. Joanne Markiewicz, Purchasing Acquisition Manager provided a brief overview of the County's Purchasing Polices. b. Feasibility Study Quote. The CRA requested quotes for a hospitality feasibility study. Marie Capita reviewed the three quotes received with the Committee. Staff requested a motion to proceed. Motion: Mr. Randall made a motion to proceed with awarding the bid to Interim Hospitality Consultants; Mr. Wall seconded the motion and suggested that in the future, staff consider requesting quotes from FGCU for this type of work. The Chairman called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. C. Pedestrian Zone. Bradley Muckel, Project manager reported that the FDOT project on Main Street will include the hanging of new lights between 91h and 2nd Streets and will use the 91h Street Plaza land as its staging area for the construction. In return, the contractor has agreed to take down the fence. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting August 17, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. 10:20 A.M N 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 16A 1 A20 IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Coll Home Community Redevelopment Ai!ency Advisory Committee Aeenda Immokalee CRA 1320 North 15th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 August 17, 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. FDOT Signal Warrant Analysis — SR 29 and New Market Road G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board July 20, 2011 (Enclosure 1) b. Commercial Fagade Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 2) H. Old Business. a. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 3) b. CRA Office Move — Open House c. Immokalee MSTU Activity - Update. d. Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow e. Tentative LDR Review Schedule - Fred Reischl, LDC Coordinator, Collier County (Enclosure 4) £ LDR Workshop g. DCA/BCC IAMP Adoption Schedule Update (Enclosure 5) I. New Business. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting September 21, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held September 21, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works, 750 South 5`h 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. R � a 161 m ` t Colker County Comun' IMMOKALEE CRA o II V i me Piave to cal Home! Enclosure 1 BY: ....................... MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency September 21, 2011 ., A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Carrie Williams, Vice Chair 9:00 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present: Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, Jeffery Randall, Robert Halman, Lt. Drew Lee, Carrie Williams, Edward "Ski" Olesky and Kitchell Snow. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Michael Facundo, Eva Deyo, Dan Rosario, James Wall, Julio Estremera, and Melissa Martinez. Fiala Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Hiller Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry and Tom Vergo. Henning Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, and Christie Betancourt. Coyle C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. Coletta D. Announcements. Ms. Phillippi announced two important meeting scheduled for the 23`d of September: the PCA referencing the Immokalee Walkability Study and the EDC Strategic Planning Workshop. Lt. Drew Lee announced that the Sheriff's Department will implement a Pedestrian and Drivers Education Program in October. E. Adoption of Agenda. Changes to the Agenda: Remove Item H.g. a duplication of H.c. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to accept the Agenda with the change as noted- Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices and various news articles. G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes for the august 17, 2011 CRA Advisory Board meeting. b. Commercial Fagade Grant Monthly Report. Action: Mr. Randall made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, with change, the motion was seconded by Mr. Olesky and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. H. Old Business. a. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan — Brad Muckel, Project Manager, provided an update on the attempt to ascertain ownership of the right of way (ROW) of all parcels impacted by the project. He stated an Executive Summary has been sent to the County Attorney and that a detailed map is being developed to document that the BCC has been maintaining the ROWS for the past 20 years. He reviewed the hold up on release of the RFP, expecting to have the bid awarded by October now that Purchasing requirements have been satisfied. Mr. Muckel then discussed the fact that the CRA was not awarded the $4 million requested from DEP however, they suggested the project be broken down into smaller units, designed and permitted and they would consider funding those projects. He stated that the new DRI $2. Million will be forthcoming if not sent to Maine to address the recent floods. Floyd Crews requested that the CRA obtain a copy of the new FEMA Floodplain maps and bring them to the next meeting. b. IBDC Manager Report — Marie Capita, IBDC Manager, reported that the new Entrepreneur School started and has eleven new entrepreneurs enrolled; the IBDC has six businesses enrolled and participating in 40� o s:the Section 3 has been Date: V2 —\\-?A � k item #. 'lIn iQ. 1 161 2 A20A completed and approved by U.S. HUD; and the receipt of 10 donated computers from the Suncoast Credit Union. C. Immokalee MSTU Activity Update — Penny Phillippi provided the list of 3 current projects to the committee; she discussed the MSTU agenda item to be heard by the BCC at the September 27 meeting, specifically that the ordinance would need to be changed in order for the County Manager to be able to designate the CRA Director to administer and manage the MSTU. d. Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement Supervisor in Immokalee stated that Phase 1 of a study of the status of existing mobile home parks in Immokalee had been completed. The report references the status of whether or not the mobile home park is "Legal" non - conforming or "illegal" non - conforming, etc. He stated that the Code Enforcement office had removed 167 tons of trash from Immokalee to date. There will be a cleanup in October. He also asked if the CRA could in some way recognize Christie's Dad who is a stalwart volunteer during all of the clean ups to date in Immokalee. e. LDR Workshop — Update — Ms. Phillippi provided a quick synopsis of the LDR Workshop of last Thursday. She stated that she would compile the comments and suggested changes and will provide those to the Advisory Board at the October Meeting. f. IAMP — Ms. Phillippi asked if the Advisory Committee wished to take the LAMP to the BCC on the first meeting in December. She informed the Committee that the DCA has extended the period for approval until the end of December. She reminded the Committee that the Advisory Board's recommendations of the April 20, 2011 meeting, i.e., the removal of Policy 6.1.7, all references to Policy 6.1.7 and several other recommendations from the draft Master Plan was never conveyed to the BCC. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to take the Draft IAMP to the BCC the first BCC Meeting in December and to include the recommended changes as proposed by the Advisory Committee on April 20, 2011. Ms. Ana Salazar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. g. Item g removed from agenda. h. Milagro Place Update — Ms. Phillippi and Mr. Muckel updated the Advisory Committee on the status of the request to assist the Empowerment Alliance with $9,000 to complete the punch out list at Milagro Place. It has not gone to the BCC, is still with the County Attorney's Office. L New Business. a. Collier County MPO Letter — The Committee reviewed the MPO letter that was a result of the letter sent by the MSTU. The request was three fold: 1) when will work begin on the "Loop Road" (response — 2031 - 2035); 2) recommendation that the New Market Road be used as an interim measure (response — the recommendation will be passed on to FDOT; and 3) a recommendation to reduce Main Street to 2 lanes and reduce the speed limit (no response). The MPO did provide an update on the timing of the three sidewalk projects for Immokalee; and the Walkability Study underway for Immokalee. Floyd Crews requested that staff invite FDOT to the next meeting to discuss the Heartland Express and the loop road. Also invite environmentalist. b. Advisory Committee Absenteeism — Ms. Phillippi states that Ms. Melissa Martinez had missed too many meetings according to the By -Laws and need to be replaced. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to declare the position vacant and to recommend to the CRA to promptly fill the position; Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. CRA Operational Plan Workshop — Ms. Phillippi stated that the time has arrived for many of the annual activities of the CRA, i.e., the Operational Plan, the Executive 2 161 2 A20 Director's Evaluation and the Annual Report. By consensus, the Advisory Committee decided to hold their November monthly meeting on the 2 °d of November and at the same time holds the Operational Plan Workshop. The workshop will be from 8:30 am until 1:00 pm at the SW Florida Works and a lunch will be provided. The advisory Committee requested that the Collier Health Services, the MSTU Advisory Committee, the airport Board and Park and Recreation Department. d. CRA Annual Report — Ms. Phillippi asked the Advisory Committee if they preferred January or March to present to the BCC. All were content with January, in conjunction with the Bayshore Gateway CRA. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting October 19, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. 10:30 A.M 3 161 2 .. A2 Collier Counliy Community Redevelopment Agency 1AAAMOKALEE i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Approved by: ippi, Executiv rrector ichael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman Community edevelopment Agency These Minutes for the September 21, 2011, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on October 19, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held November 2, 2011 at 8:30A.M. at the Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5t'' Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5a' Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be 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 -867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: 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 Hoard and Committees from time to time. f , 161 2 o IId� August 8, 2011 BY:....................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 8, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3`d Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala Hiller H3nning, Coyle Coic:tta CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Annisa Karim Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Clarence Tears Lauren Gibson (2 Vacancies) ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Tony Ruberto, Project Manager, Park and Recreation Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Servi •15ma: llemt\Lz-x 2.A 2 k 1 G'�ieS t0: d21 161 2 A 21 August 8, 2011 I. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Pires moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change: • Item III— from "Approval of June 13, 2011 minutes" to "Approval of July]], 2011 minutes." Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. III. Approval of July 11, 2011 minutes Mr. Curl moved to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 7- 0. IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier'Coordinator reported all properties that were under contract for acquisition have been acquired. B. Facebook Alex Sulecki provided an update on the issue of Staff utilizing social media for the Conservation Collier Program. The Outreach Subcommittee has considered the issue with the advantages being maintaining contact with the public and the disadvantages are possible violations of the Sunshine Law, records storage concerns and the cost of Staff time to maintain the accounts. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney recommended County Advisory Boards refrain from utilizing this type of media in relation to County matters. The County Attorney's Office, on July 29, 2009 had prepared a memo for the Board of County Commissioners on the issue. The Outreach Committee requested Staff to submit a report on the costs associated with maintaining the online accounts. C. Limpkin Marsh Preserve name change Alex Sulecki reported the Outreach Subcommittee has recommended Limpkin Marsh Preserve's name be changed to "Redroot Preserve." Some parties expressed concern that although the Preserve is on Limpkin Road, the name is misleading as there has not been any Limpkin observed on site. Ms. Karim expressed concerns about any costs that may be associated with the name change (new signs, etc.). Mr. Pires moved to change " Limpkin Marsh Preserve" to "Redroot Preserve. " Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. D. Gordon River Greenway Project - update Alex Sulecki distributed the document "Gordon River Greenway Project Update — CLAAC 818111 " for information purposes. i T., :. 161 2 A21 August 8, 2011 The following was noted under Committee member /Staff (Alex Sulecki, Tony Ruberto and Barry Williams) discussions: • The Board of County Commissioners approved the rezone application on 7/26/11 without the stipulations recommended by the Collier County Planning Commission. • Site development plans should be clarified to indicate a set to South Florida Water Management District is identified as 90% "design complete" and a set identified for "construction" is 60% complete. • Staff provides any documentation and related correspondence on the project to Jeff Curl, Committee Liaison for the project. • Staff will notify Committee members when any applicable party requests information in regard to permit applications. • Discussions continue on cost sharing for project improvements (between the Naples Zoo, Collier County Parks and Recreation, Conservation Collier, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, etc.) Speaker Ellie Krier, South Florida Land Preservation Trust addressed the Committee noting a conceptual plan has been developed for the bridge proposed south of the Conservation Collier parcel in the City of Naples. She recommended the Committee direct the Outreach Subcommittee to begin investigating any signage to be proposed on Conservation Collier property. Barry Williams noted Staff is reviewing signage and the donation policy for individuals who wish to donate plants or benches, etc. in honorarium. V. New Business A. Committee Applications Alex Sulecki provided a copy of a memorandum from Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager for the Board of County Commissioners "Re: Land Acquisition Advisory Committee" dated July 14, 2011. The memorandum contained an application for Mr. Tracey Dewell who is requesting appointment to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. Chairman Poteet moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Tracey Dewell to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Tears. Carried unanimously 7 - 0. B. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki reported: • Advisory Board members who travel more than 20 miles roundtrip for meetings are eligible for mileage reimbursement. • On 7/26/11, the BCC directed Parks and Recreation Staff to bring forth a recommendation on establishing an ATV Park within the County. It was inferred that Conservation Collier properties should be considered. Concern has been expressed the use is not in compliance with the Ordinance governing Conservation Collier. Staff will continue to monitor the issue. Speaker 3 t . A 21 August 8, 2011 Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida reiterated the concern over allowing the use of ATV's on Conservation Collier properties. The activity is not in conformance with the Ordinance governing Conservation Collier. She recommended Conservation Collier lands be specifically excluded from the considerations and recommended a Committee member be assigned to participate in any Stakeholder meetings and/or the Committee consider establishing a position in writing on the issue. The Committee requested Staff to place a standing item on the Agenda for updates on the issue. X. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair A meeting was held where utilizing social media and developing an intern program was discussed. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Jeremy Sterk, Chair Staff requested a LEMS meeting C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim; Chair None XI. Chair Committee Member Comments Mr. Tears reported cattle grazing on Pepper Ranch and the related affects on Lake Trafford are being studied. XII. Public General Comments None XHI. Staff Comments Staff reported that the fire at Nancy Payton Preserve had been contained and that an after action report meeting with the Florida Forest Service had been conducted. Staff reported there will be a regular meeting in September. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 9:58 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee d /�� Bill Poteet, Chairm 4 161 p A21" August 8, 2011 These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on ( %G� .2 e, as presented_ /c or as amended 161 2 X22" Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 September 15, 2011 AGENDA BY........................ I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda Fiala Hiller IV. Approval of Minutes: July 21, 2011 Henning Coyle V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Coletta 6- 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 B. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment OAK. Coney: pod: Idm t.,1�8� X22 Copks to: The next meeting is October 20, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 161 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 July 21, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. 2.. A22* II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: Special Meeting June 29, 2011 Tony Branco moved to approve the June 29, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the Report and noted the Budget Amendment ($101,000.00) for the Dora[ Circle Project is not reflected in the report as the Bonness Bid Award is scheduled for BCC approval on July 26th VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported: • Majority of replacement Plant Material installations are complete • Implemented using a push mower in Median No. 1 -3 • Alamanda cutback was performed at the Front entrance • Replacement of (1) Antenna Mast is scheduled for the Controller on Warren Street VII. 161 2 A22" Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reviewed the following Reports: Warren Street Mixing Chamber Reuse (See attached) • Potable Water - 8900 gallons were used on 7 -5 -11 for tank evaluation • System is operating 3 days per week in sod areas • CLM performed irrigation checks Maintenance (See attached) • Repainting the Median numbers is needed • Thinning and structural pruning is scheduled for the following - Holly Trees - Queen Crape Myrtle - Tabebuia • Requested a heavy cutback on the Liriope (Median No. 1) Darryl Richard inquired if CLM can repaint the Median numbers based on the current CLM labor rate. Robert Kindelan responded affirmatively and stated a quote will be submitted to Staff to repaint the numbers. Mike McGee continued: o Testing is needed on an open electrical box to determine if it is live (Located between the Benches on Doral Circle.) Staff will contact the Electrician to assess the electrical box issue. (Staff Action Item) • Requested CLM remove a chunk of concrete behind the Sign • Fronds were removed from the Royal Palms by the Solar Panel Discussion took place on the recommended Plant Materials for the front Entrance installation. Mike McGee reviewed the available Plant Materials and palette choices: • Lantana - yellow or gold and white or lavender • Dune Sunflower • Coleus • Pentas - white, red, pink • Portulaca • Verbena • Vinca • Caladium • Wax Begonia - white, pink, scarlet After discussion the Committee agreed to install the trailing white and lavender Lantana. 2 161 2 A22" B. Doral Bridge Project Staff deemed that the Project will be under construction within one month after the Bonness Bid Award by the BCC. Darryl Richard reviewed (2) Proposals by McGee and Associates: Annual Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services • Maintenance Consulting Services - $8,584.00 • Limited refurbishment Design Services - $2,500.00 • Reimbursable expenses - $250.00 • Valid October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 Time Extension - Landscape Architectural Services Contract • Additional time is related to the Doral Bridge Project • Time Extension is valid until January 19, 2012 Robert Slebodnik moved to allocate $11,334.00 to McGee and Associates to provide monthly Maintenance Services from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 to include all scopes of Services proposed. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Robert Slebodnik moved to approve a time extension for the Doral Circle Canal Bridge Renovation improvements of 111 days from the current Project completion date of September 30, 2011, noting the new completion date is January 19, 2012. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report - Previously discussed under Vll. B. (See attached) B. Review of the To Do List - Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) Item No. 4 - Signcraft Sign Refurbishment timeline • Final coat application is underway • Subsequently the Clear coat will be applied • Anticipated completion date -July 21st Item No. 12 - FDOT Sidewalk Project US41 Pam Lulich noted FDOT comments are reflected in the Report. Item No. 17 - Asphalt Work - Reflectors/Walk/Bike Signage • It was determined that reflectors were not present prior to the Road and Bridge Resurfacing Project • The roadway may be designated as a bicycle path - Designating a bike path will pose a parking problem for maintenance vehicles along St. Andrews N 161 2 A22 Robert Slebodnik conveyed Resident complaints that automobiles create (2) lanes and interfere with using the roadway as a bike path. Tony Branco suggested installing reflector strips. Darryl Richard will confer with Eugene Calvert on the possibility of installing reflector strips. (Staff Action Item) Item 18 Intersection Waming Markers • Safety improvements are under review by Eugene Calvert • Upgrades to the Community Signage were manufactured - Staff will confer with Jennifer Tanner on the Signage installation by the HOA (Staff Action Item) IX. Committee Reports - None X. Old Business -None 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 4:50 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented A or amended The next meeting is September 15, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 a H Q Q A'22 L O O o 7 L s Y ri u m fl ai a fl u a C -p aJ N ai m C m L O \ c Ln M O C m ul a1 -0 C m a1 �' c C' Y — c + s 3 v° ha Q) a C V) aci a°Ji oa a O 0 u m ++ -0 'C v O L +• m c•i E M Q E T o r yE m - O 2 > O C T C G :C L E L W a t•i l'i ti O 0 W L, a y m C L E , ,, u = 0 O '00 .O N = N h0 m Oa 00 N 42 E v m a c Lp 0 T °_' o m o O u O N h0 O N ` C d' N �' O Ln •� v th0 O Z CL O m Q v .�-� > y v u= M U c = m n- w D fl >• aJ v tL6 a) ho > Q L a m _7 T LL w m '6 C 4- _ X �"� Z N N O u+.i m G Q t o p ` O U a 0) a) C O �n C m L O h ±+ •4+ •N CL \ y N .� a) .0 U C `�'- N N ~ a 7 a) L O a) -J U (n 0) as ' N C V) m E a •> a) t '> 3 O �n d y -0 O Y X _l O -fl p a) + O m 4- .p 41 a) u O m 7 C 7 O' 0 4- a-i I� d• 0 a) O E a) d Q G .0 ,[0 m L 0 C p H m n. Yp a s i v N o° O o a v a a E a a 3 v a v 'l"' m H m a F- Y Z C E O C C . U a) a) C C w y m 'F' of v Y C Y m v Y v, Y v Y 0 w Y U Y Eu Y v Y a� Y v }+ a a, m � v W a m o e o 0 u.1 p a L> a) Z a �. m 'u u o 0 Y � u Y. a) t] a) >? .1n L v a) pia •� "' v E ^' E v rn L v u v a a) v p a' a ar. a a� a > u> o v a d a a, a v a v a a� a E Y U E G O v �- c Q o° o o v o e e v ° ,° Z E v N U E E E a E E E E E E '> cco W Q a aci Z LL -O C C U�- '� O O' E O O O O O O L m a (n o m u o. u u J O O m a c-I G {°J/,. (Ua a w U W C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D O 0 0 0 0 0 O a D aJ FN- a a a O a nJ Ja Ja a- DJ. a c =s ? 3 c a > > -L M c c c v E a 1 tD ? N -, O N ar N ,� Ln O N M M O ct ail O ch c) N U ai c-I ti N N N N M e-1 a) C a-•I ri c-I a-I r { a-i `�� a i N N r I a-i N rq a-I H N ai a--I a..1 e-I a-1 a-i s-I ei - a-••I ai a--i e-1 a-I a-1 c-i ai a-I ai a-i ai r-I ei a-1 H a-i a I a•••I u •- .� ri a-1 C >> Q- i 'C C C CC ai •�: m 'T � .-per -0i '� m Z Z N Q � 7� ". ,� -0i 3 J 0 7 7 7 c c 7 3 C aJ U D � w O N O N 01 Ln � Ln N Lo M O N H N LD H d' S a' c-I. d' N -- N N N N. N N - O O 00 CO W W 00 M M N N N N N a�-I to al C C ci e-i a-I c-1 H N a-1 a-I a" l H e-1 a-1 ai rl ei e-I e-1 a-i r{ �..{ ai rl a-I N a-•I a-1 e-1 r••I ai ai ai a-1 li ai' H ti ai a-I H ei V-1 e .rl �p Ci j j O Oa pO fW 0 m -dc0i ii ^ O "p '� -0i N n Z Z ^ - 7 O 7 7 O a) {n p•.� , ' r0 -I W N N-4 N ui L i n N N c• -ct M ai N N N O O O O O p) u7 ai N H ai a-i ai N N tV N N M M M M M a•-I a-1 ha o a, o �- " U m 42 ho Y '� - -� W cc C L F- a) 7 '++ a) .Q .a^.. a) > C OCA CD . ..0 U w ' txo m o ha E �n lN\D p a Oi �.. J \ U A y E C CD p *' `, D_ a i m VY) �' \ cu Y m v ha C 0 u C C O '6 ha Q 'O a) YC a) ..c m D. V' u � y i O C 'L u ai p a �. d' In m0 i 00 O (D ha C tLo Ln N vyi m a) a N 7 C O U) u OL h0 '-, C, LI1 - M O t5 O m � u c'"o m v C °tS L aJ E Y U J L Y In m o N ha i O d a! t O L 4) Y E a) C m cu N ha c y 3 p E m c > „ m ha c v *' a _ a E o y \. a m m o\ _ Y m O m = c� m. c a u C `L° m 41 -' O_ w m a fn U E a co N E T U y O C a►, O m C' m p M . U 'f9 \ O O '- �. i C Q >, d E al c i-I C m m a0 p - O O .O > Q a) L L N u .E E w p a d' (n O O N. O y N -� LO L ai al u o .O - 4.. N W V i m u 0) 4"• c a N L N Ln E (Ya U m= a) a1 N N 7 2 t1do ai W 3 m c L a U. v� a"1 m = o L m m m C i_• •3 C a) v > tO N u :F' E m v C v- `- c ++ Y a) c\D N H� u O .x N 4L w Y x x a) v N o �- o C c rn `n 3 0 J p ap `p C c c o p °A \ +� �_^ c 'm 3 m 3 c a) E N \ a-+ Q m c I� m p m `o m a) E aui X E 3 ^ c E o o m m a E v '' J a) ', U Y ha ai E a a o to v v a1 Y m W O Y 'a 'y- C p O .N 4- L O = u C Y t m " ` 3: .x m O G C :p _ C L Y O � a al a) W E a a) o Y 0 C G Q ar ho 3 m to (A _�- L' T O c O $ (/� w +-• 0 m o ..c '� 4- ` a_ o a1 O 4- a� C m O V '> ; ? N U) u u Y a) O ao �.. U H L O > N m ,, u a) C a-I m O Na w a) O o O �. d O L d m -0 O 0 O O O c +i L a) __ U C to a• O y (n a) y O -0 E a C c m U N C O 4F Y m ,v of o • �. m C E O p Q- c 4_ . O C o LD C o . C O N a) � la m W •3 .� .N Q LL O Y C ±� R L +' ' W o �- +� C a a) y N m m C \ E m Y p +, N m ,O L � U_ LU -a)0' .O m V•• E m 'u Q a) C u u a) (n m a s M w 1 ho C a) O w +-' Y Y C G li Q) Y Y (n }, O c 0 v ,� cLO aJ L a p ++ o Y o' Q E .. a E E d E +,. c m vii ar '-� E N a) C 0 m Q? a) E -' O u� c1 ti Z a) m >, M c m -' p u 0 p m a L Y Q Z Z O ? O O O m E 0 a' v p m c m c..i o . ha o a) O L a) C h0 O O. E? a (� a) u CL E E ..p E o CL O Y cli m p C > Y Q .7 H p L 7 i a) m U v vci m L 0 u° v m= �, . Q U 3 ar u a c +-• c o F- E > m 3 �° u O 4•* u X > Z m O m C. v- t,_ tt= .aa c o a a) 0 'N o t > O a� m fl. y C7 v. O m F- -, N m m G O. U W 'i � rl U N U (Yf u d' U Lf7 U , a Q m O U O u u V a) In to LL 0: C C Q D (0 U U m -- L; a d' a) fu a a-1 N M V u7 �D ►� 00 M O �-1 N " M Ct' V7 tD 00 01 O ei. N ei ei .H ei ai .i-I H r•I i-1 d N N N A'22 O N N LO N r r GC L J Z Q W LL Q V/ W O F w C d E .E E O 0 LO O(0 L,00 f-V (O M000 V' oO V OM 0 LO 0 O 00 C (D O r 0 0 () CO L0 0 0 (0 O O O M O 00 O N V O O 00 COO O 00(00 f-- V 600(O(0 O V OCD N -(O V LO , O � 00 MO O�Onrrn d10000M �nr(OMNO(ON O 00 NV kA .a(M OMiQ rl (Cl)fl- (O 0 (0 V I� rM OO(ONNM(O M N(O IAN CLCD V �v� LO -(fl 0)V 00 ��N .-- U> V> W. U> U> 603-6F) V> U> U> (A U> V> 69 U> U> V> U> V> EA U> U> U> U:l U> V> U> V> U> V> b4 U> O N (O LO O (O V (0i 00 i� O O O W O� 00 00 O C) O O O CA C CO (O (O � r M N ' (0 ') N ' O LO N (n LO C) n E O 0) N O) N N E U> U> U> U> U> w U> V> U> U> w U> w U> U> V> V> U> U> U> U> U> U> V> U> to V> U> V> V> U) U> W aU N m U U M O L O Z M > J C N d a mm a�i a�i c O C N — N L 70 y Z "0 a) f6 C _ (W N (D .� LL 7 N m= 0 C) m U) U In F E e °) c0 c- 3 0 m �� a) c-, oQ N U) m 7 -2 is Z o U -- 2 O m m a d U m f6 O - C _ (6 N N O N (6 rn (6 D E .N N C-0 (u o ~ N C v 3 c °cam v o a0-Lu 2n c-o c o 0' o @ cots = aNi o 2� c mm0 in 7 N E 0 p U = O p 0 0 0 U) >, J z p o C U) E - E "O 3 (7 ( N a) U) In (n (n (n O--0 N � L (O N (d U1 T LL 0 N 2' - o N 0) 0 o o E w 0 0 O (O O. 0 [If Q7 O E N .T- 0 0 .0 .V .0 .0 7 U) .0 > 0-0 cUUdm°��ooZc>>c22a 0 -5 -a Z��D O�LLav �0 o O" 0- > E N -O ' .N N' N' O Q. N N a) N p C N (p Q 7 N E -p N> L (O N- 0) U j j (6 212 U) U1 V) U1 N' V) 7 �p N N N C U N O .E c m o Of 03>: 0 .° aa)) o 2 o c° aUi J _mQ Q �� � � Ln LL 0 J> Q: LL LL W U - - V) J J J J J J J Q J Q, Od LL O IL d r c CO0 M00 O MCO I- U(OU W 0)0 V'M(O(AN Oa(OLO 1- CDO r- W r 00 r- x000 N O N M N O O N (O N 7 W LO MN 1- I�NNI�NNO V (ON(0(O Cl) (D O 00 O NN NNN N N MN (O(O LO O O 0(0(O 00 MN W LO M0 (O N N N N N N N N Ci U M N O O l - 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �O (O lO �ln�� (n 0 LO O LO M LOLO(n LO LO U) LO LO LO LO(O(n In � U V V V 7 R 7 ' V 7 It V V V It N E O 0) 0 N p N a) 2 p � >- O h -0 o o 0 O O U d 3 O -0 L) co> E m UUU U U 3 m am ;- p [Y C O O O O O O O O O Z N 7E C () C (6 N (OD o 0 0 N N N N N N N p d N E N f6 U O p N U U O) N UJ N 41 O N N N 7 N to (6 'O -- C .O c 2 E .° C N J d O C y N N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N U a_) C O w O7 0 o N o O o o O a '0 N N .3 E E 0 0 0 U U CD U 0 QJ O) (�06 N N C (000 O W O (00 O CA O 00 (00 O 00 O (0 LO 00 V 000 O N O M O W O M O (n O N O N O O O N (D O O O 0 0 0 -6 O M O O O (O (O � o O M 0 0 1, 0 0 M LO �� N CN 0 M 0 M(A(0 x O x CU N O O COO O't N O O W O O r- N W r O N N _ N(00 LO v _ InO �OMI�� NO)M LO (0 `'O)N M CO r LO v� �O -(0 M V N ? a) 2 � LO V X o> � O O O C0� O CO r ' M � v> Fs> to v> V>kf> Iv> v> U> v> 0 0 0� orn 00 m O W C7 7 M O N N CO cu LO cu /) U3. w 6s U>U>U>U >(A U:> (A U>V3(H V > U3 V)U) 00 � m 0 20 �Ln Op"t 0(00 O O M (O o I-. Cl) O O) 0 0 (O O 0� (n (0 O V V O O M (O O N O(00')m(00 LO fl- r 000 Cl) 0 f� C) W C?L (0 O(OCl) O IAN O r (O C) N r 9V >61>V>60>V>U>60 61>V>U>U3, U>V >U>U>6> O O I- to LO M 00.00 N CA M O CO 't Cl) O) ,It (D It Cl) N ' CMO ON1 N N to O M n 2 V O le 000 LO (O 40 O O O O O O O f- 0OW 0 O O O O M C M co O M O w N N 3 ER U> U> U> V> V O LO O U.) N ) O) O L > U> V> 63 to V> 9 U> (a Y> d3 V) 6s U>V >U >U>V>V>U>U>U >U >�fF>'fA�lp I�M�IV >U>�R�(»U>1U> )00 LO 000000000 0 00 0 0 00 000 )09 U0 0000000 0 00 0 0 00 OOO >oovo0000C)oo0 'o0 C) �O er 00 MNO000 U) (OO O 00 O p0 O O M )(O (O� V M ANN N N(O �M m O vi N N e60 6e 6e,6e U�,�,u�,be �U3, U� �i��w�U),U, wU,ww o} _ LU U CO Q _U F i f w J J w W Q } 0 00 - J cr U U) � (7 = J O w U Z LLJ W F'0 QOWZ af J Z W Z Cl) U Q LL W W ��UZ �UZW m mQJ Q UO 2 W x UJ OZ LLI �ZW JW@Q OO Z WwF WX LL, 2 ZmFZZO UU`ZW _O am O ~� LLI �WZFUOOO�O�(YWO�WW�UQ �Z FO(YCnQWmZLu Z QFFOU) �OZxxxx 4Ir Q'QQ20Z=wU)ZT wW } _Z WFJ- F QD U)U)zU- � t- o �mz wcnLL L`��FCnWOLLOwz }p0 QZaWwmmcr ZHr QQU00 WU' 0 0 w QO W W LL LL W W W} UU OUP Q z� w Z Z W U) Q Q N OF W OW !Y �W W LL LL W W m XjF=- wwDj — til O M U N � � O U O L a) U (6 C 7 C cn 2E a) a) aEi (n a) 3 U LO D O c `o � C m m 3 O C C (n N T N C N CL N OU N m O F— (9 Q) 'U z CL O LU .0 N 3 i a) c c O �) w U U U m LL a) N Z 4) O +3 p a cao 0) (n 3 .Q +) LL A 5 U C N � ❑ m a) N ~ U c0 a -6 D C EF.o C "= N Z ❑ v ° L O O U_ Q U) o . LL Y O E m U) Q -5 � a- >- 0 C � C c QQ c6 F— m C of w U C .O o �QV M °� w F—� a) o ai Q� L:ma� N U x0 LLJ -O NJO O� LL I— c6 U) — cn 3 a) J(n UQ.0 a) O E _ O C7 ❑�' a) °�� -6 E D T O �(D E� `° O— LL Cn M U 0 6) y0 U O rz O O a) U 3 L: U 3 d t3 U R C L y U S T C f6 o O U V v 7 V M N d O N a+ O y p V O C C Q C a w CL -j ° c0w C)0- ° z ,1 N Z cw C O V O w H Z O a w C: s M H E C C C C C E E E E E U V 0 V U ,1 N Z cw C O V O w H Z O a w C: co .B () N 0) a) cu N O c6 o m E u O a) a i O •.` C.5 O O 10 C O) O = j — tM H .c Q Q E Q O Q 01 C M O L N -O m m — 16 N O N N N _ � (1) 3 Q N C p L 3 as 0 o M.E 3 Z N N 'O N N M U a) 3 U w wC Q N O N O — > m m p U C N ) G G _O Q .•L• O L C C 3 Q _ a) C (p Ll -O .N+ p U) O) > > O m L rn o >' .p N L m C n N V .t C w m N L (D N ate) m a a) N (6 3 "O N c� m p 0 1 a) 3 O a) w E N a) T co W N O Q al a) a) N T — Y a) > _ a) X p U 'O C � — N -O C 2 Z O a) L •a a) Q -0 Q a) —_ aS i6 L o E Q _ a) U as N m O- 3 o m �, >w Q a) N L m ~ CL N Y N N-0 O > -O a C N N 'U6 ..- Y N N O 0 a3 ot) L j� Q LU 6 3 4 a) a a) L O' m O m '� Q O O Ln co N p O a3 a) .p E N w a3 m -0 L N . C C_ E C a) C a3 J O ` C C C N C a) O C a3 C a3 C c0 C N C a) C c6 C a) a _ O p p_ p_ p p p � C 0 a) s O O N �j p N 7 -p C N a) 3 N N 10D N a) N N m a) ° �) p a) a) a) J o f a) p C O E E° E E E E E E E @ E `6 L `� o a a) m' o o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 L a) Q y N L N a 0 .O X O N N N N N N N N N U p > a) O a) N a) O a) 0 — C a) a) a) a) a) a) O a) a) 3 E N Q p E c6 O m D1 a) O Q E 'C a) L p U "O O Q Q "p L Q M L M ..O M N L m y .L a) E a Y b p a) j a) O a) p U 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 U 3 a) U ° a a) — > 3 �3 3 3 c3 ❑ > L o - U 3 a) 0> a) N o C a) >o C E mL 0 E p J a) E_ c3 nE E E E p - QQE nQnaQQn p> aci H LY M J CL N S 01 Q a w tY a Y O Z O H co O:3 J p� > ) > Fn m m N cn d # # # # # # # # # # 2 C c6 cC c6 C c0 C @ C c0 C c6 C m C ns C of C R y Q N y a v 'a '0 vv v a a a o y • d1 a) a1 a) a) () a) 0 a) N d a) cn f6 w �,; ! 2 2 2 2 2 2 O W d.+ O M a is C C tC a c O 0) ai M C C C O C W c Lm .y d �. A22 O M O LL C �o a n c6 Z N N W `Q M In W O LL J O * LL ao• n ao o 5 N O w n J � M ~ N_ Na1 O Ma rn n tn LO LO 0) CD d R c O f� d N O T O) C) fC 0 d U 41 .L" U a U fA a z _O F-- Q U D W m U) w Q H U) W LL J O O J W J 161 Z cW C O v 0 W N Z O a Ln w k .. .. .. -• p r1 A A R R m R >' C E E E E E E E E E m () U p L U V V V V V YJ Z cW C O v 0 W N Z O a Ln w C >' C m () U p L m E L O L O N `O T 3 N = 0 ca T N T m a N C 0 m ti o o E Y m 3 Q (� a N 'O = cn Y @ 'p m -� 0) C C L 'G L U L 0 C a) O C m O C -a N Q m V7 a) 7 (6 Q m r (CO Y L 7 Z C $ N L N m c m C 0 y U O N Q m O O E m 3=� N Q D a N > L .o m C m° O_ Q a) N 3 m Q c O Y O U � c� N Z C N 7 C O N U m m O aOC ) NJ C C ° 0 '0 O U V C O a) N 0) -0 N C >v a G C O U 16 -O 3 -0 E2 O a) L a ) > 0-6 N U C a) C0 ) V C N Cl) O 0 N a O 0 0 O N L N 7 Q U N E Y c =_ d tn C U CO > a) N 'C N X N m .N > U N m O) N N m T O N Q O — N r w 0 "O N = C N a N _ Z a) a) a) 3 N C° m N L O N C N O > O O Q O N ° ". a) a) C C N> O> m () 0) m a) m C C O '0 C m L O F— a E a) N J N° L N -0 m ° -m aj m N C `o 7 O Q7 O N C NQ a) L L (6 p L N m °/1 m Q f6 as.� ¢ °) o Q 3 �) E E �O 7 2 -O 9 .E Q m C Q o -p ° J (D C C C 7� d-0 m m E oNLo CO a0 W Q n .0 a) s � .� L) o � d U m N m cam) a m c °p E. _ 3 m o N _ n in a) LU m O 7 () 0- O C N m o C m C a) N .m N � o O) o a) o N 7 O Y C m N a) 'O C (6 p O H a m L a) N� � o O -° 9 2 m N -C 7 o o 0) C Y) 0 �i P 3 m C U m m E v° L `6 a) E o° L Q. m m m - m cu p o L 0 E 0 N r m o Q m 9 w o m Q N �' U ° m m 3 a) N x Q L-.. '3 ° O 0 C7 E C O @ O o E 0 ... E N E o U 0 X Q w m a) :3 m a) N N C c .- N O O) C C U X C O Q7 O ° >, O m U C U C U m Cn N 0 O) C m N= V Y m ..-. N 3 c N C @ N 70 a) Q) C O .N E m - C .m N C .m O C m m Q i6 U a' °° a N m m C 0 U O. 3 t/1 .o m O N a3i c m L 0 a Q) a) vi Q) Q E E O a) E a a) a C a> m a a) E `> 0 c X o .m o° v C) N m a Q Q a L N C C a p 3 a O N� N .> m 0 a o 7 N a) O j C a N N .'. M a) C N N -0 N L N N C 7 C a) U 3 L N> O L a) L 3 a) i 'm a) > _U N> > N o N N N a) a) > C L L N U O> N m 'o N m' Q C m Q N > N° E N 0 C N> > O �t Q 0 C c° Q E E c°° E m 7 a) N E O) O) "' > m C 0 U O_ o N z m C O m p o L U a) a¢ -o L O a) o a) a) a a) s a) a) m = a) a a) of m a a) te_ m o o a d) a ` a m a e�° o a ¢ a W a Y O 3 a) Y N N Z N O M c N m c F a c # C m # V N 10 N U ° O o (D a N c v c a) c 0 m U m N U U J y U L C c J > C N a rN t�6a )n (D1, aoa) N c J `ON M r ## r = a) m r r r r r Ur N 0 o m cv y as )a m m m ca U c L m m m m m o d a�i v c U- > y a22 a°i a�i a°) f C m Sm0 m o R W d R z `. A22 N -i a) h0 d N O � r L o a r a .1c M 0) L _0 0 = LL O f6 N 1� IL °) a Ll K m Q) z C w X E co CD N O LL O C1 m + .•i n LL c O r C a o 00 C — ^ O m N W E R N c f- o £o > R L c £a W m C � .N tn .I Updated: September 15, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status 161 (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 07- 26 -11: BCC Approved contract award to Bonness 08- 22 -11: Contract approved by Risk Management, Purchasing Dept., Legal and entered into SAP. 09- 01 -11: Updated price quote for Lumec Product order received from Ron Steedman 09- 02 -11: Confirmation from Lumec on `ship date' ( approximately 8 weeks ). 09- 08 -11: PO Issued to Lumec for Poles 09- 15 -11: NTP Issued to Bonness for material only. Anticipated NTP for construction will be Nov. 15'' (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. 5 1(61 2, A22' RichardDarryl From: McgeeAssoc @aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:16 AM To: RichardDarryl Cc: officemanager @mcgeeassoc.com; CummingsRhonda; LulichPamela; ArnoldMichelle; dcherry- lafferty @comcast.net; SilleryTessie; HerreraGloria Subject: Lely MSTU Doral Circle Sign Review and Comparison Attachments: 08 -11 -11 DORAL SIGN COMPARISON.docx Darryl, Please find attached a PDF of the old and new sign. The photo is of the east side. There are apparent differences in the coloring of the signs and a rectangular raised logo band is missing. I am not sure if someone okayed the removal or not. The light/white marbling is a lot less in the new sign. Also there is one screw on the north face that is not fully screwed in and one on the south face is missing. It is our opinion that the new sign coloring is not a match to the old sign and is overall darker with less noticeable marbling. The new sign coloring does not really project the image of simulated stone /marble when viewed from any distance. Let us know if you need additional photos or information. Cordially, W&&d '4 U ee Michael A. McGee, rla, isa President Tee & '4"O 4AM Landscape Architecture 5079 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL. 34113 (239) 417 -0707 Office, (239) 417 -0708 Fax "., ��I�,fTGI *i 161 September 1, 2011 Attn: Kara Kaleta Crooks, Sales Associate, Project Manager SignCraft /Signs & Things 3649 Progress Avenue Naples, FL 34104 -3645 Subject: Rejection of Work Performed under PO 4500125614 Ms. Kaleta, 2 A22" This letter is to confirm our previous discussion on September 1, 2011 wherein it was stated by me that the product by your company installed at Doral Circle is unacceptable and does not meet the requirements of the project. The primary objection to the finished product is that the image on the sign has been changed and does not match the previous (prior to construction) condition of the sign. There are some other concerns noted in evaluation by McGee & Associates (see attached) which are to be addressed. You had indicated in your discussion with the Lely MSTU advisory committee on June 16, 2011 that you would (1) will prepare a base color swatch for Committee review, and (2) that the Committee members will be granted opportunity to visit Signs & Things to review the color swatch prior to the installation. The color swatch has never been received and no notification was received by staff that a color swatch is available for review prior to the actual installation of the sign. And those individual advisory committee members who did attempt to `review the color swatch' or just to `see the sign' — where denied access to see the sign prior to the actual installation of the sign at the project site. Your company had indicated on August 2nd that a `faux' finish by a local painter by the name of Alex Nunez of West Coast Art and Design would be desirable in order to properly address the finish required for the project. Alex Nunez priced the job at $500.00 per your correspondence. You indicated that SignCraft /Signs & Things would provide a credit of $300.00 which is the equivalent of the cost for the original faux finish. That would leave $200.00 balance to be accounted for by some other party if the consideration is to pursue services from Mr. Nunez. t� 161 2, A22 In terms of the contract there is no desire for the county to pursue `additional payment' — even if it were to obtain the services from an `expert' faux finish painter. Your company should have obtained the necessary skilled labor to do the painting necessary to `match the existing finish' which was the intention of the project from the onset - i.e. there was never any direction from the county /client to change the finish. If SignCraft/Signs & Things presently does not employ a professional painter who can do the job properly — then SignCraft /Signs & Things should consider obtaining services from a professional who can do the job per contract. If this so happens to be Mr. Nunez then so be it. However, there should be no expectation that the `client /county' should cover any additional cost for obtaining professional services when that was the intention in contracting with your company in the first place. The fact that you proposed services from an individual who is not presently employed by SignCraft/Signs & Things does indicate that there is a question as to the present qualifications of the SignCraft /Signs & Things staff to properly perform the work. Several of the Lely MSTU advisory committee have confirmed that they are not satisfied with the product installed and will review the issues related to the sign installation at their next meeting on September 15, 2011. Some of those same committee members have expressed that they are hopeful that your company will rise to the occasion and correct the deficiencies in order to continue a good working relationship with your company. MSTU Liaison staff is also hopeful that this can be resolved in a timely fashion. Please provide a time -line to address the deficiencies noted in the new installation by your company so that we can complete this project. Note: Per our discussion you had suggested that the `repainting' can be done onsite without removal of the sign. If this is indeed the case please be aware that there is existing landscape & irrigation that is to be protected during painting/surface preparation. If your company would like to pursue ` onsite' refurbishment — restoration of any damaged plants and/or irrigation will rest with your company. Thank you, 1. ,r Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Akrn M Trareportation Wes • 2885 South Horseshoe Drive - Naples. Florida 34104.239- 252.8192 • FAX 239.252 -5899 • www.collieWv.net 16 2 A23 Naples, Florida, June 29, 2011 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Headquarters Library with the following members present: � CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis 3 ` (:v 3 9 x �n 19 VICE- CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve S E P 2 6 2011 Rochelle Lieb Connie Bettinger - Hennink BY ........................ ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of May 18, 2011. A few minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Lieb moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT As Roberta Reiss was not in attendance, there was no Literacy Program Report. Fiala Hiller REPORT OF OFFICERS - None Coyle g Coyle COMMUNICATIONS Coletta Mrs. Grieve stated that she has thanked her contact at the Naples Daily News for the great placement of the new article that she is writing for the paper about the Library. She said he responded that he could not guarantee the same placement every time. In addition, Mrs. Grieve stated that on the Friends of the Library website there will be a link to the articles so that people who are away for the summer can access them when they return to Naples. She also stated she has completed two additional articles, one on the Novelist and one on Genealogy. Mrs. Matthes suggested that a future article could address the convenience of downloadable books. So many seasonal residents are mailing books and other materials back to us that they checked out when they were here and the Library is overwhelmed with the volume of these returns. It was suggested that readers could be invited to share their experiences with books -on -tape and this information could contribute to future articles. Mrs. Grieve added that people could have unique experiences with any facet of the library. Mrs. Grieve mentioned that another article about the library appeared in today's edition of the Naples Daily News. It was addressing the problem of budget cuts and how those are affecting the library and library collections and services. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Misc. Corres: Employee of the Month — June Date:_. ►� -�►�� � Item #: \ 2W 23 C�-Pies to: Z09£-Z9Z-,6£Z XVJ • L609-NNCZ • 9VL9-Z l l b£ ePPO!� 'saldeN • £0£ alms 'tse3 !!eel !weiwel 66Z£ 161 2 A23' Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink nominated Catherine Cowser for Employee of the Month for June. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor. Mission Statement -final • Mrs. Matthes stated that after the Library Advisory Board had approved the mission statement at the May meeting, she asked the branch managers and they wordsmithed it. A slight modification was made which involved rearranging the verbiage. The revised statement is: "To provide and promote Library information and sustain services that enlighten the minds and enrich the lives of community residents and visitors of all ages." • Mrs. Matthes asked for comments. The members were supportive of the changes. • Mrs. Grieve made a motion to accept the revised mission statement. Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink seconded the motion and all in favor. Budget • Mrs. Matthes stated that at the budget workshop with the Board of County Commissioners, there were no questions regarding the Library budget. • As a result of the State Legislature mandating that all Florida government employees pay three percent of their salary toward their retirement, the County budget went down four percent instead of the requested three percent. This means the County will have a small amount of extra money. Several options are being considered as to how that money should be used but no decision has yet been made. • The millage rate will be set by the BCC at the July meeting. The millage rate cannot increase but it can decrease. • The Sheriff submitted a budget that met the budget guidance which the BCC greatly appreciated. NEW BUSINESS Internet Usage Policy Mrs. Matthes stated that last month she reported a problem with a patron using the internet inappropriately. Within the past month there was another incident at the Marco Island Branch. A patron reported a problem of inappropriate behavior of another patron to staff. The staff member attempted to locate the patron who caused the problem but was unsuccessful. The staff member intended to complete an incident report. However, the incident was reported to the Sheriff's Office by the patron. A Deputy arrived on the scene and proceeded to investigate. A problem arose when the Sheriff's Office wanted to obtain information regarding who was using the computer. According to state law, public library records are confidential. As a result, we could not provide the information to the police. Mrs. Matthes told the police that they needed a court order to obtain the records and they decided not to pursue the issue. Because of this issue and other similar issues, Mrs. Matthes is going to request that the County Attorney's Office review and possibly update the internet usage policy. The question was asked whether the laws prohibiting sexual predators from being near schools or daycare centers also apply to libraries. Mrs. Matthes stated they do not. As a result, staff tries to be observant of any unusual behavior in or around the library and reports any suspicious behavior to the proper authorities. Also under consideration is the installation of cameras at various points in the libraries. The question was asked whether Mrs. Matthes has obtained n estimate on the co llin cameras at all oflo!jts!o 9 louls!Q the libraries. She s> RkM has and it would cRa hou ately $3 50 g epa!o0 w! � $'��Q'p�! and would�l @!3 euuoa fboordinated by t11uMft'e�urity Departments she decide to go forward with this. A member asked if the Board shopjj �we� �yt}"19oJ @4R0e-%sj0 PdreQ'E[ discussion it was 161 2 A23 10 decided to delay a vote until more information is provided regarding the process. The question was asked if someone is trespassed from one library, can they use another library. Mrs. Matthes responded it depends on how and why the trespass was issued. A comment was made that wireless access would still be available outside the building. Mrs. Matthes stated that wireless access is also monitored. Landscape Headquarters + Mrs. Matthes reported that the landscaping and fountain renovation have been separated into two different projects. This eliminates the need to hire a general contractor. • Some of the more mature trees need to be removed because the roots are damaging the pavers and the roof. • At some point in the future a plumber and a fountain specialist will be hired to change or replace the fountain. Part -time hours changes • Due to vacant positions and employee illness, it has been requested to increase the amount of hours our part -time employees work. • We had permission to hire three temporary library assistants to help with the summer programs. Only two were hired and one of those has reduced her hours to Saturdays only because she has secured a full -time position elsewhere. • Currently two full -time positions are currently being advertised. • We will initiate the hiring of winter season employees early this year in order to ensure they are on board on the desired date. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS • Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink stated that many people do not know that the library offers more than just books. She discovered this during a conversation with a co- worker. Mrs. Matthes asked if she could send a general e-mail regarding the services the library offers to all Sheriff's Department employees. Mrs. Betting - Hennink responded that she would look in to making that happen. Mrs. Lewis asked if anything had been decided about the purchase of Nooks for the library. Mrs. Matthes responded that the Friends of the Library are still considering this project. It will most likely be addressed again in the fall. • The question was asked if the keyboards of the library computers are cleaned. Mrs. Matthes stated the staff in each building spend some time taking care of that. If we could get volunteers to do that, it would be a great help. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Mrs. Matthes will be attending a conference entitled `The Future of the Book' in Tallahassee which addresses the advent of electronic media and its effect on libraries. 3, 16 1 W7 A 2 As a result of a number of staff meetings of the Public Services Division where the state of employee morale was addressed, it was decided that the library would set up training options for all Public Services employees in the library training lab. • Employees would have access to a computer to take on -line classes any time the library is open. • In addition, library staff is establishing a list of classes that they can teach such as using a Nook or using our databases. • A member asked if the Board is eligible to use this service and Mrs. Matthes responded that they are. Circulation histories for each library were distributed to the members. o Preliminary population figures have been received by the County. These figures show that the population of Florida has increased but that previous estimated figures went down. o Circulation figures continue to decrease but this could be explained by the fact that there are less people around, operating hours for the libraries have been reduced and fewer books are being purchased, in particular less best sellers. o The opening of South Regional Library has affected the circulation of the branch libraries, primarily East Naples. o Mrs. Matthes stated that five of the branch libraries are not open on Saturdays which also affects circulation. o Complaints are received from the public because these libraries are closed on Saturday but due to economic conditions, we do not have the staff to work at these locations on Saturdays. Mrs. Matthes also stated that a number of years ago a study had been done and it was found that when the book budget increased circulation figures increased as well. • Mrs. Matthes stated that when the library became automated back in the 1990's and reports were available to show circulation figures, DVD rentals were very high. At that time, rentals were for two days. After changing the length of time for a DVD rental to five days, DVD circulation figures went down considerably. Currently 20 books are checked out in comparison to any one DVD. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS • Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: o The newspaper articles will be available on the Friends website o Strategic Planning session will be taking place in the fall o The reduction of staff in the Friends office ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:19 a.m. Approved by: (;D i• Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board 1/ 4 k A k 23 „, t1C I 1 9 �E�11 O Naples, Florida, August 17, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Headquarters Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve Connie Bettinger - Hennink Fiala Hiller ABSENT: Rochelle Lieb Henning Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Coletta Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of June 29, 2011 for the regular meeting and the annual meeting. A minor correction to the regular minutes was noted. Mrs. Murray moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Grieve and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes for both meetings be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss reported on the following items: • In the planning stages and contacting prospective partners for the Emergent Literacy Program • Have identified vendors who can offer reasonably priced materials such as games and puzzles that will be used as learning strategies for children with learning disabilities or attention deficit disorder • Compiling a list of possible speakers from the Partners in Parenting as well as local physicians • Goal is to have mini programs within the adult programs to promote the Emergent Literacy Program REPORT OF OFFICERS - None COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Grieve stated that library staff has been very helpful with providing information for the articles she is writing for the Naples Daily News. Mrs. Lewis commented that she has had a number of favorable comments about the articles and the information that is provided. They seem to be very well received. Mrs. Grieve stated she feels the library will benefit from the articles. Mrs. Lewis stated that she saw on news the Lee County Library has had a problem with DVD's being stolen. She asked Mrs. Matthes to address this issue. Mrs. Matthes responded they were Blu Ray DVD's and it was from one building in Cape Coral. She stated that it is possible items such as DVD's and also books have been stolen from the Library but nothing in the q�antitythat was Misc. COffeXolen from Lee County. She continued that she is looking into installing security systems as a Ilem#l: kt-0sz\az-4. ,,,. Date. r® 161 2 A23 preventative measure. However, it is necessary to balance the cost of the security versus the cost of the item(s). Currently reasonable precautions are being taken to prevent incidents. Mrs. Grieve shared an article that appeared in the Naples Daily News on August 3 which addressed the fact that public libraries have to accommodate an increase in services and usage due to their committed and motivated staff who believe in their mission to serve the public. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — July and August Mrs. Grieve nominated Sandra Thompson for Employee of the Month for July. Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Murray nominated Bill Wilkins for Employee of the Month for August. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink seconded the motion and all in favor. Long Range Plan Mrs. Matthes provided the members with a copy of the new long range plan. She pointed out the differences on the cover page and she also stated that she had not previously provided the members with a copy of the Technology Plan. Mrs. Matthes explained that the Technology Plan is not required to be a part of the long range plan for State Aid to Libraries. However, it is required for federal support for internet and telephone costs. As a result, she prepares one long range plan that encompasses the requirements for both entities and the resultant long range plan needs to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. A question was asked if all the land on which the libraries are built is owned by the County. Mrs. Matthes responded that is true except for Central Avenue and Everglades City. The Board discussed the chart included in the long range plan that compared Collier County Library to other County libraries within the state. A question was asked when the last long range plan was prepared, did the actual accomplishments reflect what was in the plan. Mrs. Matthes responded that the plan is what you would like to accomplish under the best of circumstances. She added that there is also a current year action plan which covers any adjustments or revisions that were necessary due to unexpected opportunities or issues. Mrs. Matthes stated she requested staff comments on everything except the technology plan. The comments she received emphasized electronic and handheld devices more than she had done. Staff felt these areas are more critical. Mrs. Matthes stated she is in the process of adding it to the Board of County Commissioners' agenda for the meeting of September 27. She asked the members if the plan meets their expectations or if there are any changes they would like her to make. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved to accept the Long Range Plan for the period 2012 -2017, the Technology Plan for the period 2012 -2015, and the Current Year Action Plan for 2012. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Matthes added that she has started to include the County's Strategic Plan as part of this plan. A question was raised whether `establish an electronic book reading program' is referring to devices such as the Kindle. Mrs. Matthes responded, not necessarily. She continued that she has conferred with the 2 161 - 2- 113 Children's department regarding adding a type of electronic reading program to their summer reading program or designed specifically for teens or another age group and this would not be dependent on the Friends of the Library program. There are libraries that already have an electronic reading program. NEW BUSINESS Library Advisory Board e-mail accounts and demo • Mrs. Matthes provided each board member with their new library e-mail address and password. • This is being done so that board members do not need to provide their personal e-mail information to the public. • Mrs. Matthes explained to the members how to access their e-mail and gave a brief demonstration. • She also showed the members how to automatically forward their library e-mail to their personal e- mail address through the use of rules. • The question was asked whether this information will be listed on the County website. Mrs. Matthes responded that it will and only the e-mail address will be provided. No phone numbers or addresses will appear. Marco Island Academy at Marco Island Branch Library • Mrs. Matthes stated the Marco Island Charter High School has opened and she was provided with a list of ways that the Library was going to participate with the Academy. • They want the Library to have a separate arrangement with them in order to provide them with information regarding the materials that their students have checked out. • Mrs. Cowser has talked with them to let them know that the library cannot provide this service. However, the library will provide instruction to students regarding how to use the library. • Mrs. Matthes stated she will write to the Academy to let them know that the services we are offering them are available to all Collier County residents including school students. • There are some issues to be considered regarding database licensing agreements. If a school appears to be using our subscription as their subscription, it jeopardizes our license agreements with our vendors. Future of the Book • Mrs. Matthes stated that she attended a conference entitled `The Future of the Book'. • Basically the future of the book is digital. • The key question is not `if but `when' and there are many issues about `when'. • One of the issues is how book publishers are charging for e- books. • There are many legal issues which will probably determine how fast we move into the digital book era. • Board members commented that they experienced difficulty with e -books if you tried to go back to reread a previous page or section. • Also there are issues with travel books and maps. • Many books are not available digitally. • Images in art books are many times not available digitally. • It was mentioned that technology changes and if everything is available on one media and that media is replaced by something new, the item may not be available any longer. • There are also concerns that digital material may be manipulated. • The bottom line is that digital books are here to stay and the technology and the marketplace is driving how quickly we advance to an all digital world and it will most likely be a long time. 161 2 A23 .: • There are few publishers who are starting to publish only digital which allows the imbedding of additional information in the book such as biographical information about the author. • There is also a concern as to which format will be long lasting and what happens to the formats which may not be available in the future. • There are some schools that have gone to only digital books. • The next issue is if books are going to be digital, why do we need libraries. It is because libraries have become more social organizations. • It was mentioned that many times when you are at a library you discover books you may never have considered by looking on your computer. The same principal applies to newspapers. You can read them on line but you have a tendency to miss many interesting articles because they are not listed on the main webpage. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A question was raised by one of the members who was contacted by a patron because a book had been on request for several weeks. The patron was very upset and asked why it takes so long. Mrs. Matthes responded that there can be a variety of reasons. Mrs. Matthes said the patron should check with the Library and someone will check on the status. A question was asked whether we have foreign language books. Mrs. Matthes responded we do have some but we do not keep a large quantity. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Mrs. Matthes stated she is trying to get quotes on security cameras. The issue is how the images will be transported back to the County security department. It may not be possible to be able to transport the images back from some of the branch libraries. In those cases, the information may be recorded and kept on a DVR. This is still being looked into. • The courtyard landscaping at the headquarters library is being done and should be done in about two weeks. • Mrs. Matthes stated the library was contacted by Kiwanis who wanted to collect books and donate them to the library. She said that usually when books are donated in this manner they are not the books that are needed. Cash donations are usually better. • Mrs. Matthes stated that the Friends of the Library has donated $100,000 to the Library for the purchase of books. • A `Cooking with Mommy' program had been held at the headquarters library and was very successful. The program was sponsored by the Naples Daily News. • Mrs. Matthes stated that as an experiment, the library is going to try having book sales at the individual locations. This has been tried intermittently and seemed to be successful. The big book sale will most likely be held in February next year. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS • Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: 4 • There are few publishers who are starting to publish only digital which allows the imbedding of additional information in the book such as biographical information about the author. • There is also a concern as to which format will be long lasting and what happens to the formats which may not be available in the future. • There are some schools that have gone to only digital books. • The next issue is if books are going to be digital, why do we need libraries. It is because libraries have become more social organizations. • It was mentioned that many times when you are at a library you discover books you may never have considered by looking on your computer. The same principal applies to newspapers. You can read them on line but you have a tendency to miss many interesting articles because they are not listed on the main webpage. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A question was raised by one of the members who was contacted by a patron because a book had been on request for several weeks. The patron was very upset and asked why it takes so long. Mrs. Matthes responded that there can be a variety of reasons. Mrs. Matthes said the patron should check with the Library and someone will check on the status. A question was asked whether we have foreign language books. Mrs. Matthes responded we do have some but we do not keep a large quantity. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Mrs. Matthes stated she is trying to get quotes on security cameras. The issue is how the images will be transported back to the County security department. It may not be possible to be able to transport the images back from some of the branch libraries. In those cases, the information may be recorded and kept on a DVR. This is still being looked into. • The courtyard landscaping at the headquarters library is being done and should be done in about two weeks. • Mrs. Matthes stated the library was contacted by Kiwanis who wanted to collect books and donate them to the library. She said that usually when books are donated in this manner they are not the books that are needed. Cash donations are usually better. • Mrs. Matthes stated that the Friends of the Library has donated $100,000 to the Library for the purchase of books. • A `Cooking with Mommy' program had been held at the headquarters library and was very successful. The program was sponsored by the Naples Daily News. • Mrs. Matthes stated that as an experiment, the library is going to try having book sales at the individual locations. This has been tried intermittently and seemed to be successful. The big book sale will most likely be held in February next year. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS • Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: 4 161 2 A23 o The hard copy newsletter was sent to members of Friends of the Library along with the Fall Program. o In addition, an e- version of the newsletter was sent to members who have provided e-mail addresses to the Friends. This e- version contained much more information than was included in the hard copy version. o There are no meetings scheduled until October. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 a.m. Approved by: rte. k, n 161 II���IId� THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT SEP �3 � t01 f D ADVISORY BOARD MEETING o HELD ON AUGUST 8, 2011 By : ....................... In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Linda Swisher, Administrative Secretary Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order 4:10PM. APPROVAL OF JULY 11, 2011 MINUTES The minutes were approved as read. OLD BUSINESS: UP DATE ON WATER TENDER LEASE Fiala Hiller !� Henning Coyle Cciefla _. Chief McLaughlin —The Water Tender Leasing 2 Contract has been signed and approved. It was sent today to Leasing 2 and a copy has been sent to Hallmark. He will receive a signed copy back that he can take down to the Clerk's Office to be recorded. The Water Tender is being assembled and is moving forward. UP DATE ON PORT OF THE ISLAND LEASE Chief McLaughlin — The Port of the Islands Lease has been approved by the County Attorney's Office. He explained one of the snags encountered during this lease renewal. When the Lease was initially approved there was a resolution 131 passed as well by the BCC at the same time the Lease was approved and signed in May 26, 2009. Resolution 131 stated that a temporary waiver was in place until Ochopee Fire Control District applied for a Conditional Use, The Department applied for a conditional use paid the application fee attended the meeting regarding the conditional use on August 24, 2008 but after that meeting apparently the application was tabled by Joe Schmitt in the Planning and Zoning Department and as of today it was never pursued it still is on hold. Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date: 0-\ \-2 Copies to 161 2 A24' Chief McLaughlin — After looking into this matter it has been concluded that we do not fall into the category regarding the CU. We are not conducting business on the premises at Port of the Islands we are only housing our personnel and Engine nothing has been remodel to make the living quarters into a Fire Station. We should have never been required to obtain a CU this was a misunderstanding at zoning and planning the term interim Fire Station was being used that is not what has taken place. The Conditional Use permit would cost $10,000 which the District does not have; however, the zoning variance permit that we need to remain there is only $100. So the District is moving forward with the paper work and fees needed to obtain a zoning variance permit to continue leasing two rooms at Port of the Islands for our personnel and to house the Engine. Ron Gilbert — He heard there was some controversy with the individual condominium owners and the Hotel. Chief McLaughlin — The condominium owners are at war with the hotel over several things. They are -feuding over the shed that Suns Stream put up to house the fire engine is five feet in the common area so it will be moved up five feet and paint a white line behind it to make sure the truck is parked in the correct location. If the truck is parked on their property then they have to be part of the lease and our lease is not with them it is with Sun Stream. He feels the lease issue will be resolved. He went on to say that the conditional use should have never been in the resolution. BUDGET Chief McLaughlin — The final budget approval is set for September 2011 when the Board of County Commissioners reconvenes. We have met the criteria and they afforded us some reserve monies. We were given $434,000 out of the 1.2 million of Pilt funds received by the County. The County realizes that were covering the area in the Big Cypress. Ron Gilbert — Is the Ochopee Fire Control District the only one that qualified for the Pilt funds? Chief McLaughlin — We are the only ones. 80% of the Big Cypress buy out was in our District the only section that wasn't was District 1 which is north of 175. Everything else was in our District all the way down to the piece that is in Monroe County off Loop Road. Ron Gilbert — Do you know what portion of your District is non - revenue? Chief McLaughlin — 86% or 87% of our District is non - revenue. Ron Gilbert —That you have to respond to fires. Page 2 161 ,2 A24 Chief McLaughlin — Well we have District I which we get paid for. We have the Fakahatchee, Everglades National Park, the Panther Preserve, and now Picayune and really all we have is a strip along SR 29, Copeland /Lee Cypress Area, Chokoloskee, Plantation, Everglades City and Port of the Islands so 87% is non - revenue. So when you see comments in the paper about the millage being 4 mils it's because of all the non- revenue area. We have 1100 square miles and most of it is non - taxable we don't sit on a 40 billion dollar infrastructure like North Naples or 14 billion like the City of Naples where we can charge .3 mils and we still have to provide the service to people over an area that is 15 times the size of theirs so it is very challenging. Tony Davis — How much of your budget on average has been spent assisting with Fire calls assisting Big Cypress and the State. Chief McLaughlin — I can't put a number on that it would be hard to determine. Tony Davis — The hours or amount of calls? Chief McLaughlin — There is a federal rate on that but we look at our operational budget over all on that for stand by's how many times. We did a projection on hourly rate for one year of total calls outside our revenue area and it came to $430,000 for man power and engine usage. That did not include fuel costs or wear and tear. Our budget amount for Personnel Expenses for this year is $1,342,100 and our Operating Expenses are $398,726. So the cost to respond in the non - revenue area is more than our operating budget in a year. Ron Gilbert — So would it be that 10% to 15% of the time you respond to brush fires in areas that do not produce revenue? Chief McLaughlin —We also respond to vehicle accidents on US 41 and 175 that runs through Big Cypress National Preserve. If we respond to a call and it is not on SR 29, Port of the Islands, Everglades City, Plantation Island or Chokoloskee Island it is in a non- revenue area and unfortunately that is probably 80% percent of our calls. Tony Davis — When there is a brush fire do you have to automatically go? Chief McLaughlin — We respond to any brush fires on a road way or near a structure. In the true wild land area we respond to all rescue calls but to brush fires only if requested. Brush Fires are the only exceptions to automatic response because Big Cypress National Preserve has wild land fire personnel they do not fight structure fires or handle rescue calls. James Simmons — How many miles on 1 -75 do you cover? Page 3 161 2 A24' Chief McLaughlin -- We cover from the 51.5 to the 83 mile marker which is basically 32 miles and we cover about 45 miles on US 41. James Simmons — He asked if it was correct what was in the paper that for the 2012 budget we are to receive $434,600 total out of the Pilt fund. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, $384,000 went to balance our budget and the remainder was placed in our Reserves which we didn't have to make us solvent in our reserves. UP DATE PORT OF THE ISLANDS STATION CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL ASSESMENT PROPOSAL Chief McLaughlin — He was informed that there is no money in next year's budget for the Port of the Islands Station. He spoke to Commissioner Coletta and the County Manager for a solution. Commissioner Coletta made a suggestion to place a special assessment on the whole District. We have to solve this ourselves the politicians can't guarantee anything if there is no money. He came to a solution and he spoke to the County Manager about it. Initially it was a suggestion by Commissioner Coletta to present to you. He believes the solution is to have a special assessment in the District and not just to Port of the Island because the Station is for the District. The Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board would have to write a letter supporting this assessment to raise $410,000 to remodel the station at Port of the Islands. There are 3927 tax payers in the District that comes to roughly $104 per taxpayer and a special assessment over four years is $26 per taxpayer per year. If you really look at it that is $2.17 per month for four years to build that station that is the break down. He feels this is a saleable to the District taxpayers. The question he had from the Budget Director was why don't you increase the millage because they can't write that off their taxes. He feels no one is going to worry about a $20 tax write off and once you raise the millage that is seen as a tax increase. We have STDs regarding the building of the high rises at Port of the Islands those impact fees will be approximately $70,000 to $80,000 that will go against this loan so there might not even be a second or third year or it may come down to $12 a year. If an assessment is placed on the District Taxpayers it would be in 2013. This is a viable way to sell the idea to the public along with getting the station up and running. Ron Gilbert — How did you come to four years? Chief McLaughlin — Some people will scream at $104 a year but no one would oppose $20 a year. Ron Gilbert — What will it take to approve the special assessment? Page 4 161 2 A24 Chief McLaughlin — The board will have to write a letter to the Board of County Commissioners recommending that they provide a special assessment for the whole District to build this station. Ron Gilbert — Does it require a vote by the taxpayers. Chief McLaughlin — No it doesn't it just needs a board action. Ron Gilbert — I see a potential political problem because all the current Board Members live at Port of the Islands and somebody could say this is a Port of the Islands Fire Station why are you assessing the whole District. Chief McLaughlin — The Station is an Ochopee Fire Control District Fire Station. The current Everglades City station is 30 years old and needs to be replaced it is the worst station in the County if he can get the property donated he will probably do an assessment to build a new station for 8 years because this will probably be a 2 million dollar project. He is trying to get the land donated. The assessment would be for $63 a year for 8 years to put up a two million dollar Everglades City Station. It would be a public service center we would have the sheriff's department also in the station their current contract runs out soon it will serve the whole District. Ron Gilbert — You are talking geographically in Everglades City. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, it would be somewhere in this area but it would service the whole District. Capt Morris — That would be after the Port of the Islands station is done. Chief McLaughlin — We are going to have to vacate we can't stay here forever This building can't take another flood it is in bad enough shape as it is. It would appear that if we had to build this station to the current standards. It would be $63 a year for 8 years to raise two million dollars. Isles of Capri did this several years ago they double the size of their station through a seven year assessment. They added two more bays and a whole other section to the station. The special assessment is a viable way to finance the stations without a lot of impact on the property owners. James Simmons —Are you saying taxpayers or taxable properties? Chief McLaughlin —All taxable properties even vacant land, all properties. Ron Gilbert — It's a tax bill. Page 5 161 2 A24*1 Chief McLaughlin — He pulled the tax bills we have 3927 taxable properties so they would pay the special assessment with no relationship to the total tax bill. Ron Gilbert — Making the marina into a Fire Station doesn't that help the viability of maintaining that fire truck at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, we can't continue to stay there renting is only temporary. For Port of the Islands it is a matter of paying $104 up front or pays higher property insurance. The only way to do it is a District wide assessment. Ron Gilbert — You would rather have a station at Port of the Islands for strategic purposes. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, we need a Port of the Islands Station for coverage and home insurance. The largest population he has are the toll payers on 1 -75 they are considered a transient population as highway travelers which we are servicing as a courtesy because they are not paying for the service. You build your stations to your population. James Simmons — $410,000 is needed to complete the present building. Chief McLaughlin — We were told it could cost anywhere from $360,000 to $410,000 that is turn key finished to have a permanent facility there. James Simmons — He made a motion that they formulate a letter calling for an assessment regarding the Port of the Islands Fire Station and send it to the County Commissioners. Ron Gilbert — He asked when they needed to do this. Chief McLaughlin — He said as soon as possible we will not be able to get the special assessment in for the 2012 budget but if it is sent in and voted on it could get it in the 2013 budget. If the assessment is made next year we could get it in the 2013 budget then we could start construction. We could hopefully be in there by Christmas or January because it is a 90 day project. Ron Gilbert — Are there two firemen housed at the hotel 24 hours a day? Chief McLaughlin —Yes. James Simmons — We have a motion on the floor. Page 6 161 2 p24 Ron Gilbert seconded the motion and it was passed as proposed earlier in the meeting by James Simmons that the Advisory Board formulate a letter calling for an assessment regarding the Port of the Islands Fire Station and send it to the County Commissioners and all of the Board members voted in favor of this motion. Ron Gilbert will compose the letter and wanted to know when it had to be done and he wants the Chief to e-mail him the pertinent figures so he can put them in the letter. Chief McLaughlin — He said he would. If the costs are less than the payment time will be less. Tony Davis — He asked what about raising the tolls to fund the 175 Station? Chief McLaughlin — No one wants to touch the toll issue. FHP increased the tolls fifty cents all we need is twenty cents but no one wants to check into raising the toll. Now this surplus toll money has been found 1 -75 will not be funded by the taxpayers anymore. Broward County has the Sheriff's budget as well both entities will cross function. We will respond to Broward one way and up the other towards Golden Gate to provide service. NEW BOARD MEMBER Tony Davis — He though Bob Miller might be interested in being on the Advisory Board. He explained about the Everglades City appointment. Bob Miller wants to talk to Mayor Hamilton about being appointed to the Board representing Everglades City. At the last meeting you said the City appoints someone would that be a City employee or just someone from the City of Everglades? Captain Morris —At least in the past it has been someone from the City Council. Chief McLaughlin — In the past the Mayor has appointed someone from the City Council but it could be just somebody from Everglades City. The Mayor has been given that opportunity to appoint someone. We have two positions open. Tony Davis -- Bob is interested but he doesn't know what will come out of the meeting with Mayor Hamilton. If Sammy appoints Bob then one of the positions will be filled. Chief McLaughlin —We had one individual from Chokoloskee Island but we never heard back. Tony Davis — We still have Frank Hawkins. He will probably see Bob Miller one day this week. Page 7 161 2 A. Chief McLaughlin —The Mayor may appoint someone from the council which would be fine but we could also have Bob as well. We could have two people from Everglades City it would bring balance to the board. Ian Mitchell sent a letter to Mayor Hamilton on behalf of the BCC to appoint another board member from Everglades City and they still have not heard back from him. Tony Davis — Sam Hamilton has been snowed under since they took over Flamingo. He took over the Park operation over there as well. He has the City to operate and boat tours on both coasts. Bob Miller seems to be interested. Ron Gilbert — So we are still pursuing the other board members. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, we are still pursuing it. Tony Davis — He asked about the old employee building at the old hotel at Port of the Islands to see if it could be donated. Chief McLaughlin — He is trying to get a hold of the guy. He talked to Jim Seabasty in code enforcement to obtain records regarding the property. The owner lives in Illinois. Jim Seabasty was out for a while so he hasn't heard back yet. He heard a rumor that at one time the owner offered the building to the District but Jim seemed to think that was true. Tony Davis — That's what I heard. Chief McLaughlin — The owner has been sited either he has to tear it down or fix it. The biggest part of our renovation money now is in the bay area of the Marina. The renovation of this building would be cheap it would be just replacing the roof, some steel framing, redoing the inside and enclosing the stairwell. We would probably spend the same amount of money we would spend renovating the Marina to park one truck whereas this building you could park more vehicles plus we would have more room and be out of the way. If the land and the building were donated then all we would have to do is renovate the building. Structure people would have to look over the building to see if it was sound before any renovations. The problem with the marina building is the bay it has to be reinforced. To build new is cheaper than to renovate. There is a lot we could do with that property. We could sell our share of the marina building and put it towards this other building. Tony Davis — No one is going to buy that little piece of property. If anything they would want the north hotel and fix the whole thing up and in this economy that is not going to happen. Chief McLaughlin — They could get a tax write off if they donated the property. He feels they could get at least the value of the property as a tax write off. Page 8 y 1 Chief McLaughlin —The Mayor may appoint someone from the council which would be fine but we could also have Bob as well. We could have two people from Everglades City it would bring balance to the board. Ian Mitchell sent a letter to Mayor Hamilton on behalf of the BCC to appoint another board member from Everglades City and they still have not heard back from him. Tony Davis — Sam Hamilton has been snowed under since they took over Flamingo. He took over the Park operation over there as well. He has the City to operate and boat tours on both coasts. Bob Miller seems to be interested. Ron Gilbert — So we are still pursuing the other board members. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, we are still pursuing it. Tony Davis — He asked about the old employee building at the old hotel at Port of the Islands to see if it could be donated. Chief McLaughlin — He is trying to get a hold of the guy. He talked to Jim Seabasty in code enforcement to obtain records regarding the property. The owner lives in Illinois. Jim Seabasty was out for a while so he hasn't heard back yet. He heard a rumor that at one time the owner offered the building to the District but Jim seemed to think that was true. Tony Davis — That's what I heard. Chief McLaughlin — The owner has been sited either he has to tear it down or fix it. The biggest part of our renovation money now is in the bay area of the Marina. The renovation of this building would be cheap it would be just replacing the roof, some steel framing, redoing the inside and enclosing the stairwell. We would probably spend the same amount of money we would spend renovating the Marina to park one truck whereas this building you could park more vehicles plus we would have more room and be out of the way. If the land and the building were donated then all we would have to do is renovate the building. Structure people would have to look over the building to see if it was sound before any renovations. The problem with the marina building is the bay it has to be reinforced. To build new is cheaper than to renovate. There is a lot we could do with that property. We could sell our share of the marina building and put it towards this other building. Tony Davis — No one is going to buy that little piece of property. If anything they would want the north hotel and fix the whole thing up and in this economy that is not going to happen. Chief McLaughlin — They could get a tax write off if they donated the property. He feels they could get at least the value of the property as a tax write off. Page 8 161 '2 A24 Tony Davis — Probably more. He heard they paid less than a million for the building and with the rest of the property the write off could be that or more. Chief McLaughlin — He heard they paid less than $200,000 for the property. It is still worth close to $273,000 that's why he thinks they paid around $200,000. Tony Davis — He heard they got it dirt cheap and nobody is going to be able to do anything with that property. Chief McLaughlin — There is a front and back access you could drive right through the station. The land use area would be an excellent place to put the fire station. Tony Davis — Is there anything we can do to pursue that. Chief McLaughlin — He is trying to get a hold of Jim Seabasty from code enforcement for the purpose of obtaining the owners contact information. If the owner doesn't want to donate the property he is requesting that the Department be able to use it for training if he has to tear the building down. He is paying taxes on a dilapidated building. He would rather renovate this building put on an addition then sell the marina back to Parks and Recreation or the person buying the boat slips for their use. Tony Davis — Since you have that investment you could put the ambulance there. Chief McLaughlin — The County wouldn't do that they would house them in with us. Jean Kungle stated that whoever purchase the boat slips should purchase our part of the marina. The people purchasing the boat slips do not have any amenities available to them. Our share of the marina could be sold to them for that purpose. All the problems we are having at this time with parking and everything else would end. We would also have more room at the other building for expansion if needed. Ron Gilbert — Where are the EMS vehicles located? Chief McLaughlin — They are mostly located in fire stations however, there are several located in other strategic areas. On Santa Barbara there is an ambulance located in front of Calusa School. Ron Gilbert — Is there one here. Chief McLaughlin — Yes. There are two in Immokalee and two in Marco one at Capri. The one in Corkscrew is by the Fairgrounds in their own station. In North Naples most of them are housed in the fire stations. Page 9 161 '2 -A2 Ron Gilbert — So we could have an EMS vehicle as well at the Marina. Chief McLaughlin — We can't we're limited to one truck and that is a concern. We can't even put a brush truck in to respond to the Picayune State Park. The other building you could house two vehicles and there is even room to expand if needed. The marina will meet the immediate needs but 20 years from now it will be obsolete because of its size there is no room for expansion. Ron Gilbert — If the assessment were to go through we could use it on either building. Chief McLaughlin — If the owner donates the property and building on the north side the first thing we would have to do is find out if we can put a fire station there. If the answer is yes then we will have to find out what we can do to the building and if an addition can be added. Then engineering drawings and architectural drawings that would take a year. If it takes $450,000 to $500,000 then you adjust the assessment in years and payments to cover the expense. Tony Davis — Does the owner of the employee building owns any other property. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting it was seconded and passed the meeting ended at 5:08PM. t Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 10 16 2 1 A25 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, September 7 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 Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent JohnIaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Michael Levy 0 i> ( II W Dave Trecker L� Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent OCT 1 7 2011 Hunter H. Hansen absent BY: .....i ................. Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary absent Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Susan O'Brien, Pelican Bay Services Division Board pending appointment 911312011 9 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. H. REVISED AGENDA Roll Call Agenda Approval Approval of Meeting Minutes a. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. August 9, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 d. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive e. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard f. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways g. South Berm Permit Status h. Monthly Financial Report i. Update on Health of Mangroves j. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Chairman's Report a. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration i. Clam Bay Committee ii. Landscape and Water Management Committee b. Clam Bay Markers Permit Update c. Announcements Committee Reports Old Business New Business a. Collier County Redistricting Audience Comments A Fiala j ld Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta G Miscellaneous Correspon ence Adjournment Misc. Cares: Date: \ 1 Item # \U Z 2. p., 2-S 8494 t0' 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 ROLL CALL Six members present and quorum established. Messrs. Baron, Chandler, Gibson, and Hansen were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens added "Collier County Redistricting" to New Business Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously avor, assin the motion. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas reminded the audience that the Board's public comments format changed recently. The Board would solicit public comments prior to each agenda item, limit comments to three minutes per person, and request general comments not on the agenda prior to adjourning. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Dr. Trecker amended page 8489 to read, "...landscaping plans..." Vice Chairman Cravens amended page 8489 to read, "...North tram station." and page 8491 to read, "Baron, Levy, Womble opposed; Dallas, Cravens, Iaizzo in favor ". Mrs. Womble amended page 8491 striking "...ways and ideas..." to read, "...ways to utilize..." and page 8492 to read, "Comments were duly noted however Chairman Dallas explained that there are timing issues with Post deadlines." Chairman Dallas commented that he would like to publish an article in the Pelican Bay Post monthly highlighting a subject and suggested a community update on the proposal to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to approve the August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in -favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 2011 SPECIAL WORKSHOP MINUTES Mrs. Womble amended page 8493 to read, "...all the while..." Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the August 9, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County Attorney is reviewing the final agreement with Bateman Contracting. The original bid was for all crosswalk locations and required a performance and surety bond to accompany the bid. When the bid was reduced to the locations selected, the contractor preferred to amend the contract to reduce the bond requiring further review of insurance requirements by the County's Risk Management department and County Attorney. Anticipating execution of the amended contract shortly, staff is scheduling a pre- construction conference and purchasing brick. Once the Notice to Proceed is issued, construction is expected to be complete in one - hundred ten (110) days or December. The first intersection scheduled for construction is Pelican Bay Boulevard and Oakmont Parkway. MW 161 2 1 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Chairman Dallas explained that landscaping is one component of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The Services Division agreed with CIP recommendations to improve median landscaping that maintains the historical and environmental nature in Pelican Bay; for safety reasons to remove landscaping that obstructs line of sight; and incorporate landscaping best management practices. The Services Division hired local landscape architect Ms. Ellin Goetz, who worked with Pelican Bay's original landscape architect, Mr. Jack Lieber and based on CIP recommendations developed the median landscaping plans. The Services Division plans to install landscaping "in- house" at crosswalk locations as they are constructed and will serve as demonstration projects for the community to provide input and the cost is estimated under $250,000. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors is concerned about the Services Division's community landscaping plan because the plans do not conform to CIP recommendations, the selection of plants lack color, and the plan was not vetted adequately. He suggested delaying implementation until the community has an opportunity to weigh -in or, instead, just implement CIP recommendations. Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident asked whether the CIP report was provided to the landscape architect and Chairman Dallas responded that yes, Ms. Goetz had the report and staff discussed the objectives and gave direction. Ms. Susan O'Brien, pending member of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board agreed with Mr. Moffatt about inadequate vetting and suggested delaying implementation until plans vetted adequately. Ms. Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance Landscape Chairman presented photographs of plants and is concerned about the plants selection that she described as unattractive, poisonous, insect and disease - prone, and would require more maintenance. She agreed with prior speakers and suggested obtaining a second opinion from a different landscape architect. Mr. Johan Domenie, former Pelican Bay Services Division Board member agreed with prior speakers. Mr. Dave Ritger, Pelican Bay resident agreed with prior speakers and is concerned about the possibility of trees being removed at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition and Pelican Bay resident advocated for a sustainable community landscaping plan that incorporates best management practices. Ms. Donna Senator, Serendipity at Pelican Bay Association President expressed confidence in Mr. Jack Lieber, Pelican Bay's original landscape architect and the landscaping plans. Ms. Sheila Varnum, Pelican Bay resident and real estate agent said the landscaping keeps Pelican Bay competitive with exclusive communities nearby. ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Dorrill said that in his experience, initial renderings or concept drawings do not always reflect final product. This project is intended to be a maintenance renovation to improve, not change existing plant palettes and includes installing new irrigation using in -house labor. The cost ranges from $13,000 to $25,000 per intersection depending upon location and total is about $150,000. Generally, the plans remove sod, and introduce more ground cover and mid -level plants. Revised plans include additional plants that add color, depth, and variety. The communication process was extensive; the project is budgeted; and he recommended proceeding as scheduled. The Board discussed their options. I IE 161 2 AP5 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 Dr. Trecker acknowledged that many in the community have expressed concerns about the landscaping plans, including the concept and expense, and suggested delaying implementation until consensus reached. Chairman Dallas explained that he preferred that the experts manage the landscaping plans. Rather than leave the crosswalks unfinished, implementation of the landscaping plans at the seven crosswalk locations would serve as a demonstration project and provide the basis for community feedback, and based on the response, the landscape architect could then make adjustments as necessary. FDOT CROSSWALK AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41 Mr. Dorrill reported that the FDOT crosswalk project at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 was issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) and work is underway. ALL -WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr. Dorrill reported that Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage submitted an application to the County to install an all -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive and anticipates the County to approve the project shortly, despite the intersection failed to meet all warrant's analysis criteria defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill distributed correspondence received from Mr. John Vliet, Director, Road Maintenance, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management department that outlines the County's proposed terms to move forward with an interfund loan agreement including 1) written confirmation of the community's intent for striping the Boulevard with bicycle lanes; 2) if pavers are installed prior to resurfacing that the Services Division agrees to pay additional costs to cover and protect them; and 3) the County would repay the Services Division 25% of the total cost every year starting in 2014, until reimbursed fully. Mr. Dorrill indicated he would provide the County's proposal to Mr. Chandler today adding that the County's proposed 25% over four years repayment schedule is not what he and Mr. Chandler discussed previously with Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Casalanguida. He anticipated that Mr. Chandler would agree and take the stance that if the Division advances funds in 2011 forgoing interest that the Division expects full repayment in 2014. The Board discussed their options and expectations, the County's creditworthiness and performing a survey to arrive at the community's position regarding whether to stripe the Boulevard with bicycle lanes. Mr. Dorrill suggested due to cost and major policy implications, the Board should consider continuing this item and revisit in one or two months when more Board members and the community are present. Chairman Dallas suggested the proposed resurfacing project is a possible subject for the Division's next Pelican Bay Post article. He planned to provide a draft article for the Board to review and discuss at the next meeting. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Right -of -Way Permitting department is reviewing the plans to widen the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station. Asphalt is the material to be used. Staff has requested cost estimates to do the work and engineering comments in advance of submitting the formal permit application next month. Chairman Dallas explained that this section was selected for widening first because it is heavily traveled and has the least obstructions. Mr. Lukasz reported that there are at least two locations where trees may need to be removed. -06 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMIT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff is awaiting a pre - application packet from Wilson Miller for south berm restoration work to include pictures and better cross - section drawings in advance of a meeting with Army Corps of Engineers staff in Fort Myers, or if necessary, Corps staff in Jacksonville, to resolve whether a Nationwide permit is required for what is considered routine, maintenance work. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that September is the final month of the fiscal year. Year -to -date overall position is consistent with what was forecast. He will present the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget to the Commissioners at the Budget Hearing on September 8 at 5:05 p.m. 11Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to accept the financial report intotherecord The Board voted unanimous) in avor, passing the motion. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that they are preparing monitoring data for the annual report, but are not seeing any further die -off as a result of the boring beetles, which have preliminarily been identified as flat headed, but whether they are native or exotic would be determined after the larvae hatches. Turrell Hall has observed standing water in the mangroves that is attributed to higher tides and rain, but the channels appear to be flowing and monitoring continues of mangroves and seagrasses. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that he walked the boardwalk with Vice Chairman Cravens and they found eight locations where staff will remove Brazilian Pepper. Chairman Dallas is concerned that cattails and bulrushes facing the Claridge could overtake the mangroves. Mr. Hall said the cattails and bulrushes are a natural condition that Mr. Lukasz periodically sprays to knock out the cattails. Bulrushes are not as much of a nuisance and controlled by colder weather. Mr. Dorrill said staff intends to evaluate whether the Services Division has additional funds to supplement exotic removal along the beach north of the Pass following receipt of unaudited year- ending actual carry forward. IRRIGATION PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION Mr. Lukasz presented the MP Rotator irrigation product demonstration video which streams water vs. spraying mist, which targets and promotes water conservation and some existing irrigation heads will be retrofitted and results evaluated to determine broad use. Staff was directed to post video to the website. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEES UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAM BAY COMMITTEE The Board discussed proposed responsibilities and to reconstitute the Clam Bay Committee to monitor permits and conditions impacting Clam Bay. The Board found the proposed responsibilities reasonable. Due to lack of attendance, Chairman Dallas planned to appoint members to the Clam Bay Committee at the next meeting. LANDSCAPE AND WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE The Board discussed proposed responsibilities of a landscape and water management committee to address water management issues east of the berm and work directly with Tim Hall on the Foundation's nutrient management study. The Board found the proposed responsibilities reasonable. .E.. 161 2 1 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 CLAM BAY MARKERS PERMIT UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported that the County submitted the Clam Bay markers permit application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( FFWCC) and a response is imminent. Following FFWCC approval, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must review and approve. The County is responsible for this permit, including financing, installation, and maintenance. OTHER CLAM BAY MATTERS Chairman Dallas reported that the County's dredging permit application is under review and awaiting a biological opinion from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; following a study of erosion of Clam Pass Park, the County is seeking funds for beach renourishment; and water quality discussions continue with FDEP. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Coastal Advisory Committee meets September 8 and agenda includes updates on the Clam Bay marker permit, and Clam Bay water quality and critical erosion reports; Foundation Board meets September 23; and this Board's next meeting is October 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee met August 10. Residents successfully lobbied the SPC to relocate the crossing to the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard at Glenview Place and Foundation Board approved the change. SPC requested that Ms. Goetz revise the schematic landscaping plans for The Commons reconfiguration detailing improvements for safety, visibility, and aesthetic appeal. The SPC also discussed ways to better distribute information to the community. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS COLLIER COUNTY REDISTRICTING Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the process to redistrict the Collier County School Board and Commission Districts is underway. Proposed Commission District Map 2 removes Pelican Bay from District 2 into District 4. Proposed district Map 1 is the least disruptive and endorsed by the Foundation and Property Owners Association. Dr. Trecker agreed and added that Map 1 is the "least political" and suggested the letter be addressed to Mr. David Weeks, Growth Management Plan Manager and in charge of the redistricting proposal and copies to all Commissioners sent as soon as possible. 7LBoardto n Cravens made a motion second by Dr. Trecker that the Pelican Bay Services Division ommend to the Board of County Commiss ioners that proposed Redistricting Map 1 be edistricting of the Collier County Commission districts. The Board voted unanimously in the motion. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay resident requested verification of 1) the project location stated on page 3 of the Proposed Clam Bay Committee Responsibilities document, specifically whether the site extends "to the boat ramp immediately southwest of the intersection at Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Beach Road" and 2) clarify whether the Canoe Trail markers in Clam Bay installed recently by the Services Division would remain when the County receives their permit. .,.. 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 Ms. Mollie Moffatt inquired when repairs to the pathways on the north end of Pelican Bay Boulevard would be done. This is a safety issue. Chairman Dallas responded that in his opinion, projects to widen and resurface pathways would become a higher priority, but no decisions have been made to do any projects beyond this year and acknowledged that the County continues to apply shoddy patchwork on an as needed basis. ADJOURNMENT The next Board meeting is October 5. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. laizzo to adjourn. The Board voted unanimous! y in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned /� /JI � � Keith -f Dallas, qairman 0 0 o, c N .-1 O O IJ O O • / Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 9/26/20111:47:36 PM 161 2 A25 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, September 7 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 Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Michael Levy Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary absent Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Susan O'Brien, Pelican Bay Services Division Board pending appointment 911312011 5. 6 7 8 9. 10. 11. REVISED AGENDA Roll Call Agenda Approval Approval of Meeting Minutes a. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. August 9, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 d. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive e. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard f. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways g. South Berm Permit Status h. Monthly Financial Report i. Update on Health of Mangroves j. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Chairman's Report a. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration i. Clam Bay Committee ii. Landscape and Water Management Committee b. Clam Bay Markers Permit Update c. Announcements Committee Reports Old Business New Business a. Collier County Redistricting Audience Comments Miscellaneous Correspondence Adjournment 4d .011 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7,2011 ROLL CALL Six members present and quorum established.Messrs.Baron,Chandler,Gibson,and Hansen were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens added"Collier County Redistricting"to New Business IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor,passing the motion. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas reminded the audience that the Board's public comments format changed recently. The Board would solicit public comments prior to each agenda item, limit comments to three minutes per person, and request general comments not on the agenda prior to adjourning. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3,2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Dr.Trecker amended page 8489 to read,"...landscaping plans..." Vice Chairman Cravens amended page 8489 to read,"...North tram station."and page 8491 to read,"Baron,Levy, Womble opposed;Dallas,Cravens,Iaizzo in favor". Mrs. Womble amended page 8491 striking "...ways and ideas..." to read, "...ways to utilize..." and page 8492 to read,"Comments were duly noted however Chairman Dallas explained that there are timing issues with Post deadlines." Chairman Dallas commented that he would like to publish an article in the Pelican Bay Post monthly highlighting a subject and suggested a community update on the proposal to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to approve the August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimousl in avor, assin the motion. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9,2011 SPECIAL WORKSHOP MINUTES Mrs.Womble amended page 8493 to read,"...all the while..." Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Dr. Trecker to approve the August 9,2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimousl in avor, assin the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County Attorney is reviewing the final agreement with Bateman Contracting. The original bid was for all crosswalk locations and required a performance and surety bond to accompany the bid. When the bid was reduced to the locations selected, the contractor preferred to amend the contract to reduce the bond requiring further review of insurance requirements by the County's Risk Management department and County Attorney. Anticipating execution of the amended contract shortly, staff is scheduling a pre-construction conference and purchasing brick. Once the Notice to Proceed is issued, construction is expected to be complete in one-hundred ten (110)days or December. The first intersection scheduled for construction is Pelican Bay Boulevard and Oakmont Parkway. 8495 � Y t 161 2 A25 t Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Chairman Dallas explained that landscaping is one component of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The Services Division agreed with CIP recommendations to improve median landscaping that maintains the historical and environmental nature in Pelican Bay; for safety reasons to remove landscaping that obstructs line of sight; and incorporate landscaping best management practices. The Services Division hired local landscape architect Ms. Ellin Goetz, who worked with Pelican Bay's original landscape architect, Mr. Jack Lieber and based on CIP recommendations developed the median landscaping plans. The Services Division plans to install landscaping "in- house" at crosswalk locations as they are constructed and will serve as demonstration projects for the community to provide input and the cost is estimated under $250,000. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors is concerned about the Services Division's community landscaping plan because the plans do not conform to CIP recommendations, the selection of plants lack color, and the plan was not vetted adequately. He suggested delaying implementation until the community has an opportunity to weigh -in or, instead, just implement CIP recommendations. Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident asked whether the CIP report was provided to the landscape architect and Chairman Dallas responded that yes, Ms. Goetz had the report and staff discussed the objectives and gave direction. 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7,2011 Dr. Trecker acknowledged that many in the community have expressed concerns about the landscaping plans, including the concept and expense,and suggested delaying implementation until consensus reached. Chairman Dallas explained that he preferred that the experts manage the landscaping plans. Rather than leave the crosswalks unfinished, implementation of the landscaping plans at the seven crosswalk locations would serve as a demonstration project and provide the basis for community feedback, and based on the response, the landscape architect could then make adjustments as necessary. FDOT CROSSWALK AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND U.S.41 Mr.Dorrill reported that the FDOT crosswalk project at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 was issued a Notice to Proceed(NTP)and work is underway. ALL-WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr.Dorrill reported that Agnoli,Barber,and Brundage submitted an application to the County to install an all-way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive and anticipates the County to approve the project shortly, despite the intersection failed to meet all warrant's analysis criteria defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)standards. REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill distributed correspondence received from Mr. John Vliet, Director, Road Maintenance, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management department that outlines the County's proposed terms to move forward with an interfund loan agreement including 1)written confirmation of the community's intent for striping the Boulevard with bicycle lanes; 2) if pavers are installed prior to resurfacing that the Services Division agrees to pay additional costs to cover and protect them; and 3) the County would repay the Services Division 25% of the total cost every year starting in 2014, until reimbursed fully. Mr. Dorrill indicated he would provide the County's proposal to Mr. Chandler today adding that the County's proposed 25%over four years repayment schedule is not what he and Mr. Chandler discussed previously with Commissioner Hiller and Mr.Casalanguida. He anticipated that Mr. Chandler would agree and take the stance that if the Division advances funds in 2011 forgoing interest that the Division expects full repayment in 2014. The Board discussed their options and expectations,the County's creditworthiness and performing a survey to arrive at the community's position regarding whether to stripe the Boulevard with bicycle lanes. Mr.Dorrill suggested due to cost and major policy implications,the Board should consider continuing this item and revisit in one or two months when more Board members and the community are present. Chairman Dallas suggested the proposed resurfacing project is a possible subject for the Division's next Pelican Bay Post article. He planned to provide a draft article for the Board to review and discuss at the next meeting. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Right-of-Way Permitting department is reviewing the plans to widen the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station.Asphalt is the material to be used. Staff has requested cost estimates to do the work and engineering comments in advance of submitting the formal permit application next month. Chairman Dallas explained that this section was selected for widening first because it is heavily traveled and has the least obstructions. Mr.Lukasz reported that there are at least two locations where trees may need to be removed. 8497 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMIT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff is awaiting a pre - application packet from Wilson Miller for south berm restoration work to include pictures and better cross - section drawings in advance of a meeting with Army Corps of Engineers staff in Fort Myers, or if necessary, Corps staff in Jacksonville, to resolve whether a Nationwide permit is required for what is considered routine, maintenance work. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that September is the final month of the fiscal year. Year -to -date overall position is consistent with what was forecast. He will present the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget to the Commissioners at the Budget Hearing on September 8 at 5:05 p.m. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to accept the financial report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Passing the motion. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that they are preparing monitoring data for the annual report, but are not seeing any further die -off as a result of the boring beetles, which have preliminarily been identified as flat headed, but whether they are native or exotic would be determined after the larvae hatches. Turrell Hall has observed standing water in the mangroves that is attributed to higher tides and rain, but the channels appear to be flowing and monitoring continues of mangroves and seagrasses. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that he walked the boardwalk with Vice Chairman Cravens and they found eight locations Board found the proposed responsibilities reasonable .16. 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7,2011 CLAM BAY MARKERS PERMIT UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported that the County submitted the Clam Bay markers permit application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC)and a response is imminent.Following FFWCC approval,Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must review and approve. The County is responsible for this permit,including financing,installation,and maintenance. OTHER CLAM BAY MATTERS Chairman Dallas reported that the County's dredging permit application is under review and awaiting a biological opinion from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; following a study of erosion of Clam Pass Park,the County is seeking funds for beach renourishment;and water quality discussions continue with FDEP. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Coastal Advisory Committee meets September 8 and agenda includes updates on the Clam Bay marker permit, and Clam Bay water quality and critical erosion reports; Foundation Board meets September 23;and this Board's next meeting is October 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee met August 10. Residents successfully lobbied the SPC to relocate the crossing to the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard at Glenview Place and Foundation Board approved the change. SPC requested that Ms. Goetz revise the schematic landscaping plans for The Commons reconfiguration detailing improvements for safety, visibility, and aesthetic appeal. The SPC also discussed ways to better distribute information to the community. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS COLLIER COUNTY REDISTRICTING Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the process to redistrict the Collier County School Board and Commission Districts is underway. Proposed Commission District Map 2 removes Pelican Bay from District 2 into District 4. Proposed district Map 1 is the least disruptive and endorsed by the Foundation and Property Owners Association. Dr. Trecker agreed and added that Map 1 is the"least political" and suggested the letter be addressed to Mr.David Weeks,Growth Management Plan Manager and in charge of the redistricting proposal and copies to all Commissioners sent as soon as possible. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion second by Dr. Trecker that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that proposed Redistricting Map I be selected for redistricting of the Collier County Commission districts. The Board voted unanimously in avor, assin the motion. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay resident requested verification of 1) the project location stated on page 3 of the Proposed Clam Bay Committee Responsibilities document, specifically whether the site extends "to the boat ramp immediately southwest of the intersection at Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Beach Road" and 2) clarify whether the Canoe Trail markers in Clam Bay installed recently by the Services Division would remain when the County receives their permit. 8499 16I 2 A25 "; Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes September 7, 2011 Ms. Mollie Moffatt inquired when repairs to the pathways on the north end of Pelican Bay Boulevard would be done. This is a safety issue. Chairman Dallas responded that in his opinion, projects to widen and resurface pathways would become a higher priority, but no decisions have been made to do any projects beyond this year and acknowledged that the County continues to apply shoddy patchwork on an as needed basis. ADJOURNMENT The next Board meeting is October 5. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 9/26/20111:47:36 PM �-* M Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - September 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,347,033.22 $ 1,347,033.22 $ 1,347,033.22 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 12,870.00 39,360.28 1,173,770.02 121,032.90 $ 52,230.28 1,294,802.92 $ 1,347,033.20 1. A25 161 2 i A25 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - September 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: 134,300.00 134,300.00 129,253.56 5,046.44 Engineering Fees Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. - Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 728,400.00 728,400.00 702,259.98 8,500.00 (26,140.02) Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,938,600.00 1,869,029.64 22,600.00 (69,570.36) Charges for Services 1,500.00 1,500.00 - - - Surplus Property Sales 1,000.00 - 5,250.00 1,000.00 5,250.00 Insurance Payment for Damages 42,400.00 53,077.04 4,727.50 Telephone 4,727.50 Interest 11,700.00 11,700.00 13,137.61 8,300.00 1,437.61 Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300.00 3,621,800.00 3,537,504.73 200.00 (84,295.27) Operating Expenditures: Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Water Management Administration 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 41,200.00 $ 39,831.54 $ 1,368.46 White Goods 8,800.00 - - $ - IT Direct Client Support (Capital) 200.00 200.00 100.00 $ 100.00 IT Office Automation 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 $ - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 108,200.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 $ - Interdepartmental Payment 14,600.00 14,600.00 14,600.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 30,800.00 30,800.00 28,011.50 $ 2,788.50 Telephone 4,100.00 4,100.00 2,753.17 $ 1,346.83 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 500.00 259.60 $ 240.40 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 13,600.00 11,532.48 $ 2,067.52 Insurance - General 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 $ - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 2,300.00 595.00 $ 1,705.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 4,000.00 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Advertising 2,000.00 2,000.00 677.25 $ 1,322.75 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,500.00 2,300.00 452.69 $ 1,847.31 Training and Education 1,100.00 1,100.00 142.50 $ 957.50 Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 234,200.00 216,455.73 171744.27 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 134,300.00 134,300.00 129,253.56 5,046.44 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 16,400.00 7,706.16 8,693.84 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 14,000.00 13,745.00 255.00 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 8,498.00 11,141.50 (2,643.50) Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 22,600.00 29,198.50 (6,598.50) Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 42,400.00 53,077.04 (10,677.04) Telephone 500.00 500.00 432.48 67.52 Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 8,300.00 4,272.92 4,027.08 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 4,500.00 1,242.47 3,257.53 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 3,200.00 2,382.79 817.21 Tree Triming 30,000.00 30,000.00 29,952.00 48.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 1,100.00 913.00 187.00 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 500.00 - Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 82,900.00 78,075.72 4,824.28 Page 1 of 3 161 2 / A25 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,820.90 (2,320.90) Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,487.57 (2,987.57) Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 377,698.00 374,501.61 3,196.39 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 136,900.00 136,900.00 118,899.73 18,000.27 Payroll Expense 42,400.00 42,400.00 41,035.88 1,364.12 White Goods 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Client Support and Capital 7,000.00 7,000.00 6,800.00 200.00 Other Contractural Services 37,500.00 37,500.00 35,212.00 2,288.00 Telephone 3,900.00 3,900.00 2,544.37 1,355.63 Postage 3,000.00 1,000.00 13.40 986.60 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 14,000.00 14,000.00 12,595.76 1,404.24 Insurance - General 500.00 500.00 500.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 2,600.00 595.00 2,005.00 Clerk's Recording 4,000.00 4,000.00 - 4,000.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 2,000.00 677.25 11322.75 Office Supplies General 3,000.00 3,000.00 784.19 2,215.81 Training and Education 1,500.00 1,500.00 187.50 11312.50 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 119,400.00 100,945.35 18,454.65 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 827,700.00 827,700.00 704,231.05 123,468.95 White Goods 3,300.00 - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 136,900.00 136,900.00 118,899.73 18,000.27 Pest Control 5,000.00 5,000.00 4,475.00 525.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 29,500.00 35,892.35 (6,392.35) Temporary Labor 204,500.00 204,500.00 197,786.99 61713.01 Telephone 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,026.33 173.67 Electricity 3,400.00 3,400.00 2,421.19 978.81 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 24,900.00 7,960.34 16,939.66 Rent Equipment 5,500.00 5,500.00 996.51 4,503.49 Motor Pool Rental Charge 700.00 700.00 347.40 352.60 Insurance - General 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 - Insurance -Auto 9,900.00 9,900.00 9,900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 21,200.00 21,200.00 34,126.63 (12,926.63) Fuel and Lubricants 44,200.00 44,200.00 43,221.47 978.53 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 800.00 - 800.00 Tree Triming 35,900.00 35,900.00 48,713.00 (12,813.00) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 9,400.00 7,083.89 2,316.11 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 3,000.00 717.81 21282.19 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 62,000.00 62,782.25 (782.25) Mulch 60,200.00 62,000.00 53,273.15 8,726.85 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 30,000.00 31,317.94 (1,317.94) Painting Supplies 800.00 800.00 - 800.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,620.00 (620.00) Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 3,000.00 6,023.18 (3,023.18) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 11,500.00 8,897.79 21602.21 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500.00 1,547,000.00 1,394,714.00 152,286.00 Total Operating Expenditures 2,317,681.25 2,278,298.00 2,086,616.69 191,681.31 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 800.00 354.98 445.02 General Improvements 13,200.00 11,000.00 - 11,000.00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 11,800.00 354.98 11,445.02 Page 2 of 3 1F1 2 � A25 Right of Way Beautification - Field 259,200.00 259,200.00 259,200.00 - Tax Collector Fees Building Improvements 13,600.00 13,600.00 - 13,600.00 Autos and Trucks 28,000.00 28,000.00 23,597.00 4,403.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00 17,000.00 12,200.00 4,800.00 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600.00 58,600.00 35,797.00 22,803.00 Total Capital Expenditures 72,800.00 70,400.00 36,151.98 34,248.02 Total Operating Expenditures 2,390,481.25 2,348,698.00 2,122,768.67 225,929.33 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 259,200.00 259,200.00 259,200.00 - Tax Collector Fees 82,500.00 82,500.00 51,419.07 31,080.93 Property Appraiser Fees 75,300.00 75,300.00 44,650.00 30,650.00 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 555,025.00 555,025.00 555,025.00 - ReservesforEquipment 124,875.00 124,875.00 124,875.00 - Revenue Reserve 140,300.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 1,237,200.00 1,096,900.00 1,035,169.07 61,730.93 Net Profit /(Loss) (4,381.25) 176,202.00 379,566.99 Page 3 of 3 161 2 A25" Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - September 30, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Assets 185,225.88 Liabilities and Fund Balance 117.94 2,367.34 208,670.25 (25,929.65) $ 185,225.88 $ 185,225.88 $ 2,485.28 182,740.60 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 185,225.88 161 2 I I Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - September 31, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 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 $ - 273,200.00 273,200.00 263,451.34 $ 9,748.66 $ - 40.87 $ (40.87) 25,653.70 $ 6,578.00 $ (6,578.00) 1,200.00 1,198.00 1,609.84 $ (411.84) 444,200.00 444,198.00 441,480.05 $ 2,717.95 $ 41,200.00 $ 41,200.00 $ 39,831.56 $ 1,368.44 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ - 20,800.00 $ 20,800.00 25,653.70 $ (4,853.70) 4,100.00 $ 4,100.00 1,986.64 $ 2,113.36 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 13.40 $ 1,486.60 13,600.00 $ 13,600.00 11,968.22 $ 1,631.78 400.00 $ 400.00 400.00 $ - 800.00 $ 800.00 - $ 800.00 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 4.90 $ 995.10 90,200.00 89,700.00 86,158.42 3,541.58 62,900.00 62,900.00 60,514.02 2,385.98 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 800.00 - 800.00 500.00 500.00 432.48 67.52 44,200.00 44,200.00 35,099.24 9,100.76 800.00 800.00 800.00 - 900.00 900.00 900.00 - 1,100.00 1,100.00 380.38 719.62 400.00 400.00 630.74 (230.74) 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 7,300.00 13,567.01 (6,267.01) 12,400.00 9,900.00 9,946.93 (46.93) 141,600.00 129,500.00 122,270.80 7,229.20 Page 1 of 2 A25 161 2 ► A2504 Total Operating Expenditures 231,800.00 219,200.00 208,429.22 10,770.78 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 13,200.00 - 13,200.00 Total Capital Expenditures 14,200.00 13,400.00 - 13,400.00 Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 232,600.00 208,429.22 24,170.78 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 - Tax Collector Fees 8,400.00 8,400.00 5,295.04 3,104.96 Property Appraiser Fees 5,500.00 5,500.00 - 5,500.00 Reserves (2 1/2 mos. 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 Expenditures 198,200.00 183,800.00 175,195.04 8,604.96 Net Profit /(Loss) 47,800.00 76,598.00 91,089.97 Page 2 of 2 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 13,200.00 - 13,200.00 Total Capital Expenditures 14,200.00 13,400.00 - 13,400.00 Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 232,600.00 208,429.22 24,170.78 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 - Tax Collector Fees 8,400.00 8,400.00 5,295.04 3,104.96 Property Appraiser Fees 5,500.00 5,500.00 - 5,500.00 Reserves (2 1/2 mos. 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 Expenditures 198,200.00 183,800.00 175,195.04 8,604.96 Net Profit /(Loss) 47,800.00 76,598.00 91,089.97 Page 2 of 2 Total Non - Operating Expenditures 198,200.00 183,800.00 175,195.04 8,604.96 Net Profit /(Loss) 47,800.00 76,598.00 91,089.97 Page 2 of 2 161 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - September 30, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 347,918.64 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 347,918.64 $ 347,918.64 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,744.00 $ 42,718.75 423,553.80 (122,097.94) 46,462.75 301,455.86 $ 347,918.61 2 A25 A 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - September 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 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) Total Non - Operating Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) Variance $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ - 35,000.00 35,000.00 33,743.94 $ 1,256.06 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 $ - 1,300.00 1,300.00 2,773.00 $ (1,473.00) 506,519.17 506,519.17 506,736.11 (216.94) 102,943.75 $ 137,390.00 485.42 4,800.00 1,000.00 246,619.17 102,900.00 $ 51,175.00 $ 137,300.00 71,033.40 $ 500.00 842.50 $ 4,800.00 210.14 $ 1,000.00 - $ 246,500.00 123,261.04 51,725.00 66,266.60 (342.50) 4,589.86 1,000.00 123,238.96 11,300.00 11,300.00 4,046.25 7,253.75 25,000.00 - - - 36,300.00 282,919.17 11,300.00 257,800.00 4,046.25 127,307.29 7,253.75 130,492.71 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 - 1,100.00 1,100.00 674.80 425.20 700.00 700.00 - 700.00 1,800.00 - - 155,000.00 155,000.00 155,000.00 - 223,600.00 221,800.00 220,674.80 1,125.20 $ (0.00) $ 26,919.17 $ 158,754.02 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - September 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets 161 2 $ 2,534,784.52 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 13,151.34 1,960,586.75 561,046.43 2,534,784.52 $ 2,534,784.52 13,151.34 2,521,633.18 $ 2,534,784.52 � 161 2 A25 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - September 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Net Profit /(Loss) $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ $ 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 $ 169,847.00 169,847.00 116,360.00 $ 121,600.00 121,600.00 117,236.16 $ 7,700.00 7,700.00 15,908.52 $ 2,650,934.30 2,650,934.30 2,601,291.98 (53,487.00) (4,363.84) 8,208.52 (49,642.32) $ 113,628.45 $ 113,628.45 $ 56,474.08 $ 57,154.37 2,503,182.65 $ 208,598.55 15,483.58 $ 193,114.97 15,582.60 $ (15,582.60) - - $ 3,610.00 $ (3,610.00) 2,616,811.10 322,227.00 91,150.26 231,076.74 3,800.00 3,420.00 2,344.45 $ 1,075.55 2,500.00 2,250.00 - $ 2,250.00 100.00 100.00 - $ 100.00 6,400.00 - - $ - 12,800.00 5,770.00 2,344.45 $ 3,425.55 21,323.20 2,322,937.30 2,507,797.27 Page 1 of 1 161 2 A 75" " Table of Contents — FY 2012 Section Title 1 Summaries of all Budgeted Funds Summary of Reserves Comparison of Fund Balances General Fund(s) 161 2 A25 Page Numbers 1 Table A Table B 2 Water Management Fund 2 -14 3 Community Beautification Fund 15 -29 4 Street Lighting Fund 30-42 Capital Projects Fund(s) 5 Clam Bay Restoration Fund 43 -50 6 Irrigation System and Community Landscaping 51 -55 Improvements 7 Schedule of Personal Services 56 Organizational Chart 57 0 0 a N m 0 0 0 N O M O M 0 a JI N nr 0 `i N O M O Collier County 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Division A25 Fiscal Year 2012 Operating Budget Water Community Street :!. tram tray -r•• ^• r System Projects All Funds Revenue Management Beautification Lights $15,877 5442,900 $1,302,326 Carry•forward $187,527 5498,338 5157,684 $0 S55,180 S2 $2,493,166 Rolled Capital Project'Prograrn Carryfonvard $0 $o $900 419,506 Interest Income $4,100 $10,800 $4,500 $0 SO $o S1,500 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 50 $0 $34,000 $p $34,000 Interfund Transfers (Fund 1 I I) 50 $667,200 $1,906,900 $436,800 $127,100 $331 900 53,469,900 Assessment or Advalorent Tax 1 exy $860 327 $2 416 038 S598,984 $132 R57 53.232 2R6 $? 140,492 Total Revenue Appropriations Projections 5164,700 $827,700 $103,900 `' $1,096,300 Personal Services Administration: $84,500 $0 $5.300 $89,800 Indirect Cost Reimbursements $2G,90U $34,300 $26,900 $88, 100 Other Contractual Services $0 $800 $800 $1600 Storage Contractor $400 S400 $400 $1,200 Telephone - Sen ice Contracts $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $10,500 Telephone - Direct Line $3,000 $3,000 S21000 $8.000 Postage, Freight & Ups $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 i $28,800 Rent - Buildings $1.800 $1,900 $1,900 S5,500 Rent - Equipment $1200 $500 $300 $2.000 insurance - General , so $o $13,500 bfntc. Site Ins. & A.ssessntent Fees $13,500 S0 $19,700 Inforntation Tech Automation Allocation $5,200 514,500 SO $4,900 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors S2,300 $2,600 $4,000 Legal Advertising $1000 $2,000 5U $0 S4.000 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc $2.000 $2,000 $5,300 Office Supplies - General $2,000 $2,500 $800 $0 $2,600 Other Training& Educational Exp $1,100 $1,500 $1,000 Other Operating Supplies $o $0 $1,000 $0 S16,200 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs S8.800 S7,400 Field Services: $12,000 $0 $0 $111,600 $75,000 5198,600 Engineering $1,500 $0 $o 51,500 Plan Review Fees $0 $o $7,300 57,300 Electrical Contractors $1,000 $29,500 S800 so $549,700 S581000 Other Contractual Services $0 $2'500 5o $2,500 Landscape Incidentals so S5,000 $o $5,000 Pest Control $30,000 $30,000 563,600 50 $29,000 S122,600 Tree Trimming S42,400 $190,100 $0 Temporary Labor $0 50 $85000 S99,000 Bette &Swale Maintenance $14,000 $o S89,900 Water Use Charges $0 $89,900 $0 $61,600 Landscape Materials S8,500 $53,100 $4,200 CelluarTclephones;72adios $500 $3,200 $500 $0 S22,700 Trash & Dumpster Fees $5,700 $17,000 $0 $22,600 Water Quality Testing S22,600 $900 So S10,000 $900 SI1,800 Insurance - Vehicles S2,300 $8,800 $800 511,900 Insurance - General $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $5,100 Bldg. Repairs'Mntc. so 53,400 $441200 $47,600 Electricity Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $62,000 50 $160,400 $30,000 Sprinkler System Maint $0 530,000 $o $0 $46,000 Mulch So $46,000 S0 S2,500 Equipment Rental so $2,500 $800 so I Ii $800 Licenses and Permits $0 $15,900 592,700 $5,700 I $500 $114,800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $o $6,000 $o $6,000 Road and Bike Path Repairs $0 SU 80 $7,500 $7,500 Photo Processing (Aerial) so $3,000 So so $3,000 Minor Operating Supplies $1,100 $9,400 50 ,.�. i ` $10,500 Employee Uniforms 'Operating S2,500 $9,000 $0 SO $11,500 Other Supplies 50 SO $12400 , S12,400 Light. Bulb and Ballast $500 $3 000 $500 $4,000 Personal Safety Equipment $0 5800 $0 5800 Paint supplies SO $3,000 $0 $50,000 S53,000 Traffic Signs $0 $3,300 $9600 $12,900 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $1,000 S103,000 S1,000 $105,000 Capital Outlay Rolled Capital Projects/Programs & Reserves $55 180 $55,180 Clam Bay Projects $2,415,211 $2,415,211 Hardscape Inmp. Project si <+ S22,775 $22,775 Lake Bank Imp. Project S152,202 5388,088 $54,884 $15,877 $611,051 Reserves (2 /V2 nro.for Operations) $0 50 $2281100 $228,100 Reserve for Operating Fund Capital hap $124,775 Equipment Reserve $39,025 $55,750 $30,000 Other Charges/Fees 520,400 $58,400 $13,500 $3,900 $10,300 $106,500 Tax Collector $20,600 $52,100 $8,900 $2,600 $6,800 S91,000 Proper \ raiser P eR $33,200 595,000 $22.p00 $6,700 $17,500 $174.400 s erve lievenue Rees 1601327 $2,416,038 $598 984 $232,857 $3,232,286 $7,340,492 Total Appropriations Equivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 8{3.566 7618.29 Projected Rate: ERU or Millage 587.579 S250.306 0.0858 $16.684 60.250 S398.13 Projected Total Rate: ERU or M1lillage $337.884 0.0858 $20.56 $370.64 Actual Rate (FV 2011) $350.08 0.0531 0.0327 $39.69 527..50 Actual Dollarlrtillage Change '$12.19) •- - -- 1079 in 7.42% 1 a C y d F Li. _ O Q D � N O M r LL V V •L a' O � N � e U � O 'O 0 •N A N d C � c C � N U � E a 161 2 r � � N N d9 u O � � r � 00 •^ 1fi N3 ff3 c � r � � � o d � h fo� 00 6 �e v, M C O h N O 0 0 F/i O fig NO N N i0 O 00 N lV V^n N kn :i 00 O fn M i:3 ffi 669 6s to d9 CA r N � � � d VVi cd in U O OL, LV. V d O r'¢ G O N 00 O �_ Uo d O �U v H fl o N o h oo`. d ° >> :� N i E EV O N N d di tom.. ~ 'd r O O Z Y y N (1 d p e a' R N Q C) U N v C .VD 0. N N N u V 'D C 42, i., 'LS ¢, .cc N v U U rn d U y >d •^ Lt. LZ. y = C 7 e: w A25 oll a) z m N 600 Wd Z£ =£0 TTOZ -C£ -60 d N R aJ � U E c U CD W dl � t6 � L u u _ p t3) d C N 3 Q K d W 3 N O C O tl F- Q Z Z LL N Z W E 0. O O U L Y 161. C> �r O O O C—D i� 0 a C, 0 co t00 M O co - n o 0 rLO O � O O~i tN0 0 O N 7 r r to LO to CO u7 O to tii E9 to � 69 Efl 69 r r to O CO N r O O Q r �f CNO_ M N N ti M N Q N i, N 4f') LO "t Z t- Cfl COO � N r N r 6 Nr LO Cl) N O O O O O M O 04 � m c'! 0) O t� N LO to LQ CT M r cs (d � 04 T N N CO O N CD 0 0) CO CO Cl) r O M tp r N O 6t � to 6q ( � 6q 6q � w N• � � O O O O 0 0 O N N 0) O N 0 t� co O Cfl M r 00 CO M M to W co O LO Iq O N CNJ co N O N a00 OOi O M 00 N N N N w 69 69 M M NK3 f p � � � � � � EA E!> O O O O O Cl) O O O LO 0FR � 000 co O O LOj CO CO d' N r n t.: (:)j O N W C14 r r M O � U � r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 O O O 0 O O O 69 6A 6F). to 69 O CC) O M t` r to C14 Cl) C5 6 r Qi 0) co to o 60. w o LO Oo to co O O 00 O O O O (0 O N M N LO r- (Y) COO_ 00 N 0 h r t- r- 00 m O O N CC) � N N 00 r O to M O M r co O r N �- N 0) M M Cfl Cl) N r 0% w 6:i 69 69 V> 6ri v3 O O O O O O � 00 N N L O C00 M M N CO N c0 0o co r r O r 00 't CO N r N tt) O h O co CO N h (A r Cn LO c0 t� N O) CO 000_ co N O M 00 00 O 00 M 6~R fiq r r r r r E9 E9 ER EA 69 Efi 69 E19 69 e3 69 O O O O O O 0 600) O O O C) O 69 EA CA fn Cfi Eii M � QOi N � � E9 6ri 69 E9 0o to O O O O O O O O M � co C4 00 O O N O r tt h M a0 N O to Cl) O) CO d' O CO N r. N N t0 O Cl) N N 6) O 00 N M r sf r CA � m CA ER Efl 69 Cf? In, 64 EA O O O O N N co LO 6) 00 Cl 000 Cl) co O � n Cfl tt) O CO I- 000 O 0) Oro 0) N r O O t-- � w 609 69 0 C99 r: ok 6q 6M 60 69 69 .a m O O 00 N Cl) N U LO co t� t0L) O t- O (0 O O co C') 00 N d s� d CO Cj CO er t` O C r O Cl) r LO O c) t0 A N co M O w O d LO � Cl) N w 64 to 69 b9 61i CA CA CR 64 L O) O r N M 't to tC I- co c" }I r N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2 A25 m 0) .a t0 H S00 Wd Z£ :£0 TTOZ -0£ -60 N .0 = O to m z M m U- CD J A H m N H a t = � ev O m Mn t0 c � m p, V U E CL �j c O H Z Z LL N Z W E 0. O O U L Y 161. C> �r O O O C—D i� 0 a C, 0 co t00 M O co - n o 0 rLO O � O O~i tN0 0 O N 7 r r to LO to CO u7 O to tii E9 to � 69 Efl 69 r r to O CO N r O O Q r �f CNO_ M N N ti M N Q N i, N 4f') LO "t Z t- Cfl COO � N r N r 6 Nr LO Cl) N O O O O O M O 04 � m c'! 0) O t� N LO to LQ CT M r cs (d � 04 T N N CO O N CD 0 0) CO CO Cl) r O M tp r N O 6t � to 6q ( � 6q 6q � w N• � � O O O O 0 0 O N N 0) O N 0 t� co O Cfl M r 00 CO M M to W co O LO Iq O N CNJ co N O N a00 OOi O M 00 N N N N w 69 69 M M NK3 f p � � � � � � EA E!> O O O O O Cl) O O O LO 0FR � 000 co O O LOj CO CO d' N r n t.: (:)j O N W C14 r r M O � U � r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 O O O 0 O O O 69 6A 6F). to 69 O CC) O M t` r to C14 Cl) C5 6 r Qi 0) co to o 60. w o LO Oo to co O O 00 O O O O (0 O N M N LO r- (Y) COO_ 00 N 0 h r t- r- 00 m O O N CC) � N N 00 r O to M O M r co O r N �- N 0) M M Cfl Cl) N r 0% w 6:i 69 69 V> 6ri v3 O O O O O O � 00 N N L O C00 M M N CO N c0 0o co r r O r 00 't CO N r N tt) O h O co CO N h (A r Cn LO c0 t� N O) CO 000_ co N O M 00 00 O 00 M 6~R fiq r r r r r E9 E9 ER EA 69 Efi 69 E19 69 e3 69 O O O O O O 0 600) O O O C) O 69 EA CA fn Cfi Eii M � QOi N � � E9 6ri 69 E9 0o to O O O O O O O O M � co C4 00 O O N O r tt h M a0 N O to Cl) O) CO d' O CO N r. N N t0 O Cl) N N 6) O 00 N M r sf r CA � m CA ER Efl 69 Cf? In, 64 EA O O O O N N co LO 6) 00 Cl 000 Cl) co O � n Cfl tt) O CO I- 000 O 0) Oro 0) N r O O t-- � w 609 69 0 C99 r: ok 6q 6M 60 69 69 .a m O O 00 N Cl) N U LO co t� t0L) O t- O (0 O O co C') 00 N d s� d CO Cj CO er t` O C r O Cl) r LO O c) t0 A N co M O w O d LO � Cl) N w 64 to 69 b9 61i CA CA CR 64 L O) O r N M 't to tC I- co c" }I r N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2 A25 m 0) .a t0 H S00 Wd Z£ :£0 TTOZ -0£ -60 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Department Summary Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Plan Review Fee Revenue Assessment Levy Appropriation Projections Administration: Personal Services Regular Salaries ER 457 Contribution Reserve For Salary Adjustment Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Insurance Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & Ups Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance- General Mntc. Site Insurance and Assessment Fees Direct Client Services - I.T. Printing & /or Binding - Outside Vendors Legal Advertising Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Office Supplies - General Other Training & Educational Expenses Additional- Public Relations 0 a CJ M M O .-1 r-1 O N O M 0 161 12 A254 ($3,700) $4,100 $1,500 $667,200 Total Funds Available: $669,100 $28,000 $0 $1,000 $2,200 $1,600 $8,400 $100 .tloo Total Personal Services: $41,4UU $84,500 $26,900 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,500 $1,800 $1,200 $13,500 $5,200 $2,300 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,100 $8,800 Total Operating Expenses: $167,700 Total Administration Expenses: $209,100 2 r 0 0 M M O 0 N O M I O Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Department Summary Field Services: Personal Services Regular Salaries ER 457 Contribution Reserve For Salary Adjustment Reserve For Salary Attrition Overtime Salaries Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Insurance Engineering Plan Review Fees Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Temporary Labor Flood Control - Berm & Swale Maintenance Water Quality Testing Cellular Phones /Radios Dumpster & Trash Removal Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicles Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. Repairs & Maintenance Employee Uniforms Fertilizers, Herbicides & Chemicals Replanting Program Other Operating Supplies Personal Safety Equipment Capital Outlay Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve 16I 2 A25 $79,400 $700 $2,600 ($9,500) $15,400 $7,500 $5,300 $19,500 $200 $2,200 Total Personal Services: $123,300 $1.2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $30,000 $42,400 $14,000 $22,600 $500 $5,700 $2,300 $900 $1,700 $15,900 $1,100 $98,400 $8,500 $2,500 S500 Total Field Operating Expenditures: $261,500 $1,000 Total Capital Outlay: $1,000 Total Field Expenditures: $385,800 $20,400 $20,600 $33,200 Total Other Fees & Charges: $74,200 Total Water Management Expenditures: $669,100 3 0 a m M M 0 0 N O M O 161 2 A25 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 Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment 1 Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Interdept. Payments Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance /Repa Sub - total: Total Administrative 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 Bud et $742,500 $715,933 $728,400 $661,065 $41,800 $702,865 $667,200 $12,150 $3,580 $3,500 $1,069 $2,431 $3,500 $4,100 $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 $3,700) $1,029,981 $1,079,496 $922,231 $662,134 $44,231 $706,365 $669,100 $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 $1,000 $2,141 $2,083 $2,200 $770 $1,430 $2,200 $2,200 $3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,113 $1,787 $2,900 $1,600 $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 $41,400 $117,600 $117,600 $108,200 $54,100 $54,100 $108,200 $84,500 $21,300 $16,375 $30,800 $11,926 S16,600 $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 S63 $3,000 $6 $2,000 $2,006 $3,000 $11,100 $11,527 $11,100 $5,366 $5,545 $10,911 $9,500 A $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 ?i $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 $109,1.41 $187,182 $158,900 it $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 $209,100 4 0 0 M m M 0 0 N O m 0 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries FY 2010 Budget $81,949 FY 2010 Actual $79,643 FY 2011 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2011 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2012 Budget $79,400 $29,298 $50,000 $79,298 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $39 $660 $0 $699 $0 $700 $2,600 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $83 $0 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($9,500) Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $15,400 $0 $16,190 $0 $15,500 $5,638 $9,800 $15,438 $15,400 Overtime Social Security Matching $7,298 $6,930 $7,300 $2,523 $4,600 $7,123 $9,908 $7,500 $5,300 Regular Retirement $10,963 $13,430 $31,662 $11,300 $17,400 $3,908 $8,698 $6,000 $8,700 $17,398 $19,500 Health Insurance $31,662 $280 $280 $200 $108 $100 $208 $200 Life Insurance Worker's Compensation $2,900 $2,900 $2,500 $1,250 $1,250 $81,110 $2,500 $132,572 $2,200 $123,300 Sub - total: $151,200 $151,200 $134,360 $51,462 Engineering Fees $12,000 $6,686 $16,400 $1,536 $12,000 $ 1 3,536 $0 $12,000 $1,500 Plan Review Fees Plan Review $1,500 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,000 $0 $246 $0 $500 $746 $1,000 Other Services $27,600 $30,540 $30,000 $9,984 $19,500 $29,484 $30,000 Tree Trimming Temporary Labor $42,400 $39,900 $42,400 $17,803 $24,000 $41,803 $42,400 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $3,838 $14,000 $22,600 $0 $8,284 $14,000 $11,600 $14,000 $19,884 $14,000 $22,600 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $21,100 $13,384 $434 $500 $180 $300 $480 $500 Telephones (includes Cellular) Trash & Garbage Disposal $500 $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 $900 $2,300 $900 Insurance - Auto $3,600 $3,600 $900 $450 $0 $450 $0 $0 $1,700 Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. $0 $900 $0 $0 $0 $900 $0 $0 $0 $900 Autos Trucks RM $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0 $100 Motor Pool Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $1,000 $990 $1,000 $332 $668 $1,000 $1,900 $1,600 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $1,500 $1,535 $489 $600 $1,500 $0 $0 $600 $1,000 $600 $1,000 $500 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $500 $0 $500 $0 $200 $200 $500 Boat R &M 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 $98,400 $529 $29,380 $550 $64,000 $1,079 $93,380 $1,100 $98,400 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $95,800 $8,500 $82,834 $3,775 $8,500 $2,986 $8,500 $11,486 $8,500 Replanting Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside 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 $500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $1,295 $212,226 $500 1 $260,400 $0 $76,700 $500 $168,568 $500 $245,268 $261,500 Sub- total: $251,800 5 161 2 A25 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 (Mm. F Other /Off. Mach. & EquiplTru Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations Fa $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 $380,8401 $385,800 $24,750 $15,418 $24,750 $14,500 $1,700 $16,200 $20,400 $22,560 $12,327 $22,600 $13,050 $450 $13,500 $20,600 $42,000 $0 L$42, $0 $0 $0 $33,200 $89,310 $27,745 $89,450 $27,550 $2,150 $29,700 $762,373 $61 R-739nE $744,086 $249,814 $388,684 $638,498 $669,100 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 Carryfonvard 0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost a m m M O O N O �l I O $67,867 $340,860 $85,000 $323,727 $291,002 $2,600 $136,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $152,202 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $191,227 U Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed FY 2010 F FY 2010 F FY 2011 E Expended M Mar. /Sept. R Received F FY 2012 $13,200 $ $6,862 $ $0 $ $0 S SO $ $0 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 Carryfonvard 0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost a m m M O O N O �l I O $67,867 $340,860 $85,000 $323,727 $291,002 $2,600 $136,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $152,202 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $191,227 U 0 a m M 0 0 c� O m i 0 161 2 1-! A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Administration: $84,500 Personal Services $41,400 Regular Salaries (109- 182601 - 5121.00) $28,000 ER 457 Contribution $0 Reserve for Salary Adjustment (109- 182601 - 519100) $1,000 Social Security Matching (109- 182601 - 521100) $2,200 Retirement (109 - 182601- 522700) $1,600 Health Insurance (109- 182601 - 523150) $8,400 Life Insurance (109 - 182601 - 523160) $100 Worker's Compensation (109 - 182601 - 524100) $100 Water Management Cost Distribution: Total Personal Services: $41,400 (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary. Operating Expenditures Indirect Cost Reimbursements (109- 182601- 634970) $84,500 Transfers to County Manager's Agency for Administrative Services provided by Departments such as Human Resources and Purchasing. This fee is based on the Division's share of the services provided by the County General Fund. Other Contractual Services (109 - 182601- 634999) $26,900 Management Services: $24,900 The Division retains a Contract Manager to assist in the daily operations of the Division. Total Yearly Fee: $75,360 Water Management Cost Distribution: 33% Public Relations Services: $1,000 These funds are allocated for periodic mailings to the community during the Fiscal Year, including assessment notices. Total Public Relations: $3,000 Water Management Cost Distribution 33% Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 This item includes the maintenance associated with the Telephone System and Fax System. 7 ca 0 a m M M 0 0 0 m 0 Insurance - General (109- 182601- 645100) This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $1,200 Site Insurance & Assessment Fees- Indept Py (109- 182601 - 634980) Info Technology Automation Allocation (109- 182601- 634210 & 634207) The Division costs are based on the number of employees for programs provided by the County's General Fund and includes SAP (financial accounting), Electronic Purchasing, Disaster Recovery, Network, Capital Allocation Expense and Service Maintenance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $19,400 Water Management Cost Dist: 25% A25 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,500 $1,800 $1,200 $13,500 $5,200 Printing and /or Binding- Outside Vendors (109-182601-647110) $2,300 This covers the cost of mailings which occur during the year where outside vendors are required to assist due to the volume of the work involved. Estimated Yearly Cost: $2,000 Copying Charges $300 g 1 2 Collier County ty Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Telephone - Service Contracts (109 - 182601- 641150) Covers the costs associated with the answering service. Answering Service Yearly Cost $1,300 Water Management Cost Distribution 33% Telephone -Direct Line (109 - 182601- 641400) Postage, Freight & UPS (109- 182601- 641950) Rent -Buildings (109 - 182601- 644100) Sun Bank Building Rent: Square Feet Cost Area Total Rent: $27.72 1,039 $28,800 Maintenance: $0.00 1,039 $0 Total: $28,800 Water Management Cost Distribution: 33% Rent - Equipment (109 - 182601- 644600) This covers the Division's share of the cost to rent miscellaneous office equipment throughout the Year. Copier $4,500 Postage Meter $1,000 Total: $5,500 Water Management Cost Distribution (33 %) Insurance - General (109- 182601- 645100) This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $1,200 Site Insurance & Assessment Fees- Indept Py (109- 182601 - 634980) Info Technology Automation Allocation (109- 182601- 634210 & 634207) The Division costs are based on the number of employees for programs provided by the County's General Fund and includes SAP (financial accounting), Electronic Purchasing, Disaster Recovery, Network, Capital Allocation Expense and Service Maintenance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $19,400 Water Management Cost Dist: 25% A25 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,500 $1,800 $1,200 $13,500 $5,200 Printing and /or Binding- Outside Vendors (109-182601-647110) $2,300 This covers the cost of mailings which occur during the year where outside vendors are required to assist due to the volume of the work involved. Estimated Yearly Cost: $2,000 Copying Charges $300 g Collier County 161 z A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 . Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Legal Advertising (109 - 182601- 649110) $2,000 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. (109- 182601- 649030) $2,000 To reimburse the Clerk of Courts for the costs associated with the recording of all legal documents. Office Supplies - General (109 - 182601 - 651110) $2,000 Other Training & Educational Expenses (109- 182601- 654360) $1,100 Includes reimbursement for transportation, lodging and meal costs associated with travel for courses at seminars related to Division business, as well as college tuition for approved job related courses. including certification courses required by regulatory agencies. Additional- Public Relations, Legal Ad - Emergency Maintenance & Repars (109- 182601 -) $8,800 Sub -Total Water Management Administration: $209,100 Field Services: Personal Services Regular Salaries (109- 182602 - 512100) ER 457 Contribution Reserve For Salary Adjustments (109 - 182602 - 519100) Reserve For Salary Attrition Overtime Salaries- (109 - 182602 - 514100) Social Security Matching (109- 182602 - 521100) Retirement (109- 182602 - 522100) Health Insurance (109 - 182602 - 523150) Life Insurance (109- 182602 - 523160) Worker's Compensation Insurance (109 - 182602- 524100) Total Personal Services: (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary, except for those employees who chose to remain under the prior PBID Retirement Program. Operating Expenditures: Information Technology Automation Technology (109- 182602 - 634210) M Engineering Fees (109 - 182602- 631400) o Consists of the Engineer's review and recommendation of the Water Management System facilities as requested from time to M time by Staff or the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and M the updating of the assessment rolls. 0 0 N O (h O $79,400 $700 $2,600 ($9,500) $15,400 $7,500 $5,300 $19,500 $200 $2,200 $123,300 $123,300 $0 $12,000 0 0 C14 M M m 0 o o N O M 1 O 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Plan Review Fees (Engineering) (109- 182602- 634300) $1,500 Consists of the review of plans and specifications by the Division to insure compliance with the Division's Water Management Plan, etc. The funds for this expenditure are paid for by the permittee and a revenue item is included in the Division's Budget for this purpose. Temporary Labor (109- 182602- 639967 ) $42,400 For Fiscal Year 2012, it is proposed that the Division utilize the services of temporary day laborers to assist in the maintenance of the water management system. For Budget purposes, it is estimated that 20% of the estimated hours are at overtime rates. Estimated Hours: 3,750 Cost per Hour: (Regular Rate) $10.27 Cost per Hour: (Overtime Rate) $15.41 Total yearly fee: $42,400 Other Contractual Services (109 - 182602- 634999) $1,000 Misc. $1,000 Tree Trimming (109 - 182602- 646319) $30,000 Exotic /Invasive Plant Control Program $30,000 Monthly Maintenance Spraying Monthly maintenance of exotic and nusiance vegetation on the east side of the berm from the Commons south to the Naples Grande and from the North Tram Station to 300' south of the Sandpiper and Vanderbilt Beach Rd. WM Easement. Visits Each Total 12 $2,500 $30,000 Flood Control - Berm & Swale Maintenance (109- 182602- 634251) $14,000 Berm Maintenance: $4,000 Maintenance of berm swales and spreader swale including control structures and the mechanical maintenance of slopes. Mechanical Maintenance: $2,000 Slope Maintenance: $2,000 Total: $4,000 Swale Maintenance: $10.000 10 N �i O a M M M 0 8 ID 0 0 M 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Water Quality Testing Program - Indept Py (109 - 182602- 634980) For Fiscal Year 2012, the Division will continue the monitoring of the Water Management System as required by the South Florida Water Management District. This program samples the water quality of eight stations within the Pelican Bay Water Management System and Clam Bay providing an historical record of the water conditions in the community and the analytical information to monitor for sharp changes in results that may indicate the need for corrective action. 161 2 A25 In addition, this Water Quality Monitoring Program provides the water quality results that are included as a recommendation to the Regulatory Agencies as part of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Yearly Unit Parameter Quantity Price Total Cost Temperature pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Salinity Ammonia N itrites Ortho- Phosphate Total Dissolved Solids Total Phosphorus Silica Nitrates TKN Chlorophyll -a Total Organic Carbon Pheophyton Sampling Supplies Calabration and field sampling supplies for the collection of samples. Cellular Telephone (109 - 182602- 641700) This covers the fees for Division's cellular phone service and equipment. Dumpster & Trash Fees (109 - 182602- 643300) This covers the fees for the Dumpster that is utilized for trash disposal at the maintenance facility. In addition a horticulture dumpster is utilized for the disposal of landscape and aquatic debris. 276 in -house $0 276 in -house $0 276 in -house $0 276 in -house $0 276 in -house $0 276 $8.00 $2,200 108 $7.00 $800 276 $6.00 $1,700 276 $7.00 $1,900 276 $10.00 $2,800 276 $6.00 $1,700 108 $14.00 $1,500 276 $15.00 $4,100 108 $14.00 $1,500 108 $12.00 $1,300 108 $15.00 $1,600 Total $21,100 Description Quantity Unit Cost Total 45 Yard Trash Container 65 $300.00 $19,500 Trash Dumpster 12 $270.00 $3,200 Total: $22,700 Water Management Cost Distribution: 25% $1,500 $22,600 11 $500 $5,700 0 04 a m M M O ., 0 0 m 0 The vehicle insurance for all Collier County vehicles is handled through 161 2 AZT Collier County $1,700 Pelican Bay Services Division Mntc. Facility periodic repair and maintenar $5,000 Operating Budget Water Management Allocati 33% Fiscal Year 2012 $15,900 Repairs and Maintenance Water Management Operating Department Following are the cost's associated with operating and maintaining the listed vehicles: Operating Expenditures: (Continued) 2006 Ford Ranger Ext. 4x4 2005 4WD Tractor Insurance - General (109 - 182602 - 645100) Fleet Maintenance (109 - 182602- 646430) $2,300 This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County $1,600 Parts Fuel &Lubricants (109- 182602- 652490) property & general liability insurance. Outside Vendors (109- 182602- 646445) $500 Estimated Yearly Cost: $2,300 $900 Motor Pool (109 - 182602- 640410) Insurance (Vehicles) (109 - 182602- 645260) Boat Repairs (109- 182602 - 646810) $900 Description Cost This category covers the repairs & maintenance of all miscellaneous Vehicles $891 $15,900 2008 4- Door Utility Vehicle $0 2006 Ford Ranger Ext. 4x4 Sub - total: $900 The vehicle insurance for all Collier County vehicles is handled through the County's Master Insurance Policy. $1,700 Bldg. Repair /Mntc. (109 - 182602 - 646110) Mntc. Facility periodic repair and maintenar $5,000 Water Management Allocati 33% $15,900 Repairs and Maintenance Following are the cost's associated with operating and maintaining the listed vehicles: 2008 4- Door Utility Vehicle 2006 Ford Ranger Ext. 4x4 2005 4WD Tractor Fleet Maintenance (109 - 182602- 646430) $1,900 Labor (109 - 182602- 646440) $1,600 Parts Fuel &Lubricants (109- 182602- 652490) $8,900 Outside Vendors (109- 182602- 646445) $500 Parts Repairs &Maintenance (109 - 182602- 646410) $900 Motor Pool (109 - 182602- 640410) $100 Boat Repairs (109- 182602 - 646810) $500 Other Equipment R &M (109 - 182602- 646970) $1,500 This category covers the repairs & maintenance of all miscellaneous equipment such as the spray rig, boat motor, etc. $15,900 Sub -Total Repairs & Maintenance 12 161 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures: (Continued) Employee Uniforms (109- 182602- 652130) Fertilizers, Herbicides & Chemicals (109 - 182602- 652310) Includes the necessary spraying to control such plants as cattails, water hyacinths, broadleaf weeds and grasses, and other water based weeds, including bottom rooted aquatics that are un- sightly and will impede the flow of water. Other Operating Supplies - Contingencies (109- 182602- 652990) Replanting Program (109- 182602 - 634254) Aquascaping Program: The Division currently utilizes desirable aquatic plants in the water management system to assist in the maintenance of the system lakes. The program includes plantings for the Division's Water Management System to assist in the maintenance of the system, by providing nutrient up -take. It is proposed that these budgeted materials be utilized along the Tram Road to assist in the nutrient up -take and water quality. Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Plants (Bare Root) 10,000 $0.85 $8,500 Total: $8,500 Personal Safety Equipment (109- 182602 - 652140) Capital Outlay (109 - 182602 - 764990) Office Equipment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Office Equipment 1 $3,000 $3,000 Office Furniture 0 $0 $0 Upgrade Computers 0 $0 $0 Notebook Computer 0 $0 $0 Telephone System 0 $0 $0 Total: $3,000 Water Management Cost Distribution: 0 0 E a M M M O rl 0 cJ O M 0 33% Z $8,500 A25 $1,100 $98,400 $2,500 $8,500 13 $500 $1,000 0 M M 0 0 N O M O Collier County 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Water Management Operating Department Operating Expenditures: (Continued) Other Machinery & Equipment (109 - 182602- 764110) It is proposed the following equipment be acquired for Fiscal Year 2011: Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 0 $0 Sub - Totals: (FY 2012 Ea $0 $ $0 $0 Total: $o Each Year the Division reserves funds for the replacement of certain equipment whose useful life has been reached. Therefore, the Division appropriates the expenditure for this replacement equipment, and also allocates a portion of the Division's Fund Balance to fund this Capital Outlay. Water Management Allocation: 100% Operating Expenditures: (Continued) Improvements - General (109 - 182602- 763100) It is proposed that the following general improvements be made for Fiscal Year 2012. Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Maintenance Facility The Division's Operations Facility periodically requires repair and replacement and it is proposed that these funds be used for the maintenance of the facility as required. Water Management Allocations: 33% of Maintenance Facility Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector (109- 959050- 930700) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three (3) percent of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (109- 959050 - 930600) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two (2) percent of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (109- 919010- 489900) The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. $0 $0 Total: $0 33% A25 $20,400 $20,600 $33,200 Total Other Fees & Charges $74,200 Total Water Management Expenditures: $669,100 14 161 2 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Department Summary Revenue Projections Carryforward $54,500 Interest Income $10,800 Interfund Transfers $0 Assessment Levy $1,906,900 Total Funds Available: $1,972,200 Appropriation Projections Administration: Personal Services Regular Salaries ER 457 Contribution Reserve For Salary Adjustments Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Insurance 0 a m M 0 0 N 0 0 Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Direct Client Services - I.T. Printing & /or Binding - Outside Vendors Legal Advertising Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Office Supplies - General Other Training & Educational Expenses Emergency Mntc. /Repair $28,900 $0 $900 $2,300 $1,600 $8,700 $100 $100 Total Personal Services: $42,600 $34,300 $800 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,800 $1,900 $500 $14,500 $2,600 $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $1,500 $7,400 Total Operating Expenses: $86,700 Total Administration Expenses: $129,300 A25 15 0 0 a M 0 0 0 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division $58,400 Operating Budget $52,100 Fiscal Year 2012 $95,000 Community Beautification Operating Department Department Summary Field Services: Personal Services Regular Salaries (109 - 182901 - 512100) $430,700 ER 457 Contribution $1,700 Overtime Salaries - (109 - 182901 - 514100) $99,200 Reserve For Salary Adjustments - (109 - 182901 - 519100) $15,300 Reserve For Salary Attrition ($22,200) Social Security Matching (109- 182901 - 521100) $41,900 Retirement (109- 182901 - 522100) $29,200 Health Insurance (109 - 182901- 523150) $149,600 Life Insurance (109 - 182901 - 523160) $1,200 Worker's Compensation Insurance (109- 182901 - 524100) $38,500 Total Personal Services: $785,100 Other Contractual Services $29,500 Tree Trimming $63,600 $5,000 Pest Control $190,100 Temporary Labor $89,900 Water Use Charges $53,100 Landscape Materials $3,200 Cellular Telephones $17,000 Trash & Dumpster Fees $8,800 Insurance - General $9,400 Employee Uniforms $10,000 Insurance - Vehicles $1,700 Bid -. Repairs/Mntc. $62,000 Fertilizer, Pesticides and Chemicals Sprinkler System Maintenance $,000 Electricity $3,400 $3 Mulch Requirements $ ,000 Equipment Rental $2 $ 00 Licenses and Permits $800 $8 Repairs & Maintenance $,700 Road & Bike Path Repairs $6,000 $6 Minor Operating Equipment $3,000 Other Operating Supplies $9,000 Landscape Incidentals $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $ 00 Paint Supplies $800 $8 $3,000 Traffic Signs $3,300 Emergency Mntc.CRepair Total Operating Expenditures: $749,300 Capital Outlay: $103,000 Total Capital Outlay: $103,000 Total Field Expenditures: $1,637,400 Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector $58,400 Property Appraiser $52,100 Revenue Reserve $95,000 Total Other Fees & Charges: $205,500 161 2 A25 16 Total Community Beautification Expenditures: $1,972,200 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue FY 2010 Bud et $1,922,500 FY 2010 Actual $1,853,805 Received Anticipated FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Budget Year- To -Dati 2011 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2012 Budget $1,938,600 $1,759,392 $111,700 $1,871,092 $1,906,9 Assessments $28,350 $8,371 $8,200 $2,494 $5,706 $8,200 $10,800 Interest Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimburse P/Y Expend. $669,270 $803,698 $495,070 $0 $0 $0 $54,500 Carryforward Total Revenue: $2,620,120 $2,665,874 $2,441,870 $1,761,886 $117,406 $1,879,292 $1,972,200 Appropriations: Administration: $28,830 $28,959 $28,900 $10,652 $18,248 $28,900 $28,9$0 Regular Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ER 457 Contributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Salaries & Wages $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Termination Pay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900 Reserve For Salary Adjust. $297 $2,205 $2,146 $2,200 $793 $1,407 $2,200 $2,300 Social Security $3,313 $2,928 $3,400 $1,147 $1,853 $3,000 $1,600 Retirement $10,554 $10,554 $7,700 $3,866 $3,834 $7,700 $8,700 Health Insurance $101 $101 $78 $39 $39 $78 $100 Life Insurance $300 $300 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 Worker's Compensation $45,600 $44,988 $42,378 $16,547 $25,431 $41,978 $42,600 Sub - total: IT Automation Allocation & Capil $4,200 $4,200 $8,200 $4,100 $2,900 $7,000 $37,500 $14,500 $34,300 Other Contractual Serv. $28,000 $21,784 $37,500 $13,248 $290 $24,252 $510 $800 $800 Stora ge Contractor $0 $400 $0 $392 $0 $400 $140 $196 $336 $400 Telephone- Service Contract $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $987 $1,500 $2,487 $3,500 Telephone- Direct Line $3,000 $40 $3,000 $5 $2,000 $2,005 $3,000 Postage, Freight, UPS $11,400 $1 1,877 $11,400 $5,525 $5,545 $11,070 $9,800 Rent - Buildings $2,400 $2,187 $2,600 $668 $1,500 $2,168 $1,900 Rent - Equipment $500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 $500 Insurance - General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Data Proc. Eq. R &M D $2,600 $1,21 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 Printing & Binding 00 $633 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $2,000 Legal Advertising $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimb. For Prior Year $2,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 Clerk Recording Fees $4,774 $2,639 $3,000 $266 $1,800 $2,066 $2,5$0 Office Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Copying Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Minor Office Eqpt. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $1,500 $0 $1,500 $2.5 $800 $825 $1,500 o Training &Education $66,274 $47,737 $80,200 $25,504 $48,053 $73,5 $ Sub- total: Emergency Mntc. /Repair $16,900 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $48,053 $0 $0 $73,557 $7,300 $7,400 $86,700 " Sub- total: $83,174 $47,737 $87,600 $25,504 Total Administrative: 0 $128,774 $92,725 $129,978 $42,051 $73,484 $115,535 [-- $129,300 o y 17 O rt 0 16! 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Field Services: Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dath 2011 $277,950 Expended $415,504 Budget $430,700 Regular Salaries Re ula $444,149 $429,169 $442,400 $2,200 $137,554 $440 $1,760 $2,200 $1,700 Contributions $2,170 $102,600 $1,170 $91,680 $103,000 $26,618 $45,600 $72,218 $99,200 Overtime $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,300 Reserve For Salary Adjust. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($22,200) Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $41,993 $37,365 $41,900 $11,697 $24,700 $36,397 $41,900 Social Security Retirement - Regular $63,070 $52,622 $64,600 $17,849 $32,051 $66,742 $49,900 $133,484 $29,200 $149,600 Health Insurance $116,094 $116,094 $133,500 $1,200 $66,742 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,200 Life Insurance $1,564 $35,000 $1,564 $35,000 $38,800 $19,400 $19,400 $38,800 $38,500 Worker's Compensation $806,700 $764,664 $827,600 $280,900 $468,803 $749,703 $785,100 Sub - total: $83,800 $85,885 $83,800 $35,532 $47,500 $83,032 $89,900 Water Use Charges Landscape Materials $46,600 $44,867 $53,100 $17,292 $25,000 $42,292 $33,720 $53,100 $29,500 Other Contractual Services $29,500 $33,20 $29,500 $35,900 $21,720 $51,315 $12,000 $8,700 $60,015 $63,600 Tree Trimming $25,000 $6,500 $31,095 $0 $5,000 $200 $4,800 $5,000 $5,000 Pest Control $211,800 $191,929 $204,500 $79,570 $127,500 $207,070 $190,100 Temporary Labor $800 521b $700 $0 $300 $300 $300 Motor Pool Rental $3,800 $3,047 $3,200 $1,156 $2,100 $3,256 $3,200 Cellular Telephone $3,400 $2,550 $3,400 $1,195 $1,900 $3,095 $3,400 Electricity/Utilities $24,900 $16,774 $24,900 $2,927 $11,800 $14,727 $17,000 Trash & Garbage $8,500 $3,526 $5,500 $154 $2,400 $2,554 $2,500 Rent - Equipment $12,200 $12,200 $9,000 $4,500 $4,500 $9,000 $8,800 insurance - General $9,300 $9,300 $9,900 $4,950 $4,950 $9,900 $10,0700 Insurance - Vehicle $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ , Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. $0 $30,000 $18,065 $30,000 $12,255 $18,000 $30,255 $30,000 Sprinkler System Maint. $60,200 $54,889 $60,200 546,394 $14,000 $60,394 $46,000 Landscaping Maint. $100 $1,496 $100 $534 $0 $534 $100 k Auto & Truck R &M $8,900 $8,250 $8,500 $2,832 $5,668 $8,500 $10,600 Fleet Maint Labor $17,500 $9,950 $9,600 $3,175 $6,400 $9,575 $11,400 Fleet Maint ISF Parts $900 $903 $1,000 $188 $812 $1,000 $1,00 Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts $0 $1,033 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 Hurricane Wilma Expenditures $2,000 $7,039 $2,000 $5,874 $0 $5,874 $2,000 Other Equip. R &M $800 $340 $800 $0 5400 $400 ,00 Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental $12,000 $4,028 $9,400 $2,607 $7,100 $9,707 $62,980 $9,4400 $62,000 Fert. Herbicides &Chem. $58,500 $62,886 $62,000 $30,980 $0 $32,000 $0 $0 00 Fuel &Lubricants - Outside $100 $47,000 $0 $38,070 $100 $44,100 $13,016 $28,000 $41,016 $67,200 Fuel & Lubricants -ISF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 Road &Bike Path Repairs $0 $3,000 $4,658 $3,000 $1,352 $1,800 $3,152 $3,000 Minor Operating Equip. $11,500 $20,159 $11,500 $3,018 $7,500 $10,518 $9,000 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 N Landscape Incidentals $0 $3,000 $1,342 $3,000 $512 $2,000 $ $3, o Personal Safety Equipment $0 $800 $0 $800 $800 $800 800 $800 a Paint Supplies $1,500 $3,000 $1,030 $3,000 $0 $2,000 $2,0 $3,000 Traffic Signs M Sub- total: $726,100 $668,736 $717,500 $343,248 $379,930 $ $746,000 Emergency Mntc. /Repair 0 $726,100 0 $668,736 $3,300 $720,800 $0 $343,248 $0 $379,930 723,1 $3,300 $749,300 o Sub- total: Total Field Services: $1,532,800 $1,433,400 o = 0 JI $1,548,400 $624,148 $848,733 $,472,8 $1,534,400 161 2 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Other Fees & Charges $28,763 $52,700 $30,450 $1,050 $31,500 Property Appraiser $52,640 $57,750 $35,975 $57,750 Received Anticipated Total Tax Collector $98,000 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received $64,738 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Capital Outlay: $13,600 $8,481 $13,600 $0 $11,40 $11,4$10 Building Improvements $0 $0 $0 $174,260 Improvements General $0 $26,000 $25,462 $28,000 $23,597 $0 $23,597 Autos &Trucks Other Mach. &Equip. $25,000 $18,217 $17,000 $0 $9,000 $9,000 Total Capital Outlay: $64,600 $52,160 $58,600 $23,597 $20,481 $44,078 Other Fees & Charges $28,763 $52,700 $30,450 $1,050 $31,500 Property Appraiser $52,640 $57,750 $35,975 $57,750 $33,886 $3,914 $37,800 Tax Collector $98,000 $0 $98,200 $0 $0 $0 Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: $208,390 $64,738 $208,650 $64,336 $4,964 $947,662 $69,300 $1,701,794 Total Appropriations: $1,934,564 $1,643,023 $1,945,628 $754,132 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations $177,498 $795,340 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $174,260 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 $798,638 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations $706,488 Opening Balance (10 /01 / 1 I) $18,100 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carry forward $300,3Q6 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $388,088 Reserved for Capital Outlay $92,150 Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10 /01 /11) 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) $443,838 O X a m M O .-1 O 1� O t+) O A25 Proposed FY 2012 $0 $0 $102,000 $1,000 $52,100 $58,400 $95,000 $205,500 19 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Administration Personal Services Regular Salaries (109- 182900 - 512100) ER 457 Contributions Reserve For Salary Adjustments (109 - 182900 - 519100) Social Security Matching (109 - 182900 - 521100) Retirement (109- 182900- 522700) Health Insurance (109 - 182900 - 523150) Life Insurance (109 - 182900 - 523160 Worker's Compensation (109 - 182900 - 524100) Total Personal Services: (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary. Operating Expenditures Other Contractual Services (109- 182900- 634999) Management Services: The Division retains a Contract Manager to assist in the daily operations of the Division. Total Yearly Fee: $75,360 34% Public Relations Services: These funds are allocated for periodic mailings to the community during the Fiscal Year, including assessment notice. Total Public Relations: $3,000 34% Landscape Architect: The Division retains the services of a Landscape Architect to assist in the review & recommendations for the Landscaping Program. Estimated Hours: Estimated Hourly Rate: N O W c th M O .-i O N O m i 0 60 $110.00 $25,700 $1,000 $6,600 $28,900 $0 $900 $2,300 $1,600 $8,700 $100 $100 $42,600 161 2 A25 $42,600 $34,300 20 Ln 0 a M M O .-1 O N O m i 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Miscellaneous Storage Contractor (109 - 182900- 639964) Telephone -Service Contracts (109 - 182900 - 641150) Covers the costs associated with the answering service. Answering Service Yearly Cost $1,300 Community Beautification Cost Dist.: 34% Telephone - Direct Line (109 - 182900 - 641400) Postage, Freight & Ups (109 - 182900- 641950) Rent - Buildings (109- 182900 - 644100) Sun Bank Building Rent: $1,000 Square Feet Cost: Area: Total: Rent: $27.72 1,039 $28,800 Maintenance: $0.00 1,039 $0 Total: $28,800 Community Beautification Cost Dist.: 34% Rent - Equipment (109 - 182900- 644600) This covers the Division's share of the cost to rent miscellaneous office equipment throughout the Year. Copier $4,500 Postage Meter $1,000 Total: $5,500 Community Beautification Cost Dist. (34 %) Insurance - General (109- 182900 - 645100) This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $500 Info Technology Automation Allocation (109 - 182601 - 634210) The Division costs are based on the number of employees for programs provided by the County's General Fund, and include SAP (financial accounting), Electronic Purchasing, Disaster Recovery, Network and Service Maintenance and Capital Allocation Expense. 161 2 A25 $800 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,800 $1,900 $500 $14,500 21 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Estimated Yearly Cost: $19,400 Community Beautification Cost Dist: 34% Printing & /or Binding - Outside Vendors (109 - 182900 - 647110) This covers the cost of mailings which occur during the year where outside vendors are required to assist due to the volume of the work involved. Estimated Yearly Cost $2,300 Copying Charges $300 Legal Advertising (109 - 182900- 649100) Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. (109- 182900 - 649030) To reimburse the Clerk of Courts for the costs associated with the recording of al l legal documents. Office Supplies - General (109- 182900 - 651110) Other Training & Educational Expenses (109 - 182900- 654360) Includes reimbursement for transportation, lodging and meal costs associated with travel for courses for technical training for the Division's maintenance services. Emergency Mntc. /Repairs (109 - 182900- 634805) Sub -Total Community Beautification Administration: W N O a a M M O .-i 0 O N O M O 161 2 A25" $2,600 $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $1,500 $7,400 $121,900 22 0 M M 0 0 0 M O Collier County $7,800 Pelican Bay Services Division $7,800 Operating Budget $7,800 Fiscal Year 2012 $39,200 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures Field Services Personal Services: Regular Salaries (109 - 182901 - 512100) $430,700 ER 457 Contributions $1,700 Overtime Salaries - (109- 182901 - 514100) $99,200 Reserve For Salary Adjustments - (109 - 182901 - 519100) $15,300 Reserve For Salary Attrition ($22,200) Social Security Matching (109 - 182901 - 521100) $41,900 Retirement (109-182901-522100) $29,200 Health Insurance (109- 182901 - 523150) $149,600 Life Insurance (109- 182901 - 523160) $1,200 Worker's Compensation Insurance (109 - 182901 - 524100) $38,500 Total Personal Services: $785,100 (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary. Information Technology Automation Allocation (l Other Contractual Services (109- 182901- 634999) Street Sweeping Estimated Weekly Sweepings - Boulevards Estimated Monthly Sweepings - Single Family Estimated Monthly Cost - Main Boulevards Estimated Monthly Cost - Single Family D9- 182901- 634210) 52 12 $360 $190 The street sweeping encompasses the main Boulevards on a weekly basis and single family communities and side streets on a monthly basis. Holiday Decorations These funds will be utilized for holiday decorations at the main entrances to the Pelican Bay Community. Tree Trimming (109 - 182901- 646319) Tree trimming and vine removal is performed on an annual and bi- annual basis depending on the types of trees and the Division uses the services of an outside contractor for a portion of this work. ROW Tree Trimming & Removal Lake Bank Tree Trimming Dodder Vine Sable Palms Misc. Stumps /Tree Removal Pest Control (109-182901-639966) $21,000 $8,500 Days /Qty Cost Each Total 5 $1,560 $7,800 5 $1,560 $7,800 5 $1,560 $7,800 2800 $14 $39,200 $1,000 $63,600 Racoon and bee removal services are performed on an as needed basis for the control of raccoons and bees, which present a hazard at Pelcian Bay facilities and Right of Way's. 161 $785,100 $0 $29,500 $63,600 $5,000 2 A25 23 co N 0 X N M M O ri .-I O N O M O Collier County 161 z A'25 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Temporary Labor (109 - 182901- 639967) For Fiscal Year 2012, it is proposed that the Division continue to utilize the services of temporary day laborers to assist in the maintenance of the Division's landscaping program. Additionally, the Division utilizes these services during the summer growing season, from May through October which provides an additional mowing crew. For Budget purposes, it is estimated that twenty (20) percent of the estimated time is at overtime rates. Estimated Hours: 16,825 Cost per Hour: (Regular Rate) $10.27 Cost per Hour: (Overtime Rate) $15.41 Total yearly fee: $190,100 Water Use Charges (109 - 182901- 634253) Landscape Materials (109- 182901- 646320) Median Landscaping Replacements $21,500 Each year the Division upgrades and replaces materials throughout the Community, in order to maintain a consistent high quality appearance. Annual Flower Program Total Months Unit Total Description on Line Acres Cost Area A 12 14 Estimated Monthly Use: Area B 12 7.16 156,000 gallons /acre. Area C 12 0.53 Bills are based on the Area D 12 0.99 following rate schedule: Area E 12 8.26 Commodity Charge: Area F 12 0.55 $0.85/1,000 gallons Area G 12 0.92 Minimum Monthly Service: Area H 12 0.44 $1,657 per month Area 1 12 5.46 Foundation Sites 12 n!a U.S. 41 Berm 12 5.27 Tram Pass 12 0.08 Total Acres: 43.66 Landscape Materials (109- 182901- 646320) Median Landscaping Replacements $21,500 Each year the Division upgrades and replaces materials throughout the Community, in order to maintain a consistent high quality appearance. Annual Flower Program Total Number of Unit Total Plant Quantity Plantings Price Cost Annuals 9,000 3 $0.73 $19,700 Potting Soil 45 3 $25.00 $3,400 Sub - total: $23,100 Sod Replacement: $8,500 $190,100 $89,900 $53,100 24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Cellular Telephone (109 - 182901- 641700) This covers the fees for Division's cellular phone service and equipment. Dumpster & Trash Fees (109- 182901 - 643300) This covers the fees for the dumpster that is utilized for trash disposal at the maintenance facility. In addition, a horticulture dumpster is utilized for the disposal of landscape and aquatic debris. Description Quantity Unit Cost Total 45 Yard Trash Container 65 $300 $19,500 Trash Dumpster 12 $270 $3,200 $22,700 Community Beautification Cost Distribution: 75% Insurance -General (109 - 182901- 645100) This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. Employee Uniforms (109 - 182901- 652130) Insurance (Vehicles) (109 - 182901- 645260) Description Quantity Each Cost Vehicles (2) 2012 Flat Bed Trucks 2 $1,104 $2,208 2007 Ford Ranger Ext. 4x4 1 $966 $966 2008 Ford 150 1/2 Ton P/U Ext. 1 $966 $966 2008 Ford 150 1/2 Ton P/U Ext. 1 $966 $966 2009 3/4 Ton Chev Pick -up 1 $966 $966 Tandem Trailers (2) 2 $50 $100 2010 1/2 Ton Ford Ext. 4x4 1 $966 $966 2011 3/4 Ton Ford Ext. P/U 1 $966 $966 2004 1/2 Ton Util. Vehicle 1 $966 $966 2012 3/4 Ton Util. Vehicle 1 $966 $966 Sub - total: $10,000 Insurance for all County Vehicles is handled through the County's Master Policy. Bldg. Repair /Mntc. (109- 182901 - 646110) Mntc. Facility periodic repair and maintenance Community Beautification Allocation is Fertilizer, Pesticides, and Chemicals (109- 182901 - 652310) Fertilizer ca ° Pesticides, Herbicides & Fungicides X a LO M M Sprinkler System Maintenance (109- 182901- 646311) Electricity (109 - 182901- 643100) M 0 $5,000 34% $45,000 $17,000 Sub - total: $62,000 161 $3,200 $17,000 $8,800 $9,400 $10,000 $1,700 $62,000 $30,000 $3,400 2 A25 25 0 M 0 a L0 0 0 0 M O Collier County 16 1 12 A25 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Mulch Requirements (109-182901-646314) $800 Beach Cleaning Permits from Collier County $46,000 Area Square Feet Unit Price Yearly Appi. Total Section "A" 152,313 $2.80 3 $13,468 Section "B" 78,000 $2.80 3 $6,897 Section "C" 5,688 $2.80 3 $503 Section "D" 10,688 $2.80 3 $945 Section "E" 90,000 $2.80 3 $7,958 Section "F" 6,000 $2.80 3 $531 Section "G" 10,000 $2.80 3 $884 Section "H" 4,750 $2.80 3 $420 Section "1" 59,500 $2.80 3 $5,261 Foundation 71,938 $2.80 3 $6,361 Tram Berm Road 1,875 $2.80 3 $166 U.S. 41 Benn 90,000 $2.80 1 $2,653 Sub - total: 580,750 $46,000 With the quantities of mulch required for Pelican Bay, the recommended method of purchase is by bale, and the estimated coverage rate per bale is ninety (95) sq. feet. Equipment Rental (109 - 182901- 644600) $2,500 Miscellaneous Rentals $2,500 Licenses and Permits (109 - 182901- 649010) $800 Beach Cleaning Permits from Collier County $250 Department of Environmental Protection Permits $250 Employee Pesticide Licenses $300 Total: $800 Repairs and Maintenance $92,700 The following are the cost's associated with operating and maintaining the following vehicles: Vehicles (2) 2012 Flat Bed Trucks 2007 Ford Ranger Ext. 4x4 2009 3/4 "Ton Chev Pick -up Tandem Trailers (2) 2010 1/2 Ton Ford Ext. 4x4 2011 3/4 Ton Ford Ext. P/U 2008 Ford 150 1/2 Ton P/U Ext. 2008 Ford 150 1/2 Ton P/U Ext. 2012 3/4 Ton Util. Vehicle 2004 1/2 Ton Util. Vehicle Mowers 52" Z.T.R. Mower 52" Mower 72" Z.T.R. Mower Miscellaneous Kubota All Terrain Veh 4x4 All Terrain Vehicles 26 a M M 0 0 0 M i 0 27 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Fleet Maintenance Motor Pool Rental (109- 182901- 640410) $300 Labor (109- 182901- 646430) $10,600 Parts (109 - 182901- 646440) $11,400 Fuel & Lubricants (109 - 182901- 652490) $67,200 Outside Vendors Parts (109- 182901- 646445) $1,000 Repairs & Maintenance (109- 182901- 646410) $100 Fuel & Lubricants (109 - 182901- 652410) $100 Other Equipment R &M (109 - 182901- 646970) This category covers the repairs & maintenance of all miscellaneous $2,000 equipment. Sub -Total Repairs & Maintenance $92,700 Road & Bike Path Repairs 109- 182901- 646381) $6,000 Repairs of the Oakmont Lake path. Minor Operating Supplies - (109- 182901 - 652910) $3,000 Miscellaneous Equipment Purchases Description Cost /Each Quantity Edger $325 2 $650 Blower $420 1 $420 Weedwhip $270 2 $540 Chain Saw $385 2 $770 Trimmer's $305 2 $610 Sub - total: $3,000 Other Operating Supplies - (109- 182901- 652990) $9,000 This is for minor equipment parts, landscape supplies, $9,000 building supplies, janitorial supplies and small tools. Landscape Incidentals (109 - 182901- 634990) $2,500 Personnel Safety Equipment (109- 182901- 652140) $3,000 This is used for safe vests, traffic control equipment, gloves and othe miscelanious safety equipment $800 Paint Supplies (109 - 182901- 652999) Paint and suppies for sign and building maintenance. $3,000 Traffic Signs (109 - 182901- 653710) Funds are budgeted for additional and replacement of signage when necessary within the Pelican Bay Rights of Way. $3,300 Emergency Mntc./Repairs (109 - 182901- 634805) 27 N 0 X M M O C, O CA 0 M I JI O Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Capital Outlay -Other Machinery & Eq. (109 - 182901- 764990) Office Equipment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Office Equipment 1 $3,000 $3,000 Office Furniture 0 $0 $0 Upgrade Computers 0 $0 $0 Notebook Computer 0 $0 $0 Telephone System 0 $0 $0 Total: $3,000 Community Beautification Cost Distribution: 34% Other Machinery & Equipment 0 0 $0 $0 Autos and Trucks (109-182901-764110-0) Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost (2) 2012 Flat Bed Trucks 2 $35,000 $70,000 2012 3/4 Ton Util. Vehicl 1 $32,000 $32,000 Total: $102,000 Each year the Division reserves funds for the replacement of certain equipment whose useful life has been reached. Therefore, the Division appropriates the expenditure for this replacement equipment, and also allocates a portion of the Division's Fund Balance to fund this Capital Outlay. Community Beautification Cost Allocation for Vehicles 100% Building Improvements (109 - 182901- 762200) it is proposed the following general improvements be made for Fiscal Year 2012. Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Maintenance Facility 1 $0 $0 Total Cost: $0 The Division's Operations Facility periodically requires repair and replacement and it is proposed that these funds be used for the maintenance of the facility as required. Community Beautification Cost Allocation: 34% 161 ? A25 $103,000 28 161 42 A251 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Community Beautification Operating Department Operating Expenditures (Continued) Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector (109 - 959050- 930700) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. $58,400 $58,400 The Tax Collector charges three (3) percent of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (109 - 959050- 930600) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. $52,100 $52,100 The Property Appraiser charges two (2) percent of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (109- 919010- 489900) The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law $95,000 $95,000 requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. Total Other Fees & Charges $205,500 Total Community Beautification Expenditures: $1,972,200 m m 0 n, m M 0 0 N O 0 29 1 f' Az5 61 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Revenue Projections: Carryforward Interest Income Ad valorem Tax Levy Appropriation Projections Administrative Appropriations Personal Services Regular Salaries ER 457 Contribution Reserve For Salary Adjustments Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Workers Compensation Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & Ups Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Direct Client Services - I.T. Office Supplies - General Other Operating Supplies Additional - Public Relation co co 0 x a 10 m 0 0 0 0 ca o m 0 Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Fund Summary ($155,300) $4,500 $436,800 Total Available Funds: $286,000 $28,000 $0 $1,000 $2,300 $1,500 $8,400 $100 $100 Total Personal Services: $41,400 $5,300 $26,900 $800 $400 $3,500 $2,000 $9,500 $1,800 $300 $0 $800 $1,000 $0 Total Operating Appropriations: $52,300 'tul M 0 f a m M 0 0 CJ O M O 161 201 A251 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Fund Summary Field Services: Personal Services Regular Salaries $40,500 ER 457 Contributions $200 Reserve For Salary Adjustments $1,400 Overtime $4,000 Social Security Matching $3,500 Retirement $2,600 Health Insurance $9,300 Life Insurance $100 Worker's Compensation $900 Total Personal Services: $62,500 Engineering $0 Electrical Contractors $7,300 Other Contractual Services $800 Electricity $44,200 Cellular Telephones $500 Insurance - General $800 Insurance - Vehicles $900 Bldg. Repairs /Mnte. $1,700 Repairs and Maintenance $5,700 Light, Bulb, Ballast $12,400 Personnel Safety Equipment $500 Additional- F.lectricl Repair Service & Parts $9,600 Total Field Operating Expenditures: $84,400 Capital Outlay $1,000 Total Capital Outlay: $1,000 Total Field Expenditures: $147,900 Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector $13,500 Property Appraiser $8,900 Revenue Reserve $22,000 Total Other Fees & Charges: $44,400 Total Street Lighting Expenditures: $286,000 31 161 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 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 Alk Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Additional - Public Relation Sub - total: Total Administrative: ID M O ID M M O rl O f•J 0 M 0 201 A254 32 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 $436,800 $4,600 $1,623 $1,200 $493 $700 $1,193 $4,500 $0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0 $0 $ d $169,800 $0 $0 $0 ($155,300) $290,300 $277,592 1 $444,200 $245,914 $17,700 $263,614 $286,000 $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 $1,000 $2,141 $2,082 $2,140 $850 $1,290 $2,140 $2,300 $3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,230 $1,770 $3,000 $1,500 $200 $20 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $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 $41,400 $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 $93,700 32 M 0 a, M M 0 0 ca 0 M I O V 161 2 A25, Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub - total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance Bldg. Repairs/Mme. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repaii Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Additional- Electricl Repair Servi Sub - total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub- total: Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub- total: Total Other Fees & Charge! Total Appropriations: 33 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 $1,400 $3,412 $3,223 $3,400 $1,300 $2,000 $3,300 $3,500 $4,664 $4,542 $5,300 $2,100 $2,600 $4,700 $2,600 $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 $62,500 $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 1 $1.41,565 $56,240 $73,675 $129,915 1 $146,900 $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 $13,500 $5,800 $1,140 $5,500 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $8,900 $15,000 $0 $14,400 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 $29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $1,500 $6,400 $44,400 $29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $1,500 $6,400 $44,400 $291,762 $199,086 1 $274,280 $100,760 $121,970 $222,730 $286,000 33 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 Carryfonvard $2,200 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $54,884 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2011) $73,100 Addition to Capital Reserve $155,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $228,100 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10!01 /11) $27,500 Fiscal Year 2012 Additions $2,500 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryfonvard $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $30,000 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $312,984 co M 0 a. M M O r-I 0 O C1 0 M 0 161 24, A25' 34 M O w M M O 0 O CV 0 M 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Administration: Personal Services Regular Salaries (778 - 182700 - 512100) $28,000 ER 457 Contributions $0 Reserve for Salary Adjustment (778 - 182700 - 519100) $1,000 Social Security Matching (778- 182700 - 521100) $2,300 Retirement (778- 182700 - 522700) $1,500 Health Insurance (778 - 182700 - 523150) $8,400 Life Insurance (778- 182700 - 523160 -0) $100 Worker's Compensation $100 Total Personal Services: $41,400 (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary. Operating Expenditures: Indirect Cost Reimbursements (778 - 182700- 634970) Transfers to County Manager's Agency for Administrative Services provided by Departments such as Human Resources and Purchasing. This fee is based on the Division's share of the services provided by the County General Fund. Other Contractual Services: (778 - 182700- 634999) Management Services: The Division retains a Contract Manager to assist in the daily operations of the Division. Total Yearly Fee: $75,360 Street Lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Public Relations Services: These funds are allocated for periodic mailings to the community during the Fiscal Year. Total Public Relations: $3,000 Street Lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Miscellaneous $1,000 Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts (778- 182700 - 641150) Covers the costs associated with the answering service. 161 $41,400 $5,300 $26,900 $24,900 $1,000 $1,000 $800 $400 �44 35 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Operating Expenses (Continued) Answering Service Yearly Cost $1,300 Street Lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Telephone - Direct Line (778 - 182700 - 641400) $3,500 Postage, Freight & Ups (778- 182700- 641950) $2,000 Rent - Buildings (778 - 182700 - 644100) $9,500 Sun Bank Building Rent: Square Feet Cost: Area: Total: Rent: $27.72 1,039 $28,800 Maintenance: $0.00 1,039 $0 Total: $28,800 Street lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Rent- Equipment (109-182700-644600) $1,800 This covers the Division's share of the cost to rent miscellaneous office equipment throughout the Year. Copier $4,500 Postage Meter $1,000 Total: $5,500 Street Lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Insurance - General (778 - 182700 - 645100) $300 This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. Info Technology Automation Allocation (109 - 182601- 634210) $0 The Division costs are based on the number of employees for programs provided by the County's General Fund, and include SAP (financial accounting), Electronic Purchasing, Disaster Recovery, Network and Service Maintenance. Estimated Yearly Cost: $19,400 Street Lighting Cost Distribution 33% Office Supplies - General (778 - 182700 -651 110) $800 Other Operating Supplies (778 - 182700- 652990) $1,000 Additional - Public Relations - White Goods(778- 182701- 634115) $0 0 c 0 a M M O .-i r-I O fJ 0 M I O 161 '2 A25 36 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services Personal Services $62,500 Regular Salaries (778 - 182701- 512100) $40,500 ER 457 Contributions $200 Reserve For Salary Adjustments $1,400 Overtime Salaries (778- 182701 - 514100) $4,000 Social Security Matching (778- 182701 - 521100) $3,500 Retirement (778 - 182701 - 522100) $2,600 Health Insurance (778 - 182701 - 523150) $9,300 Life Insurance (778- 182701- 523t60 -0) $100 Worker's Compensation $900 Total Personal Services: $62,500 (1) Health Insurance for the employees is partially paid for by the County. The Division's contribution for each employee for FY 2012 is $11,370 which represents 80% of the cost. Employees contribute 20 %. (2) Pension is provided through the Florida Retirement System at 11.80% of Base Salary. Operating Expenditures: Engineering (778-182701-631400) $0 Consists of the Engineer's review and recommendations for the Street Lighting facilities as requested from time to time by staff or the Advisory Board. Electrical Contractors (778 - 182701- 652992) $7,300 Electrician Services Hours Rate Total Estimated Repair Hours 110 $55 $6,100 Qty 4mount Eacl Total Single Family Electric Services 1 $1,200 $1,200 Other Contractual Services (778 - 182701- 634999) $800 Electricity (778- 182701 - 643100) $44,200 In 1980 Pelican Bay entered into an agreement with Florida Power & Light Company to provide electric service to the Street Lighting System, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Power & Light Company's Rate Schedule SI; 1. Cellular Telephone(778- 182701 - 641700) $500 This covers the fees for Division's cellular phone service and equipment. Insurance - General (778- 182701 - 645100) $800 This covers the Division's pro -rata share of the overall Collier County property & general liability insurance. 0 i w M M O ri .-i O Cl O M O 161 2 A25 37 N 0 a M M O .-1 O N O m i 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services: (Continued) Operating Expenditures: (Continued) 16! Insurance (Vehicles) (778 - 182701- 645260) $900 Description Cost Vehicles 2007 Bucket Truck $900 Sub- total: $900 The vehicle insurance for all Collier County vehicles is handled through the County's Master Insurance Policy. Bldg. Repair /Mntc. (778 - 182701- 646110) $1,700 Mntc. Facility periodic repair and maintenance: $5,000 Street Lighting Allocation is 33% Repairs and Maintenance $5,700 Following are the cost's associated with operating and maintaining the listed vehicles: 2007 Bucket Truck Fleet Maintenance Street Lighting System Labor (778- 182701 - 646430) $1,800 Parts (778 - 182701- 646440) $1,700 Fuel & Lubricants (778- 182701- 652490) $1,200 Outside Vendors Parts (778 - 182701- 646445) $800 Repairs & Maintenance (778 - 182701- 646970) $200 Fuel & Lubricants (778- 182701- 652410) $0 Sub -Total Repairs & Maintenance $5,700 Light, Bulb, Ballast (778 - 182701- 652993) $12,400 Personal Safety Equipment (778- 182701 - 652140) $500 Addit. Elect. Repair Service & Parts - Repairs & Maintenance (778-182701-6341 If $9,600 21 A251 38 Street Lighting System Number in Estimated Yearly Percentages Description Service Repairs Luminaires Poles 100 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 183 10% 1% Poles 183 1% 100 Watt Double Luminaires Lights 12 10% 1% Poles 6 1% 250 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 48 10% 1% Poles 48 1% 250 Watt Double Luminaires Lights 260 10% 1% Poles 130 1% 21 A251 38 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services: (Continued) Operating Expenditures: (Continued) Number in Estimated Yearly Percentages Description Service Repairs Luminaires Poles Sidewalk Post 218 10% 10,10 Sign Lights 6 10% 1% Column Lights 36 10% 1% Up- Lights 12 10% 1% Flag Pole Lights 2 10% 1% Estimated Unit Repair Costs Number in Bulbs, Fuses & Description Service Ballast Kits Luminaires Poles 100 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 183 $109.70 $550.00 Poles 183 $620.00 100 Watt Double luminaires Lights 12 $109.70 $550.00 Poles 6 $620.00 250 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 48 $119.85 $725.00 Poles 48 $780.00 250 Watt Double Luminaires Lights 260 $119.85 $725.00 Poles 130 $780.00 M 0 0 X a ID M M 0 0 CJ O o 161 2t A251 39 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services: (Continued) Operating Expenditures: (Continued) 0 E a, m ri 0 0 rt 0 M O 161 2 ' A251 40 Street Lighting System Estimated Unit Repair Costs Number in Bulbs, Fuses & Description Service Ballast Kits Luminaires Poles Sidewalk Post 218 $38.83 $420.00 Sign Lights 6 $69.50 $410.00 Column Lights 36 $61.25 $375.00 Up- Lights 12 $60.35 $360.00 Flag Pole Lights 2 $89.50 $750.00 Estimated Total Repair Costs Number in Bulbs, Fuses & Description Service Ballast Kits Luminaires Poles 100 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 183 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 Poles 183 $1,100.00 100 Watt Double Luminaires Lights 12 $100.00 $100.00 Poles 6 $0.00 250 Watt Single Luminaires Lights 48 $600.00 $300.00 Poles 48 $400.00 250 Watt Double Luminaires Lights 260 $3,100.00 $1,900.00 Poles 130 $1,000.00 Street Lighting System Estimated Total Repair Costs Number in Bulbs, Fuses & Description Service Ballast Kits Luminaires Poles Sidewalk Post 218 $800.00 $900.00 Sign lights 6 $0.00 $0.00 Column Lights 36 $200.00 $100.00 Up- Lights 12 $100.00 $0.00 Flag Pole Lights 2 $0.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous $7,000.00 Sub - total: $13,900 $4,300 $2 „500 0 E a, m ri 0 0 rt 0 M O 161 2 ' A251 40 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services: (Continued) Operating Expenditures: (Continued) Capital Outlay (778 - 182701- 764990) Office Equipment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Office Equipment 1 $3,000 $3,000 Office Furniture 0 $0 $0 Upgrade Computers 0 $0 $0 Notebook Computer 0 $0 $0 Telephone System 0 $0 $0 Total: $3,000 Street Lighting Cost Distribution: 33% Improvements General (778- 182701 - 763100) It is proposed the following general improvements be made for Fiscal Year 2012. Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Maintenance Facility 1 $0 $0 Total Cost: $0 The Division's Operations Facility periodically requires repair and replacement and it is proposed that these funds be used for the maintenance of the facility as required. Street Lighting Cost Allocation Maint. Facility: 33% L0 ID 0 a ID M M O 0 O N O M JI O $1,000 161 2 A254 41 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Field Services: (Continued) lol 2� A25 Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector (778 - 959050 - 930700) $13,500 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three (3) percent of the taxes collected. Property Appraiser (778- 959050- 930600) $8,900 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two (2) percent of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (778 - 919010- 489900) $22,000 The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. Total Other Fees & Charges $44,400 Total Street Lighting Appropriations: $286,000 ID C 0 a r M M 0 ID O O M a 42 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Transfer from TDC Transfers from Fund I I 1 Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Photo Processing Water Quality Testing Program Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve 0 a, r M M O O N O M 0 ill p A25 $0 $700 $0 $34,000 $ 127,100 Total Available Funds: $161,800 $111,600 $0 $7,500 $0 $29,000 $500 $0 $0 Total Operating Expenditures $148,600 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $3,900 $2,600 $6,700 Total Other Fees & Charges: $13,200 Total Appropriations: $161,800 43 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: Carryforw•ard Assessment Levy Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TUC 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 co Total Other Fees and Charges ° Total Appropriations X a, r M M O O N O M 0 161 2k 'A25 44 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 $127,100 $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 $34,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $611,300 $549,537 $372,600 $33,000 $37,877 $70,877 $161,800 $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 $5001 1 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $0 $170,000 $72,381 1 $246,600 $9,820 $181,600 $191,420 $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 F $154,300 $4,000 $150,300 $154,300 F_ $0 $3,200 $1,971 $1,100 $635 $465 $1,100 $3,900 $2,100 $1,535 $700 $0 $700 $700 $2,600 $5,400 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $6,700 $10,700 $3,506 $3,600 $635 $1,165 $1,800 $13,200 $248,200 F--sio-7,-687-11 $404,500 $14,455 $333,065 $347,520 $161,800 44 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 Carryfonvard $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 0 a r M M O rl .i O N O M O 161 2 A2F 45 O N 0 E a M M O rl rl O (J O M 0 161 2 A25 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) Requirement! 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 finding 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 winual monitoring of the established transeets 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 Bav 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. 46 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Engineering (320 - 183800- 631400- 511001) (Cont.) 161 2 A25 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 Requirements Available Required (320 - 183800- 634999 - 511001) 1 $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 $101500 Total $12,500 Bern 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. 0 i a, r M M O .-1 .-i O CJ O M O 47 N N 0 w r M M 0 0 N O M O Collier County 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. 161 2 A25 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Requirements Available Required Photo Processing (320 - 183800- 647210) $7,500 $0 $7,500 The annual cost for aerial photographs of the Clam Bay System used to assess vegetation conditions as part of the Biological Monitoring Program. Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Water Quality Testing Program Requirements Available Required (320 - 183800- 634255 - 511001) $0 $0 $0 A water quality program will be performed to monitor various parameters determining the nutrient loading of the Clam Bay System. This program includes the testing from eight locations, four along the Pelican Bay Berm and four within the Clam Bay System. Currently seven of these sample points are tested as part of the water quality testing for the Water Manage- ment System. The costs presented here are for the additional samples not presently collected in Upper Clam Bay. 48 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 $U 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 48 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 Minor Operating Equipment (320 - 183800 - 652910- 511001) Other Operating Supplies (320 - 183800- 652990 - 511001) Miscellaneous Supplies M 0 a r M M O .-i f-I O fJ O 0 Sub-Total: 161 2 p25 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 49 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: 161 2 A25 Other Fees and Charges: Tax Collector: (320 - 959050- 930700) $3,900 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three (3) percent of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (320- 959050- 930600) $2,600 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2 %) of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (320- 919010- 489900) $6.700 The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues, which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. Total Other Fees & Charges: $13,200 Total Appropriations: $161,800 0 a. r M M O .-i O C! O M I O 50 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carry forward $442,900 Interest Income $19,500 Assessment Levy $331,900 Total Available Funds: $794,300 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) Engineering $75,000 Other Contractual Services $549,700 Landscape Materials $0 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements 624,700 Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements 5,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (xxxxx) Traffic Signs Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Equivalent Residential Units Projected ERU Rate: Ln lo 0 a, m M M O ri O C7 O M 0 $50,000 Total Improvements 50,000 $10,300 $6,800 $17,500 Total Other Fees & Charges: $34,600 Total Appropriations: $794,300 7618.29 $43.57 51 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 Pr Carryfor- and Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape 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 Expenses N O d W M M O .-i .-I O N O m 0 161 2 A25 Renovations (500661) $0 $113,128 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $401,000 $2,332,383 $0 $26,800 $26,800 $549,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 $0 $401,000 $2,4451511 $0 $30,300 $30,300 $624,700 (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 $50,000 $401,000 $2,468,286 $0 $30,300 130,300 $759,700 52 Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed Budget A Amended E Expended M Mar. /Sept. R Received F FY 2012 FY 2011 B Budget Y Year -To -Date 2 2011 E Expended B Budget $121,600 $ $121,600 $ $110,360 $ $5,300 $ $115,660 $ $331,900 $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 2 $1 $794,300 52 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 Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Chgs. Total Appropriations 161 2 A25 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $87,060 $1,949,500 $407.800 $2,444,360 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Capital Outlay Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10/01111) $2,444,360 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 $436,500 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryfonvard $2.437.986 Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects /ProgramsTransfer to Carryfonvard $442,874 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 r- 0 0 w co m 0 0 0 N O 0 53 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 FY 2011 Year -To -Date 2010 Expended Budget $3,800 $2,200 $1,600 $3,800 $10,300 $2,500 $0 $2,200 $2,200 $6,800 $6,400 $0 $0 $0 $17,500 $12,700 $2,200 $3,800 $6,0001 $34,600 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $87,060 $1,949,500 $407.800 $2,444,360 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Capital Outlay Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10/01111) $2,444,360 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 $436,500 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryfonvard $2.437.986 Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects /ProgramsTransfer to Carryfonvard $442,874 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 r- 0 0 w co m 0 0 0 N O 0 53 161 Z A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Capital Projects - Irrigation Sytem, Community Landscaping Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) Engineering (322-183825-631400-50066) $75,000 These fees are being budgeted for engineering services as may be required for the implementation of the proposed community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Other Contractual Services (322 - 183825- 634999 - 50066) $549,700 These fees are for contractor services that would be required for the construction services required for the implementation of community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Landscape Materials (322 - 183825 - 646320- 50066) $0 Mulch Requirements (322 - 183825- 646314 - 50066) $0 Other Operating Supplies (322- 183825- 652990- 50066) $0 co N O a, m M m 0 0 N O N O 54 161 2 A25 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) These fees are for contractor services required for the installation of Erosion Barrier Tube for the enhancement of the water management system lake banks. Engineering (322-183825-631400-510261) Berm and Swale (322 - 183825 - 634251 - 510261) Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (XXXXXX) Funds are being budgeted for the renovation of the community enhanced ornamental traffic signage to be completed over a three year program.. Traffic Signs(322- 183825- 653710 - xxxxxx) Other Fees and Charges: Tax Collector: (322- 959050- 930700) $10,300 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three percent (3 %) of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (322- 959050- 930600) $6,800 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2:'0) of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (322-919010-489900) $17,500 The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues, which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. $0 $85,000 $50,000 Total Other Fees & Charges: $34,600 Total Appropriations: $794,300 s U� 0 a, OD m r) 0 0 CJ O m 0 55 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c a o 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 't N Co Co ..r 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 •rn N t- ON %o kn of d Q h N w O r, 4 N �t �D O a, vi N 04 `A O 1-11 M r4 cc Cco L o � 64 64 69 64 69 69 64 69 69 69 69 64 64 64 %0 C O C G4 'a N N N � v 00 00o V Ln A., 0 p Cl 0 161 2 O 0 E a+ 0. LL e H O 4 L aj d u � w ^ d O GL VJ L" C G O F., e d L L U o �o o N L R y LL 'w O v E cl f-^ cl a C o ^ H v O a O o F w S A25 co LO 090 Wd 8£:£0 TTO�7-0£ -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c a o 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 't N Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 %,D 1�0 It O '- ! N O M �.D 't N t- ON %o kn 00 t'- C-• to O M r'.; n h h o0 AO O r, 4 N �t �D O a, vi N 04 -n O 1-11 M = I'D M M M L big 69 64 64 69 64 69 69 64 69 69 69 69 64 64 64 %0 C O f" R a N N N � 00 00o O Oooc>o00o00 0 p Cl 0 O o o d9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111; n n � 00 o r< t < n O N M M U '2 Cd O1 2 't7 "T M 'Y N N N kn p 64 69 64 60) 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 64 64 iii � a+ O >, E .0 � O cJ O o E �± Q a 0 :Lam, a� a � Q CC C O f+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 u M M M O IY 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 O 69 69 64 64 69 69 69 69 64 (/a 69 64 O p N M 00 69 64 GS 69 6> a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L M M M a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD o O 64 Cl C) 69 64 64 69 64 69 69 69 64 64 0 E kn N O N 69 I O ca e L 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o CD 0 0 0 0 CD C 0 ,N p M M M O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +"' y � M M M N O u 3L a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 Cl 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 O N N oC �o 'lz� oo r^ r, � O N cn .-, c O 00 � O M 'c7 vi tl- rF O (71 in N O, N mot' M 00 \o M N N N a IT M N N N 64 (A 69 � 69 69 69 M } 64 64 GS 64 64 64 (R 64 6\9 LL 2 O 0 E a+ 0. LL e H O 4 L aj d u � w ^ d O GL VJ L" C G O F., e d L L U o �o o N L R y LL 'w O v E cl f-^ cl a C o ^ H v O a O o F w S A25 co LO 090 Wd 8£:£0 TTO�7-0£ -60 W) O It O O Ol 10 M 'IT 00 00 ON M C7\ M -• W) r- \.D O as M to 00 v1 +-� t- t- t- cY w Vl 't N �.. N �o 00 lD M h %,D 1�0 It O '- ! N O M �.D 't M p oo �0 O M � h t1 �o O tT to N O� fit" � in N It M 69 69 00 �o M 69 69 69 V' 69 N N N V' -t M 'ct' N N N G9 69 64 69 64 69 69 64 69 69 M 6O O N N N � cn a+ tm NO .�C N N •� Y tJ y y -p O o ac, U '2 Cd 2 •o u >, E .0 � O cJ O �± Q a 0 :Lam, a� a v 04wv CL C4LQ 7• -.L10 2 O 0 E a+ 0. LL e H O 4 L aj d u � w ^ d O GL VJ L" C G O F., e d L L U o �o o N L R y LL 'w O v E cl f-^ cl a C o ^ H v O a O o F w S A25 co LO 090 Wd 8£:£0 TTO�7-0£ -60 •J tU U > i v c 0 R N R 01 L O ra 161 2 A25 T90 Hid 8£ :£0 TTOZ -O£ -60 g m N n � N %t g R o � N a € z � x � i y °z 161 2 A25 dd �° O r o a tz Ro -05, io, m m z o o p y zo . pp G�p �yN ro ro �rorn 1! ro b b tz b �3� �" Wy O N N A �v fA G1 v Fj [q (A Vi f/J V1 V7 O of M VJ (A O G1 Gl C7 G7 z{D eJ,7H, 4� G7 47 G1 G7 � ny °NOC;y> D �yy rn rn m W cn rn m W cn Ia1 W ' Gi >< 47 47 y 47 G7 °: N Cn Oo N G7 • f[+I]y b aaaaaaaaaaa Hm wZp b 0 b b b b b b Y 41 Y ;y6v y� y v I 1 I i I I y I 1 I •'� m O D m e a e a e a e a e a d a d a e d e e Iyn a a a a � H O z b �t9r1�Fn ro b b ro b Aj O b b �r v 2S O'er AO ZS BLS O O G m ° O n v (Q1 lm 0 0 2 9 `w°yD " or y'�% y a vy "o --;Pp S O /L> I/ o n i D o � � i .j m m C7 " E H m x m +,�i .ytatl i ?aqa N mrIV 7 �u• trS �� -44- P� a N Sn �-I Oa •'U n M I�n z Iu' l m 3 = "yo j�ryyp�b � S �••� m e � � � m dd �° zy r o ol p y zo . pp G�p �yN ro ro �rorn 1! ro b b y ro b b ti O N N A �v fA G1 v Fj [q (A Vi f/J V1 V7 O of M VJ (A O G1 Gl C7 b z ) V ITI I O � I 00 CD oo O O cl, ��o`�OyW y Oy0 CD 0 F.1 C ci �i � W N CD Q CD \Y r b V 1 00 y Z�y x \.J zz d ol �' ro ro b ro ro b b y ro b b b cn [q (A Vi f/J V1 V7 Cp V1 VJ (A O G1 Gl C7 G7 4� G] 4� G7 47 G1 G7 � ny �yy rn rn m W cn rn m W cn co W ' Gi 47 47 47 47 G7 47 47 G1 47 G7 /-. f[+I]y b aaaaaaaaaaa b b b b b b b b b b Fp y e a e a e a e a e a d a d a e d e e a a a a b ro b b ro b b ro b b b �r v x \.J zz d s �g 0 P �R VIP yEp "�� "z Ri °x g As N �a �a qg R R g�gg It f ��� ��R N .i �Ro An'�• R' p! g'€ °� '�$ �'n 9" T$sF �6 F a> M z " > II K ° No PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY wESTSIDE - COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION RR ^' s R�+qa empFg�Y�� RR o$q z6�A'. �} b 3 S •::••• gwz m y "° URA NP TITEE: MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN & GENERAL NOTES R> RRRR� � R �L��R '�'fi � S =� �0��4 on�q" R " •A � Ag �R VIP yEp "�� "z Ri °x g As N �a �a qg R R g�gg It f ��� ��R ibi z. A 25" '> N b o w M z " > II K ° K PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY wESTSIDE - COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION CWENT NAPE: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 n ^zg �} b 3 S •::••• gwz m y "° URA NP TITEE: MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN & GENERAL NOTES � R �L��R '�'fi � S =� �0��4 on�q" R���$pR •A � Ag YM R U98� " R 4 A�R� 4 ibi z. A 25" '> N b o w M z " > II K ° K PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY wESTSIDE - COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION CWENT NAPE: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 e" r ° d86 8 �} b 3 S •::••• gwz m y URA NP TITEE: MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN & GENERAL NOTES 161 2 A251 1- SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET J -I V -° -`c- °------------ - - - - -- eo T II -- - � I 11 II I m I�I I L1 S I I I �? I _ z I I I 01 I I? I-r I I Z I A -< I I I mI II * ,�.f �O �t 6 ICJ I II I 4 N I IMP I I I 91 I I° wl I Q t 1 N w { }I re" I- @ t I I m f�ti 4 1 + k 69 low i +l H n Tvz 0 cu c9l I I I m m n G) 00 IIA om I fiZ'Z v p A I F I -I Z I D I 00 I I mp y l `9 u I I SJ 1 m I C I' B6� I I 8 = I � m6 � 2} mm lh 1•{Iv 1 �v }5'oB �jm zm �'m p AA, ^1 D O A 3noaa 3leniad 4=t. i I Z0L C D I AMEAp i I, 16� 1 z F O° o 1 33 y-D10 F7w 0p 1 I f? O. I v 7 3 i.vyo I til 7 /1 NO '1•Z I S I O N_ m 1yl AzsD I I A� ADZ NA s �oR DO T� N ym 608 yOZiA I 1 ~3D� IN IT n�0 I II z3o, N�'t ~J t S.O �x C �z I O I I 0'! z c o. °o m< y p 5 Z m I O DOti I A NOy� I wZ yf I <Or° r a m ay I Y + w 1 i >m ppj( I i i D C, W Z I I y tSYj.' x �i x ii g p 9S I I I s vi I �! f 1 o uzi iiiPPPyFFF lu1 x ° I 1 I -0- I i I I '0& mm I X1,6.^i Aye D°l� \ 1 ela o$ I 6� i �� ?c=am I `+ t soD nm 0 I O D A I a 1 I I aN z ' W Zm 9911 �W % I mX3 1 n D O vI 00' Ss +'c9 ' ,Z~1 Z O 3 0 �' T Z I 5 =Zf Fv- I y .>m = D N 0 m- 0 z I 8 11. -z- oN °v S I '/* �ti I N I I O m0 a i 41 Z I I.•.�r�,J J O XtlW L I ay �Am 0� I Is y Z0 I y gmk 1 I Io�m OZ I I 3 0 I vo I } I I 22 0 mm z Z gJ, 9O� = 1 (nI I DAO I I v IT o I I �' I �nD I I fir,. I Nr As 1-0 I} C A I N y� C,l myA I D O j Q m 0>0 > ; O °q ZZ Oa ------- °- °--- - - - - Zm - -A - .I � 1 m HaNava ,° h r - - -- -- - - -- •------------ J--- '` ° ° °` - ° °- 1 ° °- °-- ° ^ - - - -• SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET I o SEE SHEET 4 P—ECT NAME: ° > 2.8 -29 -11 AHJIIST PATH AWGNI W @ 11EHT ROII LNE m M CIIENT NAYH: 8:'C YB IP 6 °� - i :i:::i: s H. °HANHHR �N PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY F,° sa = a n €a =. �e' ° m m WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAYS Y w .� s .. NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION alai, N ~+ o ? ,yam !•1 x s = B °s o °° z m C 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 U.) �* SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 Y g GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (1) a 161 2 A25 � SEE SHEET 3 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET I '- I - 1 I oat' tip; I ---------- - - - - -- ----------- 1---- - - - -,- - - * - - - - -- I Iii ,;- o oz B a I 22 1 W I I I FNr i ~ m 0 D I 11 xjet ; 11 AZT I jA0 JC IOyAO 1 `\ Iyy A WI m IuL '� p I I o= LO'B + t Z tig F6 IR m %y_ 6D'y 0 d0. m � I I 'yUSZ 0z Ind 9J1} 9.01 d 0 1 AZ T a X00 0 b iO �y4 <m Nam `s yT O W N �F� S V \ I N �NTA am� I { D +�' a +BSe +�59 n A z m { �HHi 0J X Pmo I }Y. 9Ap ➢J D Z In�D V V 3Drj, ro c v A A m I pT vC) 1I 8i 3 > I I sm I I 6 A ItyI I , t(' rnV �Lx 88'L I tti �} }. V� S I I I I fL'LJh 008 1 Y'it s n 3 Z zcz IL6L -0 I I I m I s� (p I � I 0 I p n( (` ioni'1S) Z I I i o W 9� 9A1110 31VAlefd I W �I �� � G m `II I 1m II I o� W r- I mom AC) LL'L mwo I �' t ,,s �PA�D IO !!mm A I XbW OmO ;m 1 D U I I I I YZ Z' A m Z II S (➢Am<m I I NTm�r X $ I I Z N� N x 59 B x 1 i'B x I I 0AI 3 ° D AoA %099 .w p 60"B 1.09 I I Z O_I3 D3x ->> D 9} k 9Z B 1 u00 Z z c 3 ) 6 x t.B m I y m Ze TN3mw 4 I —zA �mZ Ff'Bx ; x m t bti D ocL 9 1 � ` J g +,�n� �� • e �� "1 IT ti °!S �3 I `�oa✓ I ' I°' I s I I 1 I I r 1. ° m �� o I I k ytiE I I z 0 I $ >ro� I I }! nml m m 'n Z o rnN 1 p Z Z 98'L XbW I WW I d� 6L'Bx CA 1 i��b�' ti1 ga/ I I nk- .7 D I BL d� a -d" I--------------------------------- ti - - -�- I------------ - - - - -L �...... - :---- - - - - -- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 5 m PROJECT NA E: CLIENT NAME: C `o' -- �--- -- p :;....... b > RE -29-: PELICAN BAY gr�� ° .E -2➢ -11 ADJUST PAIN ALIGNMENT k MEET ROM LINE, c cN � � � ® PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY � s �c � F. o - AO➢ BIOBARRDR O e WORTH - COMMONS TO SERVICES DIVISION m c � � � � � � m NORTH TRAM STATION CD = s = m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 m [Y� DRARINC TITLE: � � , m k m m SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 a I� GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2) R ' 161 2 A254 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 4 I ssB I r I f 1 i I- I I 1 I I II 3 '04 I ,� v +e OmmOD O i > 2 x 3mm <m m f(1 ° 1>6 3 y1. 1 I L d }.L F �'� ss N D3 I �91.I I 84 �J �Oti SS 3 3 mow to I I �y ) 8jv`T r1 A D I I i CF g J I I iBp9 6Z'8 T� V 0 05 E lo 4� (..'� i ❑ iii I yI (' _ ii K ii ii O p I I L3 L LLL 1 Z S y r y Ll ci Zm 9 Z z ta i O m > m x 6 I } mrW t 1 6 1 M. V ON > 0 v m 3 z LI LI II 0 ten. 0 1 �,9P; a 1 I 1 2! I I X59.- q4' -10 0 ❑^' m z I l -- m `A _ Zo° ° ' zaa I> mo oym I . a Z vo oy i O I Wmx I I y k�rl I ZZ'gIJII } i} { fi'; at o y<< �m o; > m9m m vpy I Im CA 18 c { i .1 SVIOHOIN �v °� v I { �I 2 !m �m 10 o 1,xv- ( m - m Om qG1N °AZ Si [b� 1 iA n A r N : I i S � 0 � _ I Z I I I mO m q } + } D A II I III', o A3 �mA om mm I A. oGjz I vo I � U y u o tim xv. It I I I 1 �I 84j 1 4 I � � 4 II i S m #N k m oP Y D m IIBgJ k Aih B, q6 m y PG '� Z O y H @gNJ6 I..... HYfl i. S I dJ o 4 UVA ....... .LI.. .... �........... ---- ------ - - - --- ° SEE SHEET 6 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET v, S m REVISION: R8 -I1 ADUST PAN ALIGNMENT & T R0 LNE, _ N m PRQECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CET NAME: G k N..M..MM. ARR RIGRARRE - O PELICAN BAY s y o NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION rm m URA NNG 7TH: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 i ' k SITE SIGN & STRIPING PAVING ' ' NAPLES, FL 34108 .P GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (3) g SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ---------h----------------+--------- I r o` o0 I / I / I I I I I I I I !° 61 y 6� 33m0m Z Q O 11 I Apo I'` q6 I ADAn I I I 9 N A I I TrrDO I I I D D O �O 11 I I Q� SEE SHEET 7 o n m v m Q y mm 0 m 8 v Fm F 161 2 A 25'� I I jj I s. w I 6Zg� I SI I t SI 1 II 1 V � % 1 W � I I l X2 'I 1 I ?I 5 III I � I � y i0 %03s 1 I I 16 ti�ti� s 1 t la a �1f1I II I I, t i -1 II I jl 5f or �FbL I II I ? j - $ I I 1 4 I I ? I I 1 I bFBI n I 9 'I. {II II 1 1 I I + � I%`1W II O I jl II . I II I �I I II I II Ir I 'I II III ,I I II I II Ij C, � P O 7 a O m y a' H'1flNd4 ` I II II IlZz II x I ' °p= ' Q I O�G1 W I II I II m II F2g� Iti� - - -`�- -1- ----- - - - - -- I - - - -- - SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET (b O CD�Tj m 30 �x D y m - �, z N DC 2 N y6 n ° SEE SHEET 5 S °N m y �' " ................... trs- ,r-- -�-- �'' ----• m PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO TRAM STATION 'u ENT ME: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 { : s $ S A➢D DIOBARR�R } DRA111NC TITLE: SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (4) I �I I � I Ijitl�EW ttt t ` X % 5 . m � y o v f i S j i � I I I II 3 I i } 1 } I ` I I 1 I I t j v < SI m -DI(D0X Zb & I 2 '0 N I 1 I I jj I s. w I 6Zg� I SI I t SI 1 II 1 V � % 1 W � I I l X2 'I 1 I ?I 5 III I � I � y i0 %03s 1 I I 16 ti�ti� s 1 t la a �1f1I II I I, t i -1 II I jl 5f or �FbL I II I ? j - $ I I 1 4 I I ? I I 1 I bFBI n I 9 'I. {II II 1 1 I I + � I%`1W II O I jl II . I II I �I I II I II Ir I 'I II III ,I I II I II Ij C, � P O 7 a O m y a' H'1flNd4 ` I II II IlZz II x I ' °p= ' Q I O�G1 W I II I II m II F2g� Iti� - - -`�- -1- ----- - - - - -- I - - - -- - SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET (b O CD�Tj m 30 �x D y m - �, z N DC 2 N y6 n ° CIi S °N m y �' " 4.8,28 -11 ADJUST PATH AWGNMENT & 1 T ROT LINE M 5 l+-I -a1 H b m PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO TRAM STATION 'u ENT ME: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 { : s $ R•y - � ;... : _ TNORTH C� a v e b s ° X A➢D DIOBARR�R DRA111NC TITLE: SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (4) 161 21 A25`' SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 6 .--- }--- ------------- - - - -- ----- _r----- I I NA ! i I` IOW ` 'Ti Fm 5 0 �o a08 908 <t> z 9 A a J I � fl9os mb qti I A I ZO° II O # 0 A m p m 9NA I Dy I m 5 5( 60 N A mDO I I 100 4°v,r0 O I 0 y N zcmim Oz I Iv IZ }Sr 9 fi t T m m �+ Iro � m ti 9m. c 5 m m +a'o (30V-ld 3ARia 31VARId m >_ I + > 26 V �Ba 9 g� i N °m m 2 m A `� < il� +as m mo Nmx IPI s, j 0m j i { N 66 I i �' t I r' yeI mss t b I J O�E_5 o � Qb I I I 1 1 I? a.Z 3 D 9� AKy3yopZA I I R9 at/ v°v 03 3XDD 141.9 �9+ 3AZ0 s 2309 T O 0 + K N + t O o A CA n m @ I 86 m X OF' m 0 D r mNA A °o s±sa "i Tao A I om I ( 54 �Xa ys0 C. O SS I} �AO I I G r l 111 °� gl AO D I 140$ I }1� I\ j c) o N I omv � N T D A aw I :eCS� a o ,y e I I,5 4m g e 9 OZO I XZ D Z 1 � a y z m v { A v { JJ} 9 --1 (Dn X_ I I I 4 098 I7 4� am 4v w v�� z I Imo" o 0 o m y m c m O m �p N 0 Z o I L 1 Am mm Z c, ,L6L }96 1 't O O D " IF SYk 6 Lt' S I � tS9i6 I � � �' a G h~1 N O 7 a� dW J 9 1 H w OP I a do N z I 1 +950 H�eava I 0 if ----- --- - ----- -- i_ -_ - - -_ 1 y-- _- -___ -• a -t 0 N , e,;g - - - -- -------------------- SEE SHEET 8 7- r------ .- r- - -� - -- �' � om SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET E b a a REVIRION: m PROJECT NAY¢: e G n R, R.N -29 -I1 ADJDGT PATH ALIGNMENT & 11ESf Rml LNE, z m < CLIENT NAYS: C KEy •Y'•- •- �' PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY �_a ^ . m °0 °' . 0 e o K WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAYY �s : R u NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION DRAINNC TITLE: z g o e C X! 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 a k SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108' GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (5) $ ; 161 2' A251 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 7 --------- - - ------ - -- ---------- - - - - -- ----------------- r1 - - - - -- ... ; ; --------- s,'a n4�z w I s �+ y I CZ H} I (S381INV ,4 dVO) I I I 3A1234 31VAl23d �m�ta o I F t lkd m :10 W x m I d E✓ \ i° i ❑ m m� I Z �i 65 m a O p -ut_'W 1- 2 n SO6x p y ! 11 �ZO } + SeR �2 5 I/ I} ey z I!`k 9 I m x + O 9 ony �y�Lf'8 I I m > AzO AO PAZ 1 ❑' r !A To I I I S 3A0 7 �m0 ww m II I i �Oo 1 z0 a V 6 W I I 1 Sz O A O 6L'9j! fmn p o i o i ! p D P 0Np t7 I S I rS = a m p0 - b Z z I mNp I I } T y p I r o ; O 11T r N Z6'9 I I _ r o D O m D 5 I J IBS r t m Ay I I II `Z Z +m K98'9 ZO 6`.- R2a'6 I I� J9 606 �' 4X N A n D Z AOQ 3 I�sS, 04 IAV+ IN O' t7V A $ ! i �I S ' z ym2P S 1 O o N o mCl� m D D�D�` D O n I 2 1 I y ti x 3 0 I v `l9'6 a 5)c- >K O jE I I 1 �Ilecx ? i 6£'64 i d £ Ap <y�pyw 94'6 00'OlX Z6 b' mxtn< I I. j 4 gZ'6 X93 N s I �y 9Z 6' s e � I I Zvi I 9Z fiat i d IBJ ��'�I 0�y i98x I i bbl �W O£6S i 9 5 JS G "6 i 1 m-A 3p0 S. f > I I O O I 1 VDi X 546 I Dntm I � ?4 0 V C7 64'6 I'4 I I � I I Aso �sl�k m z I le p) y 6 w �imn 0g+ m A w m I I 6Z6 916fx,r }I I I r'l✓ '° � S(I I I I ) rA� - I m I I zG1m Iu > I Z I I IS 2 I 9Z'6}k � MvZ "6 I I ifs I t ' t 8Z6;� i I C I Y� + a 6 r }+ ++ #w `O � LS 6 Q I I { I�>p i 7 C I ; 4i o O I A N 0, - ' 'f - } - ` � l ` m 0 m � ✓/ r 6 994 y f N3 6} + o w v s ate, ad0 e I Q s0 o SEE SHEET 9 a k. S EE BOTTOM W VIE THIS SHEET Ui REVISIOrv: o m PAiR ALIGNMENT &TEST CO +.D -29 -11 ADIOSI ROT LNE, � ADD BIOBARR®t �� n PR PIECT NAPE: z PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CIIENT NAYS: G, S 6 s 0."a ......... p ^ g� m . - 0 10 - ° o m ? � N m ® WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY Y �� s o ° = o NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION ° LA °s w ' II m m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 a k 00 R SITE SIGN & STRIPING PAVING NAPLES, FL 34108 e a GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) a 161 2' A251 SEE SHEET 8 _ - -_ --- --------- r 0 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ------------------ I. *e �' I 0 ' %`0+ ei-•LbB '1'00 Iyy I�g l I II I mng I i ¢ "oIl I I I i I� I i Ui I II i� ,0 I II 69'L ticvw t£'e} £9'C �oti0 %z SLe 6Z'Bx �t �a w I m of W Z ° `� Ile � m 1 I yO 9� tg °,�� N T► I �1 ETC i A yy �.E9fiB L9'9 .m —F ��Cm I ll6 E m Q m w 44.g N m O1 I Anx � (m� � w�. =pmm i I I ro wmy o-syl I i � . I I OA�B 23OtN32J) o I t 0 3ARIO 31VAII]d / A b I � 0 (13YlHd�1 '1S) 0 0m��9f 3AN0 31`dAl?Jd ° 6 1 v49 Zl'6 S0 I a d a�� t #�9 x I z0 `i m mx � $mt �c mm I N�tBt -+– 'x8.77 T � � i�r I %gym o m I =op m m w a fee, HOV38 x M. N w Qe6' m I e �sy fYl m F3 V1',! /JJJ ONm8 O m C I' 49'9 Z 0 N W P9Lr" IBZp 1 v 3�� p O > Om I A N %2 0nz I m A>-I 1 SIc 0J zk n3 '!� w 33�N 0- C I I b � T_ I _ 3 NN I Z,) cm0 £j.B w < I xvw 3 I I c� go 0, ❑m I 0� N p 4 a I II� II II a IL 1fis o 0 0 m N a n m ==vim I L mZ �9 Z R. i N I rZ x V-i G) �ZAO = mo N %Z I I I o�m G5 z I I II II 0 1 I.� II I I I I I 'LVw I i Oti9� 1 0 l a I e o; vg li } $� ti I•iT. J ¢ 0 P y ,o's O fJ V+ v OC p I O S xm < D a m m m I I nix m o _ 1 m � I ` 10 e N�B„r� ...- .- .. -. - rl- - -• - -- ------ - - .. - - -- - --------- SEE SHEET 10 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET a m y a REVIBIDN: .B -BB -]I ... PAIN ALIGNYENT k NBS'I RON LINE. ADD BIDBANR®t S a0 0 0 M PRWECT NAPE: 1 �i� � � PELICAN BAY CLIENT NAY.: BOULEVARD PATHWAYg;� o ......... • -0 g� y u ••••� •• 4. c m �" _ ® WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY e. ®` pyG7� x=86 b y NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION B 8 `' a B m m DRANING TITLE: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 a ° o y SITE SIGN &STRIPING PAVING NAPLES, FL 34108 s 3' .46 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (7) 8 9 161 21 A251 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 9 -7 ------------------- 1- r,- ��- -, ----- * - -- ------- 1----------------- - r - - - - -- - -T - -- f a I 9 p � ' 1 I + 0� { I I l rrll N I I i ( V I � -�t'•6 x w I? 0 I t .1m3120 yA0 uZfJA U +,ym� �°rm 1 wm i p 0°v ANma 00 � is ism ��h ti� o� h3VHdVU '1S) 6 6 R@ o 3AR14 31VAR1d M nA `I o m ° r { y zL %m ' m m m5° q I >.L yO I •�._i�Jj Gi(- 8.29 N� A S I °Z I - +, -N _. __ _ OA w C m p 2 9 / A V A N xtlW ° r m / /i lB'Dl x m m a m S } t %Z bb' @>k 9b�1 IeOp R+ $ 0y +�• N 44q 9�"� m DZ'8 m . �' 9 > 8'F""�'1'. �O y SeL� SI in X� 0~e ��g`@ �mz w t9� e .FF'9 0 • S 0� tieyC S@ 1 ob 9 Z a ^\9� m i .9 .Na m2 � 3 Z m 1 9 2 m° A V 1ti W 6 4 >nm 3 i3 O m C A A p o ti ml7m mm 2 AOa3r O mX �O AArn Ay �Z NP',lrmnl I 1 <b vD3 n m mA ~ °* m mm3 �y i i zoyix yo ms >< m 2I < o�V1 -20' "' f�py M.l�D� m00 BBZ )}j f ao S3c FD0fm m tl ..3NDN '� t C lom I O {I A Z (OaVN0803 V-1-11A) o ° I I ; tl 3AINCI 31VARld + arm mm AO I m SDP �i ! \, j � y �+ o µ _ -xO 647 �A T D O° ai roZ°m i a y I 1 �- m o z o`la m vi 9l'8 Po 3 AcAM W m m c m 60 � I � 1 8£'8 ¢ m Z ° I 919 i r4 m z 0 ti Z Q. > p ° v I �. �I! m �8 0> I° ON $� Zr Ni I ( 05 D �3yON 1 rtI O X X m 9 N I I 1 11� )Z¢I ) � amt m,fJO I %VW .: I _ ..... ...._ ...... I mop AZO I 1 S 3 ti A zOm I S J ilk I Im O I B ZZ1 O ti ZOy I mjp I.69 27 zom \ >mm .mA y y I I ¢ I C A O ib T D 0 I mDA z m £0'B >S� I 1 y Z o t i +I 149 �D A° FO'B y I I I 141y \'La 0' GZ 0 ZZ 8 S I54 y s I V I y0 1 I _ .m x .52 1 y m -M I i! s M,mo I A = > (V11398VW IV 3AO3 3H1) 1 I m Z A ° ° �sT Imo =�° 3AIma 31`dAlad I pro I AOX 'I G°m- m 0 -' xm A �°m I H, > M. Z m ro m % A I I 47 7. "'j65 p E' '� C. 1 y m-II % V s I y r D A I I I +.n..- II N r ` 96'L {!•'yI �} x1,7 - --------- - - • - - -� ------ •- --~ - - - - -• ° I I I � z I ` tl R N3Nti�0 ° I / .0+ I 1 }I y I1� - -- -• - - - - - -- - -- • � -I a- '.aZr - -- SEE SHEET 11 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET •p ro a - t0 a t REVISION: e o > Pf � �� � M s y PROJECT NAPE: CLIENT NAIVE: _§ R• a a y :.piiiiii .l'D -R9 -11 ADJUST PAIR —NNENT k HEST ROT LINE, ADD RIDDARR�R - (/j .I m o" d PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY COMMONS PELICAN BAYp e ; Y O tri y o m WESTSIDE - TO NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION I a ° ° • z o QQ Y w m n m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 a DRARING TITLE: c SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 .P O GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (8) a a 161 Z A251 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 11 ------------------ -------- -�__T, ---- r- - - - - -- I -------- I - - - -TI ",��` 't- - -* ---------------- ' I + I � f � I k y I t lZ@ I i1 mOD la+b<n IP 6'1 }�P % l B�(I °o I -! B S os'L I D m m 1 p ti� m A ��I I yzm I Ixvw1 - -Diyx kZ6.9 TDO �D1 Z 3 o n ��� E ��c� 114p6 pmm >0 1b I t :ME > � Z N Z R p I Z I I I k I I I I I I 0 1 7 Z0, I I l y I o � q] I I � 1,1c � yNl l a I � �x W a l I Jll\ I + I -oz, m e I bg T' ? >J ro� I i II FB hl ��r o v I I t w bo'L� v u a o 0 11{{o / I� II SL'9x v$-�F (Oa3N31NOW) pDA Ww j N�p I 699k m y A =2m °0 I 3nRla 31t/nlbd I ^�� TIM x >m .I m° 0,0 M. I I z� N p m I Topsx O I '', I I I I I J B @9'( } 4 t U O S.L }I u 0 I 2� 8 x +e.'• -).. {� 0i j l I� I 5 II� I I I xI I I� �a.<� ybg� zp I $ mNm � f � = N I I I'. I I ZNm I I 2. o IlI Im .0 C S: I I "c II ,g0 I I I 7 I I I I 4 I I KL I < O O I I I I I i > A00 I'4>n;W i I T O bB'C 1 1 I }I I LS'Lx %L I m p 1 I` MOP> � N I t -D o Ip Or O p O p cvm I Ocwz � m m �mm <m i I II oo�z I mz3iF I 4 s�o o I. E-ZNx N °N i y p ZO m3a°oo I I I I I I Z 3- >m .I i 0�= M. Q I B.3 a w _ �I ijx I OF'B A 9 m I DZ O � D °pe I I m y Z o r SO@ j -M C. ° A mg m Z I D d 4 - 2 O C m , 8 I p t� D I $ p P mm `< _ ��� II D A D r3 I TDO I I S <<B.Ig y D Z ZN m ,9 ZO > I T M-0 > om- B71 p Dp r N i p_ ?I Npy m N l / I I I I I _ ill O m r0 S -o } OPeN° I # I i I p >T T m O �v i, I Np"O2Gy I I { z%z Z C)Oyp I ' i ;3mmm 00 !1 = 9 I, $N9D I m y Q I ` c yy O ✓ T j > j� m m N ° D D , 0 p � v I I f < I p I I I I II NImolIx TzSp; 9 I I I N B.0 g o Z 0 I } I O m N p F D �] o (gyp} I 6 im D p 4 I ` Y" 1 7 w prp � N � I I � i 7 (� O D N o-' � O I � I f � RrDI 1A \Ir b � v O �1 7l3 bJBNVA II 1 � SO �. Q BNd9 I I I � ', Q 1-------- z I ° II I ° - ..---- ---------- -I- - - -- - - -� SEE SHEET 13 --------------------- -- - - - -- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET am a y REVISIOrv: R.9 -28 -11 AD)USI PATH ALIGNMENT A 1lEST ROIL LINE, S > A A H m , y n PRQIECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CLIENT NAME: ff 5 e +e G 'S g5 ^- qq y B d: : ::: : : :: :: �R HIaRARR�R O rn r m c m c �� ° WESTSIDE- COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY ;Fiq :Q mj07 , NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION �-6 Aso °z m ORA�I�NG TITLE: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 N GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (10) 'E a 161 A25 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ---- rise _ ____ ___ ----- v z� I---------- SEE SHEET 12 � - -A o-- _ - -� -I- _ -T •7 --- - - - - -- • I N� 4eI Ike ti+ •,y I.� NN II 4 0 C9, By9 L I I� f I II I '• gg f g \ I UR`g` I I IP p g9) Sgt I ° I I w r cc9 m 1 / /� \�/{\) / SB i . ' r r II I ♦I r t vl�4b ro 9 x/ o I ArA yo I I Eby v A I SL'G dy v -1 O O y I I 1 . \iw I N I y p at 7.75 I m�A I I + Jg2 �m I mi S �3 � O 1 I I yy I + I � I i L m I DBL L b x Y4 m n I I i (OH3N31NOW) Bs& Y9'8 I A I S I f A o = 81 I 3n111a 31` AINd k A I I r �� N I 9° I I •� m I II s �01 ,k NI I CJ I I I I i p00�D Z. N m �� I I I I d +,' p ~p� I I ° Sm I I i $m y Ac 0 II I 19p 7J a�:eoz tr? tgm 0 5'0m Il �I III zoo 0W yN0(Np� fib~ S mO C �yr N N < II I I IIfw1. IN I I } � I I 9LL I I I I I I 11 I I I II {� 9191IQA 9.0 m I I m Cf I x % t l kl nyn m ` N� � I ;` m 9•g v9 y Z. Z. N o ss d a I 1 II r QQ a; I I I I SC mI. �ccooX x m �� NA L L= 9 1 6 F m o k a �1 F, I � -1z o II z �y� c o0 ov II` I � I I I I ❑O ❑EE -mm 1 1 In i°� O w N of mo o I �9L ``*A� x oDo Y vn {� o o sAm I Ild�s I w 1 I -o �9 Y •[L\ �m [f "9x' pq Imo. bti l'1 OI.B \} q4L �\ .:: l 757 7,57 o 1 1 I , O I I Vol I I v �� L g 7Bf 7 j q X47 9/ Jj I I I I O m O A l I I I T A z O y_ L9Lx � ��L +r C1 I N C• !Z LYg I I I I I I II O p y> I �XtlW I 01 0 I I %Z I �p OD I I CG to 2 Gl ➢ C O I/ om.m fLx o O? w i 5 `m m p ✓/�BNJ I I I I I mA I I I I D o IFm� 1 C7 Z c� Q o � 9� L .,•. _ A 36 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET > S M mN R x y � c z PRDIECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CLIENT NAME: PELICAN BAY C s �__ §E �� B^ z � - �•N -���• 29-1, R.e -29 -11 ADIUST PATH ALIGNNBNT 6 11L+4T RDII LINL �D HIDI� o y o c W� e K WESTSIDE - COMMONS TOYEy > G7> z - �' c y a = z NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION =86 g�az m c DRARNC TITLE: c v s m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 $ I SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 w GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (11) 111 161 2 A25 CIS - mxa nl n :� y ; � `�' x° \, °m�.• � �' � � —III d y o °o mo % m m D III mom m o; Z x�n °zz a N y m —gyp i ___ —' _fA C •B n� ti m° mX D py D I I � p %�\ \��S /\ \�j O 0000 Im �mm a x w- i\\ \ W ♦I A°a A� I I mN N mp X D \ D m Oyu amp;= ;m Zvi o I ° iy f °> Z Az� o m ° ° 0o N >g o m= o a D o ao� o m 2o. m g8m D yom i0 W� A i0 G W VO r ° 4 N �� � I � 5 0< m i 0< I f ' 1 I Ti '7' n <Jim. m Ir Arl .F4 ft Ilk Z Z o REVISION: s <Y b pROJECf NAYB: M y CLIBNT NAYB: 7H a'$� C^k�ii:�i::ii m x PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY �" ' 5 g ���•����� PELICAN BAY WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION QK m �• z m n> ORARWG TTIIE: a � 5 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 go �—• CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NAPLES, FL 34108 F � r ,1 `�yy � • . �� ,_ '�• µhomy �• ��0 8 um • Y v • (i K m � � +t —qr�{ - If4 � id � t `ice aa MMF 6 ! • �y • M • 1 y K Y Yr ro � r ,1 `�yy � • . �� ,_ '�• µhomy �• oCO.'Oq tea° '�• S. um • Y v • K m � � +t —qr�{ - If4 � id � t `ice aa MMF 6 ! • 16d t A254 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBERS, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. y� D �`s'"! �► � V �n 1 31 The agenda includes, but is not limited: AGENDA � 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval BY: ....................... 3. Approval of September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Project Status e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing i. Status Report ii. Bicycle Lane Survey (J. Chandler) f. Community Landscaping g. Monthly Financial Report h. Update on Health of Mangroves i. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach j. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Update 5. Chairman's Report a. Reconstitute and Appoint Members to the Clam Bay Committee b. Clam Bay Update c. Announcements 6. Committee Reports 7. Old Business 8. New Business 9. Audience Comments 10. Miscellaneous Correspondence 11. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 9/30/20119:30:38 AM From: Mike Levy To: ResnickLisa Subject: PBSD Financing for Re Date: Monday, September 26, 20114:54:47 PM Attachments: PBSD Financing for Re.dooc Hi Lisa, 161 2A,254 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments As you know, I will be traveling on October 5th, and not able to attend the PBSD Board Meeting. In the event the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard is part of the agenda, I have attached my thoughts on this matter. Thanks, Mike Levy PBSD Financing for Re- Paving Pelican Bay Boulevard We have been advised by the county that Pelican Bay Blvd is currently scheduled to be repaved during CY 2014. If Pelican Bay chooses to do it now (2012), two years before it is scheduled to be done, we would have to lend the county money for five years. We would be lending from funds currently reserved for the CIP, for something that is not, and never was, a part of our CIP plan. This, in turn, would complicate PBSD CIP implementation; and would most likely delay execution of CIP projects. Although Pelican Bay Boulevard is deficient in appearance, and some areas show early signs of deterioration; the roadway does, in my opinion, still provide a smooth, acceptable ride. To feel any irregularities while driving the Boulevard requires extreme concentration. For these reasons, I am in favor of leaving the repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard to be done on the county's schedule (2014), using normal county funds. Mike Levy Page 1 of 6 ResnickLisa 16 I w.2 A259 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular fession 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments Subject: 10/5/11 J. Chandler re: Pelican Bay Boulevard Bicycle Lane Survey From: John Chandler Sent: Thursday, September 22, 20112:11 PM To: ResnickLisa; Dave Trecker (ditrecker(&yahoo.com); Donna Cox (Donna. Cox(&waldorfastoria.com); Geoffrey S. Gibson (iosiegeoff(&aol.com); Hansen, Hunter H. ( Hunter. Hansen(aawaldorfastoria.com); Jim Powers (jim(abdmgfl.com); John Baron (jbaron(&watersideshogs.com); John Iaizzo (iaizzo(&comcast.net); John P. Chandler (johnchandler219(&gmail.com); Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas(aacomcast.net); LukaszKyle; Mary Anne Womble (Teedu0(@aol.com); McCaughtryMary; Mike Levy (mikelevv435(aaomail.com); Neil Dorrill (neil(&dmgfl.com); Susan O'Brien (naplessusanolcomcast.net); Tom Cravens (nfn16799CabnaDles.net) Cc: Dave Trecker; Geoffrey S. Gibson; John Baron; John Iaizzo; Keith J. Dallas; LevyMichael; Mary Anne Womble; Tom Cravens Subject: RE: Oct. 5 Agenda Requests? All Recipients, Please treat this as a one way communication. I think that "PBB Bike Lane Survey" needs to be on the 10/5 agenda. Someone needs to be assigned to spearhead this survey or its ultimate completion will drift and delay the resurfacing of the boulevard. I am willing to head up this effort. I don't have to be in Naples to do it. I envision that we will take this survey in conjunction with either the PBPOA or PBF (whichever organization has the most complete list of residents email addresses). I also think that it would be good to get an FGCU graduate student involved to help compile the results. My goal would be to have a draft survey ready for review by the Board at its 12/7 meeting. John Chandler PS -I will attend the November Board Meeting and future Board Meetings thru June. From: John Chandler Imai Ito: iohnchandler219@)Qmail.comI Sent: Thursday, September 15, 20119:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Bike Lane Survey Lisa, Please forward this to my fellow Board members as a one way communication. One of the facts that we should provide to our residents as part of a bike lane survey is the number of reported bike accidents that have occurred along Pelican Bay Blvd over the last five years along with a brief explanation of each accident. This will help respondents make a more informed decision as regards the need (or lack of need) for a bike lane. I looked into this issue a couple of years ago and found (a) very few reported accidents and (b) the majority of them occurred on the pathways (sidewalks) as autos exited their community with their vision obscured by landscaping. John Chandler Page 2 of 6 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board R I ular Ses 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments From: John Chandler To: Resnickl-isa Subject: FW: Bike Path Survey Date: Friday, May 06, 20114:22:28 PM Lisa, I meant to have you forward this email to all Board Members, yesterday. Instead, I selected the email just previous to this one. John Chandler From: John Chandler [mailto:jpcbac @comcast.net] 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 @dmgfl.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. I 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 6 Background 1 2 A25 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments 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 6 (N October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments ResnickLisa Subject: 10/5/11 J. Chandler re: PBB Resurfacing & Bicycle Lane Survey From: John Chandler fmai Ito: iohnchandler219 @omaiLcoml Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:59 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Resurfacing of Pelican Bay Blvd Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. I have just read John Vliet's 9/1 email to Neil Dorrill regarding the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Blvd. My comments are: -When I met with Nick Casalanguida, Neil Dorrill and Georgia Hiller regarding this issue, the concept was that the County would pay us back in full no later than the fiscal year that they would resurface PBB if the PBSD did not provide the financing. Spreading out repayment over several years after the County has the work scheduled was not discussed. There is no logic for the County's position. Perhaps it's a bargaining ploy. - Several months ago, I stressed the need for a well constructed survey of residents opinion about adding a four foot bike lane on each side of the boulevard and reducing each motor vehicle lane to ten feet in width. This survey needs to be expedited! Every month that it is delayed adds another month to the start of resurfacing. With the new crosswalks in place, the need for resurfacing of the roadway will become more obvious than it was last season. I predict that this winter we're going to start hearing a lot of residents ask "When are you going to resurface the boulevard ?" -It's hard for me to believe that there is a legal requirement for the PBF to advise the County as to its position on pavement striping. I suggest that we ask what statute requires this. John Chandler PS -Lisa, please republish my emails regarding the specific content and methodolgy of the bike path survey to all Board members. Page 5 of 6 0 0 a� 0 0 c•a M H 0 16 1� 4A 25 V1, October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4e - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments Neil Dorrill From: VlietJohn [JohnVliet @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20113:26 PM To: Neil Dorrill Cc: TeachScott; FederNorman; GossarclTravis; CasalanguidaNick; BurtchinMark; ChesneyBarbara Subject: RE: Pelican Bay advanced resurfacing Neil Mr. Scott Teach and I did meet yesterday and discussed the advanced resurfacing of Pelican Bay Blvd. He has advised that since this is more of a budget /finance issue that could go to the BCC via an Executive Summary. In order for he and I to accomplish getting that done we will need confirmation in writing from both Pelican Bay Services and the Foundation (HOA) agreeing to a specific pavement marking plan when the resurfacing is accomplished. This information is needed to assist us in estimating the cost of the project. We also discussed the upcoming Pelican Bay permit project for the multiple brick paver crosswalks you intend to install. If installed prior to the resurfacing project they will need to be covered during the resurfacing/construction project otherwise they will have emulsions tracked on them. We do not have a pay item in our contract to perform this task and it would be above and beyond the normal type of work we do when resurfacing a road so that would mean that Pelican Bay Services would be responsible for those additional costs. As you are aware we had planned to begin this project starting in Fiscal year 2014 and complete it during the following fiscal year provided our budget would allow. If Pelican Bay Services wish to have the resurfacing done sooner and wish to pay for the work prior to that we would start the payback in Fiscal year 2014. We would repay Pelican Bay services 25% of the total cost less the cost of covering brick pavers starting fiscal year 2014 and 25% each subsequent year until they have been fully reimbursed 100% excluding the added cost of covering/protecting the newly installed brick pavers. I realize you would like to have had something more on this to provide to your board members by this coming Tuesday however due to the backlog in the county Attorney's office and the upcoming holiday this will not be possible. I will need the pavement marking issue resolved and in writing from both parties before we can move forward on the E.S. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance or if you need any additional information at this time. From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Thursday, August 25, 20113:02 PM To: Neil Dorrill (neil@dmgfl.com) Cc: Viiet)ohn; TeachScott Subject: Pelican Bay advanced resurfacing Neil, John Vliet will be getting in touch with you soon to review the business points, confirm timing and discuss striping and crosswalks. Attorney Scott Teach will begin to draft the agreement after you speak to John. Thank you, Nick Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6 of 6 16I' 2A254 ResnickLisa Subject: Clam Pass Markers Permit From: KeyesPamela Sent: Monday, October 03, 20112:44 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: McAlpinGary Subject: RE: Clam Pass Permit Hello Lisa, All other permits have been submitted. I will keep you posted on when we hear back from the agencies. Thank you, Pamela From: KeyesPamela Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:35 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: McAlpinGary Subject: FW: Clam Pass Permit Hello Lisa, Please find attached a copy of the FWC permit. Please let me know if need anything else. Thank you, Pamela From: Moreau, Ryan fmai Ito: rvan.moreau(d)MvFWC.coml Sent: Monday, September 12, 20119:00 AM To: McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela Subject: Clam Pass Permit Gary/Pamela: Attached is a copy of your Clam Pass permit for information markers. A hardcopy will follow in the mail. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you and have a wonderful weekend! Ryan Moreau, Planner Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Law Enforcement Boating & Waterways Section Waterway Management Unit 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1600 850.617 -9547 Office 850.488 -9284 Fax Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Jommissioners Kathy Barco Chairwoman Jacksonville Kenneth W. Wdght Vice Chairman Winter Park Rodney Barreto Miami Ronald M. Bergeron Fort Lauderdale Richwd A. Corbett Tampa Dwight Stephenson Defray Beads Brian S. Yabtensid Tallahassee September 9, 2011 Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director Collier County Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 Naples, Florida 34412 161 A154 RE: Permittee: Collier County Permit g 11-020 Clam Pass/Bay Canoe and Information Markers, Collier County. Dear Mr. McAlpin: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) received your initial Florida Uniform Waterway Application on August 5, 2011, requesting permission to install ninety -five (95) information markers within the Clam Pass/Bay system. The FWC is authorized to issue this type of permit pursuant to Rule 68D- 23.101, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Based on the complete information submitted with your application, your request for a uniform waterway permit has been approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Permit is approved contingent upon the consent of and, if necessary, the issuance of appropriate permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Coast Guard. Jlvision )f Law 3. Permit provides for the placement of ninety -five (95) uniform waterway information markers _nforcement at the coordinate positions identified on both the map and in the application. Colonel Jim Brown+ Diwac r 4. Per your application a website address is to be included on your information markers. The (850) 48"251 presence of information on the website that is contrary to law or this permit is cause for (850) 921-6453 FAX revocation. Wildlife Alert 8x8-404 -3922 2. It is unlawful to place markers on private submerged lands or other property or structure not Executive Staff Nita Wiley owned by the person or governmental entity placing them without first receiving the written Executive Director consent of the owner of the submerged lands, other property, or structure as to the placement Greg stoles of the markers. A copy of such written consent, if required, must be provided to the FWC's Assistant Executive Director Boating and Waterways Section. (Pursuant to Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Karen via placement of any uniform waterway marker on state -owned submerged lands does not subject Deputy Chief of scan such lands to the lease requirements of Chapter 253, F.S.) Jlvision )f Law 3. Permit provides for the placement of ninety -five (95) uniform waterway information markers _nforcement at the coordinate positions identified on both the map and in the application. Colonel Jim Brown+ Diwac r 4. Per your application a website address is to be included on your information markers. The (850) 48"251 presence of information on the website that is contrary to law or this permit is cause for (850) 921-6453 FAX revocation. Wildlife Alert 8x8-404 -3922 5. Permit authorizes the placement of markers and does not authorize any invasion of private rights, grant any exclusive privileges, or obviate the necessity of complying with any other Managing fish and wildlife federal, state or local laws or regulations. resources for their long -term wen4ming and the benefit 6. All markers associated with this permit must be installed within a reasonable period of time. ofP"Oe. Upon completion of the installation of markers, the Permittee will notify this office in writing within 30 days. If the latitude and longitude of any marker installed is different from that s2o south Meridian screed listed in the application, a request for a permit amendment must be submitted. Such a request Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 must include the final "as- built" latitude and longitude in degrees and decimal minutes Voice: (850) 488 -4676 (referenced to the WGS -84 datum) for the markers installed. Meark►=//speech- impaired: (800) 955-BTTi (T) 7. Permittee must comply with the marker specifications and placement requirements detailed in (800) 95"770 M Rules 68D-23.106,68D-23.108 and 68D- 23.109, F.A.C. The permit number and, if Mr. Gary McAlpin Page 2 September 9, 2011 16P ?,' 254 applicable, reference to the regulatory instrument creating the restricted area must be displayed on each marker. These numbers and/or letters must be displayed in black block characters measuring at least one inch in height. Retroreflective materials must be used for all white background and international orange displays on markers. An example of authorized "Information" markers is enclosed as Attachment A. 8. Permittee must immediately report discrepancies of markers covered by this permit and make corrections to discrepancies within 30 days. Reports of discrepant markers and/or notice of corrective action completed will be made by calling FWC's Boating and Waterways Section at (850) 488 -5600. 9. Permittee must comply with Rule 68D- 23.110, F.A.C., which requires the inspection of all markers triennially, notification of completed inspection made to FWC within five (5) days, and maintenance of the inspection documentation. Failure to inspect and maintain documentation of the results of the marker inspection is grounds for rescinding the permit. Please be advised that FWC may request a copy of the inspection documentation at any time. 10. Permittee, by accepting this permit and placement of the uniform waterway markers, does hereby, to the extent authorized by law, agree and promise to hold harmless the State of Florida, its employees, agents or successors, from fault with respect to any claim or claims arising from alleged negligence in the placement, maintenance, operation and removal of any and all marker(s) placed pursuant to the permit. Permittee further agrees to indemnify the State of Florida for any and all legal fees and costs incurred in defense of any suit brought against the state as a result of alleged negligence by the Permittee in the placement, maintenance, operation, or removal of the uniform waterway marker(s). 11. Permittee must install, inspect, maintain, and remove all markers covered by this permit at its own expense and as directed by state law and these permit conditions. 12. Permittee shall comply with Rule 68D- 23.106(4), F.A.C., in the event of discontinuance or removal of any marker covered by this permit. 13. Failure to comply with the requirements or conditions of this permit shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. The FWC retains the right to modify or rescind this permit should information become available indicating the permitted activity is likely to create a serious threat to public safety or that the recipient does not need the permit (in its current form). If you have any questions regarding this permit or its applicability, please contact our office at (850) 488 -5600. A person whose substantial interests are affected by FWC's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. A person seeking a hearing on FWC's action shall file a petition for hearing with the agency within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision. The petition must contain the information and otherwise comply with Section 120.569, F.S., and the uniform rules of the Florida Division of Administration, Chapter 28 -106, F.A.C. Upon such notification, the Permittee shall cease all work authorized by this permit until the petition is resolved. The enclosed Explanation of Rights statement provides additional information as to the rights of parties whose substantial interests are or may be affected by this action. Mr. Gary McAlpin Page 3 September 9, 2011 Sincerely, / f Ryan Moreau, Planner Division of Law Enforcement Boating and Waterways Section Waterway Management Unit DG /rm Enclosures: Explanation of Rights Chapter 6813-23 FAC Attachment A — Marker Example 161 21 A251 161►•2A251 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS If your substantial interests are or will be determined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's action or proposed action stated in the accompanying notice, you may make any one of the following elections on the attached Election of Rights form and rile the form within twenty - one (2 1) days from the date you receive the notice of agency action or proposed action. If you so choose, please return the completed Election of Rights form with the enclosed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative code, or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code, to the address listed on the Election of Rights form. 1. If you wish to contest the agency action or proposed action, but do not dispute any of the issues of material fact set forth in the notice, you may request an informal proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In the event that your request for an informal proceeding is granted, you will be given the opportunity to either simply present a written statement challenging the grounds upon which the Commission has chosen to justify its action or inaction or present evidence in mitigation. Any request for an informal proceeding in this matter should be directed to the Commission by checking the space marked as I on the Election of Rights form and filing the completed and signed form with the Commission within twenty -one (21) days from the date of receipt of the notice. In making such a request. you must include with the completed and signed Election of Rights form either the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative code, or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code. 2. If you wish to contest the notice of agency action or proposed action and you dispute one or more of the issues of material fact as set forth in the notice, you may request a formal hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. If there is a disputed issue of material fact and your request is otherwise complete, an administrative law judge shall be furnished by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. A petition shall be dismissed if it fails to state disputed issues of material fact, it otherwise is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of 28- 106.201(2) FAC, or it has been untimely filed. Any request for a formal hearing in this matter should be directed to the Commission by checking the space marked as 2 on the Election of Rights form and riling the completed and signed form with the Commission within twenty -one (2 1) days from the date of receipt of the notice. In making such a request, you must include with the completed and signed Election of Rights form either the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative code, or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code. Failure to make any election in this matter, as provided above, within twenty -one (2 1) days from the date you received the notice, shall be considered a waiver of your rights to any administrative proceeding as provided in either t or 2, above. Mediation is not an available alternative with respect to this action or proposed action. S:\DLE\Boating and Waterways\Waterway Management\Permits\UWM Permits\Form Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc 161 12 A251 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ELECTION OF RIGHTS I have read the Explanation of Rights provided to me by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission) and understand my options. (You may select one of the options below and return this form to the Commission no later than twenty -one (21) days from the receipt of the notice of agency action or proposed action.) I . I do not dispute any of the issues of material fact in the notice of agency action or proposed action, but do wish to be accorded an informal proceeding, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. I understand that I may either submit a written statement or submit evidence in mitigation to the agency head or designated representative. I have attached the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative code, or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code. 2. I do dispute one or more issues of material fact in the notice of agency action or proposed action, I have attached the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative code, or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code, and I request a formal hearing, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, before an administrative law judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. I have read and understand the Election of Rights form and understand that I have the right to be represented by counsel or a qualified representative at an administrative proceeding. I also understand that I must attach a petition to this request if I have requested an informal proceeding or hearing. Please sign and state your current address and telephone number: Signature Date PRINT NAME The above indicated person is the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner, or the qualified representative of the Petitioner (Please check one). Petitioner's name and address Attorney or representative's name and address (if applicable) If applicable, please list the type of Permit /License applied for and the Permit/License Number Please mail form to: OI1-tce of General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399.1600 S:\DLE\Boating and Waterways \Waterway Management\ Permits \UWM PermitsWorm Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PETITION FOR ADMIMSTRATIVE PROCEEDING Compliance of Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative Code if requesting a proceeding, please complete this form or otherwise provide the information required by Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code on single sided 8 1/2" X I I" white paper and send to the following address along with the completed Election of Rights form: Office of Oeneral Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1600 1. Please list the name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known: 2. Please identify the petitioner (the individual or organization requesting the hearing): Name: Address: Phone number: 3. Please identify the petitioner's representative or counsel (if any): Name: Address: Phone number: [The address of petitioner's representative, if listed above, shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceedings] 4. Please explain how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the Commission's action or proposed action: 5. Please explain when and how the petitioner received notice of the Commission's action or proposed action: S:\DLE\Boating and Waterways \Waterway Management\Permits \UWM Permits\Form Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc 161 2 AC51 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PETITION FOR ADMIMSTRATIVE PROCEEDING Compliance of Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28 -106, Florida Administrative Code if requesting a proceeding, please complete this form or otherwise provide the information required by Chapter 28 -106, of the Florida Administrative code on single sided 8 1/2" X I I" white paper and send to the following address along with the completed Election of Rights form: Office of Oeneral Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1600 1. Please list the name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known: 2. Please identify the petitioner (the individual or organization requesting the hearing): Name: Address: Phone number: 3. Please identify the petitioner's representative or counsel (if any): Name: Address: Phone number: [The address of petitioner's representative, if listed above, shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceedings] 4. Please explain how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the Commission's action or proposed action: 5. Please explain when and how the petitioner received notice of the Commission's action or proposed action: S:\DLE\Boating and Waterways \Waterway Management\Permits \UWM Permits\Form Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc 161 1 4A251 6. Please indicate whether the petitioner disputes any material facts and, if so, state all disputed material facts: 7. Please concisely state the ultimate facts alleged, including a statement of the specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Commission's action or proposed action: 8. Please state the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Commission's action or proposed action: 9. Please state the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Commission to take with respect to the action or proposed action: Either the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner, or the qualified representative of the Petitioner must sign below agreeing that the person signing this document has read this Petition, made a reasonable inquiry, and is not filing this document for any improper purposes, frivolous purpose, or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Signature PRINT NAME Date The above indicated person is the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner, or the qualified representative of the Petitioner (Please check one). SADLE\Boating and Waterways \Waterway Management\ Permits \UWM Permits\Form Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc 161 12A254 CHAPTER 68D -23 UNIFORM WATERWAY MARKERS IN FLORIDA WATERS 68D- 23.101 Intent 68D - 23.102 Scope 68D - 23.103 Definitions 68D - 23.104 Permits Required; Application for Permits 68D - 23.105 Criteria for Approval of Markers 68D - 23.106 Marker Replacement Requirements 68D - 23.107 Federal System Adopted 68D - 23.108 Specifications for Markers 68D - 23.109 Additional Specifications for Information, Danger, and Regulatory Markers 68D - 23.110 Inspections and Certification 68D - 23.111 Enforcement 68D - 23.112 Exemptions 68D- 23.101 Intent. (1) This chapter is consistent with and conforms to 33 C.F.R. part 62 — The navigable waters of the United States and non- navigable State waters (which together include all waters of this state), are marked to assist navigation using the United States Aids to Navigation System, a system consistent with the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) Maritime Buoyage System. The IALA Maritime Buoyage System is followed by most of the world's maritime nations and will improve maritime safety by encouraging conformity with buoyage systems used worldwide. (2) It is the intent of this chapter: (a) To provide for uniformity in design, construction and coloring of markers so that all vessel operators may readily recognize, identify and distinguish between authorized markers and unlawfully placed markers; (b) To provide a means by which the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and its officers and all other law enforcement officers charged with the enforcement of this chapter may determine with reasonable certainty which boating restricted areas are lawfully established and marked; (c) To insure that regulatory markers noticing boating restricted areas created pursuant to Sections 327.46 and 379.243 1. F.S., are authorized only for the purposes of protecting human Life and limb, vessel traffic safety and maritime property, and manatees. (3) It is further the intent of this chapter that no boating restricted area be established, continued in effect, or enforced for the purpose of noise abatement or for the protection of shoreline, shore-based structures, or upland property from vessel wake or shoreline wash. As provided in Section 327.33(2), F.S., "vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property." The wake resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel is a force which should be anticipated by the owners of property adjacent to the navigable waters of this state. (4) The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will not issue any permit authorizing the placement of regulatory markers implementing municipal or county ordinances that: (a) Are in violation of Section 327.60, F.S.; (b) Establish boating- restricted areas pursuant to Section 327.46(1)(c), F.S., until such ordinances have been reviewed and approved by the Boating and Waterways Section in accordance with Chapter 68D -21, F.A.C.; (c) Regulate vessel speed or operation for manatee protection purposes pursuant to Section 379.2431(2)(p), F.S., until such ordinances have been reviewed and approved by the commission, coordinated through the Imperiled Species Management Section, and provided that such ordinances do not apply within the marked navigation channel of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway nor to the waters within 100 feet of said channel; (5) Where conflicting speed or operational restrictions are established by law or pursuant to law, the more restrictive shall be posted and shall apply. (6) Regulatory markers placed and maintained pursuant to a permit issued as provided herein shall be prima facie evidence of the boundaries of boating- restricted areas and the speed or operational restrictions imposed therein. Rulenwkina Authority 32704, 327.4Q 327.41 FS. Lou, btapletnented 32740. 327.41. 379.2431 FS. History-New 12- 23 -01. Amended 10 -5 -06. 10 -6 -10. Page 1 of 12 161' 2A254 68D.23.102 Scope. The provisions of this chapter prescribe the procedures by which the Division of Law Enforcement's Boating and Waterways Section permits and regulates the placement of markers in, on, and over the waters of this state and the shores thereof. This chapter also provides for the design, characteristics and coloring, construction, placement, and maintenance of all markers placed in, on, and over the waters of this state and the shores thereof by adopting by reference the United States Aids to Navigation System, Part 62 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the United States Coast Guard's manuals pertaining to aids to navigation and other waterway markers. Reelentaking Authority 317.40.317.41 FS. Law Implanented 327.40.327.41 FS. History —New 12- 23 -01, Amended 10 -6 -10. 6813- 23.103 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter and Chapters 68C -22 and 68D -24, F.A.C., the following definitions shall apply: (1) Types of markers: (a) "Aid to navigation" means any device external to a vessel intended to assist a navigator to determine position or safe course, or to warn of dangers or obstructions to navigation. (b) "Information marker" means a device external to a vessel intended to provide the mariner with information concerning matters other than dangers or obstructions to navigation, or regulatory matters. (c) "Danger marker" means a device external to the vessel intended to provide the mariner with information concerning dangers or obstructions to navigation such as shoals, shallows, rocks, submerged pipes or cables, dams, or low clearance obstructions above the water such as power lines, trestles, or bridges. (d) "Regulatory marker" means a device used to alert the mariner to various regulatory matters such as horsepower, speed, wake, or entry restrictions. (e) "Special mark" means a marker not primarily intended to assist safe navigation, but to indicate special areas or features referred to in charts or other nautical publications. They may be used, for example, to mark anchorages, mooring fields, park boundaries, cable or pipeline areas, marine events, etc. Special marks are colored solid yellow. (f) "Mooring buoy" means a device that is permanently secured to the bottom of a body of water and to which a vessel may be secured when not underway. (g) "Buoy' means any device designed to float which is anchored in the waters of the state and which is used to convey a message, carry a sign, or support a mooring pennant. (j) "Sign" means an object which displays a message and which is attached to another object such as a piling, buoy, structure, or the land itself. (i) "Symbol" means the orange geometric shape displayed on a danger, information, or regulatory marker. The meanings associated with the orange geometric shapes are as follows: 1. A vertical open -faced diamond signifies danger; 2. A vertical diamond shape having a cross centered within indicates that all vessels or certain classes of vessels are excluded from the marked area; 3. A circular shape indicates that certain operating restrictions are in effect within the marked area; and 4. A square or rectangular shape will contain directions or instructions lettered within the shape. (h) "Display area" means the area on a danger, information or regulatory marker within which the symbol is displayed. (2) General definitions: (a) "Boating- restricted area" means an area of the waters of the state within which the operation of vessels is subject to specified restrictions or from which vessels are excluded. (b) "Shore" means that area of land immediately adjacent or contiguous to the waters of the state such that a sign or marker erected thereon is readily visible to the operator of a vessel who might reasonably believe that the sign or marker displays navigational, regulatory or other information relevant to the operation of the vessel. (c) "Florida Intracoastal Waterway" means: 1. All waters within the right -of -way of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, the Georgia state line north of Fernandina to Miami; the Port Canaveral lock and canal to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Miami to Key West; the Okeechobee Waterway Route I across Lake Okeechobee and Route 2 along the southern perimeter of the lake, from Port Mayaca to Clewiston; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anclote to Fort Myers; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Carrabelle to Tampa Page 2 of 12 161'2A25 A Bay; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Carrabelle to Anclote open bay section (using the Gulf of Mexico); and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Carrabelle to the Alabama state line west of Pensacola; and 2. All waters from shoreline to shoreline within the Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart to Fort Myers, not including Route 1 across Lake Okeechobee and Route 2 along the southern perimeter of the take, from Port Mayaca to Clewiston; the St. Johns River, Jacksonville to Sanford; and, the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivets in Florida. (d) "Uniform State Waterway Marking System" means the system of aids to navigation, information markers, regulatory markers, and mooring buoys, as specified in Part 66 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (e) "United States Aids to Navigation System" means the system of aids to navigation, information markers, regulatory markers, and mooring buoys, as specified in Part 62 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (f) "Private Aid to Navigation" means an aid to navigation the establishment of which is authorized by a permit issued by the United States Coast Guard pursuant to Part 66 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (g) "Maritime property" means vessels and their engines, tackle, gear, equipment, appurtenances, furnishings, cargoes, stores, personal property then on board belonging to the vessels' occupants, and such otter similar property as is consistent with the general maritime law of the United States. This definition does not include littoral or riparian property, the shores thereof, seawalls, docks, wharfs, or other property intentionally and permanently attached to the shore. (h) "Inland lake" means a naturally occurring or man -made fresh water lake or pond. The term does not include reservoirs, impoundments, or any portion of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway. (i) "Associated canal" means a man -made canal that is directly attached to an inland take and that does not connect to other waters or that connects only to another inland lake. The term does not include any portion of a state or federally funded navigation project or any portion of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway. (j) "In writing" means any written or printed form of communication and includes electronic mail, tiles transferred as attachments to electronic mail, and telefacsimiles. (3) When used on markers, the terms: (a) "Idle Speed No Wake" and "Idle Speed" may be used interchangeably and mean that a vessel must proceed at a speed no greater than that which will maintain steerageway and headway. At no time is any vessel required to proceed so slowly that the operator is unable to maintain control over the vessel or any other vessel or object that it has under tow. (b) "Slow Speed" and "Slow Speed Minimum Wake" may be used interchangeably and mean that a vessel must be fully off plane and completely settled into the water. The vessel must then proceed at a speed which is reasonable and prudent under the prevailing circumstances so as to avoid the creation of an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other vessels or other persons using the waterway. At no time is any vessel required to proceed so slowly that the operator is unable to maintain control over the vessel or any other vessel or object that it has under tow. A vessel that is: 1. Operating on plane is not proceeding at this speed; 2. In the process of coming off plane and settling into the water or coming up onto plane is not proceeding at this speed; 3. Operating at a speed that creates a wake which unreasonably or unnecessarily endangers other vessels or other persons using the waterway, or is likely to do so, is not proceeding at this speed; 4. Completely off plane and which has fully settled into the water and is proceeding at a reasonable and prudent speed with little or no wake is proceeding at this speed. "Slow Speed" and "Slow Speed Minimum Wake" are the preferred terms. "Slow Down Minimum Wake" markers may continue to be used for restricted areas authorized prior to January 1, 2001, except when such a restricted area is contiguous to an Idle Speed No Wake boating restricted area. (c) "Caution zone" means an area presenting a significant risk of navigational hazard, an area frequently inhabited by manatees on a somewhat regular basis, or other area similarly requiring that vessels be operated with particular alertness and caution so as to avoid endangering life, limb, vessel traffic safety or maritime property, or manatees. (d) "No Power - driven Vessels" — All vessels equipped with any mechanical means of propulsion must turn off the mechanical means of propulsion and, if possible to do so, tilt or raise the mechanical means of propulsion out of the water. The use of any motor, including an electric motor, is prohibited. (e) "No Internal Combustion Motors" or "No Motor Zone" — All vessels equipped with internal combustion motors (e.g.: gasoline or diesel motors) for propulsion must turn off the internal combustion motor and, if possible to do so, tilt or raise the internal combustion motor out of the water. The use of electric motors is not prohibited. Page 3 of 12 16I 'Z p[7" (f) "Vessel- exclusion zone" means an area from which all vessels or certain classes of vessels are excluded. The following list includes the most common examples of vessel- exclusion zones. Whenever the following messages are displayed on vessel- exclusion zone markers, they have the meaning provided. Other messages on vessel - exclusion zone markers are permissible, so long as the markers display language that accurately describes the vessels or classes of vessels that are excluded from the area. All vessel - exclusion zones must be marked with the crossed - diamond symbol as specified in subparagraph (1)(i)2., above. I. "No Vessels" or "Swim Area" - All vessels of any type are prohibited from entering the marked area. 2. "No Motorized Vessels" or "No Motorboats" or "Motorboats Prohibited" - All vessels equipped with any mechanical means of propulsion are prohibited from entering the marked area, even if the mechanical means of propulsion is not in use. 3. "Manually Propelled Vessels Only" - All vessels other than those propelled by oars, paddles, or poles are prohibited from entering the marked area. Vessels equipped with sails or a mechanical means of propulsion may enter the marked area only if the sails or mechanical means of propulsion is not in use and, if possible to do so, the mechanical means of propulsion is tilted or raised out of the water. 4. "No Entry Area" - All vessels and all persons, either in vessels or swimming, diving, or wading, are prohibited from entering the marked area. (g) "Miles per hour" and "MPH" mean speed made good over the bottom measured in statutes miles. A specific number will be posted in conjunction with "miles per hour" or "MPH" and is the maximum speed at which a vessel may lawfully be operated within the marked area. Although it is the intention of the Commission to allow those vessels capable of attaining a planing configuration at posted numerical speed limit to do so, this posted speed limit shall not be construed as permitting the reckless or careless operation of a vessel, in violation of Section 327.33, F.S., or authorizing any vessel to travel at an unsafe speed, in violation of navigation rule 6 as adopted pursuant to Section 327.33, F.S., by reason of: 1. Having an elevated bow which restricts visibility, or 2. Producing an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other vessels, other persons using the waterway, or natural resources of the state. (h) "Wake," only when used in conjunction with a numerical size limit, means all changes in the vertical height of the water's surface caused by the passage of a vessel including, but not limited to, a vessel's bow wave, stern wake, and propeller wash, measured from the ambient tide level to the crest of the vessel's wake at a distance of not less than 25 feet from the vessel. (i) "Holiday" mans: 1. New Year's Day. 2. Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January. 3. Memorial Day. 4. Independence Day, the Fourth of July. 5. Labor Day. 6. Columbus Day. 7. Veterans' Day, November 11. 8. Thanksgiving Day. 9. Friday after Thanksgiving. 10. Christmas Day. If any of these holidays falls on Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed as a holiday. If any of these holidays falls on Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as a holiday. (4) The Boating and Waterways Section will authorize the use of other terminology on regulatory markers if the message is clear, unambiguous, and accurately describes a lawfully imposed restriction. Rnlemaking Authority 327.04. 327.40. 327.41. 327.46. 379.2431 FS. Law Implemented 327.40, 327.41. 327.46, 379.2431 FS. History-New 12 -23- 01, Amended 10-5-06,10-6-10. 68D- 23.104 Permits Required; Application for Permits. (1) Except as provided in subsection 68D- 23.112(4), F.A.C., no person, municipality, county or other governmental entity shall place, cause to be placed, or maintain in place any marker in, on or over the waters of the stale or the shores thereof without a permit from the Boating and Waterways Section. Page 4 of 12 161 lo� A204 (2) Any person, municipality, county, or other governmental entity desiring to place a marker shall apply to the Boating and Waterways Section on the Florida Uniform Waterway Marker Application form, FWCDL.E 153 (07/2010), which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Application forms may be obtained by submitting a request to: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, Boating and Waterways Section, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1600 or by downloading the application from the Commission website at: lit tp : / /ti+ww,myfwc.conVRECREA'I' ION/ beat_%%,ater%4,a)- s_index. lit n. Each application must include: (a) One or more scale drawings no larger than 8 1/2 inches by I I inches, reproducible on standard office photocopying equipment, showing the intended locations for the placement of all proposed markers with each proposed marker labeled to correspond to the list required in paragraph (b) below. I. If the application is for regulatory markers, the drawing must also depict the exact boundaries of the area within which regulation or restriction is to be in effect. 2. If the application is for the following markers the drawing must also depict: a. The location of the danger, hazard to navigation, or obstruction if the application is for a danger marker, isolated danger mark, or inland waters obstruction mark. b. Water depths within and adjacent to the area being marked if the application is for lateral marks, preferred channel marks, or safe water marks. c. The location and boundaries of the anchorage, mooring field, park, cable or pipeline area, marine event, or other special area or feature for which the markers are proposed if the application is for special marks. d. Any information needed to identify and support the proposed information marker. 3. If the application is for mooring buoys of any type, the drawing must also depict the watch circle and water depth for each mooring and any channels or fairways within 500 feet of the proposed mooring buoys. (b) A list of the markers proposed, labeled to correspond to the drawing(s) required above. (c) A statement of the specifications for the markers proposed, including: I. A description giving the type, size, shape, color, material, height above mean high water for each marker sign or buoy, and the number, letter or message displayed thereon; 2. A description of the type, size, and material used for: a. Any structure which will support a marker sign; b. Any anchor, anchoring system, chain, tether, rode, or other ground tackle which will secure a marker buoy, including a mooring buoy, to the bottom; 3. A statement of the color, characteristic, height above mean high water, intensity, and nominal range of any light which will be placed on the markers; 4. A statement of the type signal (whistle, horn, bell, etc.) and characteristic for any audible signal. S. The latitude and longitude of the location where each marker will be placed, expressed in degrees and decimal minutes and referenced to the WGS -84 datum. (d) A statement of the purpose for placing the proposed markers. 1. If the application is for regulatory markers, this statement must include the purpose for regulating or restricting vessel speed or operation in sufficient detail to permit the Boating and Waterways Section to ascertain whether there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of the regulation or restriction on vessel speed or operation. 2. if the application is for a danger marker, isolated danger mark, or inland obstruction mark, this statement must include a description of the danger, hazard to navigation, or obstruction in sufficient detail to permit the Boating and Waterways Section to ascertain whether there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of the danger, hazard to navigation, or obstruction. 3. If the application is for lateral marks, preferred channel marks, or safe water marks, this statement must include a description of the channel, fairway, or other area of safe water in sufficient detail to permit the Boating and Waterways Section to ascertain whether there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of channel, preferred channel, fairway, or safe water area. 4. If the application is for special marks, this statement must innclude a description of the anchorage, mooring field, park, cable or pipeline area, marine event, or other special area or feature for which the markers are proposed in sufficient detail to permit the Page 5 of 12 16102 A 25-Q Boating and Waterways Section to ascertain whether there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of the area's or feature's nature, location, and boundaries. 5. If the application is for goring buoys, this statement must include the following: a. A statement of the type, maximum overall length, and maximum draft of vessels that will be allowed to moor at each buoy. b. An estimate of the average daily weekday traffic and average daily weekend and holiday traffic that will be arriving or departing the proposed moorings. c. A description of any navigation channels or fairways within 500 feet of the proposed mooring buoys and a description of nature and volume of vessel traffic within such channels or fairways. d. A description of any upland amenities that will be provided to vessels moored at the proposed mooring buoys. e. A list of any rules, regulations, requirements, or prohibitions that will be imposed on vessels moored at the proposed mooring buoys. f. A statement of whether the area in which the mooring buoys are proposed to be located has been designated by the United States Coast Guard as a special anchorage area (i.e., vessels moored there will not need to display anchor lights) or whether the applicant intends to seek such a designation. g. A statement of whether the mooring buoys will be managed together as a mooring field and, if so, whether the applicant intends to seek the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting anchoring within the marked boundaries of the mooring field. This information must be provided in sufficient detail to permit the Boating and Waterways Section to ascertain whether the placement of mooring buoys and the mooring of vessels at the proposed locations may be safely accomplished and whether the mooring of vessels at the proposed locations will unreasonably or unnecessarily constitute a navigational hazard or otherwise obstruct, impede, or interfere with the navigation of other vessels. (e) A list of the names or titles of the individuals responsible for the placement and maintenance of the markers along with an address and a contact telephone number for each individual. (f) If the application is for regulatory markers, the applicant must include proof of the lawful imposition of a regulation or restriction on the speed or operation of vessels for which the regulatory markers are proposed, as follows: 1. For regulatory markers to implement boating - restricted areas established by a municipal or county ordinance: a. A copy of an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 327.46(1)(b), F.S., which imposes the restriction for reasons of vessel traffic safety or public safety; or b. A copy of an ordinance approved by the commission pursuant to Section 327.46(l)(c), F.S.; or c. A copy of an ordinance approved by the commission pursuant to Section 379.2431(2)(p), F.S., such approval shall be coordinated through the commission's Imperiled Species Management Section. 2. For all other regulatory markers, a copy of the statute, special act, rule, regulation, order, or other instrument which imposes the regulation or restriction and a statement of the specific authority under which the restriction is imposed. Ruleowking Authority 327.04, 327.40, 327.41 FS. Law Implemented 327.40, 32741 FS. History-New 12 -23 -01, Amended 10 -5 -06, 10 -6 -10. 68D- 23.105 Criteria for Approval of Markers. (1) Upon receipt of a completed application, the Boating and Waterways Section will determine: (a) For all markers, whether or not: 1. The proposed markers conform to the United States Aids to Navigation System and this chapter. 2. The proposed markers, if placed in the proposed locations, would create an unreasonable hazard to navigation. (b) For regulatory markets only, determine whether or not: I. The markers as proposed would clearly mark the location in which the regulation or restriction is in effect and adequately notice mariners of the regulation or restriction imposed on vessel speed or operation. 2. The regulation or restriction to be implemented by the proposed markers and the message to be displayed thereon are supported by statute, special act, rule, ordinance, or other enactment or order. (c) For danger markers, isolated danger marks, or inland obstruction marks only, whether or not the danger, hazard to navigation, or obstruction actually exists and, if so, whether or not there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that mariners are given adequate notice of the danger, hazard to navigation, or obstruction. Page 6 of 12 161 12 Aa5f (d) For lateral marks, preferred channel marks, or safe water marks only, whether or not there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of chancel, preferred chancel, fairway, or safe water area. (e) For mooring buoys only, whether the placement of mooring buoys and the mooring of vessel at the proposed locations may be safely accomplished and whether the mooring of vessels at the proposed locations will unreasonably or unnecessarily constitute a navigational hazard or otherwise obstruct, impede, or interfere with the navigation of other vessels. (f) For special marks only, whether or not there are a proper number of markers proposed to be installed in proper locations so that the boating public is given adequate notice of the area's or feature's nature, location, and boundaries. (2) The Boating and Waterways Section is authorized to consult, coordinate, or cooperate with any other governmental entity having concurrent jurisdiction over the waters for which the permit is applied. Rulemaking Anrhorigy 32740, 327.41 FS. Law Implemented 327.40, 327.41, 379.2431 FS. Hisrwy —New 12- 23 -01, Amended 10 -6 -10. 68D- 23.106 Marker Placement Requirements. (1) All persons placing or maintaining in place any markers must comply with the following requirements: (a) Placement of these markers must be exactly as requested in the application. Any deviation will require that the permittee apply to have the permit amended. (b) The permittee must display the permit number (except as provided below) on each marker and the ordinance number, code section number, statute number, regulation or rule number (etc.) on each regulatory marker. These numbers must be displayed in black, block characters approximately one inch in height. 1. On all regulatory markers, the permit number must be displayed in the lower left corner on the face of each regulatory marker. The ordinance number, code section number, statute number, regulation or rule number (etc.) must be displayed in the lower right corner on the face of each regulatory marker. 2. On all markers other than regulatory markers, the permit number must be displayed on the marker at any location on the marker where it can easily be read, including the reverse side of a sign, provided that it does not interfere with the message of the marker. 3. Information markers placed by counties, municipalities, or other governmental entities on inland lakes and their associated canals are exempt from permitting under this rule. Such markers, if not permitted, must display in lieu of a permit number, the name of the county, municipality, or other governmental entity that placed the marker. (c) Upon completion of the installation of markers, the permittee must notify the Boating and Waterways Section in writing within 30 days. If the latitude and longitude of each marker, as installed, is different from that listed in the application, this notification must include the correct latitude and longitude in degrees and decimal minutes as referenced to the WGS -84 -datum along with a request for the permit to be amended. (d) All markers must be maintained in proper condition at all times. A discrepancy exists whenever a marker is not exactly as described in the approved application or is destroyed, damaged, moved, or is otherwise unserviceable or not watching properly. The permittee must immediately report any discrepancy in the marker to the Boating and Waterways Section by telephone, telefacsimile or other similarly rapid means of communication. The permittee must correct any discrepancy within not more than 30 days and must notify the Boating and Waterways Section when the correction is accomplished. (e) A permit for the placement of a marker does not authorize any invasion of private rights, nor grant any exclusive privileges, nor does it obviate the necessity of complying with any other federal, state or local laws or regulations. (f) Atl permits issued pursuant to this chapter are contingent upon the consent of and, if necessary, the issuance of appropriate permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers authorizing the placement of structures for the support of the proposed markers. Consent may be by nationwide permit, regional permit, letter permit, authorization letter, statement of no objection, or other similar means. (g) All permits issued pursuant to this chapter are contingent upon the consent of and, if necessary, the issuance of appropriate permits by the United States Coast Guard authorizing the establishment of private aids to navigation pursuant to Part 66 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (h) It is unlawful to place markers, buoys, or signs on submerged lands, or other property or structure not owned by the person or governmental entity placing them without first receiving the written consent of the owner of the submerged lands, other property, or structure to the placement of said markers, buoys, or signs. For markers, buoys, or signs placed pursuant to a permit issued under Page 7 of 12 161 2 A 25 � this rule, the permit is contingent upon the permittee providing a copy of such consent to the Boating and Waterways Section. (i) By accepting any permit and placing the markers authorized therein, the permittee, to the extent authorized by law, agrees and promises to hold harmless the State of Florida and its agencies, employees, agents, or successors from fault with respect to any claim or claims arising from alleged negligence in the placement, maintenance, operation and removal of any and all markers placed by the permittee pursuant to such permit. The permittee further agrees to indemnify the State of Florida for any and all legal fees and costs incurred in defense of any suit brought against the State as a result of alleged negligence by the permittee in the placement, maintenance, operation or removal of the markers. (2) Additional requirements for regulatory markers. (a) All regulatory markers must be supported by a statute, special act, rule, regulation, ordinance, order, or other similar regulatory instrument which imposes the restriction displayed on the marker. (b) If the regulatory instrument supporting a regulatory marker is amended or if it is repealed, rescinded, revoked, or otherwise becomes a nullity, the permit holder must within 30 days notify the Boating and Waterways Section of the change and must also: 1. In the case of an amendment to the regulatory instrument, file an amended permit application showing the markers that will be removed, replaced, modified, or added in order to implement the amendment to the regulatory instrument. 2. In the case of the repeal, rescission, revocation, or other nullification of the regulatory instrument, remove from the waters of this state and the shores thereof all regulatory markers implementing that regulatory instrument. (c) Applicants for permits to place regulatory markers or the governmental entities establishing the rules, ordinances, or other actions imposing the regulations must provide for the enforcement of regulations or operating restrictions noticed by said markers. The issuance of a permit authorizing the placement of regulatory markers does not obligate the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or its officers to enforce the regulations or operating restrictions noticed by said markers. (3) After obtaining the requested permit, the permittee must install, inspect, maintain, and remove the permitted marker at its own expense and as directed by the Boating and Waterways Section. (4) Discontinuance and removal. Any permitted waterway marker may be discontinued and removed by the permittee owner after 30 days notice to the Boating and Waterways Section. Upon completion of the removal of the marker, the permittee must notify the Boating and Waterways Section in writing within 30 days. (5) The division and its officers and all other law enforcement officers charged with the enforcement of Chapter 327, F.S., have the authority to remove or cause the removal of any marker found in violation of the requirements imposed under this section or conditions imposed in the permit authorizing the placement of the marker if the violation is not corrected within 30 days following notification of the permittee of the violation. Rulentaking Authorin, 327.04, 327.40, 327.41 FS. Law h►tplemented 327.4a 327.41, 327.70 FS Histon -New 12- 23 -01. Amended 10.5 -06. 10 -6- 10. 68D- 23.107 Federal System Adopted. (1) The following are adopted and incorporated by reference: (a) The United States Aids to Navigation System, Part 62 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (April 1, 2010); (b) The United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Manual - Administration (COMDTINST M 16500.7A, March 2, 2005); (c) The United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Manual - Technical (COMDTINST M 16500.3A, February 11, 2005). (d) The United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Manual - Structures (COMDTINST M 16500.25, November 7, 2005). (2) All markers, including mooring buoys, placed or maintained in, on or over the waters of the state or the shores thereof must conform to the United States Aids to Navigation System. (a) Any marker in, on or over the waters of the state or the shores thereof that does not conform to the United States Aids to Navigation System and all provisions of this chapter, must be brought into conformity or be removed from the waters or shores of the state. (b) No person, municipality, county, or other governmental entity shall place, maintain, or permit to remain in, on or over the waters of the state or shores thereof any nonconforming marker. (c) All nonconforming markers in place in, on or over the waters of the state or shores thereof are declared a nuisance. The division and its officers and all other law enforcement officers charged with the enforcement of Chapter 327, F.S., have the authority to remove or cause the removal of any such nonconforming marker. Rttlemaking Authority 32704.327.40. 327.41 FS. Law bap/entented 327.40, 327.41 FS. History -New 12 -23 -01. Amended 10 -5-06, 10 -6 -10. Page 8 of 12 161k2A25w 68D- 23.108 Specifications for Markers. (1) A marker placed in, on or over the waters of the state or shores thereof may be displayed as a buoy bearing letters, numbers or a symbol on its surface, or as a sign mounted on a buoy, piling or other structure, or as a sign on the shore. (2) Buoyed signs and markers must extend not less than 36 inches above the surface of the water. A sign suspended above the water must have a minimum of 25 feet clearance from the mean high water mark to the bottom of the sign. (3) A buoy whose sole purpose is to carry a sign above it shall be marked with three horizontal bands of international orange alternating with two horizontal babes of white, each band placed completely around the circumference of the buoy and occupying approximately one -fifth of the total area of the buoy's surface above the waterline. All markers shall be made of materials which will retain, despite exposure to weather and other elements, their color, shape, legibility and position. (4) All letters on green or black backgrounds shall be white. All letters and numerals on red or white backgrounds shall be black, except that white retroreflective letters and numerals may be used on a red background. All letters and numerals shall be of block characters of good proportion, spaced in a manner which will provide maximum legibility and of a size proportionate to the size of the marker. (5) Retroreflective materials must be used for all displays on markers that are required to be international orange and as otherwise required in the United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Manual — Technical (COMDTINST M 16500.3A). The white background dayboard film material for all information, danger, exclusion, and regulatory signs installed or replaced after July I, 2006, shall be retroreflective. Retroreflective materials may be used for any other portion of a marker. (6) Every pile used in waters of this state to support signs for waterway marking purposes must have two bands of white tape placed around it. The bands of tape must be placed separately around each pile for dolphins, clusters, and other structures using multiple piles for support. The tape must be six inches wide and made of self- adhesive (pressure sensitive), diamond - grade, white, retroreflective material. The top of the first band must be placed six inches from the bottom of the sign; the top of the second band must be placed eight inches from the bottom of the first band. The tape must be installed with a minimum overlap of one inch over the entire six -inch width of the band. On wooden piles, the tape must be additionally secured using not less than four stainless steel, one inch staples driven through the area of the overlap. If the tape becomes delaminated, cracked, checked, weathered, or abraded so as to have a dull or roughened surface, it must be replaced. Any existing tape must be removed before applying the replacement tape. (7) All buoys other than mooring buoys must be attached to the water body bottom using anchors, sinkers, chains, shackles, swivels, and bridles that meet or exceed the specifications in the United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Manual — Technical (COMDTINST M 16500.3A). (8) Mooring buoys are white cylindrical or spherical with a blue band located near the top of the buoy. All mooring buoys must be attached to the water body bottom using anchors, chains, shackles, and swivels, and must be equipped with pennants that are of sufficient size, strength, and holding power for their intended purpose. Anchors or anchoring systems for mooring buoys must embed in the water body bottom. The use of a sinker (a weight, usually metal or concrete, that rests on the bottom without embedding) to anchor a mooring buoy is prohibited. Rulemaking Authority 327.40, 327.41 FS. Law Implemented 327.40. 327.41 FS. Hislon—New 12- 23 -01. Amended 10 -5 -06, 10 -6 -10. 68D- 23.109 Additional Specifications for Information, Danger, and Regulatory Markers. (1) All information, danger, and regulatory markers shall be white in color and shall display international orange symbols. (2) When a buoy is used as an information, danger, or regulatory marker, it shall be white with horizontal bands of international orange placed completely around the circumference of the buoy. One band shall be at the top of the buoy body, the second band shall be placed sufficiently just above the waterline so that both international orange bands are clearly visible to approaching vessels. The international orange bands shall be not less than two inches in width. The display area shall be that portion of the buoy body between the bands and shall be white. Symbols shall be centered between the international orange bands. Only a cylindrical buoy may be used. The buoy shall have a diameter of not less than nine inches. (3) When a sign is used for an information, danger, or regulatory marker it must be white with an international orange border. The display area is that portion of the sign within the border. Symbols must be centered within the display area. The size of the sign must be appropriate to the size of the waterway where the sign is located and the nature of the vessels transiting the waterway, however, no such sign shall be smaller than three feet by three feet. (a) Information or regulatory marker signs shall be rectangular. Page 9 of 12 Ai�S r? (b) Danger marker signs shall be rectangular or diamond - shaped (a square sign rotated 45 degrees so that one corner is pointed straight down). If a diamond - shaped sign is used, the international orange border shall serve as the vertical open -faced diamond symbol and no additional symbol shall be displayed. (4) Specifications for Display of Symbols. (a) The thickness of the international orange line used to draw the borders and the symbols shall be not less than 2 inches. (b) The height of the symbol shall be at least half and not more than two - thirds the height of the display area. (c) The sides of the diamond shape shall slope at a thirty to forty -five degree angle from the vertical on a plane surface. Appropriate adjustments for curvature shall be made when applied to a cylindrical surface. (d) In addition to the permit number required to be displayed under subsection 68D- 23.106(1), F.A.C., every regulatory marker shall display the number of the statute, special act, rule, ordinance, or other governmental action that created the boating restricted area or other operating restriction, and the name of the municipality, county or other governmental agency which placed and maintains the marker. This number and name shall be displayed in characters not less than one inch in height and shall be placed in the lower right hand corner of the display area on each sign, and at any location on each buoy where it can easily be read, provided that it shall not interfere with the message of the marker. Rulent akiug Authority 327.04, 327.40, 327.41 FS. Law Implemented 327.40, 327.41 FS. History -New 12- 23 -01. Amended 10 -5-06, 10 -6 -10. 68D- 23.110 Inspections and Certification. (1) Each person holding a permit to place and maintain one or more markers must inspect all markers for which the permit was issued triennially (every three years). (2) The required inspection must be documented in writing and must include the following: (a) The name of the permit holder and permit number of the markers being inspected; (b) The name of the person or persons currently responsible for the placement and maintenance of the markers; and (c) A photograph of each marker taken in close enough proximity to legibly slow all symbols, borders, and letters and numbers, including the text of any message, the permit number, and the ordinance number, code section number, statute number, regulation or rule number, (etc.). For marker installations with two or more signs, a sufficient number of photographs must be taken to legibly show the information on each sign. Digital photography is acceptable for this purpose. Photographs must be labeled with the location of the marker depicted and the date the photograph was taken. (d) A statement certifying that the markers placed pursuant to the permit have been inspected during the ninety days preceding the statement and that: 1. The markers are properly maintained and in serviceable condition; 2. The markers conform to the requirements of this chapter; 3. The markers are still properly on station; and 4. The date or dates on which the markers were inspected. (3) The permit holder must maintain the inspection documentation until it is replaced by a subsequent inspection and documentation. The inspection documentation must be available for inspection by any law enforcement officer during the permittee's normal business hours. Failure to inspect a marker and to maintain documentation of the results of the inspection during the specified time period is grounds for rescinding the permit authorizing placement of the marker and for removing or ordering the removal of the marker. (4) Dayboard and buoy surfaces and dayboard backing materials will deteriorate because of the effects of weathering. Wind, rain, freezing temperatures, and sunlight cause delamination (separation), cracking, peeling, and fading. Attention must be given to these conditions during inspections. (a) Markers will be considered discrepant under the following guidelines: 1. Backing materials. Delamination of the plies on a plywood dayboard backing must not effect more than 25 percent of the surface area. Any warpage must not visibly detract from the signal or message presented to the mariner. The backing must not be softened or otherwise deteriorated around the mounting points to a degree that the board could come loose in a storm typical for the area in which the marker is placed. 2. Elastomeric films, numerals, letters, symbols, and borders. Delamination of films and retroreflective markings on dayboards and buoys must not affect more than 10 percent of the surface of the material. Films and retroreflective markings must not be cracked, checked, weathered, or abraded so as to have a dull or roughened surface. Peeling of the film or markings from the Page 10 of 12 161 'f 5' dayboard or buoy must not affect more than 10 percent of the surface area. Letters, numerals, symbols, and borders must not be faded or weathered so as to visibly detract from the signal or message presented to the mariner. (b) A dayboard or buoy must be replaced if any of the deteriorations noted above is observed or, if for any reason, it cannot function as intended (including significant fading or other discoloration) until the next regularly scheduled inspection. Onsite repairs are permitted if they do not interfere with or detract from the intended signal function of the marker. (5) Within 5 business days following the completion of the triennial inspection, the permittee must notify the Boating and Waterways Section that the inspection has been performed and whether or not any markers were determined to be discrepant. All discrepancies documented during an inspection must be reported to the Boating and Waterways Section and corrected within 30 days, as provided in paragraph 68D- 23.106(1 xd), F.A.C. Rulentaking Authority 327.04, 327.40, 327.41 FS. Law Implemented 327.40, 327.41, 379.2431 FS. His►on =New 12- 23 -01, Antended 10 -5-06, 10 -6- /0. 68D- 23.111 Enforcement. This chapter shall be enforced by the division and its officers, the sheriffs of the various counties and their deputies, municipal police officers, and any other law enforcement officer as defined in Section 943. 10, F.S., as provided in Section 327.70, F.S., all of whom shall have the authority to remove or cause the removal of any marker found to be in violation of this chapter. Rulemaking Authority 327.40. 327.41 FS. Law huplemented 327.22, 327.40, 327.41, 327.46, 327.60. 327.70. 379.2431 FS. Histon-New 12- 23 -01, Amended 10 -6 -10. 68D - 23.112 Exemptions. (1) Nothing herein shall apply to the United States Government or its agencies, nor to any aid to navigation, marker, mooring buoy, or other similar device placed thereby. (2) Persons establishing private aids to navigation other than regulatory markers and mooring buoys on waters of concurrent state/federal jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of 33 CFR $ 66.01 may submit to the Boating and Waterways Section a copy of their United States Coast Guard permit (CG-2554) in lieu of the materials required under Rule 68D- 23.104, F.A.C. Upon receipt by this section of said copy of their permit, such private aids to navigation are exempt from further permitting and need not display a permit number. (3) Every regulatory marker without a properly displayed permit number, in place in, on or over the waters of the state or shores thereof is declared a nuisance. The division and its officers and all other law enforcement officers charged with the enforcement of Chapter 327, F.S., have the authority to remove or cause the removal of any unpermitted regulatory marker. Markers authorized by the former Florida Department of Natural Resources prior to January I, 1988, for which no permit number was assigned shall be issued a permit number upon receipt by the Boating and Waterways Section of the following: (a) A copy of the correspondence authorizing placement of said markers; (b) A statement of the specifications for the markers, including: 1. A list of the markers; 2. A description giving each marker's size and message; 3. The latitude and longitude coordinates in degrees and decimal minutes of the location of each marker and the datum in which those coordinates are expressed; 4. A statement that the markers have been inspected during the ninety days preceding the instant request and that: a. The markers are properly maintained and in serviceable condition; b. The markers conform to the requirements of this chapter; c. The markers are still properly on station; and d. The date or dates on which the markers were inspected. (4) Counties, municipalities and other government entities are exempt from permitting under this chapter only when placing information markers on inland lakes and their associated canals. However, nothing herein shall prevent counties, municipalities or other governmental entities from choosing to voluntarily apply for waterway marker permits for such information markers. (5) The restrictions displayed on regulatory markers shall not apply: (a) In the case of an emergency, (b) To law enforcement patrol vessels or firefighting vessels; or Page II of 12 161 p A-?5V (c) To any rescue vessel owned or operated by a governmental entity. Rulentaking Authority 327.04, 327.40.327.41. 327.71 FS. Law latplentented 327.40. 327.41, 327.46, 327.71.379.2431 FS. Histon-New 12 -23 -01, Amended 10 -5 -06, 10 -6 -10. Page 12 of 12 c 'ASS ►ERWT NO., 11420 CLAM PASS - CAUTION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED KEEP LOOKOUT FOR BOATERS AND SWIMMERS WWW.XXX.NET PERwr ibi a P251 161 12 A ?-i5'q .o l?J a 0 0 n J 5, � `D nSn`D 0. 0.� 9 o a 3 z w boo90 y .�. tD a 0 0. Qn 7 o C n• p t9 fD a I'D o s0oa w f9 ° N 3 o& C n g `< _ W 0 O H O W W y (D O w O V] 0 00 K w l �-naw o Q C a C ° 0 N'b S D. �. y 'a m o. .y.. D• H^ N ti�o.a�N z � w c = °: ID o ❑ G0 ❑ b o w °o 0 0 � n❑ 5'�� a s CD °< N o o o w 0 0 l7 0 �- a y w ° � w C N A ❑ ❑ ❑ T `� 0 o w s a c v o o L rn ti y y op " l 7 C W O z C C ❑ _ C * ° C b W N 7 c a a cr N fop?. C �O(� O =y I y O y tl C A N . ~ 0 R. N O 'o l � O y 0.1 UQ n y O '� ZIP w q c ° o Qn O ° � � N w .0 to w v UQ O o El CD .0 .r. n !i so � o ti w d c N Sc° I-D• it 0 7 0} O Oy ^"y�f CL AI 0 C' '� kb � .. o 00 ❑ Qn w O CD tj y Oo- w C 0 N ` .. O C. -. �y K x x o d° 0 ti CO a a y `° C co�. Q cn Cn w El OQ OO� t0 cn Q O w p � O o 00 N �' A 0 a 3 16 1 A [v s G p y uzo9z° u ti '� 8: _❑q m c°: E c p a0 W V] a y 7� a E N 3 p N p p d d vxi a Op0 f�/] N N co .O Q.� N q z ❑•� �%.V ti G O C p❑ •O r1 Q O ¢w•° ova°? g a E yx O m U m U U o 0 0 0 $ 0 3 t U U U z0 z E CCC O O O O O O O O O O d U a a m °. °c 8 oo v E 80 a ° w O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O� U N NOC7 .�a�z N ti �8o�8`�Lmd .U. a z Qw °xJFUCar� w a x�Fx q°q msm'o; UUUUUUU dy Up�CL�Fk >' 3 � 3 z N 3 z3 z W A o� z�w�rn�3i,3x w m 5 N ° 3 ', d m En v0+i Ts�B Ei � �OU al awl LlA$ mN N O w Z o z eo 0 3 3333333 33 �o N3 0 Y 0 A'a w LT2 y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a m o± a, rn o��• 0 vo r 00 00 y � � V 0 00 _, 00 _lo 00 OO ;8 00 W E y q k 0~0 Q r m W C d 3 b T Obi phi Cl! Cl! m C14 u E o 0 3 o d n Co o �o Cc o eo 0 yC: N N N N N N N N N y y O CO M y ou o d d d d d d d w k h u d O �CZ z'ad�Z''c E c H r At _ m C ° r 4 V .-1 Ei Z F o y 3 m G 0 0 C o E y zzzezzzo�N >oA O O O O O O O O O O 3 pQ 94 94 P4 f:4, r4 04 124 Pi 04 94 04 9 9 C4 L4 9 9 fx P4 04 94 9 9 9 x x c x 6.2 e o z 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E °O $ 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p7N a zoa `key am a z gx z c? v Q) N EN„wOY ?oE>.0 z d x e c c « t�nFU W fn PG 04 V] V) 04 a V] V1 04 0.i cn V) Pi c4 V] V) a4 04 m V) C4 a Q pa° QY y v7 U c m c N O m V] U1 V) U] V1 U1 o O � VI V) V) U1 U1 V) V] U) � V] Cn V1 V] V) V1 V) U) V] UQ�av�iFUp�•� � •y. h Uq�ora�Fk Y d uz�z�z�z�zNzwz�zNz z�z�z� $s�„ zzw�'v°°N3z K U q ow zz���33�Z O 9 y U p �4 �N' 3 OU W V) 0. V] v. V) P. V) G+ U1 a V] a 0 U) w V) !n V) V) V] V) V) VI A a47 H AO a C) R awlg0 �� a o s 3 ¢ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q �o N3 w � ss0000so '° A n n n n n r a oNO, oNO oNO oNO. m C C° O m� O �O � ON � O N [� O On N m � r7 „� C 00 Co CC e0 C° 'o ao w Co m Co 00 00 Co 0o Co 00 CC Co ao m 00 C° o0 L. �� •, p FWT,1 U 00 00 V o0 00 00 00 00 00 . 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0° 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 d _ w ^O d A in L A Z 7 ry O O 00 d 3 W O e O O O . n Q` n O, [- n \O b DD N W N 00 N N o0 00 00 00 + 00 �o a> C d tio cc A U A d A U A d R1 U A d CC U A d a1 U A m N M v n o W w m G n E v z r 161 ZA i� U „_izF .4 � 3 .w °¢ v Y zzz Ezzw"'prTiz70 O O .• N ref a h b� m O O O O O O O O O O O Q Q 9 (:i Ri Ri Chi 0w 0w Pi 0: 04 0; 04 E G E C N C C QWWi VWWr i%i R: R: Ri W R: Rai Ri W R'i W 0w W I+i W W W 000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 C ' OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO �zJ2 g w >v3i U O cn cn o4 C4 V) cn 05 C4 cn cn CL 04 rn cn rx 04 0 (A 1:4 04 v) V) P4 C4 u) 0 0 w CA rA � a '� c 3 :: '^ o 0.01 0 cn m V] cn 0 w fn m cn cn tiM L C M vI C.,) m m rn co Vl rn 01 m o I Uq�P'wy FUq>'a N T y Uq�0.'ti Fk N y y z° z z�z` �� zcn zcnzmzcnz vnzcnzvozcozcnzcnzv�zv,z n oUc o« =moo H w oUU zzW�NN3z a � zzw��h3 awawa+aaaa.aawa Vl Vi Vi V] VI (n cn VI Cn VI (n v7 V1 aaaa u, aawa.aawaaa ��U y� fAmQA� 7 Z � oW w O a333333333333333333333333333333 U O h 3 U 00 �3 0 x $wed a d W O nnnnnnnn0000�vv�0000000o0 O O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 N N N N v1 v1 vi vi Vl vl 000MMriZrnrn �n Vi �0 1O p 0000000000000000rnrnrno,O eo 00 00 00 00 00 00 ao 00 0o ao 00 00 oC 00 rn 00 00 o; 00 o�o,rn0000aao,rna�a� 00 00 00 a: rn o� rn o0 00 00 00 00 00 C O Rn W U z a0 W W y rJ. �i ci F7 a0 00 OD 00 00 00 00 OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 H r N F7 0 o~o d 10 R i d A O z e U e W O O O O M . M O M O N M O N Vl n N Vt n N Vl n N V1 n N M M N M M N M M N M M cl! 0\ o0 0, 00 01 oo 0\ 00 n 00 t- 0o M M M M M V1 M o cC- Dr4NNNN c ono N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4Nc4NNNN N N Cl N N C �o dCCUAdcOU0 dalu0 go UQ d0.1UgdtAUAdoComdm 5 a.°Aw w in y N 00 V' O M fV OD O 0 N ti O M r N� m V 'aEwQm .a -. $ �z= y y oaZF- C7 d C7 3 o H v G vN E N O 3 „ c E owT C°�y °u o C �' ` x o z �O . �O l� l� a0 w O, O, — O N O N N N N N (,4 M N M 7 N V N N N \O N iD N I- N [, N 00 N 00 N O, N O, N a a N °. 9 ; ° E hx O V zzz EzzaOv�fn70 F CCCy O O O O O O O O O O � 9 y o 0 3 O 000000000000000 O 000000000000 N N M Q u C C y N 4' M V1 b h 00 fypy�7iac��Gj�GjGyG00GjGypc CyGr��"r�[yprfyC)l0 0 fy 0f0000,00f00000000.,0 a w��-jyFS z � � � N NOC7 ae .Xl�2 0� ti. rV FCC C GO ° >hOU xO n. OG° c e0 � ❑ 3 a m ° c a m Q w ¢ V) V1 V) VI V) V] V] V] V] V] m V) U1 V] 11) m V] V] V1 V) V) VI V1 V) V] w m co V] V) q w v F X E' V] m V] V1 V1 V] 'n V] V) 0 VJ V] V] m 'n V] V7 O V] V] V) V) (IV) -1-1-1 3 -zV]z V)zrn F.0 Co so W zozmzV]z V]z -zozwz z zV1zU1z uZ oz yN =N3z z W 0 ee o R u. U °''�• d 3 W 0 gyp. F' o. cn V6 I E V1 V Un ] VI VI in v, VI , v m V] V1 fn ti fn u, VI fn co VI 2Ou a1m C:0 z o o 333333333333333 3 333333333333 �o H3 0o ti3 0 weIs �S �i o. u o > g E o A d A w 01 01 B O n O (� .-. 00 .• 00 N 00 00 N_ N_ Vl 1n Vl Vl M M N N a0 vl W Vi W a\ DD a O_ O n 01 n 01 M V1 M Vl 00 V 00 7 00 'V' 00 d' 00 V 00 7 00 00 01 01 ON 01 T T 01 01 01 D\ w 00 00 00 01 T 01 O1 ON 01 W U 00 00 00 W b 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 w 00 op 00 W w W w 00 00 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 K y w %i O 00 M 00 M O 7 O d: N 7 N V V'n1 V 7 b In in 0M0 v1 0M0 In N 1O N 10 M 10 M 1D N h N M . O. M . 1 N 1 N 110 N 11 N 0 M 0 M li Ci E ^a O 3 Z CC w fa C z L O y� a .a 1p N 10 N 1D N 10 N 10 N 1D N 1D N 1C N 1D N b N 1D N 1D N 10 N 1D N 1D N 1D N 1D N N N N N 1D N 1D N 1D N 10 N 10 N 10 N 1p N 1D N 1p N ^a o a u �o doadcodmdoadaadoada�d co dmdradmdoadwdm c m E Z ° C = v a O z N N N N M N N N N N N N N =E� 011 zap V' O M fV OD O 0 N ti O M r � N „oazF c? y y d O >m E Nr,3 E > _ N N ° °NN >o zzz zzao 0 C O W N M V' v1 b^ 00 U Cy O O O O O O O O O O a W ,{94,, ,{Q�,,i Qtr ,� WTW,T,, a"& N N G M C V QUA i'O. S X 000000 y °o °o o Roo u E °o 0 088 000000 m € m o e ti :t cgn:��?d 3 c NOC7 O� U N �e ,Kj�X NM ��q ° >r3ii °U 0210 h C oS RW q�O�aG pi"y' N r�F:U U rA (A -1-1-1 Uq�a'rnFUq>'ti. N h UO�a�rnFiC > m O z h zLO) Z V) a 0Z v°N3X C) t7 zzw��33�Z �OU rAmgO� rail P7 z 0 o �q 333333 H3 W ,per Y m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Q Ki q d o O ^C A 00 F O v w O v w O, v w 0, w O w O v o ti y w V z O v w ,�„ a h CG � v a wwoowww d �a [ij O d j 0 vi y C q M 'R ONO CNO Z CO d G Z y J N N N N N N C3 Y y O w %E C5 M Cl) 2 16 r2 x251 161k2A25) Clam Bay Marker Application Supplemental Information Purpose of placement: Installation of the attached information markers within Clam Bay /Pass is to mark the waterway for safety and environmental purposes. 1. Please find attached a Map (Attachment 1 and 2) showing the intended locations for the placement of all proposed markers within Clam Bay. 2. Markers 1 -12 (please see Attachment 3) will be constructed of .125 gauge aluminum, with reflective white background and orange border with black block characters, and crossed paddles. These signs will be 18x18 and mounted on 5" wide, pressure treated wood posts that will be jetted into the substrate. 3. Just below markers 1 -12, a Local Knowledge Required Sign (LKR) will be mounted (please see attachment 3). These signs will be constructed of .125 gauge aluminum, with reflective white background and orange boarder with black block characters. These signs will be W. The signs will be mounted a minimum of 5' above the average high waterline. Once mounted, white reflective tape will be wrapped below the sign. Located on the bottom of each LKR sign will be a link to a Collier County website that will contain more detailed information regarding Clam Bay. Prior to public display the website will be approved by FWC. 4. Seven (7) information buoys will be placed throughout Clam Bay (please see attached map). These buoys will extend 36" above the mean high water mark and no larger than 9" in diameter. These buoys will be anchored using aluminum anchors that will be jetted in using a 1 "pipe and tethered using a braided nylon rope. 5. Markers 13 -32 will be identical to markers 1 -12, however they will not have the LKR sign attached below. r .� ''�s. � Paz �,._ n �"�,?' ' c =•' 3z ' ;F'�'"' '�' +' r. A25 Marker #11 Marker #10; a ,try &� a t er Caution - Clam Bay Sign Caution - Clam Bay Sign ..- . , E f •,rah - t - �-`? Caution Shoal #1 ]"I'l � 01 ` Caution Seagrassn #6 Al Marker #9 Caution - Clam Bay Sign`' d y Marker 16 - y e s Caution- Clam Bay Sign` +, Caution Shoal #b Marker 412 Marker #T "As rat Caution - Clam Bay Sign�� #~ Caution -Clam Bay Sign F 1 C ro f,k' Marker Caution Clam Bay Sign {� MarkerAb 4d_ Caution - Clam Bay Sign `�; • =� r-� LKP, Sign - Both aides of Bridge Caution Sho I Marker#4 ,. Caution - Clam Bay Sign Marker Caution Clam Bay Sign' �= Marker #21 Caution Clam Bay Sign. r TV AVX4 .._.R 1 14 r J` Caution Seagrass #1'� # , FROJECTLOCATTON � r t + '�,.x'�'°rrs�s'e�aw'� ,'.•. #�4� �= i U011JEER C-00ITNrY, FL ► r Marker #1 F Caution - Clam Bay Sign AEUAL PHOTO PROVMI:DBY C0LUER COUNTY DATTD2007 4, t. � CLAAI PASS -- MA N L L Ca N c6 r 161 2 A125" 0 Z W Q CY �LLJ W Q a I W o x LL Y O J J V O V O W W Y C: bn i7i co 161 2A25 Q -�, I<= E Y L. LUX m A m 0 iZ :3 m 0 two z 0 D 0 LA 0 0 r Z < u z ui 0 Lu m LLI U O W U 161 2A25 it PELKM BAY Final Draft To resurface or not to resurface By Keith J. Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division Chairman To resurface or not to resurface, that is the question. Should the Pelican Bay Services Division arrange financing so that Collier County can resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard on a timely basis? This article is designed to tell the Pelican Bay community the problem, potential solutions, and solicit community input. The Problem The roads in Pelican Bay are public and Collier County is responsible for their maintenance, not the Pelican Bay Services Division or the Pelican Bay Foundation. In 2006, the County resurfaced Pelican Bay Boulevard using an experimental and low - cost method called Micro - Surfacing. Micro - Surfacing is a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and mineral fillers or "gravel" that is applied over the existing road surface to preserve and extend the life of the pavement an additional five to eight years. The Micro - Surfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard was unsuccessful and within a year, the new surface revealed significant wear. As illustrated in this recent photograph, Pelican Bay Boulevard's surface shows extensive deterioration. The County evaluates all public roads using an Asphalt Rating Score or ARS. Historically, when a road's ARS declined to 70 %, the County would resurface it. However since 2008 market conditions have reduced the County's taxable value by almost 30 %. This substantial revenue shortfall has forced funding cuts for many standard services, including road maintenance. For the coming year, Collier County budgeted less than $3 million for road maintenance projects countywide versus the estimated $1.2 million cost to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard. To compensate for shortage of funding, the County's current road maintenance policy defers resurfacing until the ARS drops to 40 %. Pelican Bay Boulevard's current ARS is 61% and the County's lead time estimate is 2015. Possible Solution The Pelican Bay Services Division Board and staff are working diligently with County officials exploring ways to arrange financing to resurface the Boulevard in 2012. The preliminary proposal involves processing an "interf nid transfer" or moving funds currently held in the Services Division's Capital Fund into the County's appropriate transportation road maintenance fund. Next, the County would mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard in 2012; and beginning in 2015, the County would provide repayment to the Services Division's Capital Fund using the interfund transfer method over a period of time. The Advantage The immediate advantage is that Pelican Bay Boulevard would be milled and resurfaced before the road degrades further and the cost of construction increases. Sept. 2011 photo (left) shows extensive surface deterioration at the intersection of Myra Janco Daniels & Pelican Bay Boulevards. Ramifications The downsides are: The Pelican Bay Services Division would be setting a precedent by indirectly financing projects that are the County's full responsibility • If economic conditions do not improve, the County could fail to meet its repayment obligation • The Pelican Bay Services Division Capital Fund balance shortfall could result in the Division deferring other capital projects Next Steps The Pelican Bay Services Division Board and staff will continue working with County officials to develop a formal agreement with reasonable repayment terms. Assuming negotiations go well our Board must then decide if the benefit of milling and resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard in 2012 is important enough to agree to the transfer of monies and potential delay of other capital projects. The Pelican Bay Services Division Board values your input and will schedule workshops during Season to discuss this idea in depth and obtain community feedback. r At Q Pelican Bay Post, 2011 www.pelicanbayorg October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 2 A25 4e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing - Comments by Joseph and Sandy Doyle ResnickLisa Subject: 4e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing and Bicycle Lane Survey - Joseph and Sandy Doyle's Comments From: naplespatriotsna,,comcast.net L mailto :naplespatriotsaa,comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20119:32 AM To: officeftelicanbayservicesdivision .net; keithdallasna,comcast.net Cc: it ty_le( nanlesnews.com; nfnl6799anap1es.net; ibaron i4watersideshops.com; iohnchandler219aa,gmail.com; iosie eg offaa,aol.com; iaizzoAcomcast.net; mikelevv435(a,gmai1.com; nanlessusana-comcast.net; ditrecker(awahoo.com, teedupl ,aol.com; hunter.hansenawaldorfastoria.com; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; CoyleFred; jimcollettaa.collier og v net; johnsusanboland(a),aol.com Subject: PBSD -- 10/05/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing- Audience Comment Mr. Dallas: Agenda Item 4 e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing We endorse Mr. Levy's position in his 9/26/2011 email to the PBSD Board regarding the board's scheme to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard ahead of the Collier County schedule. If Pelican Bay chooses to do the resurfacing now (2012), two years before it is scheduled to be done, we would have to lend the county money for five years. We would be lending from funds currently reserved for the CIP, for something that is not, and never was, a part of our CIP plan. This, in turn, would complicate PBSD CIP implementation; and would most likely delay execution of CIP projects. We are in favor of leaving the repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard to be done on the county's schedule (2014), using normal county funds- -from the gas tax. Additionally, I would like to point out to the PBSD board and the Collier BCC that advancing the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard is unfair to other citizens of Collier County since it gives the appearance of "jumping ahead in line" for other county road resurfacing needs. These types of underhanded actions makes Pelican Bay look like a bunch of rich brats who get priority over the poorer residents of Collier County. Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks/Pelican Bay From: naplespatriots(a)comcast.net [mailto:naplespatriots ,comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20119:59 AM To: office gpelicanbayservicesdivision .net; keithdallas(2comcast.net Cc: jlytle@naplesnews.com; nfnl6799aa,naples.net; ibaron(i1watersideshops.com; iohnchand1er219(a_),gmail.com; iosiegeoffa,aol.com; iaizzo n,comcast.net; mikelevv435_(a),gmail.com; naplessusan(a),comcast.net; ditrecker(ibyahoo.com; teedupina,aol.com; hunter hansen; HillerGeorgia; johnsusanbolandawl.com Subject: Re: PBSD -- 10/05/2011 Agenda Item -- Bicycle Lane Survey -- Audience Comment Mr. Dallas: Agenda Item 4 e. ii.) Bicycle Lane Survey We are opposed to the installation of bicycle lanes. Approximately 3 years ago, the residents of Pelican Bay voted AGAINST the installation of bicycle lanes throughout the community. So, we do not understand the necessity to re -visit this issue again at this point in time. While a survey may be done relatively inexpensively by an FGCU student, we do not need to incur the incremental expense since NO BICYCLE LANES means NO BICYCLE LANES. The people have already spoken! Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks/Pelican Bay October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 5a - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Committee Responsibilities CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES OBJECTIVES • Monitor terms and conditions specified by the Pelican Bay Services Division's active Clam Bay permits authorizing Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management /Clam Bay Eco- restoration work located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) / tidal Clam Bay estuary Monitor any conditions that would impact the Clam Bay NRPA Make recommendations to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board ACTIVE PERMITS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT AND STATE -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS AUTHORIZATION PERMITTEE Collier County BOCC — Pelican Bay Services Division PERMIT NO. 11- 0128463 -005 ISSUE DATE December 17, 2010 EXPIRES December 17, 2015 a25' PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND LONG TERM MANAGEMENT The FDEP permit provides authorization to continue to perform maintenance activities over a five - year timeframe to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem that were originally permitted by permit number 11- 0128463 - 001 -JC and specified by the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP). PERMITTED ACTIVITIES Manual cleaning on an as needed basis of the interior flushing channels to maintain design depths Maintenance of a created network of small flushing channels within the mangrove forest Periodic mangrove trimming along canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain canoe and kayak access, pedestrian access, and access to storm water areas PROJECT LOCATION Submerged lands owned by the State of Florida in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) within Clam Bay, a Class II waters not approved for shellfish harvesting GENERAL CONDITIONS / GENERAL CONSENT CONDITIONS Permitted activities shall be conducted in accordance with specific and general conditions, consistent with Florida Statues, implemented as specified in the plans, specifications, and performance criteria authorized by the permit and only valid for the specified activity or us e. Any deviation from permitted activities and conditions constitutes violation of permit and may result in suspension /revocation of sovereignty submerged land use. Page 1 of 3 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses nL A Z 2 5a - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Committee Responsibilities f V l CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRE- CONSTRUCTION • Identify qualified biologist/wetland scientist (Tim Hall) familiar with the ecosystems of Florida to serve as the supervising scientist overseeing the biological components of the restoration project • Submit all required certifications, monitoring reports, and notifications to FDEP • The project operation shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards • If unforeseen impacts to adjacent waters occur, or complications preventing permit compliance, work shall cease and agency notified • Install and maintain turbidity barriers at all locations where it is possible to transfer suspended solids into surface water SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES • All work is to be conducted by hand • Access to flushing channels shall be accomplished by small boat or on foot • All mangrove trimming activities are to be supervised by identified qualified biologist • All mangrove trimming shall be done on an as needed basis to maintain access through existing canoe trail or boardwalks pursuant to Florida Statutes • Disperse all cleared natural materials along channel cuts, mulch for reuse, or di spose of in uplands • Remove all Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council Category I and Category 2 exotic and invasive vegetation from the Clam Bay NRPA and maintain in perpetuity in accordance with the 1998 CBRMP SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - WATER QUALITY MONITORING • In accordance with State of Florida standards, implement a long -term water quality monitoring and reporting program • If data shows a correlation between elevated nutrient levels and fertilization schedule, prepare a remediation plan SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - BIOLOGICAL MONITORING • Take annual aerial color photographs of the Clam Bay ecosystem • Conduct ground -truth activities to survey areas of concern including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, and areas in Inner, Upper and Outer Clam Bays receiving water discharge from uplands • Submit annual biological monitoring reports that analyze data and make recommendations concerning the impacts permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay system SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDITIONS • Advise all personnel associated with the project about the presence of marine turtles, manatees, speed zones and civil and criminal penalties for harming protected species • Operate vessels at "Idle Speed/No Wake" at all times • Monitor turbidity barriers to avoid entanglement /entrapment/impede movement of protected species • Report collision /injury of marine turtle or manatee immediately to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) • Prior to and during in water project activities, post temporary specified marine signage and remove when project is complete Page 2 of 3 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 2 5 5a - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Committee Responsibilities CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (USACE) CLAM BAY ECO- RESTORATION WORK PERMITTEE Collier County / Pelican Bay Services Division PERMIT NO. SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) ISSUE DATE February 8, 2011 EXPIRES February 8, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLAM BAY ECO- RESTORATION WORK The permit provides authorization to conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities that would continue ecological restoration work that was conducted as part of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan to improve flushing and eliminate water ponding and resulted in successful restoration of mangrove habitat. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES • Manual clearing of existing hand -dug channel cuts using round -point shovels /machetes • Creation of additional hand -dug channel cuts; • Mangrove trimming and vegetation /debris removal PROJECT LOCATION The work area consists of a network of hand -dug channel cuts of various widths within the tidal Clam Bay estuary from the south, where Clam Pass Park begins at Seagate Drive, one -half mile west of U.S. 41. The site extends north for three miles from the northern limit of Clam Pass Park to the boat ramp immediately southwest of the intersection at Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Site access is by foot from upland areas, or via small vessels, and work area is generally at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters characterized as having a maximum depth of 18 inches. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE SITE COORDINATES Northern Limit: Latitude 26.247024 N; Longitude 81.818878 W Southern Limit: Latitude 26.214063 N; Longitude 81.814505 W GENERAL CONDITIONS Activity authorized by the permit must be conducted in accordance with terms, conditions, applicable United States Code, Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and complete by February 8, 2021, or a xtension requested. Authorization is limited in scope and liability, and may be reevaluated at any time, resulting in suspension, modification or revocation of permit, requiring corrective measures. SPECIAL CONDITIONS • Submit required documentation /correspondence to the Reporting Address • Provide notification to Corps of date of commencement of authorized work • Comply with "Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work" • Comply with "Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions" • Comply with "Assurance of Navigation and Maintenance" requirements • Comply with "Regulatory Agency Changes" permit modification requirements • "Work Methodology" limited to manual clearing methods using hand tools • Submit "Self - Certification Statement of Compliance" Page 3 of 3 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5a - Landscape & Water Management Committee Responsibilities OBJECTIVES 161 2 A25 LANDSCAPE & WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES • Monitor conditions /methods used to manage water quality in areas of Pelican Bay east of the berm • Monitor and implement landscaping best management practices (BMP) within Pelican Bay • Raise awareness /provide educational outreach/develop ways to implement landscaping BMP communitywide • Make recommendations to Pelican Bay Services Division Board Page 1 161 2 A25 October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9. Audience Comments - Joseph and Sandy Doyle ResnickLisa Subject: 9. Audience Comments - Joseph and Sandy Doyle From: nap] espatriots@comcast.net To: office2pelicanbUservicesdivision .net, office n,pelicanbayservicesdivision .net, keithdallas n,comcast.net (a Cc: ilytle,naplesnews.com, nfnl6799anaples.net, ibaron &watersidesho sp com, johnchandler2192gmail.com, josiegeoff a,aol.com, a "hunter hansen" <hunter.hansen hilton.com >, iaizzokcomcast.net, 4mikelevy a,embargmail.com, naplessusankcomcast.net, ditreckergyahoo.com, teedup I gaol.com, donnafialaAcollier o� v.net, georgiahillera,colliergov.net, tomhenning_a,collier ov�.net, fredco(a)collieraov.net, jimcolletta(a�,collier og v.net Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 20116:50:59 AM Subject: Pelican Bay Services Division Untimely Postings and Communications Mr. Dallas, I find that your new system regarding audience participation in Pelican Bay Services Division business matters is inadequate. At the past several meetings you have instructed the audience that you would prefer to solicit input either in advance of PBSD meetings OR during the discussion of a specific item during the meeting. However, as of 6am this morning, neither the statutory required meeting notice nor an advance agenda have been posted to the PBSD website - -and the meeting is today, October 5th at Ipm. I would hardly call this participatory government. In fact, the residents of a communist country would appear to get more consideration than we do here in Pelican Bay! Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks/Pelican Bay Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples Fl. 34104 August 2, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 17, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Hannula B. Windham Studio VII. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ZM' A26 I� BY:....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is September 20, 20113:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Mai r�ance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South l Torres: Naples, FL 34104 Date: IMfP1 t.� lo= ZIA 2 (o J. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee .� �► 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 May 17, 2011 Minutes 161 A26 1 I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:30 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella (Excused), John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Manuel Gonzalez- Hannula Landscaping, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Jerry Parillo- Applicant, Sue Chapin - Public, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Review of Application to the Radio Road MSTUAdvisory Board John Weber moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Betty Schudel, Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19, 2011 Dale Lewis moved to approve the April 19, 2011 minutes as submitted Second by Betty Schudel Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) o Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $21,869.66 Dale Lewis inquired on the final (FYI 1) Carry Forward amount. Darryl Richard requested Gloria Herrera verify the Carry Forward variance and final June Taxable Value for all the MSTU Committees. Dale Lewis moved for Staff to provide the (final) Carry Forward amount by next month (June) at the latest. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. Project Manager Report -Darryl Richard — Discussed under V. C. C. Review of Application to the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Board It was confirmed that Jerry Parillo is a year -round Resident in the Briarwood development. 1 0., A26 Project Managers Report (See attached) Darryl Richard reported on the following items: (R -22) Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment • Plans are under ROW Permit review - ROW Permit is required prior to Bid solicitation • Anticipates a 21 day Bid process • Lane Closure Fees are not applicable to Devonshire (R -24) Moving the Type M Controller o Trouble shooting is being performed on the Irrigation Controller as relocating the Controller did not solve all the issues Dale Lewis requested Staff provide information on Sunshine Law to Jerry Parillo. Staff will provide the Sunshine Law training CD to Jerry Parillo. Dale Lewis moved to recommend Jerry Parillo to the BCCfor approval to fill the (Radio Road Beautification MSTO vacant position Willing Wilfred Jaeger's term.) Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez reported: o Evaluation of Turf dry spots will be conducted Scott Windham perceived the turf dry spots may be due to: • Watering restrictions • Insufficient Irrigation (head) coverage Pam Lulich noted the Reuse Water supply is very low at this time. Manuel Gonzalez continued with the report: o (2) Jatropha Trees toppled (due to winds) - Trees will replanted and staked o Replaced (2) Sable Palms (warranty item) o Supplemental fertilization will be applied to Magnolia and Jatropha Trees B. Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the following: • Viny Bougainvillea will be trimmed and replaced if needed (with Helen Johnson Dwarf) • Requested the following of Hannula - Additional Fertilization on (3) Foxtail Palms located at the new traffic signal - Proactive approach on weed control - Evaluate the median turf at Santa Barbara 2 16 I ot A26 Discussion ensued on median turf issues at Santa Barbara. It was noted that during a previous Project pieces of concrete and blacktop were discovered underground and removed from the median. The soil quality was in question. Dale Lewis deemed the unsightly median is the public's first impression of Radio Road when entering the Project area from Santa Barbara (similarly when entering from Airport Pulling.) Staff requested a quote to replace turf sections from the 1St median at Santa Barbara. After much discussion it was concluded to: • Replace the sod with ground cover (1St median at Santa Barbara) • Conduct soil sample tests — Substitute soil may be required • Windham Studio will submit a Proposal for the suggested plant material(s) VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment — Previously discussed under V. C. Discussion took place on an article concerning Black Olive Trees and caterpillar infestation. Manuel Gonzalez responded: o A Systemic insecticide will be applied annually (included in the Maintenance Contract) — Systemic insecticide is applied to the root base Pam Lulich stated proper nutrition and adequate watering will prevent caterpillar infestation (based on the article.) Staff requested a quote (Hannula) to apply Systemic insecticide on (44) Black Olive trees. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Devonshire Water Usage Scott Windham stated (2) Water Meters will be installed: • On the Well (located across from the Mixing Chamber) • On the effluent line going to the Mixing Chamber Discussion took place on the timing of the MSTU summer meeting schedule and receiving Bids for the Project. 3 161 0`2A 26 Dale Lewis suggested rescheduling the June (21') meeting to provide the County sufficient time to receive Bids. Dale Lewis moved to reschedule the (June) meeting to June 28`" to give the County (Staf,) time to receive Bids. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT Sue Chapin gave an update on Radio Road East MSTU: o Plans were submitted by the Landscape Architect o A Public meeting was held o (3) main large Trees will be utilized o Project cost estimate - $735,000.00 - Based on the cost estimate the Project completion date is 2017 o (1) Main Well will be installed o Public concern was expressed on the 2017 Project completion date - A Public petition is underway to request funding options from the BCC Michelle Arnold announced Radio Road East MSTU is postured to receive Grant monies in FY14. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on - ► , as presented or amended The next meeting is June 28, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 V N o�o�o O O O n O O CSI [IILI °o, °o O O O O O S O Ira M N O O V cx ( 3 O O H O V N o�o�o O O O n O O CSI [IILI C J J n� r � r I m; p ar p n o v a p Z E a 0 O G m E U La c. `o c t- as UJ IL c Ii i r N CIA Q QQ Q Q QQ - 'D W W J J W W W 111 m m U CD cm co r r l0. M LO e- m O O O O p S O O O O O O cx ( 00 O O O O O S O 0 0 0 O O C)1 O O S S O N O.��{ S O S m I(�j I�j a U w C J J n� r � r I m; p ar p n o v a p Z E a 0 O G m E U La c. `o c t- as UJ IL c Ii i r N CIA Q QQ Q Q QQ - 'D W W J J W W W 111 m m U CD cm co r r l0. M LO e- m l0 Q 3 C CL C m UL O h� C O LL E C C C Qf Q In - E c CL 0 = 0 t o >- i 3 Qf w LL ci S CO 7 CD IA v Q or O C I 0) Ol C C w O II L Z O a N o a �p i •� ai 3 a LL - G. Co O d 0) c G J `N '0 m O 10 m S O. 01 m N Y D 07 1 J N ! i fA � m cm ` rn a °> O p �' g ° ! c W m 01 a N , LO O m m .O. .�.. r N+ o. Co W C m 'e w o is E o f4 `p, C 0 O O O 0S 1 y a 0 m E _ cyi -0 D m Q U+`' d 72 W 0) 0 0 �! 0) I -La E L � 3 °x m "� m�+ m c ar c acs m 30E -1 !•O, Qs j C C as y .D T C CL m Q 1 Y 47 &I aS N 10 a vc 1 1 C 4m _p > C1 6 a O a� �p t C3 3 1 C W C '� O L t 0s t E t 0 C n' j N a s E n' I po 10 m a OO Go) I U O� 01 WU tm t7� m S "0 ca CL to c c i Y'fl N= m p !' O O Oy v as 1 i ro x c 0 .m a� we 2 0 15 w ov�i oa'c c aIcc C�'Eo �m m�, c c ctm o° �2 a 0 �~ mc.PZ 0 "x'Sc � a m•°�- saan�— In c 8 me QCLCf.- m11JUmIdmmtu) Pu.w E M It t0 10 � 00 O) O N M V 10 t 161 Oe A26 —1 NI MI OI O S w co N 0 M b N co fA H3 IA /A ff! 41• w m W W w W W W W N It le cn N N O 0 to :3 a .0 W as cc O t a (0 5 I m W Y Q C 01 a 0 0 c = O o CL aZc m c .r j O t O L 0_0 L Fb O CO CO i'M m CO a � V C 03 a m E I c 0 a c L N 0 C O co m •0 •C 7 C O 7 E .� 0! W O O m O as CL L I� a C U �JJ� m fni m J J m m m W 0J 1-- 00 O O N r r r N N N lu LU to � a • 2 X p CL - ,o - E O O O O O I O) t II cx ( 161 Oe A26 —1 NI MI OI O S w co N 0 M b N co fA H3 IA /A ff! 41• w m W W w W W W W N It le cn N N O 0 to :3 a .0 W as cc O t a (0 5 I m W Y Q C 01 a 0 0 c = O o CL aZc m c .r j O t O L 0_0 L Fb O CO CO i'M m CO a � V C 03 a m E I c 0 a c L N 0 C O co m •0 •C 7 C O 7 E .� 0! W O O m O as CL L I� a C U �JJ� m fni m J J m m m W 0J 1-- 00 O O N r r r N N N lu LU to � a • 2 N O 0 to :3 a .0 W as cc O t a (0 5 I m W Y Q C 01 a 0 0 c = O o CL aZc m c .r j O t O L 0_0 L Fb O CO CO i'M m CO a � V C 03 a m E I c 0 a c L N 0 C O co m •0 •C 7 C O 7 E .� 0! W O O m O as CL L I� a C U �JJ� m fni m J J m m m W 0J 1-- 00 O O N r r r N N N lu LU to � a • 2 v O U O H w a7 O U r C .+ C 0 Yl ul O p H 3 z c° i d W co W W W W W W W co W W € m > � 3 ro o E a U o m c U. Q N v E > mfA i W) r c m `o alb E ao ac ° EmE m iv m N w N M in M � m A; N N n V OD N N .- m EL h z m r N fD L ' X X X ,� r �0 v a m > Nm o C p r oU d 161 ke A�6 J J J J J U. W J J S O O 8 0 0 o to Ct 4 ti I m �- r N N CO V M � m E N o c v C 'a c � > € m > � 3 ro o E a U o m c U. Q N v E > mfA i r c m `o alb E ao ac ° EmE m iv m cc 0 L/ m w d m LL a U a v C $ c a -k G M p aD fp -. aD mom m acioc m EL h z m r N fD L ' X X X X �0 v a m > Nm o C p r oU d m N ��_� 8 c cc O c c Co c c C .� c c 000 mmm m 0000 0 mmdm m 0 m 0 0 m m w wa a V a w w a a a a Cl) mm a co M co M M m E� � 0C) c e a Mgc W W = H m 0: X C. Q Q 161 ke A�6 J J J J J U. W J J S O O 8 0 0 o to Ct 4 ti I m �- r N N CO V M � m E N o c v C 'a c � > € m > � 3 ro o E a U o c E `E n N v E > mfA i o C p E m alb E ao ac m m c v1 z m iv m cc 0 L/ m w = p o 5 �i a U a a c��m E 2 m a mom m acioc to m o o E o m d IS vV C m = U a X C � W �0 v a m > S ((� o m w W LL oU d m N ��_� 8 �2�2 �oawao> vm ao �' �� o c m b c aia Fm �° d� �o k; EVw ism m io To ee _ O m w Cj ON 0 ID i° 'n N a U. z a 0� .6.6 � Ecaa?O E V zs o� a =My m E� � 0C) c e a Mgc W W = H m H mm .o0 ° v a _ mm cE m0nm cc Ir a N �> armyy'��ppo$� E m .� Y « 0 c O> d' �2 L W N NN NNI M aN+l rM1 NN N a00 aOD e00 a0! cc c cca�m`° c 7 2ce O z g ppc a ppa a W 8 m .0 r 8 C pO on Cl 99.0 t7 t3 Q U o m _ 3232 22 B$ mnc`v a pN� ~ m V G c 0' � 1 a aOn a°o 0101VUN O m 319'3 of QU =a> m m 'E 000 °io:;".5 ww w01 3�.° � > >N�am 9U (9 C9UC9 �E� 161 ke A�6 J J J J J U. W J J S O O 8 0 0 o to Ct 4 ti I m �- r N N CO V M � m E N o c v C 'a c � > nW = a 2 $ m > � 3 ro a 7E o c E `E n N v E > to ao a m � m CL c m iv m 2 EL U a `cor to O CL aD IS vV C m = U a m W as c m $° �0 v a m > ag m w c E oU d m N ��_� 8 �2�2 �oawao> vm ao �' �� o c m b c aia Fm �° d� �o k; EVw ism m io To ee m m w Cj ON 0 ID c ct V m 8 aa�aas•0 a j �� 5 E .6.6 � Ecaa?O E V zs o� vmvvvvco 0 m E� � 0C) c e a Mgc ww � - -0 m W a0 � a N N a m mm .o0 ° 000.2_gS m a U C 8 i E _ mm cE m0nm ,° goa«oc� mm °p °� t� .m � w ae as ro as m d N �> armyy'��ppo$� E m .� Y « 0 c O> d' �2 L W O m C M map oc > c -2E a00 aOD e00 a0! cc c cca�m`° c 7 2ce O o a U g ppc a ppa a W 8 m .0 r 8 C pO on Cl 99.0 t7 t3 Q U o c � N O 3232 22 B$ mnc`v a pN� ~ m V G c 0' � 1 a aOn a°o 0101VUN O m 319'3 of QU =a> m m 'E 000 °io:;".5 ww w01 3�.° � > >N�am 9U (9 C9UC9 �E� g ac c w cm «a mo aaamNV °o, ME 0 VU my m _10�C4N'vvvd o°o.ms 1 NV�o C9 C9tDC9 C9 U' a� co EgX�pOL X m itvi�>It m m 2a� E IL .0Zd�d�d�d s� N M C~9 en Go M 7 V a�dp�dccpNNCv V V� V Y <'0' a h D 0 m U N O m 0 [r N b 3 C4 N e E t w 0 10 m w o° t A � o v H a v C a m F. w 0 m D z 0 O o. 161 OZA2b J W W W lli J W W ll]y W W W J N W W !3 U. WJ JJ W W W N N N N 10 N e- N Q N m —ICJ 10 ^mWC�9� �NNN v m ID In to N 42 c 0 a o o E c� E c E �� v m > mw = c m U mE� g n o w 2m v oEm C.) to >a �aLL m t o a a' ° m+ �aLL m i. a °v � -8 16 E d ° Im co N o 2 N m a E 2 w m o O G > C L° t o U a O y q co 0 - 0 C m a m E e* � E 9 a y F SD x SO m m a o t3 0 ion m' °�9 a � ' t ° Os j �m ��c� � > m > d v m 2 v � 0 m > U •o °m ° t m 8 � �> �E `m m P3 �3 m m a dQ c r€ o ° - m ® 8 °° c c N a n � � > aV g ° � t r O O > x x ° . o 0 M o 2 o c E z m U ' ' m m aQ s ° c E a . w o S 0 N a N c c > 8 m ',A S cc ° c cm a' .05 Em u c ao o � C m S m on Cm a n = > m a c 8 E�m m _ 40 viu m og� i �oo� c eo z7 to zm c m m . Q _m $roc aY m0E'�o° m m lac 5 ° —0 ° eae � °�° � � a L ao 'F a cc O' m � m vc 'a gi le �7 °a C � (n tS i3 tS i5 8 I c a o m Y >m8 c v E0- _� >mQ � w goiWEm m EB�;rECOL -� n oSia �m c �OREE��� c u ° 3 °> a> w v ~ga D 6E m c a ,an -.GO c .- « m 7 a> m m 8 E a R' x° ,� C C C " r m m 1 aEma3m aA m`°''�macm �m�!�v �'m UCjLD `am��s g°g'I�am°° m� ° av'°`� m n z3 eatyS �z bm�a 3 0 �n� aaaaaaUa mmo� -Qos6 LL mo�mf o_Am Eo t$ III -m 8� m Na mor x22:1 � LL t�im i° 3 L° 0wO o} 8 mr o av w m m g�a� o =0 0= WW �oY "� >. cn W� ,aE ° w o$ m omB�E g'._m eJO as ° E °mc�y• -m ae �- m mmm wa ao �w OD•se� >: x m N m m v c o g a E> .9 o c a n a c L E E E L e c >m m m roes «QEm oo¢. `_°o m m o��>m8 Ewa �UmL E����n$ 8Q ca> then m> > m �mmng om o om �mE �8 c ¢�mgm E S N mm oe� aasm Q� o� .emmiammaapcmO� No I� e_J m cm €m> m mmd xvn�a' °o /a m- - > > >o» $aN� mSd xin a mm m� UcNyz°c> > y �� az� wcm�? �cccca°moo3N.$t> > 8 oLm -°.8 8a caaeAo�ma s °� °`dm �c�c I°� mLL�iB 8 m�3�c 8m aje HU >.°0.'c�' m =c88mci�o vCL o c aaaaa0- a�aa'I°V mi �S 8 am UgBc 888888om-°�° mui� iC7 c7 >mwWLL2y- �'�'z> N�a0E�Eno�'c` � m ocr�mr�caa'j v Ng' -a5Z3 CEaai$jc�'°� �_m >E n � cz c�l���•83 'Iaa3I- � >�eo'�_ a $ v N U -ra��a0Jc3m��"n���c �am�°3 EtO a�cEo� mom �UUN��U� '�` � a o " vE£+5 m c� g o��r P c �� m o a° so b m m mwo ll Coo CO c3a°mCr n m� Mmm io >gca c c 0 c U� 8 > >> » >N acca mcm c c o� E�= ��f om�=o o� x E �� ''° g mm C70007C9C9NOE000aamgio 0 `m o 19>C m vyoamm m= y m�cw v�vC U �v S emu. 8C3,cmz m °c `° g'`'mar m w x�nc C{ co o >�rVV : :! N =aU31 =cJ��fm m U m m EOM E- az z o"�r v� 120 von_ e-U Of -U 2- IZ z az> ='mama ie mE la °�$ a ccmv U =EcmC900cDC)C7�y`Optn�mEl �Laa��U•Q5�m•�'oEog�mgdd E °0� 8�e -o momla NdzdtAW m -v -� WG3mJ J Wn CR W yaCU'SEu� �fA�'EW QQQQ NN1��fNNpW'C�3:IJ J C14 0 IN W) lij b b to N m f0 m m t0 m � 4 m m so— N rg A m � co N CD aD co Goo v 3 w M �6I S _ o S o g o ° o o g o Ion 0 0 GO N N W O O OO ++ Oi N ':I!O�'z O O 7 °� N N to N 10 M N i2 AM f9 7iF n °O °° °O, °° N 0 co co N M O O O O in co W N _ O -- W LLI W W W W W W J J U to to It f0 N W O Y V m ... N G �% a cc coo y C CL q co c m 3m�y a d li Q c v n a a c ° g 2- R 6 gE a c Lu a n � = o o � v m 3 3 _- _IL i m m a m o _ > , F ao a v m i? 'a .410 m v m RL > ° �,' > I- p n m_.y a d m a° ° n 2 o t i c n c t o m =i Yg U o c a m c g Q ILD S o ., w o 32 32 3 r+ a ae a mm Na i n on— > ° °�°° m m _ __ R rn cs�a > pa�� m m IL 0- 0 CL C E w 73 m N C v C m ppp C 2 N G O u�9m Nm m om m cO c o Y m0 c ma co CL o a a �c So ` ooa� E� _° a HOC :R -___- a UU n•_ macs a m _ m :? c$ �O e .c 3 iSa o= m Lb c o c 0 apa c a o, c— m C"4 >: Y !om H a i y w c d X � am 0 oc v aLW m c -m ma $ c n to, n Z ° � > tm_g p O O L = n _-_ie5 °(-" 0' C C t L C1 C7 Q m a a Q Co 06 0 o� a o 8 4' c Q Q mTx m co m p = cQ '5'0 00 I� 3m @m $ ao za rQ'QU m 6:2 �_ e e Oc m r7 � ..... . 3a mm yaaR m !Yc V?a° O a,c Ff cc ' a�i li s a ��uQi s wt9 3 m u'��a u'S E t w w ux:- H m n co (m w rnN W) CL .0 - 0 E _ A'26 9.4i m eA b 3 O .Q .W Wml m .132. o � 0 011 m � Q Um Q .- N 0 E 7 pa CO c C CL S a c r v 8 v M a v s r�'nn z.ra -- m m m m E LL 1 � Im n 3 m W �_ U 11 p b u 11 m IL IL >' w_ =_ J W N J U m eA b 3 O .Q .W Wml m .132. o � 0 011 m � Q Um Q .- N 0 E 7 pa CO c C CL S a c r v 8 v M a v s 1di rE A26 =1 1=1 TWEM PRESENTS, RW.Wq_.-MLri-Prlde "Mtk — . . Overein oftw, caUeddwPm.olps* (beWo ca0ad ft- Swvty a MOMW= • I thadeted-a—M e,,dsft under. ot the' with its PrbwW aroces P the city of Des S"Oa09*kz0dtO.dOiu6lnew'in the State of Florida- and 49 batod- unto the Col gr bounty *m - Tt - -Y. th Owner}, in the 6A and just sum of Five - peecent, of amount of bld daNars. ($ goW and * *Aft mmwY- of #*,- UvAbd States of America, to be POW upoa OeMrO- 0- the tO Which P3YMWK **# and Ouly Ry be made, OW PMc*W and-Ihe Swety bind WOMMhOS, UVOW beiW SnO. -exmftm, at a W.- *mfy by ft"loraw9ft- voweas. ft Pd%4W is- abotA im submt or has suhifted to Oww, a SM fbr fug 30 't O"OMM and mW&Aals MOMMq: to famish, waaftk MW ftdty -twyWb* the VVo*r w MO prqed Cal: Dbvo"M %won aid Me- NOW,. TPWRWORe if Me OMW OW aaxV the Md of the PRINCIPAL.ziod tke. PONOM, sho ~ inw ft -xxA"d AUnWwwoft with ".* Owpor aodwilfift ten. days aftrtt* d0ft Ot a WMOR Magm of Avmrd in a*=dwm;wffh ft* tom Of- SO& awl arlo ghmauch band or bonds in am; amaw#1 of 100% the toW Coftact AowuM -vaspeeffled in OOMMX4* Or COV*ad DGaMWft Mh qqW _a . wAewt. =spy for #je ftftAPWOm of MeAgmenent and for d U16hed Ift the pmeemidw ftmd Or. if *a eMit ct ft M OWW Ow MqL*W wWwalm of hwmsw,. if A* PFO=PN- $h* to ft-CaUGEt the foe waftd noftd **ve penft-ez pmmided ift #* Mdfft DOQ"ent% ftn #fja� C&kPSM wid, Oolempbe- ft remaki in fug fwm aW IN TEST[ OMN Thereof, e wPr d a epmsm duty signed and sealed th 19th Jury .2011. AmeM-4 • ay Allf ed asualt y Insurance C9MAny Surety jerty, & C IWT-torney Fact O L.Ocall Res.khwt Producihg Agent fbT N KNOW ALL MIFU SY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Kationvide.,MtduW:IppmwtmCwnpvvf, an ON* corporation Fanmhw muWathsWance-Coirvany. an Nationwide AgnbusirIess, an loses corporation 16 10'2A26 Pomr of Attarnoy AMCO Insurance Conwparly, an —corporafift A1W rom m cporaffon hereinafter referred to severally as the "Company' and collectively as, d* 'Companies' each do" hereby make: coraghft and appoint Denise Miller eadtin their vwbAa P&MOrand avolorilyto w Adefta 60, seal. and execute on ftbeh& *jy-WW onds ng 4 w4i W mjs Tbne TbomaNsl&-aod 9wM $300000 and totMAherCompany therebyj ashAy and to the, samo-sident atif such instruments wem signied.-bytho if*4 .of the ON a# ads of 9410 Anorrwpurkientla- &e. auftft given we hereby Ta~ and -apritirmed. This pamierglatimwyfis made and eitec-uWpurs doptoo card m*fAwCwnpanr,. pan M by nut" otft b&Awfog resojuWift duty a. by the board 'RESUVW, that DW WW*MK. or anyNica-FOOOKK bit. and each hereby 1A, authorized and ern poww.ed to appointOAMe*vulsic ;*Cfw Company, and to authodan &arm ft "9e&Aa- arid: 0O*.w in b*kwtNx14i* Cornpany any an* ea bands.; brim. appscp*m. UM% lay, trust thatwou. corlitritoft orwidoolk . VOW62�-. pe orptim". busihoss.of IJwComp"mayveqakK4nd:Ic OxzWotw4dw-,WkhorvWiDA=MBnywchpook¬ ' dtaufficitity4 . OwWad'. city tied to 41p and countersigp any-oflia6docurrili"44behalfof the CWVW.- 'REGP(JWD.FUFUWK *Otumbatiomay.&4n4act-shMhwe' trip -power artdkudunfttm&xoctAe.aW4otw'any.iondatso.didacume3ftam-twbwewconvmy sub)adto assessery for to validity of anysuch documentL' This qmW-04florney is sighed and sealed undervad-by.,twWawbg bybnm duly adopted by twboavdiot-dinicAomof1he cAdwvy. 0 r: IruW. .ft.6k'1291..... writracts *rWWvpOpW%Iwwn-wcdw with the opuWanofftbusiness orthet company ihaddaw:to vW40kinan Meow .dw sonture of any of4ern Duly be ~,.enWvjock ors Wrjpidona Ay appMeddociment, .contract. kninurent4oriothw:pWmofIff4rCorApww. INWITNM WHEREOF, the Comparqhm caused ffik insWurnantlot be sealed and diLdy anetd byftwVwWrs4ft~&e aWfairnWrid Mutual knu AMCO Insurance Compw* Ailed Property and Casualty InspR64.0ampAM, 9W OVoftm Wsurance, Cwwww ACKNOWLEDGMENt STATrE OF OWN COLWrY OF POLK, so 101W." Ofter oss~.Tn &W who exec~ Ow pipp-0.4ing kisft'eiR;�.aiodbs adinavAedged Via execudboWillis lilaaw, 11111s;:.Whe is the 4f rotdieCornpanias that the"als affixed herstoarelhe"oorpoiaft sealh-atiak! CaW.41llies, and thaqvikl-corporste-sesib and his kMeAft curt* 9w. -arid subsoted to =id 'Wft lot vulthorilwatiAdirectfort of said Companies. 411F Cwnirras� EExpires I MY s CERIW ATE March 24,2(IT4 L Kaftk diehards, Ags Cant seerotary o(OWCompaNes; owaigindpowerof aft wrsy wed by the Comparir.thet1he resolution kicluded'ftivoin is a true and:ow;*0 transcript from'ttng minutes of tits cgs Olvilat"01"Of directors &Ondtheanift has pokbeen rm&Ad Or amended In any manner that.said 0" X- Douglas was on the date pro-A eitewlm a fb4voft pew vt O"y ffvv4i& 410640, oftatof. the Carnpanles; arAdft corpm iubsedbed 6tw sa4*tsh;rnv;wibVitw arid" of and-ft 4 s"ft and his duly aftKgd and IN Wrn4R36 'WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed " name as AsOstaint SaGratary. and affi"d the: cwfors* seats of said CWparikWhis —L')—&day A40AWnt Sbcsotary This Power of Altorney Ekp.w*!$ -08h t12A 12 RFP lf.,I O0 - OevenWmBottlavard { o air e r jeai by: the sworn ~mw'ra o he" nloam A Nb ber'of E plo�f c ing: 3 tir �cp®r Nur:ieea Living -in C�. la�tt� (1rngxa a �� requ d to fde docum xsrt [1 1 #'by tCty ' - 5.. ,vi%:: Eaile�� �:v�a� iii veridoF`i*5ut�iissi�m bej�9 !+ed t�tt`:a�lic�e= _ ferada lathe 4.0 ! .._./ r., IS- _ � ers Zola Rai► � _- N ip : & YFFSAN L 10 11 ibl R2 A26f� MR-MrS. �� Z-g- 101M ;t g A260 16: 16112A26 ~ 2 A.2 6 A26 Fey i y� T LW3. i I: pora: not tip Md ha' � awed, they Succe ... e to -thee 6witi D. tin tan ( the w and or Bonds and lnsura a Cep° as fired b .: The* : lrtsu a Gees: a ids are h cute.d, and debt a E;. iw one alb het :. as .0m damac, es� fela c and,, addi , bey «ads since tie is. NO � ref 1 ,. uccessta. Bet s execute arhd: deue to t the ru rcate alb within, the Nqujreri tan, odr In: th e mount of:rkr,s dam, b dr"cultt if not irnpiossae, -. EN d ctuaatr': itx IeeCee:1;i l a proRriaternd..far fiat ; daage�cartr tCuo Bit " fie evert it fart tci eufe `ars C e : sm ` as required hen, ter. he e sa waives and=: ishes :are fib � it. C hm&tD noted tsd da as a +fie ales tea is a�cly #irne O b" e [r a fir ef. er's sal da�g at. U . fads Mite and dew the° . AgmaTierit,. t c C. w un � �O� derssign�ed,i in -- - s� w� cafe d� coarmen ent ' a . su >?rdc .tintless he Pry ►cger, in wing, '9 furOter n e+ to n d &mnt date. 1 ha u rged ' aWwork tommed' b fits #ham- reef and Styr _ Q i' ... computed` yF exclttd pf l k t. date and lam_ W lie a eEted fib the > 4 _ dal accepta b e rosy after ibsfi +al c:o rae nent,da a. ;- i d the fast day of such perto S , E�l^�aF I F1mi T� state of C 1 yr i bo x W _ _ and" says t t t an e E ry _ ±ement lierer are F1f F3 such Viler a that tT r f as .esa l" an Pro a Bid firm the ceding _Uocurh - ry..a arxd l wed th8 sew Qra1�11flg� • :... _ the ' ci h±nein and cor< 7 Y x a e A Z.6 ::Of Q# te DATED.- . BY� - L &-: Mi' -3:;.�.` MOO W CwOftsiori Expimw Notavy C, tE 'aP I a 1612A241 1 x { k p tt Sf E7; V+,,. `t-,- '. �.�5. r '4't�" -zw,k t,& :..;......,1, _1,::_- 'ma +a .: ^"9 y , yy 4 � � , 'v ',:;1 n�:' di'vTi:�„1/4�+�' 0� 11:�2;0�r�`5 ;- d� fi r I:. .a; p fir, ;... r�` '. •ti - - _ ' '',--.", '••-•;.; - '• .. '''..: ' .•,..:','', '''' ' '-1,-.'.-g,44-:`,. gri7,7i.:,,,...--,.014.4- 1..-..;...,.4„,.4--. -.,,,', '......-- . . -,-,, ,'_ ,1-. . , ✓ter 4:4.2'1' z f Y ii Xi. T7 k:■' ,y,g n b, F ' - SM ` _ _ • + �- 5 S t 1 M u X;•%. y,�y .7syY��,-. l•s' waw' C i CT,i3;,...wFif.N. , '''n: ; L L. tJ a r Fk ' fi. t r• -- Narkscf; a°�3 .',v-1,,:-,,,,, :VI=. k ,' 'fin- o-w Y+ T`'._ Y),-`.4'4' .f mM ,� i.t.,;;., -',:,-. , o s{� -,., . i ` 'I-.a } _ y• n t L•SY k , lr j.�yl ,� Cx,.xa E -y;4t-f4,:>,,,,s 1‘,-,? 't� _, '.• ,k:^: ,, i .. '-,r ..--: ; ,� 40,44 ` C%tk.'� y a r�y;.,3,z p s:' rnl. ar 4_ _„ .. ” 5 �: z c _E_,„,,t,i5,,,,...:... .„. „,"'.:'••••.'-••T,,,•••••••, ',;' •,-_:',,,,._,-c4.-1-1;1, ,,,,_:,-'44-.. 11..;;.._;'...a.. 4,-. ,j-ii- E �� �r f r�� .m • • Ameri-Pride, Inc. N4= George:Sftehu Joe Pairner Mithael Scrhager Steve Rayer Maxwell Largent ,SWnon Gonzales Jesus Galarza boreammernander Juan DeJObs; JasWplaclWater Ma)drhin6 Salazar Ft-pberrOonstant Mmdailp6Panze-CaUhua Waham Salas Fransisco Jimenez AferinaZdqufteptl George Nor-man. .Lenin-Cardbn Josue Vasquez Ernestaferez Leorkwdo.Sautista luab Low AAllanAndrews AntonfwEsteban- A 26 ,rwp VicL-President 2GYears Grouttels Maintonartce, Larriis Project Manager - Ls.o"qg 16years, GroundsUalvitenarIMA�a .; �.Ofma,- SecondWCofftact - LandtcaWrrigatlon 35 Y4ars. LardscaM Plant!% r wis TrAtsupervitor- FDoT Mar certified : a Years Gridunds Mbihtenancq,. Plaftntr SefliqrCrewLeader 7Year-s Grourvd$-Wlalnt*04.nae, LatVd Crew Member Crew Member s. Crew Member Crew Merhber Cremt,Mornber Crew Member Crew Membet Crew.UXder- 7Yeays Land ap ft CIMW Me~ CretwMem1w Crew Member Member - Crew Crew Member Cre•Mevribar Crew Member ctew Leader • JAWKS60.vice 3` Yeut Cm*Member Crew,Miember CrewMetuber Crew Member Onw-Member Crew Member crewidember 5T Pt us on List Next on. List ReWm To List Neepents i�c.blaurie Frye ''afft Detmi[by, Erfty.M e, Wit:- PP JQE,- INC, P040MI45496 Dai&:Fdgd MAMD04 St s R ACTA/E CLEAWATERFL337,64 ChMgWow W-We. low ms�. 'my tow CtEAFMO 'ER fL 33764 �A It P4 A 26�-t W eft. SIOEM., F.ATRA MIH law U-S.- KW " N. CLE�i1�ti T FL-33764 US T,*P SM04U FATRAFWH 'CLEARMUERFL-3=4 St. SOKOL HW "N CLEARWATMR�33764 2 2M. . www.sunbiz.org - Department of State 161 12,1�2�6 Home Contact Us E- Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List . Next on List Return To List jEntity Name Search No Events No Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation AMERI - PRIDE, INC. Filing Information Document Number P04000145496 FEUEIN Number 010642885 Date Filed 10/2112004 state FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 16604 U.S. HWY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 Changed 04 /06/2010 Mailing Address 16604 U.S. HWY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 Changed 04 /06/2010 Registered Agent Name & Address SHEHU,FATBARDH 16604 U.S. HWY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 US Address Changed: 04/06/2010 Officer /Director Detail Name & Address Title P SHEHU,FATBARDH 16604 U.S. HWY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 Title VP SHEHU,SOKOL 16604 U.S. HWY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2010 04/0612010 http: / /www.sunbi7 -org/ scripts /cordeLexe ?action= DETFIL &inq_doc number--P040001454... 7/29/2011 �3 161 2A26 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 2 of 2 2010 08/20/2010 2011 01/20/2011 Document Images Previous on List Next on List Retum To List lgnW.Name Search No Events No Name History i Home i Contact us i Document Searches i E- Filino Services I Forms i Helo I Coovriaht® and Privacy Policies State of Florida, Department of State h4: / /www.sunbiz.org/ scripts /cordet.exe ?action= DETFIL &ini_doc_ number= P040001454... 7/29/2011 Z+ �l Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee '" 2885 Horseshoe Drive South 0""r Naples FL 34104 September 12, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: August 1, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Hannula B. Windham Studio VII. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 161 e A26M �l��6IICAiSj� BY........................ Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is October 10, 20113:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Mainte*4wew es: 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Deb: k'4!'9� t Ibm * \ loZ 2 44-240 Cass to: 161 0 A261 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples Fl. 34104 August 1, 2011 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:31 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: VI. C. Signage VI. D. Devonshire Bid IX. A. Meeting Schedule Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 17, 2011 Betty Schudel moved to approve the May 17, 2011 minutes as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Darryl Richard reviewed a Maintenance Proposal by Hannula ($1,400.00) for annual Systemic Insecticide and Fungicide treatments for the Shady Lady Trees. (See attached) A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $296,064.27 • Available Operating Expense $56,451.19 • Line Item 10 Actual Carry Forward $183,544.05 - MSTU Carry Forward Report is included in the meeting packet (See attached) 161►2A26 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed (ITB 11 -5700) Devonshire Landscape and Irrigation Refurbishment Bid Tabulation: (See attached) • Ameri-Pride Inc $267,214.37 (lowest Bid) - References are under review • Hannula Landscaping $278,818.46 The Committee expressed the following concerns with Ameri-Pride Inc.: • The Committee, Staff , and Consultant are unfamiliar with the Company • The References submitted by Ameri-Pride Inc. consist primarily of Restaurants (See attached) Dale Lewis moved to recommend to award the Bid to Hannula Landscaping based on the companies references in the amount of $278,818.46. Second by John Weber. After discussion the Committee concluded on the following: • Ameri-Pride Inc. had the opportunity to provide References applicable to the Scope of Services during the Bid process • The Company may be inexperienced in roadway work based on the References submitted with the Bid Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez - None B. Windham Studio - Scott Windham gave additional information: Status Report on the Medians (eastern end of the Proiect - Santa Barbara o Recommendations to address the Soil PH issue - Implement a continuous Treatment Program - Install appropriate Plant Material - Remove the turf Maintenance Report (See attached) • Median dry Turf areas are stressed - Consequently weeds developed in the Medians (predominately in Median 16) - Irrigation heads were exchanged - Weed control will be applied - Subsequently the area(s) will be patched with sod • Recommended utilizing slow release Fertilization to rejuvenate the stressed Magnolia Trees that resulted from watering issues Pam Lulich stated the Irrigation heads were changed to address the watering issue with the Magnolia Trees. 16.,1 �2 A26 Scott Windham continued: o Live Oak Trees require structural Pruning Discussion took place on the Turf issues in the eastern Median (Santa Barbara to Devonshire Blvd) Scott Windham suggested developing a Conceptual Plan to address the Median issues. Pam Lulich posed using Plant Materials (Bird of Paradise) at the entrance to introduce color. Dale Lewis questioned if County Funds are available to enhance the gateway entrance from Santa Barbara to Radio Road. Pam Lulich replied Budget Amendments are under review for Fund 111. Dale Lewis perceived that the present time is preferred for the enhancements in lieu of starting the Project during Season (October — November.) Dale Lewis moved to approve the Project (Median area between Santa Barbara and Devonshire) in the amount of $7,500.00 plus 10% contingency and on an as needed basis. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. Signage Darryl Richard reported the Devonshire Signs will be installed after the Bid is awarded and a NTP is issued (Devonshire Refurbishment.) D. Devonshire Bid — Discussed under V. B. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment — Previously discussed under V. C. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Meeting Schedule Dale Lewis requested to change the monthly meeting day to Monday. After discussion it was agreed to meet on the second Monday of each month. The next meeting is scheduled at 3:30 p.m. on September 12th. Betty Schudel will not be present at the September 12th meeting. Dale Lewis requested Staff notify the Committee if the BCC approves the Bid Award to Hannula. (Staff Action Item) X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:41 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee R �- A4sr'L Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on !R- 01- as presentedZ-_or amended The next meeting is September 12, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 0 A N m A 001 O W A O A A N w www ww w wmmw o I�IV IOND I0 I0 IW IA IN) IW IO -W+ A W 0 0 W (00 O O V n en (WD N CW7) N PD V I OND I N U lmuml v ro O m "Co N 168e I OAO fA fA V 0 w (n cn m N U? 0 m � o C -o F a :n OD C W 7 W 7 D m O c T7 (� cn G) T m� r- L _ o ID W c 3 M C) o N m c Ch PA cn - 0 N A (.1 cn N- O (O O V 0 i A O 3 0 o rn . m W e g C 0 N O 3 a' CNJt c CD = m C a m w n W CD K r a r C O? W D m_> 7 m - CO X r � O .�. O -^ °0 0 0 0 N x P x 7 7 7 7 8 ° 0) x3m 7 C N N cn o fA (70 3.ozw_ o vii ')o n tri°� 0 cm 0 W m C 3 m W ci m CC W (D W W (D c m o °- pj 7 (D (D 0 7 W J m N O N � m u c m o 3 3 3 v 0 m 3 o (D m m 3. m c c u m N m m 0 7^ (/( (O O N 7n Q W C � (� bj W (n v o 3 cn —_ c o 3 O v � O m m s N 3 w i W n < d n J n x W (T w o 07 m m 3 - 3. < CD 3 (D Q n CL •G W W 0 0_ o m O '$ o m 7 i O > m ). o 7 O 0 W 7' � O O m or 0)) W CL t N m A 001 O W A O A A N w www ww w wmmw o I�IV IOND I0 I0 IW IA IN) IW IO -W+ A W 0 0 W (00 O O V n en (WD N CW7) N PD V I OND I N U lmuml v ro O m "Co N 168e I OAO fA fA V 0 w (n cn m N U? 0 m � o C -o F a :n OD C W 7 W 7 D m O c T7 (� cn G) T o (o m r- L _ o ID W m f w m M C) o N m c N PA fn fA W fA fA fA DS) 0 o m 7 Cnm A O 3 0 o rn . m W e g C 0 N O 3 a' CNJt W N <' m -� m CL O 7 7 Q 0 m 3 PO O? W 0o a1 O 0 O to t0 (O W N W O a O .�. O -^ °0 0 0 0 N x P x O 7 7 7 8 ° 0) x3m A OD C_ fit N N N o fA (70 3.ozw_ o vii ')o n tri°� 0 c m v�mc CC '0 — N G 3 C m nmDO Os t0 o CD c (n .D p m mN W m O o po G) W N m a co 0 C o � o t W c A G) � F d a 7 O v � O m W N d V O W W n a m 7 n co (T w S, �> > j 0O7C) A W O - 3. < CD 7 (D Q n CL N m (A 0 0_ o m O '$ o m G) 00 O > m ). o 7 O m 3 of o5cn O O m or 0)) o yin ° m m r (o D r o W n " CD m N m A 001 O W A O A A N w www ww w wmmw o I�IV IOND I0 I0 IW IA IN) IW IO -W+ A W 0 0 W (00 O O V n en (WD N CW7) N PD V I OND I N U lmuml v ro O m "Co N 168e I OAO fA fA V 0 w (n cn m N IO I N co M IO IO OIO W N 0 O O O 1 0 "0 1,000 I00 O fA IfA RA IfA IfA 5" N Ln cn COD O O A T O 0 0 0 O 19T z O N V V W W :n OD ao m m z v m IUD O C) O 0 O CD N PA fn fA (i1 fA fA fA EA 0 o m 7 Cnm A O 3 nm 7'o a 3 d c_ 3 -13 C 10 N N -+ CNJt W N C- 0) CL O 7 7 Q 0 z 3 PO O ..0p (N1) x N W 7 W W N a °o °0 0 0 NO m 0 IO I N co M IO IO OIO W N 0 O O O 1 0 "0 1,000 I00 O fA IfA RA IfA IfA 5" N Ln cn COD O O A T O 0 0 0 O 19T z m v Cl) N m m z v m _ _ I A W r _ N _ _ O (D W V 0 W A W 3 N -� D ;gym -1 mcn 0 W W ���c�m�tn -v > m m r- m v 0 o m 7 Cnm A O 3 nm 7'o a 3 d c_ 3 -13 C 10 N zn 0 0 N N C- 0) CL O 7 7 Q 0 z 3 m' (CO 9' D F x_ (D um � F 5 x, x N W 7 O � nl ^ O 7 m ? _' p W n 7 'i,o C CD :0 o D' �C D� O 3 ° 0) x3m �mm fit m m °m W fA < fA (70 3.ozw_ fA vii ')o n tri°� 0 c m v�mc CC — N N < m v C m nmDO _I m o o m C m mN W m O =no m0 V c0i m O C N 3 S "� a 4 m 7' a °- z o t W c N m m m 0 O � O D °v V O W y d $° o m 7 C xCD z 7 n co (T (o S, �> > j 0O7C) A W O - 3. < CD 7 (D Q n CL N m (A 0 0_ o m O '$ o m m a' 00 O > m ). o 7 W m 3 of o5cn O O C) m or 0)) o yin ° m m r (o D r o W n " CD ^' � N- rn 3 md� x CD C O C N 7 Uj m N 3 W c J 0 Q X 7 O O 7 A O C7 W N N 7a 7 W ° 0 m (o o -0 3 � oa �(a ? CD N m N W �. O u �? m S 0 N 7 D 1 W O 0. N 'O d (p 7 2 N F 0 N m O 3 a W C o X, m x < ('n T p d d t0 m (D *(a co m s 0 o C W to pj O W C m < - A o 7 :r O 0= a W 9 N V W d d m C U 7 r- 0 c > m CL n n d a a (7n (D :3 O W 7 C �. 7 f° "O 'o v r v ' (o -0 n c o T v 0 3 _ Z o N It O 0 x to V lo N C o A N W N O a j' 3 '0 W A (n 7 D -n O n N 2 C C a x T � rn' W 71 3 cl l0 C 0 co n O - W s u m 3 v 0 W 0 W 7 CD 7 a 0 0 p W OV1 0 W0 (n .� N W 0 co c o U T D cn cn D D cn V° D D fA fA fA E!9 fA fA fA fA fA fA fA co f!9 EA EA A O V OD 0 N W U( au A N OD 0) N co (An A A (n N N O W O V N O) 0 0 O) cD (1) O to 0 U( O O C) 0 0 -' 0 V A O O O N O O — N O 0 O 0 O fA fA fA fA EA 69 fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA in (n (O OD N A W A 8 O V (0D (No (D OD O W N V O OODD (n (n N (D A N N O O 0 0 V 0) O O 0) V V O N N N O O C) 0 0 0 W O to O O Ln O W O O O O O O (A fA fA b9 fA In fA EA fA 69 (A fA 64 b9 fA N A 0 O (X. O W A L, O)• C" O O A O 'J 0 W 0 (n O W O O O O A (o O O (!( 0 0 O O O O O OD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 IO O O O O N A i 0 0 (1 O O .A O co to fA fA fA fit fA EA fA fA O OIO IO IC) IO I O O I O C n C 0 7 y o D O r O z n X -m-1 m v z -1 O 0 O Ol C n 4 y C 7 0 D 0 m M A .ZI mm 0 0) a �o O A 0 7 7 m m a r a_ m � � W m a -4 O i O ro a 0 z C U1 7 m C 7 2 r: D z O z N C D z ° cn n D O Z m� D7 C W t�J N N W fn O V W A O W O (n C O N zn 0 0 N N 0) O 0) O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O O 0 0 0 O O fA fA fA fA fit En fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA A V 0 71 --` — N N N V W N m A W W N O V N 0 N V O W O Ln 0 0 0 (T 0 0 O) A W O 0) O O O O O 0 C. 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O C n C 0 7 y o D O r O z n X -m-1 m v z -1 O 0 O Ol C n 4 y C 7 0 D 0 m M A .ZI mm 0 0) a �o O A 0 7 7 m m a r a_ m � � W m a -4 O i O ro a 0 z C U1 7 m C 7 2 r: D z O z N C D z ° cn n D O Z m� D7 C W t�J N OI °IN 10 -4 1N � 0 0 0 I�C!O) I OJ I01 I01 °01°01 °o A 169169169 p (ND DD O) b OV (D O N A N O ovlaw CI1 0 V A A 69 fA 169 69 EA fA 6i N W 00 N N 0 CD 07 ON0 -C, W 0 V 000 N Ln A A W O A 000 0) 69 16916r I4E,1169 IEA 169169 69 169 z y O 0 C 01 cn 0 01 j CT A A A A pp A A j A W W W W N� 00 J 0 N A W N O 0 V U1 .P W N O (D C0 V 0 N O D _1 A W N N N W N O CD Oo V Z D D D D D D 7°-0 m w -0 d -0 7• -T i* O 0 o C K]• n N ?( - (p K K K F. K K y n O CD CD < O. < D) Q (� m ��< n0 CO G)G)O�G)G) dmo 0 0 0dOi�m Z fD ��� CD �i7� O a < c oc (v �. C C7 O_ O N C S n S ^�. v N N N O m '� �Omm D '9 Z T N Cn N 7 y C(D�) t0 C d Q A A A A N N C O �. Cl C) N = w C N (D O O O ci G) G7 L7 7 (D a W (D .7. (D 7G 0 1 � 0 to 7. n 3 (D 7 7 N C C C C C C - x. )( O (D p j g. < nmSD D -1'm.E D)��m '9wwvom m m w v d o ?� �� �a a°» °1 7 7 (p < < l0 (D (p (O (D 0 n N 0 C. ci rZ1 D C- - Tmmw C (D (00 0 pr ,< (D O 0 `< O O a (. -w o o C) (D (D fD 01 (D (D c1 7 7 'O N o g: d r r 0) O M �_ < N � N y y y (n (n cn a O O (D p, a j U r d N () N O C C O ° V < N 7' 7' (o CD ,� < N N° N N N A ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 7 7 O O 7 O (D m ° < < °< m _°- y canna ri(DVt7 7 7 0� 7 m CD N N O O O N o c 3 3 vv° (A CO m 0 N D p C N n Ci (O O O O O C1 O O p y 0 (0 (0 �. :. m o - y 0 0) 0) 69 7 )< m C o 0 0 0 0 o c -- o o o c m O -1 w _ (. N< y y y O < "a 'D V 'O "o V 7 0 0 O N -0 -0 N m m �O c V? (D `L m `� n n m m m ID na 3 v p a 0 3 3 z cn W N j (o _. q 0 0 (D 7 , m03�000� >> > >>> m "' °(D op C 3 C p D7 -- 7 31 ° 170 0 N) C) << C O N� N (D O O. N ° (n Cn 7 C C C C C C a 0. 01 d O x 7 v v o 3 o y, m° w N y 01 � 0= y W m m 7 Cp E. v < <? (� o f o < 7 p1 (D O O O o 0/ 01 01 N N N (D (D O 01 X (D y 7c 3 w y �< O p x O N• C y Cn v (D v 01 (D N_ 0 > , 3 N N fD (D fD (D fD N 0) O N D d CD V C1 O. C1 C L a s C) N N (D (D W "° 7 N .-O.. C C p= 7 A nvw w»'<o c i.�.i.f f �pN w� x o(° m O N S S 'O () 7 O n W 3 3 �'� m CV - . O O 07 .�.. (D fD (D fD (D (D �' A ? .y,. a a N C) 3 7 Cn N p O O (D y o y y y Cn y N (D 7 7 N o CD Oo 7 a N Qo ° p Om ? E. S. E. 5. 5. 5. 0a ° n3 to �y � a3 0000 00 OND pmm 7 7 m C:) (D �• N Q y T N 41 O ci lT Q Q CT CT Q° m 3 'O N N NO CD T (D (D 'r M. -0 x. - < c (n y (^ m m CD m m m a� y m° C) o m 01 0 to y o 6 y �. 3° D fD (n(o (o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 d 7 n A v o3i F m "XO '7-" D (O °< N N .y-. (D O O p 3• a d (1 c a d (D 7 O (D 0 yn n -0 : o �c D' C) c- c -� - (� N yo m(� 7 o 3 3 0 �»' P° c o< - o m 0 n 0 c' �' o ,. n m m D D� G�OCw y X m °c 3 o 3 a' 3 tT 3 7 < () .7. ._: C a. CS C7 Q CT CT U .C. ? N 7 7 O 7 c% d (D N a< 0< (D (n O �_ "7" 'O c c c c c 3 C� p N or O N =' O N 7 D) y = y y pj y N (D C T N, fD O 'O W d 01 d 0) d° CD O p (D (D < (D su F (� y ]' y L 7 y f a< d N N (D X .+ < O (N (D CD y y (O CS O S rL N O c� (D (D N d Q N N ]' 7 O Q 07 (D TI 07 ° N < N C a_? n. 7 j < 61 9 C N» (D 3 (D (D 7 CD 50 C < N O Q -0 N 3 m y p(D (COL 7 o 7 7 _ K N .O 3 O? L `< In 7 3 N (D (D y n X. N N C0 C y (D N 7 (D CD y? O (7 O C CT (,,� T Ch p N En N a Z, SL C o T�m� 3 o v (o m a m N m o o =o� m N. CD ° o N O= N N d. 0- a N - (n O- N OL ,< O. (n V 7 N .O o D) N w o (p p a = c y �p Er N o • w � N 7 C (D N 5. ID O N) C7 a W W W 0) W W o y D CD 0-f 3 c a m 3 N n° a, to 0 0 0-3 m m m w d d m 7 X O CD 7< O x C 0) N_ �. - N - (p 7 � 7 7 7 7 7 7 v (p O a< N ' N N y O Cp (� t0 (D p N X < 0 00 N pp y G O p• " y (D O �j N .C. C N C C Q O N p N a (D Ci fDn v y to O fD < < 0 (D (O w D) N 0 D) (D - _ _ a O �. »1 C N ?. N (n CT (n � DI x o f a d S m m m x ;p < p = v n N �_ N N< �.' �, (D _ N O N (n N A N N 0 CA (D w a N (D y (D N o (7/-1 7 N 7 7 OM 7 (D (D CT 7 a CD C7 y O - -� - y C N O (O a C0 y (D N 3 O N fD (n y (D 7 Zr y < p) y C °< O O N y(n y N 0 O a 0 d 7 0 n �7 7 ?. (D S 3 v_ (D y V �. N o 7 7 fD 0 -D (n 7 T 01 01 (0 co A '.� N N Np n Cop 7 ai O C D_ < 01 O 'O n 3 y Cn + y O CD y < 7 C) N O T ZI 0 0 (n N 0 O O S N C y N O y < N 0 S N y fD O <_ 'O N 7 0) C) CD C V71 OD < 00 (D CD - a C O O O N , N N a� 7 N ° < '� j? -° O N m (D W U C T C7 (° F (n 0 w ei D) < 0 C 7 O" N fD Q = a 3 S a X y0 (yn N (n C: °_< 3 ° CA c° 3 0° w 7 CD < DI l0 01 Q -n CD w O fD T _ () < n0 < ca C N 3CD <`< - 3 (D� m Cr O O. N O n y F d (D v X a `< CD < y K (D y 7 N (D (D - f 0) W a. N 7 y N - N o < m m o a i m d m 3 m g v o < 0° O Cpl O _� W U7 W N N N 2 , -' t, 0) N Cp N r N N pWj N A 0 0 0 C) O O O O O 01 t00 II'�nn mr((� m m mrrrmrrrrrrr DDDD D DD T T T T T T T T p1 D) w w D) M D1 D) D T D D D D T T D OI °IN 10 -4 1N � 0 0 0 I�C!O) I OJ I01 I01 °01°01 °o A 169169169 p (ND DD O) b OV (D O N A N O ovlaw CI1 0 V A A 69 fA 169 69 EA fA 6i N W 00 N N 0 CD 07 ON0 -C, W 0 V 000 N Ln A A W O A 000 0) 69 16916r I4E,1169 IEA 169169 69 169 PO O IN I4) I. IO lO lO lO IN IN D 01 W W 00 0 00 00 0 00 FA 119 14A 169 IV) 169169 169 1169 1(0) W CO O T �lci ( O I-M 1-0 U N IC-D N A 0 1-0 0 1 0 � 0 0 � N 0 0 0 oo(ncon (°'n ornrnow0000 0 0 0 0 O O O V (J1 O O N IV N IV O O O O O 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 (9 69 69 (9 EA 69 69 69 6) 6) 69 00 - IV - CT j N 00 C11 0 J P P W T (D N V O V O V (D O 0 CD(o 0 O O. . O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N O O O O C O o 0 o O O O 01 O O O O C 4 97 tl ' v a. �a opi O O 7 7 W d a _ m � � W a� 0 d 0 pc c N S C m 7 ti 0 � A 7 0 0 0 A (W11 _ A N m v C) 7 y 0 N 0) O P A 0 (00 0 A A 69 69 (A fA 69 EA 69 69 (9 69 N W .y. O W 0 V 0 0 V O V J W A N 00 V co 0 A p N 01 A v O 0 N Oo N 0000 00 OND N 01 0 to 0 0 PO O IN I4) I. IO lO lO lO IN IN D 01 W W 00 0 00 00 0 00 FA 119 14A 169 IV) 169169 169 1169 1(0) W CO O T �lci ( O I-M 1-0 U N IC-D N A 0 1-0 0 1 0 � 0 0 � N 0 0 0 oo(ncon (°'n ornrnow0000 0 0 0 0 O O O V (J1 O O N IV N IV O O O O O 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 (9 69 69 (9 EA 69 69 69 6) 6) 69 00 - IV - CT j N 00 C11 0 J P P W T (D N V O V O V (D O 0 CD(o 0 O O. . O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N O O O O C O o 0 o O O O 01 O O O O C 4 97 tl ' v a. �a opi O O 7 7 W d a _ m � � W a� 0 d 0 pc c N S C m 7 ti to 169 169 169 169 I V) 169 169 CD O IO IO IO IO �O IO IN IN IA IN IN IV ICD IO fA Id+ IEA Ifin 169 I(A I(A Isn Ifo I(A I(A Iv) J")16) It" C)IO IO IO IO IO Ill 69 I<A EA 69 14A 69 (fl co o I:C�:) ° IC0 0 0 O O t1i co O O cn In O O O O O O O N V W W W N (0D (AD W N A Ln N O N 0 A N N A 0 69 169169 1469 169169169169 fA Ln Ln I <,9ICD 0 150 lO L L:4 W W A O N 0 0 0 Ln (V71 Cn O O O O O 001 C 7 0 D N ; m A �1 mm n O C 7 S D [7 Z O Z y c Z 0 cn 0 y O Z a°u d C) w w 0 C O 7 y X -1 C) D r O 0 .y. O W W J 0 00 V V (D n N N N (Ap 0 Oo 0 m fA 69 69 69 69 to EA CA m Ln z o v M 090 W O (WD . N -4 W -i O W v � J 00 to 169 169 169 169 I V) 169 169 CD O IO IO IO IO �O IO IN IN IA IN IN IV ICD IO fA Id+ IEA Ifin 169 I(A I(A Isn Ifo I(A I(A Iv) J")16) It" C)IO IO IO IO IO Ill 69 I<A EA 69 14A 69 (fl co o I:C�:) ° IC0 0 0 O O t1i co O O cn In O O O O O O O N V W W W N (0D (AD W N A Ln N O N 0 A N N A 0 69 169169 1469 169169169169 fA Ln Ln I <,9ICD 0 150 lO L L:4 W W A O N 0 0 0 Ln (V71 Cn O O O O O 001 C 7 0 D N ; m A �1 mm n O C 7 S D [7 Z O Z y c Z 0 cn 0 y O Z a°u d C) w w m N w AGO ° m 7 < C r BI 3 0 nc � m <o (n7 A m � v 2 Z y. c 'O m 0 5. m m 7 7 CD v m U3 o D �i0°)n a0 Q7 a� CD Z CD o�.CD o ' y o• a7 < : 7 C Q 7 / n. m 0 3 m (7 x - Nm 7 V m 7 O(0 Q d N N O V QD 70C CD CD0 < o°' °0 m CD N N m v D o 0 C (D m Cm 7 m y (D N N 7 m W X, 0 a 2 0 s < m7 0 0 7 7 o (O < O N 7 m f � O y m m 0 < = m CL O m o m m �' N 7 (n 3 = 7 O O < a C7 N m 3 O A D D (n O 0 O -4 z O � r m 0o m m -� O O V V V V V V V -4 -4 m O) 0) 0) m m m m m m N N A W N J O CO m V m (I) A W N O (D m V m O) Cn A W N— O (D D v m ;0 'D r r? = m N N A N N D D D D D D m 0 ;o v a m •o m 0 m m v v m r- r C my c 000000 7 3 (� m -0 -o 7 t°n N N O N f) S m m S p _' '' (o (� <— (o .11 (0 1O (D l0 N En co m m p �. CD CO O N = 9 A A A A N N m - O m Cl) m m � d n 2 (n N C ° GAO ° o o °C�0 00 0 on)G�G�G)G)G�l7n 0�D o (n 7 N 7 7 O m CD -U 7 7 N N N N N N? * N c C_ f�i) w ID O n V V O N V V () N 7< Co W G LO 10 10 (O (O (0 o S ° m m D) CD O O m m 'D 3 0 _2 p p N `L C") ° O n C� m m CD m m m CD (O O c 'O 3 3 N N y A A n m m d N 7 O A 0 (n N O O O O O O m N 7 n N (n 2 7o o��� m <m N ?� n mo 70 -0 -o 3 m X�� 7 U v e m d 0- a C. a d .� 7 O N m v a o N m a° C) 0 D m m` n Q Io 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 cm) - n o o o CD N 0 O o (n �_ N F JO C' 7 O L N N p_ < O7 N O m N 0 C N F JOC m N (D N CAD m 7 .-. ;.+ d 'O n o o m< o (n cn (� f?D m o 0 an d n v N N 7 �7 0 0 N p d .< U m m N 0 O O m N N N 0 17n N (n O A< ... ;a O O N m Z d O C C O ° N (n N 7 C C C C C C c d 7 m 7 RD n 2— 3 -o N Q0 S m (� F N _� 0 O o o m m w m m m o X C<D D � 0 x fNNJ No o m m Doi << cn N V 7 X X o m m m m m m m N m ° 0 c �'n o m << m n N m N w (/) m O_ O_ d a d 2 S C n 7 d 3 N 7 �7 = 0) (D N N m3 dy << Nn�d ��c f i.�.$.f.�.m 7m x o mq 71Qm o �y'CD m m 7 m o ° m a N �. 'O fD o ID CD CD (D K N 7 .Cn-n 3 m U, (0) (o.� m a) — S. 010 V m �� 4 N 7� N N co N N N < N 7 � M; K I p� U N (O `G S O K: Q O C C c C C C ;0 CD O. CO (� p 01 ° N V �. O 0 7 (n T pmO C) 7< 0) d N 0) C) N < O N .(n.. �) 0 N N 3 N (n '< ?. O T -O N x O 0I N (O 0 0 0 U O' Q U ° O __ .z m m a Er 0 C7) N x N N Cn VI m m m m 0 (D F 7 (D V (D p �. .7. N f/) tD N per) rZ% F Q O m (n N 3 7 0 0 m m N G CD N � 0 0 7 Cr m �X! x a f0 (O < o 0 0 0 0 o x p (� x o c -{ IUD o rn y < m � 0 N-0 m _-_.,. o o NO 7 a n d a 2 d .rn... 7 CD C .y-.. m '- ° 3 U) O Cb "0 0- B V (n m� fD V< W A 0 c cD m 10 ,. o o (n 3 o m (m0 v m m /D N O U C') �. . r O n CT U a Q U U� — .c. j �_ () m N c C; � p 'mom o N-7° m N o° �a M $. 2 ° m f N m << 0 m C)° m �v m . N Z V y N m O O d d Dl m N Dl S 0 X CD O CD 0° m Co O m O N N m 7 �• D) m _ _5g _ (O7 C O D) ,(n-. N 7 X. — O N `G O 7 m m m (D O n (y N m < c CD C 2w d J O D) O (o O m 7 W S CD N N m 3 d 0 0 °-' m 3 m m 7 3 N 7 _° v o (o nfDi n (n ,< v fT p n .< ° 3 N 7 m o m N �< N N N w A to (D m N< N m S 0 0 a) Z) N 7 7 m m S _— N (:n, `< m m 3 N N< Q CD N 7 O 7 O N fD y A (o n IN 7 N m 3 m n NO D) 0 K o d d d N .� m O N Q O f 7° N �( S O �. 7 N �. a v o N m ? 0 m v o v 3 m 3 s �0D<) < C m �_ <m o w ��N �3 °1 3 N 7 D) N D m (D m -O o =( Q O f/1 .O. O N N 00 O d b o y o' O a - (n = N o O O C) O G) (n (n O O w �G� c O G 7 c ° p 0 Q N. D S w< 7 Q& m to m C 0. K "O c < O d CD 7 (n 6) N CCD'- CD O" m 0 7 CD A d m (O N N CO N N 7 m T n 7 c d D) 7 < _0 v F' ^' 3 m m f c v °) m v m am w X �v m CD f v m 3 < ..< < m v y G) 0. N 0 CD N -O �. 7 7 m (7n S m fD m N j N j m 7 fD cn — p) _S (0 a. 3. o c (o Q m a (D 3 7 7 70 0 0 (D = d x o m m y (n < 0 0 m ;o CD o 0� F � :3 c m 0 <m ° m m c C (n N D) (ma " d C m ;u = � S y (00 (O C:) () m p 3 (O m Q N 7 !� j' m CD �. D) O ± vmi 0 Q D O m 3 n� No o- 0 a m (D 0 7� v CD d o 5R. w n d o (O. (n 7 10 in CD N O ry N N � O 0 fl: 0 o d o o s CD ° m m 3 2 o a ^` 7 (D o m N < fU 61 A 7 N m m N (n p, 'O to G N N 7 O (n (D oo N to d d m O m _0 CD S 7 7 g, 0 0 Q N O 7 m 3 N O m °(.II `C m (n CD 7 N Z7 7 2 O 3 C1 cr CD x (M�1 A V 180 O O O I6 CD IO IO "j 19i D D N EA fA EA 69 V CW/ (Nn O O A 1 O O Oo f-l9 ICA 169 169 j O O O A O � A (n N O U) O O 69 I fA co OO IC W O O O m A m O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n O O O V O) O O N N) N N fJ N O 0 0 0 C) (n O O O O O o C) (n O) O o 0 EA fA 69 469 fA EA fA 69 (A 69 (A 69 EA fA fA O --` (n m A W V (n m m m A W N (O O Cn O O O V A m I'm ico W O C) N V co O O m (O W N N O O O O O (n o 00 o 0 0 0 N m O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o CD C) 0 O C N OA (D ' N U V D D D (n D D 69 169lln 6 169I� Cps m I O I m 100 I (I) 69 I(A 169 IfA IEA ICA CD CO IOIC!IAIOOIVIm 69 IfA I(A 169 146: IfA 1 f N I �Ln IW lO IO C fA I69 I fA 14G9 16914Y O O A m Vt O O V W N N N A O O) fA 69 V m A 0 N U O V (D '7) O A 0 N O A A N O N O O N O O Ln COI) O (�Tr1t (11 D 11 m m 1'1 -n m 11 0 D D D D m 1.1 m EA fA to CA 69 w fA w fA w fA w (A 69 fA fA 69 D O A OAD OWD A m m N A N O C) C) C) C) 0 C C) W W V (I) — V C) 6 A W W W W A A C 00 A OD O) — (O O CT m V A A A A 0 0 C M fA 69 69 (A 69 69 w 69 69 69 69 w fA 69 69 (A 6 w r (O m N N A D T W (n W OD m N m U) W O O V AAAO V p W p A m N (n m CD w m W m A m CT m OD co V m m m C O C C�1 O — W O N m N t0 W m m W A A C p m N co O O CD U) O N m N V A m m C fA 69 fA 69 EA en 69 EA 69 fA 69 69 69 w 69 VA 6 N U) O N N m (O 0 (n O W m N W 0 A Cn — Cl 0 C) 0 0 0< O O O O O O Ite O O O A -` � --` N N C O O O O o C) C) 0 C) m OD m OD C7D Oo C N 69 EA 69 69 69 69 w 69 fA 69 69 69 EA 69 69 E is N V N — N N N (O A O j 0 (n O W m fJ V V( N U) dO A O� (° O A A N m A O O OD O A A (O U) m V CO CI( OD CO A N A C N O {a C) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10) 0 C) o A -� -4 O) 0 C) f r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 1 C (M�1 A V 180 O O O I6 CD IO IO "j 19i D D N EA fA EA 69 V CW/ (Nn O O A 1 O O Oo f-l9 ICA 169 169 j O O O A O � A (n N O U) O O 69 I fA co OO IC W O O O m A m O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n O O O V O) O O N N) N N fJ N O 0 0 0 C) (n O O O O O o C) (n O) O o 0 EA fA 69 469 fA EA fA 69 (A 69 (A 69 EA fA fA O --` (n m A W V (n m m m A W N (O O Cn O O O V A m I'm ico W O C) N V co O O m (O W N N O O O O O (n o 00 o 0 0 0 N m O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o CD C) 0 O C N OA (D ' N U V D D D (n D D 69 169lln 6 169I� Cps m I O I m 100 I (I) 69 I(A 169 IfA IEA ICA CD CO IOIC!IAIOOIVIm 69 IfA I(A 169 146: IfA 1 f N I �Ln IW lO IO C fA I69 I fA 14G9 16914Y O IOO IO IO C 0 C 0 y o D O r N 0 0 2 0 X m m m M -1 O O C d 0 N C 7 r: 0 D 0 F. m A �1 mm 7 A 1 O it C 7 2 D o Z O Z [C O O Z O f9 0 D O Z CD d Q O O O a 0 71 n 0 N 7 7 'm m CL r m 2 a _ N m m � 7 v � O d 0 A c C N 3 o_ i v� uu� O O A m W O O A O m O O A O O) fA 69 EA (A EA W O A 0 0 O O C) O C) O IOO IO IO C 0 C 0 y o D O r N 0 0 2 0 X m m m M -1 O O C d 0 N C 7 r: 0 D 0 F. m A �1 mm 7 A 1 O it C 7 2 D o Z O Z [C O O Z O f9 0 D O Z CD d Q O O O a 0 71 n 0 N 7 7 'm m CL r m 2 a _ N m m � 7 v � O d 0 A c C N 3 o_ i v� uu� a 0 O m 0 FL s N CL d 1 v � c y d O � O d O 7 ,Z1 W C Q H S o_ N v� mN .- W W N O m m m Co 0) Z COIL Z A Z W N O COD OOD fDn d i m -i a-q X o x ? x r r c' N 7 m 0 m v m m m a 9 d 5a F3 a a c " N(o :0 co CD CD=0!m0 p�Oc D O(Dn Cnco 1 X N 3 7 7 D a �, .Z1 O O? (D CD tv r rn r ; r oD r -1 �' 3 o O Ei O c o m a 0) � 0 C, a s `< °- 3• 'm ° d° N a a m c m -i m° m D ° a 3 < d ID a �_ 0 a A O a 3 m m o ? w �i 3 a m o -Di ° D o(n —_ '� �^ m o y �� O O D m ? o m a d a 'c 'a m a Cn c r m y ° O• N= (n - 2 c c X Q m �i i a j o .sue^ K 3 c DOi d m A T! D m 9 3 CD m l a y 8 o vm ° Pc o c 3 �_ m n O a 0 a• (p Z c c c m CD CD A N n (A N D go (D ° m N O 7 �_ N_ N ... C (D O n N fin 3 3 m O °: -a m << cn N Z m C1 3 > N N N O 4 CL m X' ,"D,., fD m CO 0 ' t0 N N 9. a d N OF v o � o 0 0 ,°c• N N D r QD N n°io °3 $.o p° (n CD X o N n M 0 F m (D 3 N o :E 2 M 7 fl • ••• N N G d y. a '� (p N (D y d J .Z1 g: Q X (D (�D d N d N N C a - Z N 7 O w N 3 N D N O O CD w A w N M. 0 Z < = a < .+ D C_ N _ _ v v O n a N N ° � o N N, a N C (n (N'1 x O CD N N SU fA 00 S Q Dl N. 7 ?�. .< w N n n y :3 m a c N CD 7 = N _ /D nD o: f° mm 3oi N Q (D (j Na N N] 0. N m (D O < O `. 7r CT O N m o 0 a m =01 ° v CL o N > D' N N < a N m m v A (D m fD a N ° x Q O a n a d N o d�— Cn m 0 0 0 O N. ,� O N p O 'n (D m o m _ (o' n a w a �+ p — N N ID N w Z] C a p r. < (D a (D (D (D a (D N (D N N p CL CD O_ ox O N (D (D a D) C N O O ° 3 m to c n D CY v o 0 - D 0 C0m a o m d a ::E a m y o cn x _ 'D N V (D CD o 0 CD N w � OD N (D (n N 3 m n N Q o 0 =r CD x o A O N < CD < CL (D 52. O. a O C) ? (P OD (rn cn D D D D D n C 0 7 y X n -4 D r O _ V A N CT .� n O W N O V A W O OD 0 A Z n (o Cp W V j O OD Ln W N m to (A 69 (A (A (A 69 6) 69 69 1 m T N W v J N O V W N V y O C W W W N O V O A N N— V 0 y N W DWj O O (b N 00 O A C 7 :i n D 0 r. N (D O U cn _ O O m A W U1 O O O W N O W N O O O O O O O O V N O O O O O O A O N CA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 m to V N (� O n co rQ W d A N CWn O O (Nli p O (VD O t0 N N W V O O O O O O O O 7 2 X D C.) Z Z N ' (b W Cn A ( C f N A O O O ? 0 0 O r (I( Cn (A O O O o O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O D Z (p (A (A 69 69 (A (A 69 69 69 O n D < < < -C < -� 'C '•C 4 N N oo CT OD -' V N Ln O y Z G1 OD V(D O O OD. N O O 0 0 0 pAi 0 A O O O O O O O O 92 d �1 19T a 0 O m 0 FL s N CL d 1 v � c y d O � O d O 7 ,Z1 W C Q H S o_ N v� mN .- W W N Coteer Comity Admmi**ve Se vK= Division Purchasing Memorandum Date: August 30, 2011 161 2 01 A26 Email: BrendaBrilhart@colliergov.net Telephone: (239) 252 -8446 FAX: (239) 252 -6697 From: Brenda Brilhart, Procurement Specialist To: MSTU Committee Members Subject: 11 -5700 Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment On June 19, 2011, a solicitation was initiated to obtain services to complete a landscape /irrigation installation project on Devonshire Boulevard. Over 1,700 notices were emailed and 63 bid packages were downloaded. On July 20, 2011, the following three bids were received. Ameri -Pride Hannula Landscaping Coastal Concrete Products $267,214.37 $278,818.46 $356,313.42 Per Purchasing policy and after thorough review of the lowest, apparent, responsive bidder, Ameri -Pride (and after meeting with the General Manager), it was determined that they were qualified to complete this work. All the required licenses and references were checked. The point person will be Joe Palmer, (formerly with Palmer Landscape Management (PLM)) who has extensive experience (over 16 years). PLM was recently acquired by Ameri -Pride - See attached testimonials for PLM. Ameri -Pride staff also suggested that they could complete the Devonshire renovation in a shorter timeframe than projected in the bid, and have Joe Palmer attend the next committee meeting to answer any outstanding questions that the Committee members may have. Please contact me directly with any questions, thanks Brenda c: Darryl Richard, Project Manager Enc: 2 Amer ride; Inc. GeoWSlwehu Wce�preskkgt doom MINNINNIONERIOU �110 ED Mao►ell Large►t Jesus Galarza torenzo: ffernandex haart Witut: Jason,:BlaclWwer #4a)dMin6salazar Senlq,rCrewteader Grew Member Crew Member Crew, MeMber Crew. Member CrewMomber Crew*%mbe Crew Member Crew Member Robert tonstaM Crew Leader- Ma;oi"It6i Panze-Calihua Crew, Menftr Ca 0;. Macubdie Crew Member Abraham Sala Crew member Frand=o Jimenez Crew Member Aferinq,-XQquft*atJ crew member Crew-Member Tomas Pww Crew Member Georgellormam Lenin Cardbn losue Vasquez Ernestaferei LeonaalwBauftta hull Lopez JullanAndremm AhtainimEsteban Dew Leader - Lawn'Seivice Crew Member Crew Member Criew-Ueftber Crew Member Crew Member Crew Member Crew Member 161 2' Eweriem 20YP--ars 161 2 0,, A264 Pr r r t i de August 26 2011 To whom it may concern, Ameri-Pride, Inc. has been in the landscaping industry in Florida for over 20 years. After being incorporated in 2004, we have grown to a company with annual revenue of over $17,000,000. Landscape installation accounts for $4,000,000 of that annual revenue, with our specialization in irrigation, pest control, and tree services accounting for the remainder. We have the capacity to acquire up to $2,000,000 bonds for a single job and have become leaders in the land and landscape planting field. With the recent acquisition of PLM we have strengthened our focus on quality landscape installation. Mr. Palmer, who is now a full -time employee of Ameri -Pride, Inc., brings over 16 years of experience to our private and public sector landscape installation work. We currently hold two licensees in Collier County and have performed public work for several prominent cities and counties around Florida. Please see our recent contracts (attached) that further validate our ability to perform the necessary work for the Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact our main office. Fatbardh S ehu, President 0 -1 r, .1 q .4 N .-f 4.o -4 �4 r-4 -44 4 -4 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N M Lfl M t� 1- t� E 3 �q � ggqqS .a 'L L' n' W N 00 N O V�-}4 00 M Op v� Ln M 00 O en Ln O N M M ko -1 Qc�-i o w u C w O C u C 4 he Y y y� L 3 o �`o CL. u '> `0 O o ` N C 0 C m ,r o u y v V w- d o 3 m a 3 L a aCi vi C 'C m c m y L E ai u a r Y fD m "a I--' > •� O :+ En a ea > >o ° 0 �- E n CL %n � C E tea, .. ° � _ LL o n o �► m ` ai cg a E O m N � L. It r .� O O V-4 a1 eci O C eH 3 C ei c -I O, t11 M ZC>0nU5 � ms ft *t O .� m m �- aaaa m LL oc LL cc LL cc LL O+ O s o° �i In Ln C C cn C ate+ O v a s Y Y E m m m >, a E vii m V$ co m n �^ a ro a+ u H eta Z Z c d e � = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U" m v uuuuu'uv 3 3 16! 2, ? 10i A2641 Palmer Florida Landscaping Services — Customer Testimonials from Past Customers Page 1 of 2 Ameri-Pride and Palmer Landscape have joined forces. Click Here for More Info. C Thank You to Our Florida Landscaping Clients - Customer Comments on Palmer Landscaping Management Below are Palmer Landscape Management residential and business landscape customer comments about Palmer Florida landscaping services. We are meticulous and strive W provide exemplary service and work for each and every Florida Landscaping customer. We would like to convey a very sincere thank you to all our Florida landscaping clients. It is with their express permission that we print the letters and comments below: We always wanted a yard we could be proud o(... Joe and the Palmer Landscaping crew really delivered! Thanks; Steve S. St. Pete Beach I am involved with a building program opening a new restaurant every 3rd day; having vendors such as Joe to rely on makes his firm a valuable team member to us; one I we can rely on. David M Landis, The David M Lanais Company; A ftxiz Agent, Brinkerinternab&W.. This is more than just a testimonial for Palmer Lanciscapi g, j it is about a strong business relationship. I am the Area i Director for six Roman's Macaroni Grill restaurants in the Tampa area. i I am writing this to describe the service we have received I from Palmer Landscape Management, LLC In our past three ' years as managing agents for North River Village, Olenton, Florida, I have used Palmer as our exclusive contractor for lawn care, landscaping, and irrigation. The service has been excellent and I am always able to reach the owner by cell phone for any additional needs at the property. Often, a problem at the property is reported to me by Joe or his staff before I have discovered it myself. Bids for additk)ml work I are sent quickly and acted upon soon after I approve them. ! Using Palmer as our contractor, we have improved the look of the property and keep our costs for the total service at very competitive rates. Please call me with any questions or concerns. I will be happy to give you further detad on the dealings I have had with Palmer Management Company, LLC. My direct line is (941) 552 -2706. Sincerely Mrichaell. Kenney, SCSM, CL S Dftctor of Properly Management http:// www. palmerlandscape .com/Wstimonials.html 8/30/2011 161 2 Palmer Florida Landscaping Services — Customer Testimonials from Past Customers My relationship with Joe Palmer and his landscaping company started 7 years ago at our Brandon restaurant. I was frustrated by the lack of a quality company that could take care of our needs, and derided to drive around ! Brandon to find the best property and find out who their landscaper was. This is when I met Joe Palmer. I told him I s wanted our property to be the best looking restaurant in the area and he gave us just what we were looking for. Over It the course of the past 7 years Joe has taken over the care of all 6 of my restaurants as well as several other of our company's restaurants, and many of our Chili's restaurants i as well. i In the entire time I have done business with Palmer Landscaping I have never been happier with the results that he has delivered. Feel free to cane by and krok at any of our restaurants and see for yourself, the level of quality that that Joe delivers. More than anything, Joe creates a great relationship with his I clients that you seldom find these days. Please feel free to ' contact me anytime to ask me more about the service that ? Joe Palmer has provided to us. Larry Leiser Area Director Roman's Macaroni Gii# To whom it my concern, Page 2 of 2 I Joe Palmer with Palmer Landscaping has completed several outstanding, and very satisfying jobs for me personally. He is very detailed, and dedicated to delivery a quality project, and when ever I have a job in the Florida area, Joe is the first person I contact Joe has also been hire by other construction manager that work for my company, and have been very satisfied with his work as well. Joe was hired as an consultant to make sure the 3 + acre site was installed per Brinker specification due to the project being out of his area to install. Joe not only installs all of our new projects in Florida, but maintains the monthly maintenance on several Chili's Bar and Grills, and several Macaroni Grills in the FloMa area. I can not say enough about Joe, except thanks and keep up the good work. Mike Hoemer Sr. Project Manager Macaroni Grill, and 017 The Bolder .... _ ... ..... .... _�_.... © 2006 -2007 Palmer Landscape Mangement, LLC N All Photography © 2006 -2007 Timothy Healy Houle I Areas Served I �i UsUs I Contact us Gallery I Commercial I Testimonials I Srn� Website designed, maintained, and promoted by Digital Eel Inc. http:// www. palmerlandscape .com/testimonials.htmi 8/30/2011 m :.� ��� ° :y« .., . . ..:. gz& , 1 s: : � » .,, . . . . �.*. m:. . ..�.y � . zy . .. . 161 z .r A261 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: September 12, 2011 RE: Radio Road MSTU Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and Radio Road Medians Refurbishment Status Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report on the status of the Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and Radio Road medians refurbishment projects: In follow up the last MSTU mtg on 8/16/11, we held a meeting on 8/22/11 at Purchasing with the general manager of Ameri -Pride at the committee's request to further review their qualifications to complete the Devonshire Refurbishment project. After an the extensive interview and following receipt of requested supplemental information regarding their qualifications, purchasing and I together with ATM staff recommend award of the bid to Ameri -Pride finding them qualified to complete the work as specified. On 9/2/11, we submitted refurbishment Demolition and Planting Plans together with a plant palette photo set to staff for the Radio Road medians refurbishment from Devonshire to Santa Barbara. The plans have been sent to Hannula for pricing and scheduling. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Lwidscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email scottC windhamstudio.COn1 ,w-ww.V 7I1dllainstt1d10.00I11 16604 U.S. 19 N Clearwater, FL 33764 Tel: 727 - 447 -2186 Fax: 727 - 447 -1185 ww NN'.ameHyrideinc.com eontact('a_)ameriprideinc.com Description of Work ITB #10-11 -044 City of Miami Gardens — Irrigation System Brentwood Park Scope of Work: Provide all necessary materials, labor, equipment and miscellaneous specialty items required to install a fully functioning Site Irrigation System for the play fields (football and baseball fields) described in the Landscape Irrigation Design Drawings. The work requires well drilling, trenching, backf`illing of irrigation mains and smaller lines to serve the site as described in the plans. The installation of heads and other necessary fittings for a full system operation is required. Electrical wiring and connection tied into a existing panel box in electric room inside of an existing building. Contractor shall conduct installation operation to ensure mmunum interference with facility, road, street, walks and other adjacent occupied or used facilities. Do not close or obstruct street, walks, or other occupied or used facilities without permission from authorities having jurisdiction. ITB #10 -11 -034 City of Miami Gardens — Furnish and Plant Trees Scope of Work: Project included furnishing and planting 50 Live Oak Trees, 50 Mahogany Trees, and 25 Wild Tamarind Trees within the City Limits. ITB #10 -11 -60 City of Miami Gardens — Tree Removal and Pruning Services Scope of Work: Furnish all materials, labor, supervision, and transportation,permits, licenses, equipment and any incidentals necessary for tree removal, stump grinding and pruning on an as- needed, when - needed basis for all locations within the City of Miami Gardens. The City has several Black Olives, Florida Live Oak, Ficus, Mahogany, Gumbo Limbo, palm trees and a variety of exotic trees which will require removal, stump grinding or pruning. Pruning shall consist of crown reduction by cleaning and thinning so that trees can better withstand strong winds, and to provide for adequate clearance for vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the City. I 2 Of A26' RFP #61 -0 -2011 /SB City of Palm Bay - RJ Conlan Blvd Beautification Scope of Work: Furnish all material and services for landscaping, maintenance of traffic, watering, and other sundry activities for RJ Conlan Blvd. Specifications call for installation and maintenance of (9) 100gal Crape Myrtles, (89) B &B Sable Palms, and (88) 45ga1 Slash Pines. RFP #025 -11 City of Naples — Tree Fill In Scope of Work: Furnish all labor and equipment for the purchase and planting of trees and palms throughout the City, also including maintenance of the plant material for a period of 12- months. Specifications called for approximately (200) 2.5" caliper trees throughout the City. RFP #043 -11 City of Naples — Crayton Road Tree Project Scope of Work: Furnish all labor and equipment for the purchase and planting of 5.5" caliper Mahogany trees along Crayton Raod, also including maintenance of the plant material for a period of 12- months. RFP #11 /027 City of Pinellas Park — 66`h St. Improvements Scope of Work: Mobilization, maintenance of traffic, removal and disposal of existing turf and grading on 22 medians, removal and replacement of unsuitable soil, provide and install approximately 70,000 square feet of perennial peanut "Ecoturf" on all medians. 161 2 1 M• A26+1- August 1, 2011 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report (R-22) - ACTIVE: DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: ROW Permit applied for and is pending Traffic Operations, Road Maintenance Review. 08- 01 -11: Bid Results have been recorded (SEE ATTACHED HANDOUT) (R -24) - COMPLETED: MOVING THE TYPE M CONTROLLER 05- 17 -11: Type M controller has been relocated per coordination with Ag- Tronix. (R-23) - COMPLETED: Plant material spacing on Phase H Project; Re- planting with additional quantity of shrubs. 05- 17 -11: Project completed. (R-18) - COMPLETED: 100% COMPLETED - RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105 824) ; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: Project completed. (R-15) - COMPLETED: RADIO ROAD PHASE H -B & Phase I -A (H -B is from Kings WayBriarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) ; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: Project Completed. (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT; Funding Source Fund 158 08- 01 -11: Windham Studios is under contract for maintenance consulting.. (R-14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTDIMSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" ; Funding Source Fund 111 08- 01 -11: Hannula Landscape under contract for on -going maintenance. 9 k` Hannula Landscaping, Inc. ...� 28131 Quails Nest Lane H R N N U LA Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 LAND' Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrytrichard@coltiergov.net 1 161 2 A2(j4t Proposal 6118/11 11 -00968 _ t y 8 -16531 Radio Road Incidentals Y daa Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date roll Devonshire Blvd. pricing from 09 -5111 contract Fund 158 - 162522 PO # 4500!22422 Treatment of 44 Shady Lady Trees After the first application we must follow up with an additional treatment within 10 -14 days. Chemical being used is Bifen XT which is a systemic and foliage pesticide and T- Mythel which is a fungicide. Groundcover, Shrubs, & Trees: Insecticides & Fungicides (initial treatment plus 7 200.00 1,400.00 followup treatment) PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Total $1,400.00 Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date roll 161 2 A26 MAINTENANCE REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: July 22, 2011 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to the site walk through on 7/22/11: Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. A few observations are as follows: ■ Fertilize the solitary palms again with standard slow release fertilizer to maintain a steady, non - shocking nutrient flow. ■ Replace 3 Chrysotricha Tabebuia Trees (12'oa) in median 23. ■ Hannula is to prepare a fertilization log for the trees and palms to begin tracking for future reference. • Observed bubbler zone in median 22 across from Windjammer Village flooding and overflowing the curb cuts into the street. Appeared to be possible stuck valve. (Irr tech on site as we left) • Displaced pavers need to be re -set at east tip of median 19 by shopping center. ■ Straighten one Tabebuia and one Jatropha in medians 17 and 18. ■ Once all irrigation head adjustments are complete and coverage confirmed, remove weed infested areas and patch sod in median 16. ■ Spray aphids in Firebush at Magnolias in median 16. ■ Fertilize the defoliated Magnolias with 8 -2 -12 slow release for steady nutrition to limit additional shock. • Hannula to report back on the rotor heads to see if they have automatic shut off assemblies if broken off. • The large Live Oaks need to be structurally pruned. • Hannula to remove stakes from all palms but keep them on the Tabebuias and Crepe Myrtles. (Loosed straps if necessary to prevent scarring) Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@wmdhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 0107 161 2 i A264 ■ Straighten One Jatropha and 2 Tabebuias in median 3. ■ Trim up Jatrophas in median 1 to a multitrunk tree form. ■ Trim Firebush at mixing chamber to 3 FT. ■ Replace one dead Silver Saw Palmetto in median east of Devonshire ■ Un -mix crown of thorns ■ Request Hannula to submit for approval to apply sulfur via 4 Ibs / 100SF 8- 10-12 Sulfur coated fertilizer for approval by October. ■ WSI to design planting enhancements for medians at Santa Barbara and Devonshire as follows • Create greater `gateway' impact • Reduce turf and add plant beds to encompass the Royal Palms in plantings • Introduce high impact plants such as Orange Bird of Paradise and more green layers of plants to offset bougainvilleas and crown of thorns (ie Green Island Ficus, Juniper and Ilex) • Be mindful of site lines and mowing access 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 26000363 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fay:: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott(gwindhamstudio.com www.windharnstudio.com 161 From: LulichPamela [PamelaLulich @colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, July 25, 20112:02 PM To: Manuel Gonzalez Cc: Tina McKay; RichardDarryl; Scott Windham; SorianoLiz Subject: Radio Road Field Meeting Manny, These are the items we discussed on Friday: p 01- A26 • Bait ants (Amdro)- provide price. We use to do this in the fall. When is the best time of year to do this? • Price for Signature to prune Oaks only. • Treat Fire bush for Aphids. • New magnolias in baskets and rope- cut ropes and wire baskets. • Check staking, cut banding, and remove staking where needed and where tree is being girdled. • 3 dead tabs @ Circle K. • Pavers at Circle K need to be reset — review and provide price. • Magnolia not receiving water. Check bubblers and irrigation. Find out about the spikes around the Magnolia. • Replace sod once irrigation system is working properly- provide price. • Fertilize Transportation Blend slow release — higher application rate (8- 2 -12). • Sabal Palms = 0 lbs. • Alexanders (or other palms equal in caliper) = 4lbs. • Foxtails = 6 lbs. • Magnolia =61bs. • Royal Palms = 8 lbs. • Indicate how much fertilizer was applied on as -built set. The County will provide an as -built set of plans for Hannula to mark -up. • Scott Windham to make a recommendation for the entry of Radio Road. • Warranty replacement of dead sabal palms- provide schedule. Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager Growth Management Division - Construction Et Maintenance Alternative Transportation Modes Department Telephone 239.252.6291 E -Fax 239.252.6623 Florida Registered Landscape Architect #LA6666733 161 2 ► A26 From: Frank Kitchener [fkitchener@renfroejackson.com] Sent: Monday, June 27,20116:00 PM To: 'Scott Windham' Subject: RE: Radio Rd MSTU Maint Report Scott the following observations were made after our drive along Radio Road to review the maintenance on 5/15/2011; Overall the Eastern medians on Radio Road showed signs of nutrient deficiencies caused by high soil pH as confirmed by the soil samples from A & L Labs dated 5/24/2011. The extremely high soil pH causes nutrients not to be available to the plant as shown on the attached pH availability chart. The perfect fix would be to remove and salvage plants, remove & replace all the soil to an appropriate depth for associated plant material and replant with a 80/20 soil mix. This would be best sustainable option. In lieu of replacing the soil, a more intense fertilizer regiment will need to be performed. Starting with a bi- annual elemental sulfur application to the turf and plant beds. I would recommend two applications at a lower rate of 2 lbs. per 1000 square ft., as sulfur applied to heavy can cause turf and plant injury, especially in hot weather. Then every three months apply a 8 -2 -10 or similar sulfur coated fertilizer using a hand spreader uniformly to all plant beds at a rate of at least a 1 -2 lbs. per 100 square ft.. Turf should also be treated with bi- annual elemental Sulfur treatment and quarterly with 20 -0 -10 or similar fertilizer at a rate of at least a 1 lb. per 1000 square ft. Collier County is currently using a six (6) month controlled release fertilizer; although an excellent product for our established medians, it does not have the nutrient release we need to work on the pH and give the plants the jump start they need in these high pH situations. The pH of the soil cannot be altered over -night and will take several years with proper fertilization, mulching and cultural practices to work on lowering the pH. As far as the palms in the east medians; it looks like they are beginning to take up some of the additional fertilizer that has been recently applied. I would continue with an annual application of 0 -0 -24 to these chlorotic palms or as an alternate, fertilizer maintenance spikes can be used around the base of the palm. The newly installed Euphorbia and Jathropha in the medians also are declining due to the soil high pH and will benefit from the bed Sulfur application and the quarterly applications of the 8 -2 -10 or similar. We did find that that the Magnolias seemed to be extremely dry during our site visit on 5/15/2011 as associated with large amount of leaf drop in the median. It appeared that the Magnolia bubblers were open, but appeared the bubbler zones may have been turned off, relying on the perimeter irrigation which at the time did not appear to be adequate. I would recommend running these bubbler zones twice a week until we get into a more rainy period. Applying the maintenance tree spikes around these plants and quarterly applications of the 8 -2 -10 or similar will also give these plants a jump start. Little, if any, maintenance is necessary with the established Euphorbia's. However, I did see some of the mature medians had some tall Euphorbia's. If the plants become'leggy, a hard pruning (cutting to within 3 to 6 inches from the ground) will result in a much denser, tightly branched, symmetrical plant and can be done any time of the year, but mid - summer is recommended.. The milky, white sap that bleeds from the plant when the stems are cut or wounded may cause a serious rash for those with sensitive skin , so use caution when handling these plants and wear gloves when pruning. So in conclusion; the medians on the east end with the high pH soils should be treated bi- annually with an elemental sulfur application, followed by quarterly acidic fertilizer regimen to the turf grass and landscape bed areas. The chlorotic palms will require an additional treatment of a 0 -0 -24 or a maintenance fertilizer spike treatment asnnually, both of these products contain Sulfur, Potassium, Magnesium and Manganese which will help the palms recover. We agreed that the soil replacement is the better long term sustainable option. The bubblers on the newly planted Magnolias should be reactivated and additional acid granular fertilizer applications should be made to help establish new growth. 10, 161 2 A26 The maintenance of these medians looks to be acceptable, however the landscape contractor will have challenges maintaining the medians with the high pH soils. The additional fertilization will be necessary to ensure healthy plant growth. Soil samples should be taken every six months to ensure these recommendations are working. Attached are labels of the recommended products that could be used. Francis X Kitchener Jr. General Manager 161 2i A2610 O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 O O O 0 0 O O (O OOO O 0 0 O OOOO O 0 0 00 O O N O — (0 N(O O O p Op O O LO O Q O M h �p h )O O M O 1, O LO M M fO O O CO V N O w O N� m 00 �p co �O P a0 a0 A N N IA r r N )11 M _ I� O N 1- 00 N M r r Z_ O LO N CV to r (D h V M r r (O N a N Vr L) 69 69 64 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6A 69 60) 69 69 6% 69 69 69 69 69 Z C Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IQ O (O O O O O O O O�pp O O6pp O O O O O O to 10 UA CO N CO n O M N M O M O N � � N T O l0 O O In In M (�O g++ N � VN' VN' (107 r N IA N r 1� V CO r N N M r N C Z U )f') N Z m C d9 69 69 69 w 69 69 69 69 69 6H 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 60 Hi 69 w 69 69 O O O O O O O O O O N t) N O N 0n 0 0 0 0 O O C G O O O 0 0 O C O O O O 0 O (O CV l (7 M N O O CO CO CO O N O CO O O M N O r W (O O to O N N N N r In r C0 O r V N r N co h N M N r N r N )f) r CO N N r N M N r N C W 6) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6A 69 64 69 64 60 69 69 69-64 64 O & O O 0 0 O O O O O Q O O O O O c.� S O 00 $ O O O O IA 0) O )O O O M r M 0 0 O O O) N CO � IA n IL O O WO O O O pp N LO CN SZ g M `�S CNp t7 (� n r n co co OO (n (D N M N pOp R O N N 11Y M (O r N L O Q 0 N C . 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 6A 69 69 69 I64 69 69 6191 69 69 69 609 69 69 M 69 6% 69 O O 0 O S )O N (�O, M O) M N (00• N M (O M d0', U O r to O0f O pp M 8 O ONO N 10 � � � W h M (� O O O N� (O LO O O) M T O 0 M co N 000 (O co O) N r O r )O 0) r M N m (O R N 0) N (O N co O O a M N O W M r M N N a' M O K a W H 69 69 (A fA 69 vi 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 E19 69 EA 69 69 6H 69 69 69 69 69 69 W O O O O O O pp N. (O O O O O W) W 0) O t0 O 10 (O 0) M M V• M CO O N O N t0 co fO (O 00 n O N M O d' U O O Ca+ N LQ O R I[ M Cl) O W ONO )A N (n O) M r O 10 O O M M 0 0 00 h t0 M (00 OOD O Ln ONO r 0 00 r N N N COM N N U � w � O U 69 69 69 d9 fA 69 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 M 69 H 69 69 69 69 E c p J J Q¢¢ Q Q a J J W W W (0p O 3 J J m 12 U 07 (O f0 N m W W W W W m m W W 07 m m l6 W W W W L W W m 7 r r N r r lO LO r r r 0 N C N (00 M N N m Ci r aL' C O W 0 CO o m u II Q m d U °) m 0 J H O m E E 0 rn c m m ai X ��`` y C NO m CJ W`o m c O c �' LL CA m In LL U c O N v M W _ 6) o CA CL (O r O m O• N Q d E 'E O N II L Y O? c m N N r ?_ c E Qp _ O 0 7 O. �% L J N •O c v, ctqq `v E ¢ 2 c a ° f0 E " a `� 'n ° oo (A C N (O LL O N m N C O c c o n t2(n c o 0 C, 0 O 4) C O) O O O (O m R m - C0 r (r 'O t 0 L p N d C 00 M M M r c Q a - W O m O` y N g :s (D U - V m > > rn Ev ' c ° L 0 o f p t •Z > N C 2 V E 49 N Y O E w d O rnoTt� a '15 m Jc � a°i v m o 4) ai m Cc A Z O O O0 LL f3 n U 'C LL 'U-p, 7 t � R ' >• d -C-> U) m C In n 0 N y O) 0 O � O, v y c v, v> � f- u> (n L) ca c LO p o m A aa° 2 n c a C O v C X m N U U O E 0) mp X nm aa)) E Y 2 44-0 w N d Q N N m 2 0i (c-O L� U J Q, q1 O Q N CO N c y c m > 0 y c a N a . C L d X o a) w O m LW O E= = O N O c cp F @? s C a) p. a 2 N C �� m y m m m> 2 a v v o °' E o E° (Ln E a c ° Z 0 7 C Q °n O) O m S2vaoE a) c r ° m o E 7 C rnm ° W O o m m N a'� c m a o a) i o° a °: �° ate) o rn o) O a) H e r w> - E a ° m ) E m m E c(D m nu Nom 0.- "gm > 2 r- ppm�E ooQdgo�m U m C aw Erd W a W N ._ 7 L C H `) m C o c W O C :7 m In S r2 In U cc H c � a ca°)i x my S x �m3vc� X Q m �� y `t°�•EpJ 3 3 c ° U m c °) v 0(L c ° t a) m O m c �2�Op �J w e cZ c)ayi -i O a) °cH h a) rn m� > c 0 0 O) W cZ�Q� V M D �(��'m N J J i m Da W N N O W (O Q U us s w C c� N J E Ein°aL dv C E my c o �' `° O d g (D avi =�(n a L m m m p ja�0 aQa t0 d N 7 N m U-) 2w m 0 a w U)W ELLw3: r N W M V )O O a0 O O N J M v 10 r O n co O N r r r r N N N N N N N m r r r r r Z W G W W w z g a 0 m Z IL U o Z S 7 Z Z Q S u ' c w O a E Lzu Q V C F U D O K a W r W K Z O U J a r w Q O U C tD E _N w C C O .W S c CL m 0 °c 9 m L C D 0 CL 01 Ul) 1p OI r*-: V l �il to � !� 00 7 fO fO tD N I N OOf N GH E9 H H EH b9 to q�{ � IQ O . M Ct O M O M co - M t� N M O E» ea 60 to 64 cry ra to O Of f� - N N W N M to r I C7 I L0 a0 � r - <O 1� M M A26 1 �j �A . 69 GH E9 H H EH b9 to u� r Vf Kpi M M O M N M O ^ cn V fM0 n W M to r th C7 CC) b9 fN 09 b9 b9 EA 69 di wl 69 r M M N N aNp, . a O of rl N co co n m m O N W W W W W W W W W W W W ¢ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL n LL LL LL W Q; LL q W J J J J J J J J J J J (ep� O (p N f� co M N N �- N M O M W N N COO- co ['7 N N �- N r N N 0 I-r cn _>, C w > O O y NE V U L L - N N y E> O L.. m N C > w y «L. m> Cl m > > L > v m c u°i a c a c a m m w° N LL o vi c o o U�c N p .m $ m O E y y y � U) 7 E > Coo O o ac l o a ° i ° y o a N m _ n— C N E W Ol y O O. d y O N C O C �N66 a�-j Cp> y y O y 7 w U m U C E E S O a O` O m y U w t 2 O d m> N O LO U d C> y N O y+ U 'y Q' d 4 N ¢ m �j O y C d 0 Vi C 7, p (0 O- N LL C y CL N N p C C O R'C A .O 'O y C(p d d m w O 2 U .O• m N O y y O E m U �' c c N y U y y y N U O E m N y �p y '.' O (OD N fn N i0 O 70 fO N fO C N N C N C c> C 'y t/1 m 7 (O E r N .�°. .o+ y cc N ?� m r m> y C m m j y N N ° ° 3 y 3 E V °) aL X o m> a m ;; c a Z °� ° m y QX 3> °. a y O 7 7 d '� �p N O CO Ol y .M^.. •" _O N m m m N w w y > U w w y C ¢ C w j L j N L 0 > C C co C C C C C N ° X Ol - d p y L d p 0 0 0 0 O N O d c N U y yO > > o O U Ol Ol Cl) d Co Ol 0O) Ol Ol d O L CC m •Q toil 2 uj mo U N X ° > .L.. O O � C M M co Cl) M M- - .m. N �$ 5 0 � m 2 E 2� � E �� v N� m c 0 y'v> L•- y •� > ° ° m > u Q 0 cc) N prn� a m o a d c ati > m w = m �° ' E m e E d 5 v r Va c iy > L o 4 > vx o E > -m LL v n � ° m a > _ �° ` > m N a N U E o > C m ° C m m 99 o m O m m m N > c E a o c c c a a E M E2 m m c. E o $ c o 2 m aU i" $ Co H m a E d m g E y E > w c a U to ° m c m °vv 'vvv °� y m c a ° i > O C >rn E.9 C > N U C w w w w -0 -5 O C y y CL mW 'O 0 0 N N N N N N 4 o c a c d'g m v N N mE cNHN m ° v" :5E °'o0' n S 4 o C - .V o wW N c. m y 0 w U° d N Oo o= ow E O E E ° N 2 d cn N m al :3 L U . O c N v y C C o U CO) E N N N N o LO O E U N y N N r` N p m P m o m m — � > > > E 02 m c E E O mo °o > > m c c c c c c c 3 (CD ao o n m c c o o ' d c d 0 ' jd tp vW>� vN •� » Ne7 � O Q U '.c L°r y H �m y Q � - u3 m.j . O d L Q g d O Y m N (d 5C ,) C U C U a pC p C U y CO ¢V Opp . ¢ ¢ Q G QO_ . ¢ vO_ . > c dm d p y y ' y y m N oc d y d m m° d m cL N !�lc_ i mm c 3 d m c J ty o W Hc aO U > Lto ,—U o C U L y m m o a a a a a d m m 0 8 pp pp pp o f y C d E 2 o c U-.0 -0 N gO c >c o c N > pN O > a a U c L L > X cc O O y > / O 0 N O a o- m m � Q ofwWu ° H rn. jr Ooo.. cc° cm w° Q 'ix Hx E > > > > a c W a a 00 9� c �D c — Q LL Z d O d c d » W b > > T8"mmo'20 � ww� -2 U � c mc, p (Dc)(Do � --a0 u G m > > d m= �2 - .5 o N e :3 S NN N N d m¢ x M M E= N N N M N M M M O 0 LO MT t0 O PO U 3 co ++ 53 a N 0 m o: a O O O (IO O V N 0 Or O (M C W b9 b9 (fl EA ff! !A G p d O Q w O O ° M (0 00 (n O M N M O m N U w C U (11 R m co 00 o� ac LU 69 6p, 60)69 (App U � co O M C v it r- 7 N U O U I �I WIN °o, °O °O °O O co 0 pLOi M M N R E9 69 (fl fA O O O O 10O�' O (o M OI OI S18 C C4 LO (0 M (A to (H 68 of �;I 0I N °I oI cI N C N N W LL J J J J J J J J J W J J W W W W W W O O N 0 0 O O O N to N r� N r r V' (O �- (c0 (t0 P- 9 N N O iNA - N- 7 r h r N N N � M h (n r N N d c M R N E N 0) CL 0� a� o 0 C O 1O o. CL O o a x ca w a c a y 0 ° O m 7 c O Q +O• � 0 w O 1° c c C 07 C N L �` 7 � T .R ui N > E L 7 > N G C L �' > O y N a= ° d E o CL y > y t0 O N O U w N m N �$ Y C — m d 0) O N a n.E �8C 8��(�p U U R O U d U=' E = v m c O r � O . E v a w w0, � C C f N N S O 0 0) m 0 YRi Z Z c o 0 Q' p' xyx O O J J W CL CL N O ( O NO C Y 4) v_ v N .t.. R N Vl 01 �0 c o a rn o i w 4) d L c , L J. U) a f�0 N N N R C i9 R N C G C > 30 l0 L n H N y N N l0 a O V% Of N C � X 'N > �a E E o 0 0 7 r- o a� Z E d N Cl lU 0 8 a °c d C N 0) y C d 04) E Z H R a c o (a Ea 3 a O o a 0) 0 CD -0 N N UJ (6 O n � E N L l0 N j � N CL O (0 t _E N c N o y a E > �' o CL o a > c O E C A w N s m > 3 � •U 0) C O R t0 0 0 0 > C1 c O D 7 , C C. c °• R c 8 U y d > C 0 O a N N m a�i C 2 aEi •o .N U N O N N m � C M y C C N 7 .N 8 ° 0) 0 � C c - n m ° c U ° a •E c c E O• • U Y o X a c o no C C y m > O N O y U 3 m o o y c 00 c > c 2 � 0 > � I d ,0 R � `� c o) U° 8 ._ c0 ° c CL _ s a o c E 0.9 Y 7 N ma (nw 0) U m- C C (0 >O y _N C N C U E C u'S aw 9a � 8 co c� (0co 3 N d m m r N 7 N _N ci 0 ;z N (0 N w V NH N M O m o �t d)- ° clt> aci -§ I c3 ar o 0) E O3 0) N N 0) l6 > N CL f�0 N 7 f0 N N 0) > R N L 0 > -2,0 C N c > m a c H E v $ms 00-2 c ° N + 07 as CL N d (mp .t A me ._.. Q 7 d 'c c a C> c N y N L N- R R 0 y ad > Tc m E $ a te > C, co C 01 V m0 ; 7 G T y N o C °oU rn° pdp o 0 E j N > > U C_ L y (0 s d 'O c f0 O Z- y N C (0 on N O V V" l0 > 0) 0 0) go E C Ln t 41 N a> f6 V O y .R. E (D 0- (CM N >& N y C N m a,Mw m =N Y fO w° ` OC waxi r ) a N x w a 0 ° o0 . :2 J. 8 ED tg ° w `w ° E o O m `- C 0) > _p 0) N" •N p •tC0 N V •O d f0 N N U C >a. ww o ff° L TO � C S4gdo) 22 0 N O pp r� N >> y N fo C C C 19 N >> y> 3 cc C0 0 N ( a R k; t c m �oU�(ci a c r� $' o} c 8 8 N cc r= CL m N N w H o > >> (� cn 7 CL 8NcUU a(386";o w 'N an d R N <n > Q � r m e N m m O> m> 02-1-6 � n —0 0) O 7 N a' C C p a N O C C (0 r sT O Vi U N N) M Ln N O S 8 S 'r -6 0) N p y C S C r N yj UO(� �cai a:. pa N m W Q N N N N W C :J J a. Q' d Q I- (o rl r- r- o 0000 0000 ` m r` r` r` r` M J a O A 26� M 91x1 0 0 0 0 0 0 OMENO � � O m 00 (°O gi 2 O M y is N 00 c69�61-.�f»411kra z° 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 w°r�T r Z U N Q Z C 0 m o: a O O O (IO O V N 0 Or O (M C W b9 b9 (fl EA ff! !A G p d O Q w O O ° M (0 00 (n O M N M O m N U w C U (11 R m co 00 o� ac LU 69 6p, 60)69 (App U � co O M C v it r- 7 N U O U I �I WIN °o, °O °O °O O co 0 pLOi M M N R E9 69 (fl fA O O O O 10O�' O (o M OI OI S18 C C4 LO (0 M (A to (H 68 of �;I 0I N °I oI cI N C N N W LL J J J J J J J J J W J J W W W W W W O O N 0 0 O O O N to N r� N r r V' (O �- (c0 (t0 P- 9 N N O iNA - N- 7 r h r N N N � M h (n r N N d c M R N E N 0) CL 0� a� o 0 C O 1O o. CL O o a x ca w a c a y 0 ° O m 7 c O Q +O• � 0 w O 1° c c C 07 C N L �` 7 � T .R ui N > E L 7 > N G C L �' > O y N a= ° d E o CL y > y t0 O N O U w N m N �$ Y C — m d 0) O N a n.E �8C 8��(�p U U R O U d U=' E = v m c O r � O . E v a w w0, � C C f N N S O 0 0) m 0 YRi Z Z c o 0 Q' p' xyx O O J J W CL CL N O ( O NO C Y 4) v_ v N .t.. R N Vl 01 �0 c o a rn o i w 4) d L c , L J. U) a f�0 N N N R C i9 R N C G C > 30 l0 L n H N y N N l0 a O V% Of N C � X 'N > �a E E o 0 0 7 r- o a� Z E d N Cl lU 0 8 a °c d C N 0) y C d 04) E Z H R a c o (a Ea 3 a O o a 0) 0 CD -0 N N UJ (6 O n � E N L l0 N j � N CL O (0 t _E N c N o y a E > �' o CL o a > c O E C A w N s m > 3 � •U 0) C O R t0 0 0 0 > C1 c O D 7 , C C. c °• R c 8 U y d > C 0 O a N N m a�i C 2 aEi •o .N U N O N N m � C M y C C N 7 .N 8 ° 0) 0 � C c - n m ° c U ° a •E c c E O• • U Y o X a c o no C C y m > O N O y U 3 m o o y c 00 c > c 2 � 0 > � I d ,0 R � `� c o) U° 8 ._ c0 ° c CL _ s a o c E 0.9 Y 7 N ma (nw 0) U m- C C (0 >O y _N C N C U E C u'S aw 9a � 8 co c� (0co 3 N d m m r N 7 N _N ci 0 ;z N (0 N w V NH N M O m o �t d)- ° clt> aci -§ I c3 ar o 0) E O3 0) N N 0) l6 > N CL f�0 N 7 f0 N N 0) > R N L 0 > -2,0 C N c > m a c H E v $ms 00-2 c ° N + 07 as CL N d (mp .t A me ._.. Q 7 d 'c c a C> c N y N L N- R R 0 y ad > Tc m E $ a te > C, co C 01 V m0 ; 7 G T y N o C °oU rn° pdp o 0 E j N > > U C_ L y (0 s d 'O c f0 O Z- y N C (0 on N O V V" l0 > 0) 0 0) go E C Ln t 41 N a> f6 V O y .R. E (D 0- (CM N >& N y C N m a,Mw m =N Y fO w° ` OC waxi r ) a N x w a 0 ° o0 . :2 J. 8 ED tg ° w `w ° E o O m `- C 0) > _p 0) N" •N p •tC0 N V •O d f0 N N U C >a. ww o ff° L TO � C S4gdo) 22 0 N O pp r� N >> y N fo C C C 19 N >> y> 3 cc C0 0 N ( a R k; t c m �oU�(ci a c r� $' o} c 8 8 N cc r= CL m N N w H o > >> (� cn 7 CL 8NcUU a(386";o w 'N an d R N <n > Q � r m e N m m O> m> 02-1-6 � n —0 0) O 7 N a' C C p a N O C C (0 r sT O Vi U N N) M Ln N O S 8 S 'r -6 0) N p y C S C r N yj UO(� �cai a:. pa N m W Q N N N N W C :J J a. Q' d Q I- (o rl r- r- o 0000 0000 ` m r` r` r` r` M J a O A 26� M 91x1 W W V O E 01 ur N U t0 a o Q C S E c N a a v (D O /C a` > 0 O�i cp O 8 E c m s > c l0 w O c_ C LL 8 Q > a s �O C 2 N U N C N 07 � N N @O N p U t5 O U 0 C H ? E N O) ID a0 �O a. ces $ o XC 00 N > E O1rm> 0) ( i O E (°n c0U� C O a > Q c 0 c c ' a 'g o y G v o c c o Q c o rn(,L) a c? o c NR ul O� mN C6 _ccd H CL 7 Q . 4 y c O C > U t(n808 C N 0 a a�8 � 00 � N (6 w 7xm Z a o. y� U o O Z 5 5 z c C O E a a O W tp o 'E N Cp m � C J 9 m m L C 0 a m a H Q c W D a W O U w C y r 0 0 O F K CL w r W U Z U Q V r •' Q C O � U C nlol0 0 0 0 00 o� C. N N cli N N 0 V,, W W W W W J J LO 0 0 0 0 00 O M M O C11 O N 0 o LO n N N CO M O n M w O n N N N N N N N O N O O O O O n o pNp r O o M 0 pop O N 1 l00 N to N c0 W W W W W J J LO Y O M M O z O N Lo O O M Loo to O n M w O n N ors m y C N @ M u� N en s s ass ra pNp r O co 0 O a 1 tNp y y F t0 co �Map. 0 On E co M 7 q ° O N M r2 W W W W W J J LO } U rn U �i r a D c0 LL N N O ul qr U.-I.: N N LQ N HN • . } }} Y Y Y fe N_ M M �C M r M } } }} Y Y Y Y Y tri Cl) M N N ai W co S O 7 c O cc m C E N c m Q Y N O .t a E N0.0 w O o N 7 U ors m y C N @ LL 25 00 co LO 0� o E C m � ► 0 a 1 tNp y y F a O 1c1 ul 0 .0 rOv �p u; L > ' E a CL N M q ° of Q $mo l0 a 1° t S 01 C � c t V.9 E w E c a E °O x� oo cc c c y ? w 0) c. m ayi c $ > a t0 a, > C A 'v y U Of N p O N o U rn 00 '>` N t :> o C ° d�c y O 2 a N U � �4 • O C O N N N 'pC N N G C a a �O y W O T N N C— a C T E �0 $ NVLL cy > N aH to N yoy y O)d v c T ° N c N U aci rn C y ca y y N m T a� Y X C o a c� a N y d �0 y C> 0O ^ a) .N £ v O « O 0 w m o m > ro= a— � m c N o h Z o V 7 0 >a. O 0 0 a C N C yy a N> � 2 N Z C N Y O Y C �j ct O ( t; E„ ME &a3 oZ° Na o, moo a� � W O Ld 0 a°imarn c o o a S to >> d y 7 C Z O O W N y 0 CD a� 0 4) d t0 c a�i F c N�a >> °o c� H� tm.Q m u o>. m Y �-?v�C v!� t0 D. y 2 t9 W c a aE aN) w 0 y m >� d a U)O >E c N c N mN C N a O O t c c L� cn U 'D N 0 N 0 I N O ch O cvp@ZZ Sy 5� Q 54j > W 5 J J W N W O. W Q N coo 0008F, rn rn 3� } U rn U �i r a D c0 LL N N O ul qr U.-I.: N N LQ N HN • . } }} Y Y Y fe N_ M M �C M r M } } }} Y Y Y Y Y tri Cl) M N N ai W co S O 7 c O cc m C E N c m Q `o v E b � 7 U cn � 25 00 i E C m � ► 10 a 1 tNp y y F a O 1c1 ul 0 .0 O �p u; L > ' o Z C N M q ago K o W> '_° t S a o to L + :W Q c� m J Q H O H `o v r 401 C d pW of M N CO O (n � .9 I- 00 r- N C G U) N d m N O (MD CD N (00 ¢ a cn J w Q' of J 0 W Z W W- ~ m¢ J xWlnw p XW LL a' p H Q Q H W J d Q m m Z < 63 63 63 Vl 69 J D W Q (� OW o O O O y O ° Z 0 y O N a n n a E v v 'o o m o U U N o O LL y y y "O 'O o C U O y o o o o C � C y V C C C N C y 0 U 7 7 7 7 IL Q CD N O O C 0 Q U H N N 0 r 0 It N O 00 C Z+ L _ O CD CO m O �-'N.. 0 (6 (6 (6 (6 LC w CO N 7 7 3 0 R N O L L L L N - N J C C C 7 .N n O) C O- C_ Q N 61) 613 613 Vl N O a r LL LL 161 O 60 N N O O O m 0 0 CO O O t g N L r O N o I- O i O r 0 0 0 O N co co co O O , N 6D d O 0 0 O� M I� O O N m I: 0 V CD LO O ' CD 00 r (") P- O M I- r N OO r O O I1 O M m (O N 0 M r W m N w r N U Q V3 V3 Vl V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 6F3 63 63 63 V3 63 69 63 V3 V3 63. 63 63 63 69 401 0 0 0 O m m (f) V O O (O C i i V N m i N co N O CD C W(D co W to W� O N O r t0 (O N d Vl 63 6l 63 Vl w 6l V3 60 69 Vl 69 V3 69 63 63 V3 V3 6l V3 63 63 63 69 d 4b O CL t0 O O CO O 'ct ao O It CO LO 60 Cl) r- W 63161 6l 63 Vl MI ' ' ' 63 63 63 63 y C N U N 0 Z O1 m M 6) 75 cn p Y N C M N C j C y C m m 06 1- U C LL CL C U 7 U y U y _N n- m- f6 11 Z _ a (> Q 3 U') .C--. 0a Q U .O CL d U U O � a J C C O C6 y U N O N- y O y (6 (6 'O O U 'O "O U CC °f y d m m m o CO a) U .m C a a� ^ LL J- LL 2 J J CL N J¢ o J J 0 Q J CD f� N M U N U m m N 0 a M) C") U R I- 0 m N N'r N h m m M O M 0 N N 0 C") v N LO m I- O V n O 00 M N N N N O N� It M U U C+0 � 0V (O d N N N N N_ fl- 0 C N N_ O_ N N d N r N N O N Z O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000L0000 00000 o o 0 o 0 LO u') to o o ul) (D W) In 6O Lo Lo LO o un It v v 'T L v� v v v v v v v Lo u 401 C d pW of E CO 0 0 0 0 .9 N y 0 0 E O V Ln N O :.i ¢ a cn J w Q' of J 0 W Z W W- ~ m¢ J xWlnw p XW LL a' p H Q Q H W J d Q m m Z < 63 63 63 Vl 69 J D W Q (� OW o O O O y O O O ti y y O a m O CD n n a E v v 'o o m o U N O a r LL LL 161 O 60 N N O O O m 0 0 CO O O t g N L r O N o I- O i O r 0 0 0 O N co co co O O , N 6D d O 0 0 O� M I� O O N m I: 0 V CD LO O ' CD 00 r (") P- O M I- r N OO r O O I1 O M m (O N 0 M r W m N w r N U Q V3 V3 Vl V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 6F3 63 63 63 V3 63 69 63 V3 V3 63. 63 63 63 69 401 0 0 0 O m m (f) V O O (O C i i V N m i N co N O CD C W(D co W to W� O N O r t0 (O N d Vl 63 6l 63 Vl w 6l V3 60 69 Vl 69 V3 69 63 63 V3 V3 6l V3 63 63 63 69 d 4b O CL t0 O O CO O 'ct ao O It CO LO 60 Cl) r- W 63161 6l 63 Vl MI ' ' ' 63 63 63 63 y C N U N 0 Z O1 m M 6) 75 cn p Y N C M N C j C y C m m 06 1- U C LL CL C U 7 U y U y _N n- m- f6 11 Z _ a (> Q 3 U') .C--. 0a Q U .O CL d U U O � a J C C O C6 y U N O N- y O y (6 (6 'O O U 'O "O U CC °f y d m m m o CO a) U .m C a a� ^ LL J- LL 2 J J CL N J¢ o J J 0 Q J CD f� N M U N U m m N 0 a M) C") U R I- 0 m N N'r N h m m M O M 0 N N 0 C") v N LO m I- O V n O 00 M N N N N O N� It M U U C+0 � 0V (O d N N N N N_ fl- 0 C N N_ O_ N N d N r N N O N Z O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000L0000 00000 o o 0 o 0 LO u') to o o ul) (D W) In 6O Lo Lo LO o un It v v 'T L v� v v v v v v v Lo u O O O &0 O O M 0 0 0 0 (O O O O O) m m O O O N O O O M O O O O O o 0 0 r r� h (D O O v 0 0 0 M O 0 0 0 (0 O O O r (0 6N r.- C) 0MOmO OOOOO 0 0 a W mm M N I� O (`M CD m C C LO N LO 0 co I m Of N N f- O V r N It N V co It V3 401 N N pW of O CO 0 0 0 0 O N y 0 0 N O V Ln N co cn U ¢ a cn J w Q' of J 0 W Z W W- ~ m¢ J xWlnw p XW LL a' p H Q Q H W J d Q m m Z < U J� v) ¢ O J D W Q (� OW y O y m OI m C C C O ti y y O U O CD n n a E v v 'o o m o U U N o O o y y y "O 'O o C U O y o o o o C � C y V C C C N C y 0 U 7 7 7 7 C CL °1 Q CD J J J O U C 0 Q U (n U U) Cn o Lu - C Z+ (6 (6 N C w m y (6 (6 (6 (6 N cu y Y 7 7 3 0 R N O L L L L N - N J C C C 7 .N n O) C O- C_ >C_ >C_ D LL LL LL LL 2 2 2 C C Z 2 m m> > > > >> O O O &0 O O M 0 0 0 0 (O O O O O) m m O O O N O O O M O O O O O o 0 0 r r� h (D O O v 0 0 0 M O 0 0 0 (0 O O O r (0 6N r.- C) 0MOmO OOOOO 0 0 a W mm M N I� O (`M CD m C C LO N LO 0 co I m Of N N f- O V r N It N V co It V3 401 69 69 63 63 63 Vl 69 6l 63 69 63 63 613 Vl V3 Vl V3 pW of O CO 0 0 0 0 O O 1- N O V Ln N co cn U ¢ a cn J w Q' of J 0 W Z W W- ~ m¢ J xWlnw p XW LL a' p H Q Q H W J d Q m m Z < U J� v) ¢ O J D W Q (� OW Q W W O o Z N Z U a U H O O (n m Z LL' J F ¢ F w Z W W W W � w o U o p O w W w o U w z� �of > w W Z W W z g 6'9 O O O 0 co O O CD h O c) 0 Lo J D H to w Z_ Z W z J Z H y W� H ¢ �� cn�> Ua a w or > F- w LL w o o W w w F- U >2gU) QU.2 3 w Z � a)U ¢ w - O O I� m ZJZ �¢ Y w S 0 It LO W U) Q¢~ > Q ~ LL W W LL>> w PM C') CO O Z W (� 2 x HW QW U w d a ¢ Z p 0 Z 6wn Oil- FE 0. Q M oc J J J o LL W 0 V- N N N N N N N N N N M m LO M M 69140146» 6l 63 69 63 6l 69 63 63 63 63 Vl V3 63 W9 60 6) 63 63 63 63 63169 O LO O 0 O O O O O O V O O V LO m CO V Cl) m m f� CO r M co CD N N O O M 1 0 0 R N h I- m m 00 Cl) 0) (O It N UD (n o r` co oo o LO N M N r 69 63 6! 69 Vl Vl 63 63 63 Vl 69 V3 63 63 63 603 63 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 0 0 0 0 O N O O (O O O O O O O O O O O O O C (f) O O 04 O O O O O O O O O O O O O m M O N r (O mr- O O O (O O 0 60 (6Y Lo 00 N IT N N 0 O CD .-- 00 If P- M (0 w n N N h O O � r ammo z °o N U m W f � N r 0 Y N 0 E LL O M O a Q a° c0 0 e o � � e � H L e d w 0 00 M O O T O N CO O O O (0 N 00 O 010 CO CO Vi N r N N C N E,9 69 63 63 V3 69 LO N 1- 00 V rl� r M M r-- n (O 6() N r V O (n O N (0 co N CO 63 6l 69 ff9 400 6AI 6914011 V11691 e3 691631 631 69 O 0 N O O O O O O O 00 N N O O O O O O O C4 -0000000 CD (O O O O O O O O a 0 Ct CO (0 LC) I� N V O) � r N N N I� O N N r CO 60 r 63 E9 63 Vl 694 63I V3 69 63 63 W-16916911 V3 69 63 63 63 V3 63 E9 69 63 63 V3 69 63 63 Vl V3 6314011631 4011 V3163I Vl 634 694 691 691 V/ ¢ W W CO W Z pW of m U H w J Q W w a W Z w O LL' U U co O ¢OWZ m =WJU) ~ U z¢ Q co cn U ¢ a cn J w Q' of J 0 W Z W W- ~ m¢ J xWlnw p XW LL a' p H Q Q H W J d Q m m Z < U J� v) ¢ O J D W Q (� OW Q W W O o Z N Z U a U H O O (n m Z LL' J F ¢ F w Z W W W W � w o U o p O w W w o U w z� �of > w W Z W W z g X W Z Z �= W W m �a� Z W Z a U Z W U` ~ >z a��,0 w xW zv�ooQQwv >LLLL�Ua(n p�OF ��> 3 �eEZ pp OzOfCL r > wcn a`�pc)U Q Fg� �Z� W2 acna� cncnz0 yw z� 7 ZZO z J D H to w Z_ Z W z J Z H y W� H ¢ �� cn�> Ua a w or > F- w LL w o o W w w F- U >2gU) QU.2 3 w Z � a)U ¢ w W W U ¢ d >cn� ¢ 6n Cl w N ¢ a () O W U' W 0 r H �w LL a n �O Lu N z p r r- n- W W W WK W W LL LL W W C) F" H W z (I j (I j} } o y J W W w w x d IY ZJZ �¢ Y w S U U) Q J W U) Q¢~ > Q ~ LL W W LL>> w 0 W I~i > w> ¢¢ w x O z IQ- U U Z= n W x W- aa w 9 o z (� E Z J Lla0aUW Z W (� 2 x HW QW U w d a ¢ Z p 0 Z 6wn Oil- FE 0. Q QH oJ> U p LL Z Z R H I- U U Z F F w W Z J o d W > Z Cn 2 J J J o LL R DD W W 00 - U I- m m F- W m OI.- r N M 6n tD L� O 0) N r O N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M 161 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee F 0 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 October 10, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: September 12, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Hannula B. Windham Studio VII. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 2 1 q 26 0 BY:....................... Fiala Hiller Henning 7 �- Coyle Coletta G The next meeting is November 14, 20113:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & MaiWBM. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 DO: V24% -A � -t ► �'Z21q 24 Cho: 161 2 a26 ` k 0Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 September 12, 2011 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:29 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel (Excused), Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Brenda Brilhart- Purchasing, Rhonda Cummings- Purchasing Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Carlos Herrea- Hannula Landscaping, Dominick Paternoster -Amen -Pride, Michael Scrhager -Amen- Pride, Bob Shehu- Ameri-Pride, Kathy Parker - Public, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Ameri -Pride Presentation John Weber moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 1, 2011 John Weber moved to approve the August 1, 2011 minutes as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (See attached) • Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax $11,633.26 • Available Improvements General $444,995.79 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard (See attached) Darryl Richard presented correspondence (by Purchasing Department) to the MSTU Committee regarding the Ameri-Pride Bid Award for the Devonshire Boulevard Landscape and Irrigation Refurbishment. (See attached) Brenda Brilhart stated the following: • Ameri-Pride Inc was the lowest qualified Bidder • License(s) and References were verified 161 2 A26 Darryl Richard gave additional information on Ameri-Pride: o (5) Documents were submitted by Ameri-Pride (See attached) o Briefly reviewed Ameri-Pride employee roster (See attached) - Joe Palmer, Senior Project Manager has 16 years experience and was the former owner of Palmer Landscaping - Michael Scrhager has 35 years experience(Present at the meeting) - Steve Royer is FDOT MOT (Maintenance of Traffic) Certified C. Ameri -Pride Presentation Dominick Paternoster stated Ameri-Pride representatives were present as requested to answer the Committee's questions. Dale Lewis expressed the Committee's concern on the lack of References that were submitted for the Project Bid and noted: • Roadway experience was not included • References were comprised (mainly) of Restaurant experience Discussion ensued on additional Reference information that was included in the meeting handouts. Dale Lewis questioned if documents were submitted to corroborate the information in the Reference Documents. Brenda Brilhart responded that Purchasing performed background research and received commendations from 70 -80% of the provided References. Dale Lewis expressed discontent with Ameri-Pride for not submitting the applicable References during the Bidding process and deemed that the Scope of Services for a Restaurant or Landscaping job is very different than Roadway Projects. Dominick Paternoster reported currently a $160,000.00 Roadway Project is underway (by Ameri- Pride.) Michael Scrhager reviewed Irrigation work performed by Ameri-Pride: • Irrigation work for The City of Tampa Median Project was recently completed - The Project is not included in the Reference Documents • West Palm Beach Convention Center • Atlantic High School in Del Ray Based on the discussion the Committee restated their position on the provided Documents and requested Ameri-Pride to provide Reference Letters that are applicable to the Radio Road Project Scope. Jerry Parillo inquired if the required Equipment for the Radio Road Project is locally based. Michael Scrhager responded affirmatively in Ft. Myers and if needed additional Equipment may be transported from Clearwater or Daytona Florida. 2 161 2 A 26 Dominick Paternoster stated the anticipated timeframe is 40 -50 days for the Project, weather permitting. Dale Lewis moved to accept the (Ameri - Pride) Bid with the stipulation that Michael Scrhager submit a Reference letter from (the City of Tampa. Second by John Weber. Ameri-Pride President Bob Shehu arrived. The Committee and Staff reiterated to Mr. Shehu the Committee's uneasiness with the submitted Bid References as they are not relevant to the Radio Road Project Scope. It was stated by Ameri-Pride that Reference Letters from the City of Miami will be provided to Staff (via email.) The Motion was amended to include: and Reference Letters for all equivalent jobs. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez - None B. Windham Studio - Scott Windham reported: Median Refurbishment Conceptual Plan (Devonshire Blvd. to Santa Barbara • Planting level was intensified • Proposed Plant Palette was reviewed • Western third of the island will be planted solid to include - Alternating ground cover through the Royal Palms - Install Cabbage Palms between the Yellow Tabebuia Trees - Minor Irrigation refurbishment • East End similarly will be planted solid - Bed preparation will include removal of sod and existing plants - The yellow and little red Crown of Thorn will remain - Install Green Island Ficus, Ilex, Juniper, and Bird of Paradise as a feature plant Michelle Arnold requested Hannula submit a Maintenance Cost estimate based on the Proposed Conceptual Plan. Carlos Herrea stated he will confer with Dale Hannula. Staff will email the Conceptual Plan Cost Estimate to the Committee when it is complete. (Staff Action Item) It was noted that a Permit is not required as the Project can be conducted as Maintenance Refurbishment. The suggestion was made to approve the Conceptual Plans contingent upon receiving Windham Studio Ballpark Estimate and polling the Committee. 3 161 2 A26" Dale Lewis moved to accept the drawings (Median Refurbishment Conceptual Plan) contingent on the Committee receiving the dollar amount for final approval Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment Dale Lewis questioned if the area with declining sod will be replaced. It was determined that the Irrigation repair is complete and the sod area may be patched. Dale Lewis requested Scott Windham monitor the progress of the sod repair and weed control as chinch bugs are present. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT Kathy Parker inquired when the MSTU Taxes will cease. Dale Lewis replied: • The MSTU Taxes will be ongoing for Maintenance purposes • The Millage Rate will be reduced when Projects are complete • Noted Radio Road Property Values increased due to the Median Landscape Projects There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee /I � -J, Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented_2�__or amended The next meeting is October 10, 2011 at 3:30 p.m; Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 161 2 A26 EXECUTIVE SUAUgARY Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Ameri -Pride Inc. in the amount of $267,214.37 OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board's approval to award Bid #11 -5700, "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Ameri-Pride Inc. CONSIDERATIONS: On June 19, 2011, the Purchasing Department sent out 752 notices for Bid #11- 5700, "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project ". On July 20, 2011, bids were opened and three (3) bids were received, Coastal Concrete Products, Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc., and Ameri-Pride Inc. The lowest bid per tabulation including selected alternates was from Ameri-Pride Inc. Upon review of the bids, on August 1, 2011, the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee requested additional information regarding previous project experience for Ameri- Pride Inc. in that the bid submittal from Ameri-Pride Inc. listed projects that were not roadway landscape and irrigation projects. On September 12, 2011 representatives from Ameri-Pride Inc. attended the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee meeting and reviewed previous project experience and listed references to address the Advisory Committee's concerns. After further discussion the advisory committee motioned to award the contract to Ameri-Pride Inc. provided they submit additional letters of references from recent clients of like work similar to the proposed Devonshire project. (motion passed 4 -0). Staff recommends awarding Bid #11 -5700 to Ameri-Pride Inc. Contractor Base Bid Amount Base Bid + Alternates Ameri-Pride Inc. $227,550.41 $267,214.37 Hannula Landscape $234,842.66 $278,818.46 Coastal Concrete Products $311,604.54 $356,313.42 FISCAL IMPACT: Radio Road MSTU Fund 158 - 162522 improvements general has funds available for project funding. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT MWACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #11 -5700 for the "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Ameri-Pride Inc. and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached contract after review by the County Attorney's Office. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department Attachments: (1) Bid #11 -5700 Bid Tabulation; (2) Copy of Ameri-Pride Inc. bid 11 -5700 submittal (3) Letter from Corporate President – Ameri-Pride Inc.; (4) Letters of reference for Ameri-Pride Inc. (5) Radio Road MSTU minutes September 12, 2011 meeting (pending); (6) Copy of Contract. 5 -Es 161 2 ► A26 From: Eric. Kleinman(aOmyClearwaterxom jmailto: Eric. Kleinman(o)myClearwater.coml Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:37 PM To: Tom Martin Cc: chuck .porthouse(aOMvClearwater.com Subject: Contract for Tree Service Please note that Ameri -Pride Inc. has successfully completed their contract with the City of Clearwater for fiscal year 200912010 and is currently providing the same service for fiscal year 201012011. We are pleased with their work and enjoy working with them. && JWehzffrafa Eric Kleinman City of Clearwater Parks & Recreation Park Support Specialist 510 Pennsylvania Ave. Clearwater, Fl. 33755 tel: 727 - 462 -6563 ext. 260 cell: 727 - 224 -7578 fax: 727 - 462 -6577 eric.kleinman@myclearwater.com 6- L 161 2 r A26141 From: Dwayne Bowman [mailto: Dwayne. Bowman@sdhc. kl2.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:43 AM To: Tom Martin Subject: Re: Letter of reference To Whom it may concern, Hillsborough County Public Schools has been doing business with Ameir -Pride for last quarter of 2010. Ameri-Pride has worked well with us, as well as followed direction and safety procedures in a workman -like manor. We will continue to count Ameri -Pride as a trusted vendor." If you have any further questions please feel free to call me. Dwayne Bowman Assist. Maint. Repair Supervisor 3838 North.50th Street Tampa,Florida 33619 813 - 635 -1170 (office) 813 - 426 -6996 (cell) dwayne.bowman(c _ sdhc.k12.fl.us (e -mail) 1 -L Corporate Office DNB Services Directional Drilling Station Construction Eastem Division 5401 Kauloosa Ave. Tuscaloosa, AL 35405 Phone: (205) 750 -2004 Fax: (205) 750 -2010 Equipment Division P.O. Box 1087 Hwy 13 South Eunice, LA 70535 Phone: (337) 646-0241 Fax (337) 546.0245 Gulf Coast Division 315 Country Drive Delcambre, LA 70528 Phone: (337)685 2167 Fax (337) 685 -2168 • Marine Operations P.O. Box 7136 2701 Engineers Road Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Phone: (504) 3W1 861 Fax (504) 398 -1231 • Texas Operations 500 Bayou Drive Channelview, TX 77630 Phone: (281) 4576489 Fax. (281)457.6420 • South Texas Region Alice Office P.O. Box 1130 917 South Hwy 281 Alice, Texas 78332 Phone: (361) 668.8044 Fax: (361) 668.0271 • Now Braunfels Office 2951 FM 725 New Btaunfels, TX mmo Phone: (830)625 -0051 Fax (830) 625.0053 • Edinburg Office 2605 N. Closner Sdnburg, TX 78540 Phone: (956) 3183150 Fax (956) 318 -1280 • Victoria Office 3954 South West Moody Victoria, TX 77902 Phone: (361) 573-3422 Fax (361) 575 -0306 Rocky Mountain Division P.O. Box 249 816 NE Aztec Blvd. Aztec, NM 67410 Phone: (505) 334 -4350 Fax. (505) 334-4329 161 2 i A26 SUNLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC. December 14, 2010 "To Wham it may concern, Sunland Construction has been doing business with Ameir -Pride for three years. Ameri- Pride has worked well with us, as well as followed direction and safety procedures in a workman -like manor. We will continue to count Amer! -Pride as a trusted vendor, and provider of tree related services. Since) Manager / Estimator Eastem Division 8-L• 161 2 / A26oi City of Naples Purchasing Division Re: This reference letter is for services performed by Ameri- Pride. Inc. September 23, 2011 Currently the City of Naples has entered into two contracts with Ameri- Pride, Inc. One contract is for Planting of Trees and Palms throughout the City of Naples (not to exceed $100,000.00) and the other project is the Crayton Road Tree Project. The planting portion of the Crayton Road Tree project (not to exceed $80,000.00) is complete. The 12 month maintenance and 1 yr warranty portion is still in process. The Planting of Trees and Palms throughout the City of Naples project is divided into four phases. The planting portion of phase one is complete. The planting portion of phase two is 80% complete. Phases three and four have not commenced at this date. There is a 12 month maintenance and a 1 yr warranty still in process for this project also. While there were a few minor problems on these projects, all of these were corrected in a timely matter. We are satisfied with the work that has been done and we would recommend this company. We would use them again for similar projects. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 213 -7101 or by e-mail. Sincerely, Janice Vermillion, CPPB City of Naples Purchasing Division TELEPHONE (239) 213 -7101 FAX(239)213-7105 7358 1h STREET SOUTH NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 - �, 161 2 1 A264 From: Tsahai Codner [mailto:TsahaiCodner @miamigardens - fl.gov] Sent: Monday, September 26, 20114:42 PM To: RichardDarryl Subject: RE: My contact info for reference - Ameri -Pride (Palmer Landscape) Hello Richard, Ameri -Pride landscape company installed over 250 oak, mahogany and wild tamarind trees in the city's residential swales. They did an excellent job of selecting and installing the trees. They were efficient and well organized. I was well satisfied with their work on this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Tsahai Codner Program Director Keep Miami Gardens Beautiful 1515 NW 167 Street Bldg 5 Suite 200 Miami Gardens, FL 33169 (0) 305 - 622 -8009 (F) 305 - 622 -8032 I.S.A. Certified: FL -5768A From: RichardDarryl [ mailto :DarrylRichard @colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, September 26, 20114:24 PM To: Tsahai Codner Subject: My contact info for reference - Ameri -Pride (Palmer Landscape) Importance: High Tashai, Please provide a reference for Ameri -Pride (Palmer Landscape) for recently completed project. 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 la -L• 161 2 !+ A26 MAINTENANCE REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: October 10, 2011 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to previously discussed maintenance action items: Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. A few observations are as follows: • Due to a few visibility complaints from Glen Eagle, Hannula trimmed the Dwf Firebush around the irrigation mixing chamber down to 3 ft. • Snails have infiltrated the Crown of Thorn and possibly the Juniper and Hannula is currently treating them with snail bait; however, the snail bait is on back order. • As per our last walk through, Hannula has systematically removed the majority of stakes from the Royal Palms, Montgomery Palms and Foxtail Palms to avoid constricting the trunks. The few remaining stakes will be removed within the weekly maintenance services. • Hannula has increased man power on the Radio Road corridor from a single 6 man crew to two crews totaling 11 men. • There was a weed problem which Hannula has addressed and they will stay on top of it so things will not get out of control in the future. The worst area is the medians at the Circle K. • The irrigation nozzle replacement project is complete for 100% head to head coverage. We are discussing with staff whether or not to proceed with removing the patchy, weed areas and patching them with new sod or waiting until later due to current water restrictions. My recommendation is to proceed with replacement because the weather will only get colder and dryer and the bare patches should not remain throughout season. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Ardutecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scottti \vindhamstudio.corn www%xvindhams tudio.com I I-, wo • Hannula removed some vine infestation in the Crown of Thorn on the east end towards Santa Barbara. • Hannula is currently doing hard trim backs prior to winter. The remaining Bougainvillea in Phase 3 will be complete this week. • Hannula is preparing an annual fertilization schedule for Pam and Liz. They will fertilize all starting on Oct 17 through Oct 28. • As per previous request, Hannula fertilized the Magnolias with 50% slow release fertilizer and increased the irrigation, though they are still struggling. • As per previous request, the large Live Oaks will be trimmed later this week. 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 26000363 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@-,vindlianistudio.com tivindhamstudio.com \vw\v.Xvindhams tudio.cotn 1 Z.- W 111 161 2 / A26 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: October 10, 2011 RE: Radio Road MSTU Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and Radio Road Medians Refurbishment Status Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report on the status of the Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and Radio Road medians refurbishment projects: In follow up the last MSTU mtg on 9/12/11, after discussions with Ameri -Pride representatives and receipt of requested supplemental reference information, the committee voted to recommend award the Devonshire landscape and irrigation project to Ameri- Pride. The project award request goes before the Board of County Commissioners for final review and approval on October 25. Hannula provided a final proposal /quote for the Radio Road medians refurbishment from Devonshire to Santa Barbara which was emailed to Dale Lewis on 9/27/11 for review. Once approved by the committee, Hannula will schedule the work. 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 26000363 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@xvindhamstudio.com www. "vindhams tudio.com IS-WIN Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane H A N N U L� Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, INC Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Pam Lulich pamelatulich@colliergov.net 161 2 oI A26 Proposal �Da a `` Paoposal# 9/13/11 11 -01177 Materials: (10) 533 Irritrol ADJ Flood Bubblers PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE I Total 1 $16,782.70 Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date 14•Mlmm,46 AM �� 1, ' ��" 8 -1653I Radio Road Incidentals Materials: (10) 533 Irritrol ADJ Flood Bubblers PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE I Total 1 $16,782.70 Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date 14•Mlmm,46 Radio Road (Devonshire Blvd. - Santa Barbara Blvd.) pricing from 09 -5111 contract Scope: Refurbishment of medians. Landscape Laborer (Site Cleanup: Removal & disposal of existing plants & sod) 60 25.00 1,500.00 Landscape Laborer (5 days MOT) 25 25.00 625.00 Materials: Sabal Palm/ 10'-1 8' OA (14'- 20' ct) 10 110.00 1,100.00 Saw Palmetto (Bird of Paradise, Orange, 3g) 91 19.00 1,729.00 Silver Saw Palmetto, 3g 16 "x16" 6 19.00 114.00 Bougainvillea'Silhouette', 3g 77 8.50 654.50 Ground orchids (Green Island Ficus, 3g) 102 12.80 1,305.60 Ilex'Schellings dwarf 3 gal (Ilex Schilling, 3g 10 "x12 ") 212 6.80 1,441.60 Parsonii Juniper, 3g 389 6.80 2,645.20 Crown of Thorns, 1 Gal. 'Little Red' 104 4.00 416.00 Dwarf Crown of Thorns, 1 Gal. (color?) 505 4.00 2,020.00 MULCHING (per bag) 1,402 0.90 1,261.80 Live Oak 300 gal. (Floratam Sod 5200 sq. ft.) 1 1,900.00 1,900.00 Irrigation Supervisor 1 35.00 35.00 Irrigation Technician 1 35.00 35.00 Materials: (10) 533 Irritrol ADJ Flood Bubblers PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE I Total 1 $16,782.70 Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date 14•Mlmm,46 161 Z A 6 W1V A1Nnoo idimoo ZIOd aTdYd3Wd >y �,� IHfN rY +M mm CIAIB VZ SWB V1NVS Ol QAIB 3dIHSN0A34 �'� o; a3�nn, o SNVId 1N3WHSm3,dnj3a E)NLLNVId NVI03W a i 3 i 4VON •�C]"' ill SN`dld JNIlN`dld aNV NOIlIlOW3t7 A[ -.1 ams .g CL z O I— O 2 W Il oI �- 4� Y m�ov a�x U b � m U cU O O- E z z ro E m 2 },} a Z Z 2 O 1p iD C C � 6 m n m n n, 111 F n, a o E 6 m E S I; c n � .eee • eeiiin ee\ eeeeee\ - m ° m E N" o = E F J' U O0 0 U o: ,o. ,o. I a. U) f• r\ Z: g, Vie,, W: ' O: .eeeee• ;eeee• uj: 9 F E VI Z • J: w: m v IN, I� F .g CL z O I— O 2 W Il oI �- 4� Y m�ov a�x U b � m U cU O O- E z z ro E m 2 },} a Z Z 2 O 1p iD C C � 6 m n m n 5 a. 0 Z_ Z a � F n, a o E 6 m E S c 9 m c E m ° m E N" o = E F J' U O0 0 U o: ,o. ,o. I a. U) f• I • i Z: g, Vie,, W: ' O: .eeeee• ;eeee• uj: E F E VI Z J: w: m v IN, I� F a = W: W: m b F N y y y W V N m co- Z� \ o W m N G U' 5 a. 0 Z_ Z a � n, - 111 1111 o: ,o. ,o. I o f• I • i Vie,, .eeee\ .eeeee. .eeeee• ;eeee• ..y IN, I� �o ,o 000v, /,1 \ 1 Ise, �;•. 1, 41Gp� ,\ -- -- • `11 • u 5 a. 0 Z_ Z a � i 4- O 2 LM � V N o ._ CL c �� OL m is y w- w .- G i a L V C CD C- �- c v 0 L CU L C. t r" w M Z . ® fn Co � '� Q) — 0_ U- G i D H � U 00 N Q r Q O >_ Z O t=i o o � O R 3 U Q Ha fA va va va Efl va va Cfl O O O O O O O N O C O o 0 0 0 0 0 m N •= O O O O M O O n n N IQ O O CA O M CD r-� R r M LO O LO M CO E Lo d 69 Ha va va va va va EA PH (U N N (D U U) R N U _ C a N N 2 Cn O 7 U Co 00 CU y ca Cn N J' N t c d CU 0 EL ,m j N N > V IN LL 2O tn00¢ 00 n N n CD LO A M P- co n r) v v It m M n 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V 00 O O C2 M M M M M N N a o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n UO LO In In LO LO IO U'> O O ° N II a U d A N N n � � M m v f N O o LL o r IR Q n rn M M M C ? m N 0 b > LL p H d d d Q a a a x x x x v o i5 r c LL r LL LL LL LL ee O M N N O O d w 161 2 � A26 0 a va L) N f6 w 3 V C a � C O O. v O o 0 0 C N O E O N o R N CO O O O O O O O O O O a Z C V U O O 0 0 O O I O O O O I I I CD CD CD p � a 0 ` d " 0 0 0 O m O O O O O O N 'R LC') n V O N LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O M E x C p U ) CU Co c Cn n't CO m r CO N N N V O d d ' J C tO LO r m a R R "—RO Y C (U Lp O C & U d C E J d d m d b> U c a> E Y a d a d d z d Q U n ` an o 0 0 0 O o 0 o o > r > CO O Iri H Q IL i! Q LL' O m 0 a va L) N f6 w 3 V C a � C O O. v O o 0 0 C N O E O N o R N CO O O O O O O O O O O V Z C V U O O 0 0 O O I O O O O I I I CD CD CD p � a o ` d O O O 7 7 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N 'R LC') n V O N LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O M n In C p U ) CU Co c Cn n't CO m r CO N N N V O t v d ' J C tO LO r R R "—RO Y C (U Lp O LL LL LL LL 2 M (n 0 o v o- H 0 0 0 O o 0 o o O 0 0 0 0 CO O CO O N O N n 0 0 0 O O O 99 O O O O O O O O I I O LO O IO a 0 0 0 I O I O O O O I O I O O O O n O n O It O v N O o 0 n O O O O O O O O O lO O IO N V CD n O O N ID v 0 CO O O O O O IO M� O n M Cl) r r N N N IO :C w M M v n 0 a va L) N f6 w 3 V C a � to Ica C9 V�l U�l 61). cn a 60 1 a � V" 6", "" U�' 60 6p, 6""9 0, 6, U, . �, V) U) 60 ca 60 V. 6031I6F� va v> va valvalva N O O 0 a O O 9 C I I I 6 I C=; C; O I I O I O I I 1 0 0 I C V LQ Cl) N CD O O O c It � - M O M CO N CO r v> va va va 6916,)16,94 va va va va v> va va va va va ca va Va U�l va va va va o r o v v v O o 0 0 C N O E O N o .0 CC N CO O O O O O O O O O O V v> va va va va M 0 0 O O I O O O O I I I CD CD CD p � a o am d� 0 0 0 O O O O O to Ica C9 V�l U�l 61). cn a 60 1 a � V" 6", "" U�' 60 6p, 6""9 0, 6, U, . �, V) U) 60 ca 60 V. 6031I6F� va v> va valvalva N O O 0 a O O 9 C I I I 6 I C=; C; O I I O I O I I 1 0 0 I C V LQ Cl) N CD O O O c It � - M O M CO N CO r v> va va va 6916,)16,94 va va va va v> va va va va va ca va Va U�l va va va va o r o v v v O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O N o N N N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Cn O LO M Lo O O O O I O O O O I O I O O O O I O CD -'r O V d� 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N 'R LC') n V O N LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O M n In M r n't CO m r CO N N N V O t v N � M n tO LO r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O o 0 0 0 0 r Ici O CD Cfl n r � O N N N n LO N va v 9O loo 0 N OIM ao oomoo� val val val val val va val val w val41a v O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N O O O O O O O O O N h 0 0 O O O O O O O w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v to O O Cfl CD n n14 N N n N O Of CD (0 N n 0 m M r N N n Goa Goa Goa Goa Goal Goal Goa Goa Goa Goa vat Va Ua v> 09, 6091 ca 691 Ga Goa 6091 691 Goa Goa 6091 Goa Goa 6Fa 6Fa Gad 610.1 vat 60111 vat ul 691 Wl U91 7I 11'"11 w O m w U Q LL, LLO } LLwJ2 w > Wz w w �� U H a CW J¢ U LL:, C/) W ♦- d = J 0 W W Z w�� LLOw W m:_ :Q (/) ¢U JF- � W m w a Q J U LU x X wC�ww 10L- w'L we-' O m" Q J2 U) ¢- Oo_ N w w O LL' O z ~ F-z�J= ¢�OOZZ l4(Dww �2z �w zZU a z w z CLL.U� z w2z�0v ���� >Ow wwLL� U ZFg FaU¢m w c�} z ¢may O w ZU� oo¢¢ WU� LLLL F-U ¢ U) wCn ¢ H J W m X U) U) U) U w o- a' a a Wcaz oU` UZ "LL C7 c- W �z Of w= c r'w Zz z z 0 a OpZN LL LL���N; zz0W zD � 3wLLZ w¢ WULL'�.�t7 w��m ��V LL > j= = W LL LL " W L, o LL W W U¢ 0U �! (4 Z J Z U W co Q N ED a 7 H w O O LL H F w>> LLJ w Q Q2U)OfW ZZwwLO Q ZZ�p wL�U ��?ZUpzQwFO (D c zz wU' (DZ wwQ w LLL >HW �¢Q (D (D zz �Z I=- O J RU)d ¢ iZU W I=- W w�a LLQ <� o o9 W WQ c�0L�??aF -F-0 �zI- F- wW?�oaw cnm _30LL o00 -20 F- MMI - way r N M� t(> CO n ao O> O r N M a N CO n o T O r N M d of CO n o 01 O r N M et O CO n O 01 O r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V et