The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 02/09/2010 Item #16I 16 , 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE February 9, 2010 I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: I) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of December 7,2009. 2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 8, 2009; November 12, 2009; December 10, 2009. 3) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of September 21, 2009 Special Session; September 23, 2009 Special Session; October 29, 2009 Special Session; November 19, 2009; December 3, 2009. 4) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of December 2,2009. 5) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of August 3, 2009; September 14,2009. 6) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 13, 2009; November 10. 2009_ 7) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of January 4,2010. Minutes of December 7, 2009_ 8) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Minutes of November 18, 2009 - no quorum. 9) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of December 3, 2009. 10) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of December 14,2009. II) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of November 19, 2009. Minutes of October IS, 2009; November 19,2009 - no quorum. 16fl1 12) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of January 21, 2009; March 18, 2009; November 18, 2009; December 16, 2009. 13) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of December IS, 2009. Minutes of November 17, 2009_ 14) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of December 3, 2009. Minutes of November 5, 2009. B. Other: I) Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safetv Program: Minutes of October 23,2009; November 17,2009; December 18, 2009. ReCEIVED JAN I 3 2010 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta .z( December 7, 2009 6 I 1 kl': ~ I eoc:nd ot County CommisSioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 7, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Naples City Hall," 2nd Floor, Multi-Media Room, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: Stephen Hruby Cormac Giblin (Absent) Randy Anderson (Excused) John Cowan Christian Davis Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer - Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank ("Buddy") Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor Misc. CoIres: Copies to: 1. Call to Order - Chairman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hruby at 3 :02 PM. Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. 16 I 1 ~ DAe1er 7'109 2. Roll Call of Committee Members and Staff The roll was taken and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Minutes - November 2, 2009 Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Minutes of the November 2, 2009 meeting as submitted. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 4. Approval of Agenda - Chairman/All Staff requested to move Item B under "Information Items Only," as the first order of business. Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 6. Information Items B. Fiscal Year 2010 Impact Fee Deferral Program Funding - Frank Ramsey · On December 1,2009, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the current Program and approved 36 eligible deferrals for Habitat for Humanity · The Board indefinitely suspended the Program based upon the reduced level of Impact Fee funding · The Board directed the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to review the Ordinance and recommend subsequent changes at a future BCC meeting · Staff will consult with the County Attorney's office to draft an amendment to the Ordinance to allow suspension or resumption of the program by Resolution of the BCC when funding becomes available It was suggested that temporarily suspending the program would be the best option to keep the program available for future use. Kenneth Kelly moved to support the County's proposal. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 6-0. Staff recommended reviewing the Ordinance as a function of a Subcommittee in order to correct technical errors and obsolete references in addition to drafting the Impact Fee suspension amendment. Staff did not anticipate the Impact Fee Program could be resumed before 20 II. Staff will monitor the housing market and alert the AHAC when stock has been depleted enough to recommend re-opening the program because new construction was warranted. Mr. Kelly volunteered to serve on the Ordinance Review Subcommittee and also suggested reviewing the Affordable Housing Building requirement component of the Master Plan which currently targets building 1,000 units per year. Staff suggested converting the figure to a percentage which will be tied to total construction. 2 ~J~mL f2A 1. ~ By consensus, it was determined that interested Committee members will email Mr. Ramsey to volunteer and the Subcommittee will consist of 4 to 5 members. A. Presentation - Resale Component of NSP Homes: Lisa CarrlLisa Oien, Housing & Human Services A PowerPoint Presentation was given. Purpose: · To stabilize neighborhoods impacted by foreclosures and property abandonment · Collier County will use NSP funds to acquire and repair foreclosed homes for resale and/or rental in three specific target areas Ms. Carr and Ms Oien outlined the qualifications for potential buyers, the maximum assistance available, and the terms of assistance, household income levels, the application procedure, the contract approval process, and the types of repairs necessary to rehabilitate the properties. · 70 applications were received and 29 have been approved · Approved applicants must obtain mortgage approval from a local bank · An Open House was held on November 22nd for approved applicants and three homes were reserved for purchase. A second Open House is scheduled for December 19th · It is anticipated the first NSP home will close by the end of January, 2010. (Stuart Warshauer arrived at 3:35 PM) · Ifthe property is sold in the future, the new buyer must also qualify following the same criteria as the initial buyer. · There are 30 properties under contract to purchase for rehab, nine have been completed for sale to approved applicants, and three have been reserved for purchase · Very few foreclosed properties have been released to the market by banks · The Board of County Commissioners increased the purchase price H&HS is allowed to offer to 99% of appraised value of a property Marcy Krumbine stated there has been no word from HUD regarding the County's application for NSP-2 funding ($1 OM). Cbairman Hruby noted Ms. Krumbine has been invited to attend the Spring Meeting of the Urban Land Institute's Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing as a panel member to discuss best practices for NSP. C. Subcommittee Update - Chairman · The Subcommittee's Workshop was cancelled in December and will be rescheduled in January · The Workshop and subsequent Subcommittee meeting, following the Workshop, will be advertised and open to the public 3 16 I 1~ ftp~mb~, 2009 There was a discussion concerning whether the Housing Incentives Subcommittee could also review the Ordinance or if a second Subcommittee was necessary. It was suggested that members apply to either the Housing Incentive Subcommittee or the Ordinance Review Subcommittee. An email will be sent to the members soliciting their response. D. AHAC Meeting Schedule for 2010 - Chairman · Two ofthe Committee's meetings will be held in the City of Naples (dates to be determined) · The January meeting will be held on January 4 in the BCC Chambers · All subsequent meetings will be held on the second Monday of the month, i.e., February 8, 2010 7. Review/recommendation of Applicant for AHAC Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the application of Larry Wilcoxson as an advocate for low-income families and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Second by Kenneth Kelly. Carried unanimously, 7-0. 8. Grant Application Cycle Opens/Committee Representation Marcy Krumbine stated one member is needed to sit on the review committee. Sally Masters has volunteered to serve again. An RFP ("Request for Proposals") cycle was opened on December 1,2009 to solicit proposals from organizations for projects to be funded under the County's Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") and the HOME Programs. Both programs are funded by HUD. There will be approximately $2.5M available from HUD with $2M allocated to CDBG and the remainder to HOME. An abbreviated version of the application was distributed to the members. Housing and Human Services will provide technical assistance to applicants to assist in completing the application form. Next meeting: · January 4, 2010 - BCC Chambers · February 8, 2010 - BCC Chambers There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4: 15 PM. Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee ~/ --- 4 The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on /tn as presented V', or as amended 5 December 7,2009 611t~1 ~ ,.....~ RECEN ::.. JAN \~, 21'0 16cLtolrAcZ; ; Fiala -M-:f~' Halas - Hennin MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIE~ COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTE.J!oletta ,/ , 'Iill_ Boaro of counl'/ GOln.1IIlI . Naples, Florida, October 8, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Larry Magel Joseph A. Moreland Ted Forcht Victor Rios Jim Burke Robert Raymond (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples 1 Misc. CoIrer Date:~1 fr)j(O Item~J to U\)4~ Copies fr. ~ctQ)8, lA 2 a I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at I :00 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided an update for item VIII.2 (because of a Clam Bay Advisory Group meeting the morning of October 8, 2009.) Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. August 13, 2009 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the August 13,2009 Meeting subject to the followinf.! additions: Page 4, paragraph 4, line 2 from".. .as necessary." to ... "as necessary to be consistent with the approved rate schedule. " Page 4, paragraph 6, line 3 from"... .this Agenda Item did not to utilize the..." to "this Agenda Item did not utilize the..." Page 5, paragraph 3, line 2 from ".. . subcommittees work" to "subcommittee's work..." Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7-0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The council reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report" updated through the August 2009 collection period 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The council reviewed the document "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through September 30, 2009. VIII. New Business Mr. Hendel arrived 1: 12pm 1. Revised Procedures for CAC Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Procedures for Coastal Advisory Committee" dated October 8, 2009 and 2 16 J 1 ~2! i October 8, 2009 ' a copy of Resolution No. 2004-01, (as revised), Section A-9 which addresses "Order of Business." The committee requested new agenda item (e) - "First Public Comment," as provided in Section A-.9 ofthe Ordinance, be revised to "Public Comment." It was noted, the 3-minute time limit for "Public Speakers" may be increased. at the Chairman's discretion. Mr. Moreland moved to approve the document "Procedures for Coastal Advisory Committee" dated October 8, 2009. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8-0. 2. CBAC Report & Budget - Update DRAFT Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary" Recommend that the Coastal Advisory Committee approve the Clam Bay Advisory Committee update report dated 9/25/09, extend the Clam Bay Advisory Committee to June 30, 2010 and approve the proposed budget of $234,917 required to complete the development of a comprehensive, long term management planfor the Clam Bay estuary" and "Clam Bay Advisory Committee - Operational Budget and Capital Requirements - August 2009 through July 2010" dated October 8, 2009. He provided an overview of the activities and the proposed budget prepared by CBAC for their continued activities. He noted the CBAC revised the proposed budget at their meeting on the morning of October 8, 2009. Committee discussion occurred on: · Should the Executive Summary be modified to provide the reasons the CBAC can not meet its deadline of October IS, 2009? . Should the CBAC be extended longer than June 30, 201O? Gary McAlpin responded noting the reasons for not meeting the deadline (the length in seating the committee, the significant amount of time spent on the issue of the originallO-year permit, navigational markers for the System, etc.) will be provided in the Executive Summary prepared for the BCC. The CBAC determined the recommended extension for the committee should be 6 months because some members applied for service in anticipation the committee would sunset on December 31,2009. Mr. Pires recommended the committee be extended for a longer period due to the status of the permits subject to legal challenges, etc. Gary McAlpin noted the "IO-year permit," aids to navigational, may not be resolved by June 30, 2010, but the Water Quality Management Plan should be completed within the time frame. Mr. Pires expressed concern the Request for Additional Information (RAI) issued by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the "10 year permit application" cited the omission or misidentification of some technical data. In particular, "the omission of the mean high water line;" exhibits/attachments cited were not found in the application; data on some sheets was "illegible;" the application cited a Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) from a different project ("the application references 3 tc~J8,~oA 2 j ~ JCP File # 0296087-001, the maintenance assurance quality control program references another file - JCP 012843-001, a completely different project"); and requested the Applicant "make sure the plan submitted is for this project." He expressed concern on these oversights and wants to ensure the County does not pay consultants for addressing items that should have been correct in the original submittal. Gary McAlpin noted the FDEP permit process typically involves a series ofRAI's provided to the applicant. The RAPs usually require the applicant to provide a response to a variety of questions depending on the type of project. The CBAC did review the application and approve its submittal. Chairman Sorey requested Mr. Pires act on the committee's behalf and contact Mr. McAlpin to outline the concerns to ensure the RAI is thoroughly addressed Chairman Sorey noted, in relation to the sun setting of the CBAC some items may need to be returned to the Coastal Advisory Committee for their oversight. The committee noted on page 9 of II of the report the term "special committee" should be revised to indicate the activity is being conducted by a "Work Group" (or similar language) comprised of one CBAC member and members of the public. Speaker Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident appeared before the council to discuss navigation issues and their relation to the "10 year permit" and the "Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan." Chairman Sorey noted the Board of County Commissioners has decided the "Aids to Navigation" issue; this is not the forum to address it. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group presented a DVD "The Greatest Good' and noted there are competing uses in the Clam Bay System. She expressed concern the proposed master plan is re-directing the primary use/focus of the area from wildlife refuge, water quality management, etc. to navigation. The water quality problem that needs to be addressed is in Moorings Bay, Venetian Bay and the Seagate area. These issues should not be linked to the clean water in Clam Bay, which is a healthy diverse system. Mr. Burke moved to approve the Clam Bay Advisory Group Status Report (Work Plan) and recommended the Clam Bay Advisory Group be extended through June 30,2010. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8-0. 3. Wiggins Pass Inlet Modification and Review Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend that the Coastal Advisory Committee review and approve the Wiggins Pass Project description. This will serve as the basis for permit and design activity with the required regulatory agencies. Also recommend that the Wiggins Pass Work Group be reestablished to maintain timely community input and review of the final work product" dated October 8, 2009. 4 fCbbe(S, fi{2 \ ~ Stephen Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering presented a slide show for the proposed solution to extend the dredging cycle at Wiggins Pass. He noted the solution was developed utilizing a computerized morphology model for the pass. The model was created from an extensive amount of research, data collection and analysis. The model continues to be calibrated as data becomes available. Gary McAlpin noted any solutions will be in conformance with the Inlet Management Plan (provide navigation for a 3 foot draft vessel, etc). The soft engineering solution is intended to increase the dredging cycle from IS months to 4 years (approximately) and stabilize the erosion on the south end of Barefoot Beach. Mr. Rios noted modeling concepts in general, are only as good as the assumptions utilized in developing them and questioned the accuracy in it predicting future conditions. Gary McAlpin noted the model was prepared based on a variety of historic conditions. It is continually re-calibrated, analyzed and compared to actual historic conditions to ensure the results it produces are accurate. Mr. Rios expressed concern over the accuracy of the model predicting future conditions. The committee noted: . Page 3, last paragraph, clarifies the wording to ensure it provides the concept for maintaining navigation for a 3-foot draft vessel. . Page 3, paragraph 2, clarify ifthere are any restrictions due to the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Codes. . The boating community should continue to be educated on the size of boats the pass is designed to accommodate. . The PowerPoint presentation be posted on the Coastal Advisory Committee website. Speaker Dick Lydon, Vanderbilt Resident noted Turkey Bay was similar to Wiggins Pass before it was dredged and straightened 11 years ago. At the time, there were concerns the channel would retum to its original alignment after the dredging. It is still navigable today, without any additional dredging. The County is expending too much money dredging Wiggins Pass and believes it can be cut in half with the proposal. Mr. Moreland moved to approve the Executive Summary (Recommend that the Coastal Advisory CommiUee review and approval the Wiggins Pass project description. This will serve as the basis for permit and design activity with the required regulatory agencies. Also recommend that the Wiggins Pass Work Group be reestablished to maintain timely community input and review of the final work product.'~ Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 7 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no. " 5 4. Biological Monitoring - Update Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Information updale for the CA C on Biological Monitoring progress" dated October 8, 2009. He provided an overview on the Status of the Monitoring Program. 16Tbef~ \~ 5. 2009 Beach Monitoring Results Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share the results of the 2009 Physical Beach Monitoring Survey with the Coastal Advisory Committee dated October 8, 2009 and "Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Three Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report" prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering dated September 2009. He provided an overview including: · The status and detailed analysis of the monitoring for Collier County Beaches and the City of Naples Beaches, as applicable. · In December, the status of the Marco Beaches will be available. · Staff is in the process reviewing the options for maintaining the beaches over the next 3 years (based on available FEMA funding and the necessity to re-nourish various beaches etc.) The committee determined staff should continue to prepare a set of options for future beach maintenance for their review. a. Appendix "A" Comparative Profiles Gary McAlpin provided "APPENDIX A -COMPARATIVE PROFILES (PRE- CONSTRUCTION NOVEMBER 2005 POST-CONSTRUCTION JUNE 2006 TWO YEAR POST-CONSTRUCTION JUNE/SEPTEMBER 2008 THREE YEAR POST-CONSTRUCTION JULY 2009)" as backup data in relation to the Executive Summary listed above 6. Inlet Management Plan and Critically Eroded Beaches Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Discuss with the Coastal Advisory Committee recent development of FDEP that will fund Inlet Management Plans that abut critically eroded beaches" dated October 8, 2009. He noted staff would like to request the FDEP review the south end of Barefoot Beach and declare it a "critically eroded beach." This would allow the awarding of FDEP matching funds for maintenance in the area. The committee reached consensus to move forward on the concept and for staff to return the item to them as an "action item. " IX. Old Business 1. Gordon River Funding and Dredging Gary McAlpin noted the re-bidding process is on going for the Gordon River dredging. 6 October 8, 2009 2. Hideaway Beach Erosion Control Structure Funding _ uPdate16' I 1 A 2 I Gary McAlpin noted the project has gone out for bidding and indicated the bids are approximately $IM (as opposed to the $1.6M authorized.) Speaker Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore noted there were II bidders on the project and there will be a savings if the project is awarded to the low bidder. He cautioned the low bidder may not be awarded the project, as they may be deemed "not qualified." The awarding of the winning bid may not result in any substantial cost savmgs. Gary McAlpin noted the issue may be returned to the Board of County Commissioners (on the issue if the low bidder is "qualified") and the item was for informational purposes only. X. Public Comments Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group requested the committee begin to consider more environmentally friendly (green) options in maintaining inlets and restoring degrading areas. She expressed concern dredging inlets in near shore areas is somewhat futile, as the areas are dredged and subsequently fill back in with sediment. XI. Announcements 1. City of Naples & Marco Island Letter of Opposition to Modify Beach Funding for Tourism Promotion Gary McAlpin presented a letter from Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples to Donna Fiala, Chairman of the Collier County Board of Commissioners _ Re: "Opposition to a Tourist Development Subcommittee recommendation to modifY beachfundingfor tourism promotion" dated August 21, 2009. In addition, a letter from Robert J. Popoff, Council Chairman for the City of Marco Island. 2009 to Donna Fiala Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners dated September 25, expressing concern over re-directing emergency beach reserves for tourism promotion. The item was for informational purposes. Speaker Marcia Cravens expressed concern over the opposition to increase funding for marketing as an inordinate amount ofTDC Funds are spent on dredging with shrinking amounts of funds spent on tourism promotion. 2. City of Naples Inter-local Agreement Gary McAlpin presented the document "Inter-local Agreement between the County and the City of Naples for Clam Bay Water Quality Study" for informational purposes. 7 3. NY Times Articles Gary McAlpin submitted an excerpt from a NY Times article regarding the U_S. Supreme Court hearing on the Florida beach re-nourishment case for informational purposes. orgrj'2:f A 2 \ ~ XII. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Pires requested clarification on the status of the working relationship between the CBAC and Pelican Bay Foundation given legal challenges being brought forth. In addition, he will meet with Mr. McAlpin regarding the concerns expressed in Item VII.2, herein discussed. Gary McAlpin noted the CBAC continues to have a good working relationship with the Pelican Bay Foundation. Mr. Hendel recommended the preparation of the detailed statistics regarding tourist tax collections be generated via the Tourist Development Council. Mr. Rios noted the committee attempts to balance environmental quality with human needs with the activities it oversees. He thanked stafffor their diligence in their endeavors. Mr. Magel reported the Tax Collector contacted the development he resides in regarding seasonal rentals, which indicates the office is getting more aggressive in collecting these revenues. XIII. Next Meeting Date November 12, 2009 - City of Naples Chambers ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:15 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ~~~. ?John Sorey, III irman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on I t - I ;;t - 0 9 as presented V\ or as amended 8 U\ 2CAClber 1012009 16 I ~I~ valOfC,1u Ha Henning Coyle Coletta ~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECElVEO JAN \ 5 20\0 /' Board ofeounty~ers Naples, Florida, November 12, 2009 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 I :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Naples City Hall, 735, 8th Street South, Naples, Florida with the following members Present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel (Excused) Larry Magel Joseph A. Moreland Ted Forcht (Excused) Victor Rios Jim Burke Robert Raymond ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: CC'r,!esto: GAG December 10. 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAG Minutes 2018 16 I lA12 i I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at I :00 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Pires move to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Magel. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. October 8, 2009 Mr. Moreland moved to approve the minutes of the October 8,2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7 - O. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report" updated through the September 2009 Collection period. 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the document "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through November 6, 2009. 3. Clam Bay Status - Update Gary McAlpin provided the following updates: - Navigational Markers · The Pelican Bay Foundation has appealed the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) denial of their request for an Administrative Hearing on the "Aids to Navigation" permit. . The US Coast Guard permit is in place to install the navigational markers. · The County will not be installing the markers until all legal issues are resolved with FDEP. . The US Coast Guard and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have granted permission for installation of the "informational signs." · The County intends to install the informational signs in January of2010. GAG December 10. 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAG Minutes 3018 16111\2 -10 -Year Permit Gary McAlpin submitted a memo from Jeffery Tabar ofPBS&J "Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application Status Memo, " dated November 6, 2009 and minutes from a meeting held between Collier County Staff, Consultants and the FDEP. He noted: . The application for the permit was submitted in June of2009. · The application is for tidal flushing and dredging of Clam Pass as needed to ensure the health of the Estuary. . A Request for Additional Information (RAI) was provided to the County by the FDEP. . The County held a meeting with the FDEP regarding the application and continues to address the RAl. - Update Report/Board Actions . The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will hear the Clam Bay Advisory Committee Update Report, Water Quality Study and proposed budget on December 15, 2009. · The CBAC will further review the Water Quality Report prepared by PBS&J at their November 19, 2009 meeting. · The CAC will further review the Water Quality Report at their December 10, 2009 meeting. 4. CAC Funds Reallocation to Tourism Advertising · The BCC approved a re-direction of the annual allocations for the Beach Re-nourishment Reserve and the Beach Emergency Reserve funds to the Tourist Development Council's Promotions and Marketing program. · The re-direction is in the amount of$500,000 each, for a period of one year ($1 M total). · The TDC had requested a re-direction for a period of 2 years; however the BCC authorized the re-direction for I year. . The BCC required Staff submit a Report on the success of the Program after a year to determine if additional funds should be redirected. Soeakers Item VIl.3 Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident read the contents of a letter he plans to deliver to John Arceri, Chairman of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, which outlines his disappointment with the CBAC, as the goals of the Committee promote identification of problems in Clam Bay, which do not exist. In addition, the water quality data collected and analyzed promotes the misconception that Clam Bay is polluted. The mangroves were dying, and have been preserved via the efforts of the Pelican Bay Services District. Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident addressed the Committee noting he has lived on the Seagate canals since 1983, and the water quality has deteriorated over the course of time as indicated by the Water Quality Report prepared by PBS&J. He CAC December 10. 2009 ~I~: :pprovr 6c ,inui ~ 2 understands Pelican Bay Services District past commitment to the System, but based on the Report, a new commitment is needed. Item VII.3 - 10 vear permit Ken Humiston, Humiston & Moore provided a memo dated November I I, 2009 "Collier County, CAC, for meeting record, from Humiston & Moore Engineers - Re: 1 Clam Bay, CAC November 12, 2009 Agenda Item VII-3 PBS&J Memo". The memo outlined his concern over statements contained in the PBS&J memo, which are misleading or incorrect. Chairman Sorey requested clarification if Humiston & Moore is in the opinion the water quality is better in the system today than 10 years ago. Mr. Humiston noted his work related to the Study Area is/was for flushing and circulation and could not comment on the Water Quality of the Estuary. Under Committee discussion, the following was noted: Item VII.3 - 10 - Year Permit · The minutes from Collier County/FDEP meeting regarding the 10-year permit are dated August 12, 2009 and the PBS&J memo provided to the CAC today indicates the meeting was held on August 18,2009. This should be corrected as necessary. · The author of the minutes was Jeff Tabar ofPBS&J and should be indicated. · The minutes of the meeting may want to be submitted to FDEP for comment. Item VII.4 . Convention and Visitors Bureau Staff will be preparing a Report for the BCC on the Return On Investment for the re-directed Beach funds utilized for their advertising and promotion. VIII. New Business 1. Clam Bay Data Analysis and Funding Report - Discussion - PBS&J Report Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review and discuss the PBS&J Data Analysis Report and Findingsfor the Clam Bay Estuarial System" dated November 12, 2009 and related "Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis, Prepared for: Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department by PBS&J, dated "Final October 2009" (The Report)_ The Clam Bay Advisory Committee has not approved The Report and will be reviewing it at their November 19,2009 meeting. The item is for informational purposes, but in the future, Staff will be looking for the approval of 3 recommendations: 1. Accept the recommendations of the water-monitoring program. 2. Accept the recommendations to perform age and toxicology tests on the sediment throughout Clam Bay 3. Perform the water flushing and circulations study. CAC December 10, 2009 VI.1 Approval ofCAC Minutes 501816 I r i I A C' I He noted it would be inappropriate for the Committee to recommend changes to the findings in a Consultants Report, however sought input from the Committee on any concerns or errors over the technical data provided. Under Committee discussion, the following was noted: · Funds within the CBAC budget have been re-allocated to provide for toxicology tests of the sediment. G"""1 · The original Best Value Offer (BVO) did not include a scope of work for Moorings Bay. '\~ . The Moorings Bay data collection was outlined in the PBS&J proposal and added to the scope of work to ensure the Study analyzed all the components affecting the Estuary. C~ · The BVO required the use ofDELFT3D modeling software so the County may begin to standardize the modeling programs it utilizes for Coastal Zone studies. (, ~ · A] 981 Report "Diagnostics Feasibility Study for Moorings Bay" prepared by a division of FDEP, (formerly DER) should be reviewed by the Consultants for any historical data which may be utilized in preparation of their Report. \'v<A . The Report is entitled "Final 2009," should it be entitled "Draft Report" since it is still in the discussion phase?~~ · Consider revising Page iv - #2 -line] of the Report from "In response to water quality concerns, culverts..." to "In response to water quality concerns in Moorings Bay, culverts..." (~ · Consider revising Page iv - #3 -line 4 of the Report from "activities as early as the 1970's." to "activities as early as the 1960's." ~;...v1 . The aerial photo date] 958 on page 2 of the Report may be inaccurate. . Consider clarifying the definition of the "Clam Bay System" in the Report. · Consider revising Page 13 - 3.2 of the Report - "Task 2 - Status and Trends of Water Quality within Clam and Moorings Bays" to "Task 2 _ Status and Trends of Water Quality within Clam Bay" (based on the text of the Section, which makes no references to "Moorings Bay.") ~~ Chairman Sorey noted The Report is for discussion, and requested members submit any comments to Staff so they may be addressed. Staff to provide an email to Committee members outlining any changes made to the Report. Sneaker Ken Humiston, Humiston & Moore a copy of a memo submitted to Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management dated October 27, 2009 - Re: PBS&J, Clam Bay System Data & Collection & Analysis, October 2009 Report. He noted Mr. McAlpin had requested he review the Report prepared by PBS&J and provide comments. The memo provided a variety of comments including concerns that the Report is overly critical of the work CAC December 10. 2009 ~'~;:r6 Olr rutej A2 . ~ previously completed by Humiston & Moore. He expressed concern the scope of work outlined in the BVa required utilization of the DELFT3D software limiting the Consultants who may respond. There are a variety of comparable models, which may be utilized to complete the objectives of the BVa. 2. Naples Outfall Pipes - Discussion Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review and discuss Naples storm water drainage pipes and status relative to our next re-nourishment" dated November 12, 2009 noting: . The current FDEP permit requires them to approve a Plan to remove the 10 storm water discharge pipes from the beach before the next re- nourishment is undertaken. · The Plan may be approved for an extended time frame based on the resources available. . Collier County has provided $50,000 of Tourist Development Council funds to develop the Plan with the City of Naples to address the issue. · The Plan is in the final stages of being developed and will be submitted by Collier County and City of Naples to the FDEP. Ron Wallace, City of Naples provided a Slideshow on the concept of the Plan and status of the project: · The adverse effects of the discharges have been identified, but not quantified creating an "undefined mandate." In attempt to define the mandate, the adverse effects are being quantified. · The developing of a storm water treatment area is unpractical given the area is already developed. · Consultations with the FOEP Staff confirm the State's intent to have the discharge pipes removed, however the State would not require any action "non-beneficial" to the solution. · In developing the solution, an economically practical and environmentally sound Plan will need to be developed to the "best extent possible" to address the permit condition. Discussion occurred on any existing permits that may be affected by the solution, and if any Federal funding may be available for implementing the Plan. 3. FEMA Funds - Update Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Share information on the additional funding request that the County is pursuing with FEMA for recovery of additional Gabrielle. Katrina and Wilmafunds" dated November 12,2009. He noted Staff continues to pursue additional FEMA funding which will have an impact on the direction the County takes on beach re-nourishment projects. It is anticipated the decisions for the funding will be made in approximately 4 months. 4. Marco Island Re-nourishment - Discussionffiming Gary McAlpin provided an update noting: CAC December 10. 2009 \ VI-1 Approval of CAG Minutes " f61 1 A2 I · The existing breakwater at South Beach is in need of some additional rock, which will be completed during the next beach re-nourishment. · South Beach is eroded and FEMA funds have been awarded for the repair. · No additional work on the existing T -groins is proposed. · At least one additional breakwater is under consideration for South Beach. · Any proposed activities are being planned in conjunction with FEMA funding and will be completed in approximately 2 years. Discussion occurred on the impacts of delaying beach re-nourishment and related projects based on projected funding sources. The Committee requested Staff prepare economic modeling on the cost impacts of delaying beach re-nourishment projects (future erosion impacts, costs of mobilization, etc.) IX. Old Business Gary McAlpin provided the following updates: 1. Biological Monitoring - Update The Biological Monitoring was completed at a cost of $75,000, which saved the County $ 130,000. 2. Gordon River Dredging - Update The Gordon River Dredging should occur within the next 10- 14 days and be completed in 6 weeks. 3. Hideaway Beach Funding - Update The funding portion for the Hideaway Beaches T-groin project attributed to Collier County will be $1.14M. 4. Marco Island Funding - Update Exact figures delineating the expenditures for the Marco Island Beaches will be provided in the future, however the County has spent more on the beaches than revenue generated within the jurisdiction. X. Announcements -CAC 2010 Scheduled Meetings Staff provided a memo "2010 CAC Scheduled Meetings" to the Committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion -December CAC Meeting It was noted, there will be a CAC meeting in December. The Committee requested Staffprovide the Sea Turtle Nesting Report at afuture meeting. XIII. Next Meeting Date CAC December 10. 2009 ~1~;r6al,cAiMinu1A 2\ I December 10, 2009 - City of Naples Chambers There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:00 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee r-'~' ohn Sorey, III Chai an These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 1;2 -/ 0- ()Cj as presented _ _ or as amended ./' r . ~EIVED JAN 1 5 2010 16De~em~er ~2~J J V I Board ofCounlY~ Fiala Halas He MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTE@oletta Naples, Florida, December 10, 2009 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 the Naples City Hall, 735, 8th Street South, Naples, Florida with the following members Present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Joseph A Moreland Ted Forcht Victor Rios Jim Burke Robert Raymond ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County AttofIl\()'Corres: Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Jate: 'em#: ; to: 16 j 1 A2;, I December 10, 2009 i 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 with a quorum established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. November 12, 2009 Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes of the November 12,2009 meeting subject to the following additions: (Shown in bold italic) Page 5, paragraph 2: Under Committee discussion, the following was noted: · Funds within the CBAC budget have been re-a1located to provide for toxicology tests of the sediment. - Gary McAlpin · The original Best Value Offer (BVO) did not include a scope of work for Moorings Bay. -Mr. Pires · The Moorings Bay data collection was outlined in the PBS&J proposal and added to the scope of work to ensure the study analyzed all the components affecting the estuary. - Gary McAlpin · The BVO required the use of DELFT 3D modeling software so the County may begin to standardize the modeling programs it utilizes for coastal zone studies. Gary McAlpin was unsure if PBS&J possessed the DELFT 3D Software. - Gary McAlpin · A 1981 Report "Diagnostics Feasibility Study for Moorings Bay" prepared by a division ofFDEP, (formerly DER) should be reviewed by the consultants for any historical data which may be utilized in preparation of their report. - Mr. Pires · The report is entitled "Final 2009," should it be entitled "Draft Report" since it is still in the discussion phase? - Mr. Pires · Consider revising Page iv - #2 -line I of the report from "In response to water quality concerns, culverts..." to "In response to water quality concerns in Moorings Bay, culverts..." - Mr. Pires · Consider revising Page iv - #3 -line 4 of the report from "activities as early as the 1970's." to "activities as early as the 1960's." - Mr. Pires · The aerial photo date 1958 on page 2 of the report may be inaccurate. 2 1611A21. December 10, 2009 · Consider clarifying the definition of the "Clam Bay System" in the report. - Mr. Pires · Consider revising Page 13 - 3.2 of the Report - 'Task 2 - Status and Trends of Water Quality within Clam and Moorings Bays" to "Task 2- Status and Trends of Water Quality within Clam Bay" (based on the text of the section, which makes no references to "Moorings Bay. ") - Mr. Pires · Page 6, paragraph 2, anywhere in text "Plan" to "plan" Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8-0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report" updated through the October 2009 collection period. 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the document "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through November 30, 2009. Gary McAlpin noted the Tourist Development Council has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners, the interest earned on TDC Funds, (Beach Re- nourishment accounts, etc.) be re-directed to Tourism Marketing and Promotions for a term of 3 years. The interest on the funds was previously allocated to the County Clerk to assist in funding his operations. IX. New Business 1. Clam Bay Data Analysis and Funding Report - Discussion - PBS&J Report Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review and address comments on the PBS&J Data Analysis Report and Findings for the Clam Bay Estuary and approve the recommendations listed below" dated December 10, 2009. Staffis requesting Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) approval of the following 3 recommendations: 1. Approve moving forward with a water monitoring program as outlined in the Report. (I'he item was approved by the CBAC on November 19, 2009 by a 9,0 vote.) 2. Approve moving forward with additional sediment toxicology and aging data collection/analysis. (I'he item was approved by the CBAC on November 19, 2009 by a 5-4 vote.) 3. Approve the water circulation/flushing modeling program. (I'he item was approved by the CBAC on November 19, 2009 by a 7-2 vote.) David Tamasko of PBS&J provided an overview of the activities leading to the recommendations: 3 Recommendation #1 · If State Water Quality Standards are not met on a particular body of water, FDEP declares the water as "impaired" and may require certain TMDL's (Total Maximum Daily Loads), known as the "TMDL Program" · In addition to certain mandates, the TMDL Program allows the Agency to deny permit applications to areas affected by the "TMDL Program." · The County employed PBS&J to conduct a water quality study of the Clam Bay System to determine if there are water quality concerns within the system as related to the "TMDL Program." · Their study indicated many of the samples for dissolved oxygen and nutrient content in areas of Clam Bay; meet the FDEP threshold of "impaired." .. 16iber f' ,r 2 i I The findings in the Study led to the recommendation for the County to develop a water quality program to address the concerns. Recommendation #2 · The PBS&J Study determined some areas of the Clam Bay System are characterized by a fine grain sediment layer. · A fine grain sediment layer prevents the penetration of oxygen into the soil possibly affecting the existence of certain living organisms and traps toxins which may be detrimental to the health of the Estuary. The finding led to the recommendation of analyzing the age and contents of the fine grain sediments to determine if it is natural or a non-natural occurrence. Recommendation #3 Todd Demundo of PBS&J provided on overview of the data collected; data was collected the end of August 2009 with 16 instruments over an 8 day period. · Individuals have questioned if the 8 day collection period is a sufficient period of time for the data to be utilized in developing a model. · Although as much information as possible is beneficial to a study, the period of 8 days and utilization of 16 instruments was predicated by cost. · Some data collection was affected by instrument malfunction and vandalization. · In his opinion, (even with the malfunctions and vandalization of instruments) the data collected is of sufficient nature to predict the system trends (water velocity, tidal flow, etc) necessary to develop the water circulation/flushing model. · With respect to their finding the net water flow is southerly from Clam Bay into Moorings Bay, most historic studies recognize the fact (with the exception of the 1996 Tackney Report which "assumed" the net flow was uniform in both directions). 4 Decemt~o'toi A 2 ' I Speakers Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident submitted a document "Comments to Coastal Advisory Committee Re: Clam Bay Data Analysis and Funding Report" dated December 10,2009. She noted recommendation #1 for a Water Quality Monitoring Program be coordinated with the Monitoring Program underway with the Pelican Bay Services Division. The study only found modest levels of impairment and the degradation of water quality in the system is minimal. She expressed concern over the means of the data collection for the data to be utilized for the circulation/flushing modeling study. Rick Dykman, Seagate Homeowners Assocs. stated the Association strongly supports the 3 recommendations proposed in the Executive Summary. Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident supports the 3 recommendations proposed in the Executive Summary as the result of the process will be a management plan prepared by CBAC which needs to be "science and data driven." Marcia Cravens, President, Mangrove Action Group noted the findings should be fact and science driven but expressed concern actions proposed such as dredging will have a negative impact on the sea grass and wildlife occupying the system. She submitted documents including a petition signed by 2, I OS persons opposing any plans to degrade the system, wildlife surveys, a diagnostic feasibility study for Moorings Bay, etc. She recommended a complete environmental survey be completed ofthe area before moving forward. Mr. Pires submitted the document "Some Comments, Corrections & Critique of that certain document "Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis" Prepared by PBS&J for Collier County Coastal Zone Management denoted as "Final October 20009" dated December 10,2009 for consideration by the Committee. He reviewed many of the comments contained in the document and questioned the reliability and credibility of the entire report due to: "obvious errors or omissions of fact that color the narrative;" and "omissions of references to prior pertinent studies when the report was originally presented." Based on the observations contained in the document, he recommended the Board of County Commissioners not accept the report. Chairman Sorey recommended Staff forward Mr. Pires's document to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration when reviewing the recommendations. Mr. Rios expressed concern the data collected for the circulation/flushing model is not comprehensive enough affecting the reliability of the modeling. Chairman Sorey noted the issue is water quality and the recommendations will address the issue and allow the process to move to the next phase. 5 Mr. Hendel moved to accept the 3 recommendations as approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee: 1. Approve moving forward with a water-monitoring program as outlined in the Report. 2. Approve moving forward with additional sediment toxicology and aging data collection/analysis. 3. Approve the water circulation/flushing modeling program. December 10, 2009 16 I 1 'A 2 I Second by Mr. Burke. Gary McAlpin noted · Recommendation #1 is to develop the water quality monitoring program, not propose any actions based on the results of a program. · The circulation/flushing modeling will be critical to assist in predicting the end results of any actions proposed for the estuary. · PBS&J will employ Coastal Planning and Engineering (CPE) to develop the DELFT3D modeling. · The 3 recommendations are critical to developing a management plan for the estuary. · Any inaccurate aerial photos within the report will be corrected. · PBS&J has indicated the data collection is sufficient to complete the modeling. · The modeling will be subject to Peer Review. Mr. Pires suggested the vote on the recommendations be individual, per the actions of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Chairman Sorey noted the motion was appropriate as stated (voting on all three recommendations at once). Mr. Pires re-iterated his concern the report does not adequately define the "Clam Bay System" and recommended the report be amended to provide a definition. He also asked if there would be any additional costs to the County for CPE developing the circulation/flushing model. Chairman Sorey stated it is not the Committee's function to alter a Consultant's Report. In answer to Mr. Pires question, Mr. McAlpin noted there will be no additional costs to the County. Mr. Rios requested clarification on the format of the Peer Review: Gary McAlpin clarified the format by the following: · The Peer Review is anticipated to be completed by a "non consultant" as approved by the County and the Pelican Bay Services Division with costs borne jointly. · The Peer Review will be for the report, and development of the modeling program at the stage of its initiation and 30,50 and 90 percent phases of development. 6 fbelberio'Ao~ I In closing, Gary McAlpin stated the Peer Review will include analyzation ofthe existing data collection to ensure it is comprehensive enough to develop the model. Motion carried 7 "yes" -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted no. Mr. Pires stated he is infavor of recommendations #1 and #2, not #3 until a sufficient Peer Review of the existing information has been performed. This predicated his "no" vote on the motion. X. Old Business None XI. Announcements - Public Notice for Grant Applications Gary McAlpin provided written notification to the Committee that the Coastal Advisory Committee is currently accepting Category "A" grant applications for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The application is located on the following web page www.colliergov.net/lndex.asox?oage=1352 and is due by the close of business Wednesday, March 31, 2010. Applications can be mailed to the Coastal Zone Management office, W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103, East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. XII. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland requested an update on the Wiggins Pass Modeling Study and permit applications. Gary McAlpin noted the Modeling Study is completed. The permit application will include the modeling and be submitted to the FDEP by the end of the year. The FDEP has been involved in the process. Mr. Burke expressed concern, the time extensions ofthe Clam Bay Advisory Committee may create an environment of extensive member turnover. Mr. Pires requested clarification if the "Peer Review" will be subject to the Competitive Consultants Negotiations Act and an update on the navigational markers permit for Clam Bay. Gary McAlpin noted the CCNA requirements will depend on the costs of the Peer Review. The 3 permits under consideration are the Navigational Markers, Regulatory Markers and Informational signs. The Informational signs have been approved by the various Agencies; the regulatory markers (caution idle speed, no wake) are still under review by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and if not approved by them, the County will address the issue with the FDEP; the navigational marker permit is still under consideration due to legal issues. Mr. Rios thanked Gary McAlpin for the site visit to Marco Island Beaches. 7 XIII. Next Meeting Date January 14,2010 - City of Naples Chambers December 10, 2009 1611lA2 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe chair at 2:30 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee .~P~~/ ~hn Sorey, III Chairm These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 1---- 8 1- /4 -dOlO I Jlt.! 161 !P~221'21 / V Fiala Halas Henning.'; Coyle . ',-; '::: r' '.::' \r= -. Coletta _ J NSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF THE JOINT SESSION · "... ',-, I L i...i COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEI1AN ' :? l:uiO Naples, Florida September 21, 2009 . .jc\ft::;tCiJUL:, (;JH1m;ssiOIl,,-"18 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 SPECIAL SESSION at 2800 Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Flori~ with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (absent) David J. Wolfley (absent) Productivity Committee Members: Gina Downs Douglas M. Fee (absent) Janet Vasey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 Copies 10: . I, 16 I }eP.';~ 3 2001 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, eveI)'one. Welcome to the September 21st meeting. It's ajoint meeting between the Collier County Productivity Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission to go over the AUIR. And for those people who hate government acronyms, because we have so many of them, that's the Annual Update and InventoI)' Report. And it's the prelude to the budget process for Collier County. Item # I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (AND ROLL CALL) So, with that in mind, will eveI)'body please rise to pledge allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you do roll call, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Caron is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent, Mr. Vigliotti is absent, Mr. Wolfley is absent. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the Productivity Committee, we have Ms. Gina Downs and Ms. Janet Vasey. And I see a space for Mr. Fee when he shows up, ifhe does. So with that in mind, that is a quorum for the Planning Commission, so we'll be able to move on for today. The agenda is basically a walk-through ofthe various different departments with an overview by Mr. Bosi to begin with. We're taking it a little out of order, from what I can see. We're going to have an impact fee presentation right after Mike. And after that we're going to the fire districts, the Isle of Capri and Ochopee, first. I think that's probably a good move, since otherwise they'd be sitting here for eight hours today. With that in mind, Mike, I'll turn it over to you. Item #2 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES. CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. Just a reminder for eveI)'one, please, to speak with -, into microphone. The meeting is being recorded and broadcast live, so we want to make sure to pick everything up. My name is Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning, Planning Manager. Today we are here to review the 2009 Annual Update and InventoI)' Report. That is a -- the prelude process for the establishment of the update of our capital improvement element of our Growth Management Plan. The AUIR contains both the CategoI)' A facilities, which are the facilities that make up the concurrency management system, as well as the CategoI)' B facilities, which do not make up our concurrency management system but are'reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the level of service standards that we have established for this ;'.-' Page 2 1 A3 ~ 16 I 1 September 21, 2009 county are being maintained within all those respective areas. A new aspect this year within the AUIR process will be the review of the capital improvement program for the Collier County School District. As you recall, this past year the public school facility element was adopted with -- into our Growth Management Plan. And per the public school facility element, Objective 4 states, the county shall adopt by reference into its capital improvement element the school district's annually updated financially feasible five-year capital improvement plan. The recommendation being sought from the advisory boards regarding the schools is that there is a recommendation to include the district CIP by reference within the County CIE and that no inconsistencies are contained within the district CIP and other planned capital improvements within the AUIR. Additionally, on the agenda we had Amy Patterson to be able to make a presentation. I've spoken with her. She really doesn't have a formal presentation, but she said she'll just take questions as the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee would see fit. There is a component within the staff report where we do describe the impact fees. If I call your attention to Page 8, it highlights the new methodology for the indexing of the County's impact fees. Basically we are now using a two-year average between 2007 and 2008 data to establish the indexing fees. And you can see the comparison of what that indexing fee increase compared to -- the current method compared to the previous method. Additionally, related to impact fees, the Productivity Committee has been working with the park impact fee, and there has been a recommendation from the Productivity Committee at the August 29th meeting which would basically have a reduction to the park impact fee for the various dwelling unit categories. On Page 9 provides the reduction within the new methodology suggested by the Productivity Committee. For a single-family detached house it's an average of 17.8 percent reduction. For multi-family, it's a 39 percent reduction. For mobile home and RV it's 29.6 and for hotel-motel it's a 30.38 percent reduction, based upon the new methodology we recommended through the Productivity Committee. And they have spent this past year, I think past year and a half reviewing the impact fee study, the methodology, how it's established. And that recommendation is being made to the Board of County Commissioners related to the park impact fee. Within the staff report, the individual recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee are contained on Page II. By separate motion for each of the Category A and Category B facilities, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission. The planning Commission, just for -- on October 15th, your second meeting in October, we will be back to the Planning Commission so we can present to the body the recommendations that you will be making today, just for the concurrency and agreement that these are indeed in fact the recommendations that are coming out of today's hearing as well. I'm not sure how the Productivity Committee -- we won't be back to the Productivity Committee. But traditionally Ms. Vasey or another member of the Productivity Committee summarizes their motions. I'm not sure how you would like to take that this year, Janet. I'm not sure. MS. VASEY: We just have a small sub-committee this time. We're not going to be rotating in and out according to the different facilities. So it will be Doug and Gina and I. And we will take votes as a sub-committee and then we will take our recommendations back to the full committee at our next meeting in October. MR. BOSI: One of the trends that you've noticed from year to year, this is -- obviously this is an annual repeating process. And one of the things that as you take part in this in a year to year, you see the changing trends within population within this county. It's highlighted within the staff report. The early part of this decade, the population growth that was experienced by this county and the demands that were being placed upon the infrastructure and service providers to bring new improvements up to the level of service standards established by this county in as quick a manner as possible. Well, those conditions everyone has experienced -- everyone realizes that those conditions have changed. And on this chart, and it's contained also within your staff report, it contains the five-year population projections that are provided to the county from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. It's the state body that performs population projections for every county, for every jurisdiction to utilize for the capital Page 3 161 11 \ SePtembcr21~3 I improvement programming. As you can see, the five-year growth percent in 2005 was at 24.5 percent, increased to 31 percent in 2006. And then subsequently, 2007, 2008 and 2009 that five-year increase of population has decreased considerably. 19.7 percent in 2007. And in 2008, the changing conditions, we said well, the next five years we only expect a 12 percent population increase. This year currently we're looking at under eight percent population increase. Basically what we're saying is right now we have a declining population base, and we are ttying to tind out through local efforts but all through the state efforts is what will be the new growth reality for this county, for the State of Florida, but also for Southwest Florida, for Collier County as the macroeconomic situation starts to repair itself and starts to found a foundation and a recovery. Well, what does that mean for the in-migration to the State of Florida? What does that mean for the in-migration to this county? We're not quite sure right now. We're not quite sure where that growth rate is going to go. But as a county division and as a county department, we are looking at the improvements that will be necessary, that will be needed when that growth rate starts to come up. And we're ttying to evaluate, are these the most efficient plans, are these the most effective plans to be able to serve the population to its greatest extent. When that need does materialize, when we see that the growth rate does start to increase and we do start seeing more demands placed upon our individual systems, we as a county government will be responsive and we'll be able to put the most effective improvements to be able to serve that individual demand. Andjust as another example of, you know, will that growth rate come back and what will it be, to give -,1 looked at the population of the State of Florida on a 1 O-year basis. And if you look at the visualizer or the television screen, it basically has your year and then it has your 10-year growth rate. And, you know, we've heard many times that this economic slowdown and this population decrease and the issues that we're experiencing is something that's very unique and hasn't happened before, that it's profound, similar to the economic slowdown of the Great Depression. And if you look at the population increases by year to year, you saw in the Forties, between 1940 and 1950, the lO-year population increase for the State of Florida -- or not for the State of Florida, but for Collier County was only 27 percent. Now, if we utilize the 331,800 population number that BEBR has prescribed for us for 2010, basically that would say from 2000 to 20 I 0 we've had a 32 percent increase in population. Just to put up there that we have had decades where we haven't had 100 percent, where we haven't had a 75 percent increase in population. We've had a decade towards where we've only added a small amount of people. And subsequently following those decades we've had robust growth. I'm not sure if we're going to have a similar pattern following this past -- you know, this economic slowdown in this past decade of growth or limited growth, but it does show that through the cyclical nature that the amenities and the attraction that Collier County in Southwest Florida has to the number of residents, not only throughout this countty but through international markets in attraction to the State of Florida, that there will be demands placed upon this county. And we want to be ready to be able to handle these demands as a government and provide the level of services that this county has grown accustomed to in demands from its government. And with that, 1 would open myself to any questions that you would have for the overall process, any specific questions to the staff report from any of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the program, 1 would assume, like we have in the past, we will take it a part of a section at a time as we work through each page and I'll ask everybody if they have any questions as we go through two or three pages at a pace. On this particular effort, Mike's presentation is the first -- I don't know, it's about a dozen pages prior to where it says Category A in your book. Do we have any general questions from anyone at this point? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, on Page 6 you reference Senate Bill 360. What does it mean that they delayed financially feasibility? I know that doesn't apply to us necessarily, but just out of curiosity, what did happen there? Page 4 161 11^% _ ~ePtemQr tf 2009 MR. BOSI: I think Randy Cohen, our director of comprehensive planning, would like to address -- MR. COHEN: The legislature previously had adopted, in its previous Senate Bill 360_ a fmancial feasibility requirement for all governmental entities by December 1st of2008. Due to the economy and some of the financial realizations affecting local governments, they actually modified in this last legislative session the fmancia! feasibility requirement to December of20 II, because only 25 percent of the governments -- well, approximately 25 percent were fmancially feasible. Our direction from county management and from the County Board of County Commissioners is, regardless of that change is that we will retain our fmancia! feasibility as we move forward. That way we don't have any future deficits. So that's what transpired. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, the other question is, when does the information from the census get into the BEBR numbers? Do they adjust it at that time, or what happens? MR. BOSI: The official count, April 1st of20]0 is when the census will be conducted. It won't be until 20] I towards where that information is filtered in. I'm not as tied-in to how the individuals within the University of the BEBR have connections with the census, but] imagine all -- the early returns that will be provided by the census will be shared with the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research to be able to incorporate the vacancy rates, to incorporate the populations for the individual jurisdictions. : I So I would say the next AUIR you won't have an influence from the census. But the following year you will have the information that's obtained through the census process to be able to incorporate it within the population projections that are contained within the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question is that when we look at these population studies, is there a large bank of empty units that could essentially flesh up real quick? And are they represented in the potential of that? That latent empty units, where does that apply to these numbers? MR. BOS]: And you're really referring to the vacancy rate. And that is one of the issues. And] think you will hear Norm and Nick speak to that as well. The vacancy rate, those individual units that are out there that are constructed that aren't occupied, they -- at some point in time they will fill with into either seasonal residents or full,time residents and will exert pressure on the individual systems, and there will be not be corresponding impact fees or corresponding additional revenues to provide for those impacts because they've already been paid for basically when the COs were issued. Right now the vacancy rate is one of the biggest questions that we struggle with as a comprehensive planning department. And we're looking towards individual census numbers to provide us with a belter understanding of what that individual vacancy rate is so we can belter account for what is that slack in the system that can be taken up relatively quickly without any additional revenue coming into the system to be able to aid to system expansion. But no, those numbers aren't contained " those numbers aren't contained within the numbers that you see within your book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we look at this number, especially this year's, we are looking at this number plus the potential of a major jump if things stabilize across the country. MR. BOSI: Yes, you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the reason a lot of people aren't here is they can't sell the house back home. The instant they can do that, they're here. MR. BOSI: And I think that's why when I mentioned the " we are most certainly tied in. As you hear, you know, it's a world economy. Our local real estate market is more tied into the global economic -- I'm seeing than most rea! estate markets because of the nature of it and the attraction that it has to not only to residents within the Midwest and the Northeast but also residents within South America, Central America and within Europe as well. When the real estate markets within those markets starts to become more active, I think you're correct, we will start seeing that migration again. Because the amenities that have made Southwest Florida so attractive, and in particular Collier County so attractive in the past, I don't think those amenities, I don't think those conditions have changed. Ijust think that the financial situation has changed somewhat. Page 5 1 f~Jnbll\ooA 3 And until those fmancial situations become more akin to what's normal, what's stable, it's preventing that influx of population that we've had in the past. And an additional thing, I think once the economic situation within Collier County begins to stabilize and once economic growth and economic opportunities presents itself, that will also aid or that will also add to the demand that the individual area will be subjected to, bringing in individuals like myself and other professionals who have moved to Southwest Florida or would like to move to Southwest Florida based upon economic opportunity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, fm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Murray, Ms. Downs, then Ms. Vasey. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at Page 5, Mike, and relating to schools where it speaks in essentially the middle of the paragraph, it says located consistent with existing and proposed residential areas they serve and are approximate to appropriate existing and future land uses. Just so I can understand a little bit more clearly, land uses would also include, would it not, roads, sidewalks and other things? Is the ADIR -- in connection with schools, does the AUIR consider those aspects of it? Are they included in this ADIR as a projection in any way? MR. BOSI: Well, based upon the lack -- there are no new schools being proposed. So in this AUIR -- there's only a 222-seat expansion in Laurel Oaks Elementary that are being proposed by the school district. And that facility is fully served by urban infrastructure and services. If there was a new school being proposed, that is most certainly -- is there an adequate road system, is there an adequate sideway (sic) system to serve that individual school that's being proposed? That is part of this process, that is part of the inclusion within the school district public school facility element within the Growth Management Plan, to make sure that our infrastructure plans are married up so there's not an inconsistency created by a new school that's being proposed that isn't being serviced by those sidewalks and roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's very important, and I recognize that we haven't got anything new. But certainly accounting for it is the critical factor. Now, it's by reference for the schools. How then -- will you be having separate line items for those items that are ancillary, if you will, to those schools, or how shall I say, not ancillary but certainly related to that activity? Will that be associated with the schools or will it be associated with the normal process? In other words, increments within each ofthose AUIR portions, like roads and-- MR. BOSI: Well, the individual-- a good example is roads. The primary infrastructure that services the schools and the basic requirement is adequate road system. And with that, sidewalks as well. They will have to be-- they will have to be proposed -- they will have to be contained within the ADIR, if not already existing, to service whatever school is being proposed. One of the -- if you remember about three years ago with Vanderbilt Beach extension and the uncertainly as to when that road was going to be put forward, as well as the EEE, the high school off of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, there was an inconsistency within the timing. One thing that this slowdown has allowed is that EEE has been pushed out to the later years of 20 18, 2019. It has now allowed our infrastructure planning for roads and that school to marry up within the same time frame to make sure that there's not that inconsistency. And that's really what this pause and what this slowdown has allowed, each individual division and department to look out, look at each other's capital improvement plans and make sure that there's going to be more consistencies within the plans that are moving forward. So, yes, there will be as they're put forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's very good. And I hope that's possible to continue that. I know that also my recollection that the schools' concurrency matters, that there seem to be -- there's a six-month or more lag in the planning process. And how are we going to capture those issues? Now, none of this is apparently relevant to this moment; however, it is part of a planning process and it is an issue that we will face. So how do we -- what have we done to made sure that we capture all of this information and keep it concurrent? Page 6 A3 a i 1 6 I 1 ~ September 2] , 2009 MR. BOSI: Every month myself, Michelle Mosca, we attend a school working group with Mr. Eastman and Ms. Amy Taylor from school facilities with the jurisd ,- with Everglades City, City of Naples and the City of Marco Island. On a monthly basis we sit on a long-range planning purview and we talk about issues of capital improvement, infrastructure improvements, timing, what the growth rates the schools are experiencing, what the growth rate the county's experiencing, where the pockets of growth are at, making sure that there's a much better information flow between the two bodies so there is consistencies within the plans that we are contained. That process has been going on now for over four years. But with the inclusion of the public school facility element, we now have more structure and a more direct response or more direct programming that is going on and information exchange that's going on between the two bodies, which is to everyone's -, I think to everyone's recognition a terrific improvement towards where we were at just five years ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excellent. Really, excellent, that's great. That's going to give folks a lot of confidence. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Thank you. Since we are in a population that's contracting and not expanding, and we would all agree that's temporary, but obviously you are able to adjust from year to year the BEBR figures that you accept and put to use. J' : You dropped from a high BEBR to the medium. Was there any consideration to dropping to the BEBR numbers? And if not, why not? MR. COHEN: By Florida statute every governmental entity within the State of Florida is actually required to use medium BEBR projections, okay? If you want to change from medium BEBR to either low or high, you have to provide justification for doiug that. We're currently at a point in time in this county where we have a lot of vacant units. We don't know how those vacant units are going to come back into the system, whether or not they're going to be seasonal, whether or not they're going to be permanent, what that population per household will be, what the timing will be. What we know is that those rooftops are there and eventually those units will be filled. I think it's incumbent upon us as a governmental entity to take a look at the census data when it comes on in and see whether or not it actually captures our population as it is. We have a lot of concern with respect to the vacancy rate and the timing of the census and how that works. So we're going to have to modifY -- monitor not only the census data but the BEBR data that's moving forward, because the census in 20 I 0 is going to form that base year. And we have a lot of concerns because BEBR normally ratifies its population data by looking at electrical hookups. And we have a lot of vacant units that keep their electric on now just for mold reasons and others as well, too. So we have some concerns in that light as well, too. So we are monitoring that. I think local governments across the state are very concerned. There was a report that went to the legislature about two weeks ago from their demographics specialist pertaining to long-term growth rates where in the past we were adding 400,000 people to the state every year, and they've recognized that when the economy does rebound, that will probably be changed to around 200,000. So we're going to have to very carefully look at our population projections in the future and analyze it accordingly. This is not a good year to do it, but in the future we definitely need to take a good look at it. MR. BOSI: And I would add, within the Growth Management Plan when we did go to the BEBR medium, we did put a provision within the GMP that says that we have the ability every year to look at the utilization of the BEBR medium, and if the board saw fit they could request staff to analyze whether it would be prudent to move to a BEBR low. I'm not sure -- I don't think staff feels comfortable right now that we know enough right now about what our growth rates are going to be in the future to suggest that recommendation. But that is a provision within the GMP that says on an annual basis the board can revisit that issue, whether it's appropriate to utilize the BEBR medium or to change to -, or explore the possibility of going in either direction. MS. DOWNS: Are you aware of any other counties that may have changed to the BEBR low? MR. COHEN: In the past, only one governmental entity actually requested going to BEBR low. And DCA said no and they provided documentation to the effect as to why as their population flattened out. I'm not aware of any Page 7 16 I lptber~~9 I this year. I can contact them and ask them. I think with what's going on in the state and in all the transition and all the unknowns, that a lot of governments are kind of sitting back and waiting to see what transpires more than anything. They don't want to have a knee-jerk reaction to it. But ,- MS. DOWNS: Would you do that, would you look into what other counties may have switched to low? MR. COHEN: Sure, no problem whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Caron. MS. VASEY: I'd just like to make a couple of general comments. The Productivity Committee just went through the FYIO budget review. And I'm sure you've all read the papers and followed what happened. In FYIO, there was a $30 million drop in property tax revenues as a result of the property values dropping. That would be what would have been collected if we had kept the same millage rate in FY I 0 that we had in FY09. We had a meeting last week, and Commissioner Coyle told us that the expectation is that there will be as significant a drop in FYII. That's the general feeling at this time. So as we go through the Productivity Cornmittee review of the AUIR, we'll be looking to be very careful about any increases, any programs that use general fund dollars. Because if we have another 30 million drop, we need to fmd places where we can take that money. As you probably know also, there was a 13.3 percent increase in the general fund tax rate to bring the revenues back up. I think if we -- you all know that the first year ofthe AUIR comes pretty quickly then into the budget year. And a lot of the decisions that are made here are generally accepted then in budget. So I think we have to be very rigorous at what goes into the FYII year. And Ijust wanted to tell you where we're coming from in our review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike, on the first page of your staff report, in the second paragraph you make a statement that says, under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year crn where the reason is lack or decrease of revenue. Is that a state -- MR. BOSI: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. However, am I correct in saying that projects can be removed if there is no need? If the growth doesn't rise up tomeet-- MR. BOSI: Demand is an acceptable reason; therefore, lack of demand. One thing that needs clarification. On your Category B facilities, you can remove at any time. These are only related to the Category A facilities, which the state monitors for concurrency management. Lack of revenue is not an acceptable answer to DCA. Lack of demand is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Ijust wanted to clarifY that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, another question on Page 8, Mike. Looking at that little table there, it strikes me as interesting. Government buildings, it seems to me that the percentage is still too high. Why is that high like that? CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Mike, if that's a better question when we get to that Category B facility-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fme. In other words, going into depth, fine. But you had it at the outset, so I addressed it at the outset. MR. BOSI: And I would suggest we will raise that with either Hank from government buildings or maybe Ms. Patterson from the impact fee would be able to address that as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay, not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: I saw you look around so I knew oh, oh, he's in trouble. Anybody else have any general questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I've just got a couple. On Page 4 on the top, I found it interesting that your bold writing said that the department or division, if they've placed a capital project in the first three years, they're Page 8 16 I IselemA 3200; guaranteeing that construction will be completed during that fiscal year. And then below it says they were guaranteed a financial source as well. And I'm used to guarantees, I deal with them every day. So let's say -- I can't think of anybody we can use __ oh, Nick, let's use Nick as an example. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, surprise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If he says he's going to build a road and he doesn't do it, does that mean he's canned or what happens? _ MR. COHEN : We would like to see that, but -- no, I'm sorry, Nick. What the Board of County Commissioners' direction is, is that they did not want to see specific projects in the first three years unless the funding was in place. So the direction is to any division or any department as part of the CIE or the AUIR, that if you're going to put it in those years, we want it complete in those years. ! Now, we have had some situations in transportation in the past which we're all aware of where we've run into either utilities underground or some other issues as well where it's been pushed out a little bit. But the main thing here is that the dollars and the funding is available to complete the projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from the department head's perspective, though, to be fair, the dollars are only available to them if the political process retains them for them. Meaning each year that they adopt the budget, if they see a different priority, can't they move those things around? MR. COHEN: Well, in most instances, and I'll use transportation as an example, and Nick can correct me if I'm wrong, normally those projects that are showing up are either under construction, the RFP's have gone out and the projects have actually been let, you know, they've been bid on out, and they know what's going to transpire in terms of timing. I see Norm's up there so he can add to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm's anxious to get chewed on this morning, but this isn't the time we were going to do it. But go ahead, Norm, you're more than welcome. MR. FEDER: By all means. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I think the key in what you have on Page 4 is your planned use of those funds and the commitment of those dollars. Obviously in transportation you got a number of phases, a number of issues you deal with in production. So if the budgeting is there, let's say, for a construction phase, and we have some permitting issues or items that take it out of that fiscal year and move it to the next fiscal year, those dollars on a capital program will typically roll, knowing that you're already maybe five or six years into commitment of dollars in that demand and that programming. So it's not a new item that comes in. We decide in an AUIR to do a project and then don't do it that next year, you're a seven or eight-year process through that. And in the case of one I can think of, Oil Well as an example, the intention was to let that this year. We're fairly close to letting it. But we have about four issues that we're resolving, three of which are almost resolved and one close. And then we're going to be letting it. It probably won't make this fiscal year, obviously, with the 30th coming upon us very shortly, but it will be close after that. But that is the anticipation is that you do it in that year, and we've committed. And when you mentioned the other one on construction, that's not really the commitment of the dollars, that's the year that I let it. And in the unfortunate part of two projects where they were delayed by utilities, but generally we've delivered on the program as set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the guarantee is only as good as the ability for the department to perform based on permitting, based on funding, based on a political process. And the reason I'm making this point is all the planning approvals that we do at the Planning Commission is contingent upon roads being at a certain place, water lines being where they're supposed to, solid waste being available. And with you saying there's a guarantee, it was kind of like a project we got into on Davis Boulevard just recently. I was one of the no votes on that project because I didn't have a lot of faith that the improvements on Radio Road from Radio Road to the intersection of 951 necessarily would happen in the time frames in which this project was going to be limited in its development cycle. And if it doesn't happen, the project is already a failing road. Page 9 16 tptlb~ 21A03 i You can't really guarantee the state's going to do that road. And that's why the guarantee that I see on Page 4 is somewhat hollow in that regard. And I just thought it was an interesting word to use for what you can't control, so -- MR. BOSI: And you're right, the individual departments and divisions are guaranteed to evel)'lhing that they can control within their authority will be provided for. But as you said, the political process can provide them with a U-turn that's, you know, that's outside of their control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other -- another item on schools, and Mr. Murray got into it a little bit. We have a school section in here, but really, the ability for this body to do much with the schools really is just to make sure that what the schools are saying in their section is tied to the infrastructure or the other facilities in any of the other section. But from the school perspective, we're not -- we don't carry any weight with the school board, I don't believe, or how ,- do we have any interaction there? They're going to actually vote on this I think before it's resolved anyway, aren't they? Isn't their voting period ahead of our final approval on it? MR. BOSI: Their CIP will be approved before the Board of County Commissioners approves the final AUIR. And then also the cm, more in particular the cm, which is the capital improvement element, which heads the reference to the CIP. Basically the role of the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee related to the review of the school's capital improvement program is just to ensure in a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that there are no inconsistencies being created by the proposed CIP. But you're right, the -- because the school district manages their own concurrency management system. It's contained within our Growth Management Plan, but it's contained in a nature that's different than the other category of facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my last-- MR. COHEN: I think it probably warrants an explanation as to why they adopt their CIP prior to ours. And it has to do with budget years. Their budget year starts July 1st of every year and they're required to have that CIP in place. And obviously we don't act in our AUIR and cm until after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of the issues you highlighted when we adopted their process into ours, or when merged the school system's actions with ours back, what is it, six months ago when we had that concurrency addition, so -- And my last question is the population that you've predicted for the next five years. Would I be right to assume that the only population included in there for the RLSA would be changes in Ave Maria to any great extent? Or were you guys knowingly predicting growth out in the RLSA in the next five years outside of -- substantial growth outside of the Ave Maria project? MR. BOSI: In the population allocations, the BEBR gives us a static number, and then we as a comprehensive planning department, based upon the past year's permitting process will allocate what percentage of those populations are going to be spatially distributed throughout the county. Based upon the past COs ofthis year, there is no other areas other than Ave Maria that would be associated with population growth in the RLSA. We didn't try to incorporate whether Big Cypress was going to be -- because that's so far out. And we only utilized the CO pattern for the past year that guides us into how we're going to allocate our spatial distribution of the BEBR population. So yes, correct, it would only be within the Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a follow-up question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, no, I was just going to comment on the school's portion of it, that dichotomy in when we -- our budget years are is not going to affect us this year, it may not affect us next year, but down the road that could become a real problem for this county. And I know we discussed that when we were going through the school concurrency, but I just see that as out there looming as some potential-- really a problem, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You bring up an interesting point. I had this vision in my mind when you were explaining about how you took this glob of information and decided to spread it about, and it went to Ave Maria and RLSA, because that's the only place you can logically conclude it goes. Doesn't that create an aberration, though, in the projection, in the planning projection that would then cause Page 10 16 I FeptmbA ~2009; roads and other things to follow it? I mean, I recognize you're in a pickle in trying to figure out what to do with this unwieldy thing they've given you, but what then -- how do you work that? MR. BOSI: Well, remember, this is the -- the AUIR and the CIE is for a five-year window. And in our five-year window we are utilizing what BEBR is projecting, and we're basing it on our past year's CO issuance. So in the short run it seems like it would be a problem. But our long-range projections, every improvement you're seeing within the Capital Improvement Element, for roads in particular, are taken from their long-range transportation plan. And that long-range transportation plan, and Nick may get into it a little bit more, and it relates to what -- an additional project that they're undertaking, which is the master mobility plan, which is the next phase of the East of951 Horizon Study. Nick's going to try to bring a little bit more specificity to the focus of what is going to be developed in the east of951 area. But what happens is we'll have allocations of growth for the Big Cypress, for the other villages and towns as to what those projections are on the long-range. And as we get to the five-year window, we kind of fit it in towards what the numbers that BEBR is going to provide us and where that next immediate need of improvement is going to be, grabbing it from the long-range transportation plan and put it into the five-year specific window. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: And I understand. But that requires then that the budgeteers end up doing a lot of place holding. They end having to plug in numbers that may not be reflective of any truth. MR. BOSI: Well, that's -- and we do it on an annual basis. And it's something that it's constantly -- it's almost a misnomer to say we do it on an annual basis. The planners and the budgeteers are constantly running the numbers, trying to change based upon the conditions at hand, not only on the long range but on the short term, as to how the changing conditions are marrying up and where those reservations need to be. Is it an exact science? No, but it is a science that tries to be reflective to the changing conditions and the changing demands towards where those needs are going to be. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: I thank you. I understand the difficulty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to our -- well, our next agenda item is an impact fee discussion that I think you said Amy would just as soon defer until we have specific questions as we go through the rest of the categories. And if no one has an objection to that, we can proceed that way. So that would take us out of sequence. We're going to pull up two Category B discussions first. Both of the fire districts that are controlled by the county, the Isle of Capri Fire District and the Ochopee Fire District. We'll start with them today. And hopefully they we won't be sitting through a day or two's meetings waiting for their brief issues. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee for having us early on the agenda. I'll be here on behalf of Chief Rodriguez, who is on vacation. MR. BOSI: It's Page 223 within your books, the start of the Isle of Capri. Sorry, Chief. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's okay, go right ahead. MR. COHEN: Chief, she needs you to identify yourselffor the record. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'm sorry. Alan McLaughlin, Ochopee Fire Chief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 202. Okay. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Is that the earlier or the later edition book for you? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The fifth revision. Before you, you have the AUIRs for both Ochopee and Isle of Capri. We'll start with Isle of Capri. And I'll ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we start with Isle of Capri. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing is the concern is the need for the Mainsail facility. How many of those buildings that are -- would be covered by that are sprinklered buildings? I know the highrises are, but __ CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: All the new development within Hammock Bay is sprinklered, including the single-family units that are in there. Nothing on Mainsail Drive. The Mainsail buildings and the Tropic Schooner portion that's covered Isle of Page II 16 I slte~beA~09 a Capri is sprinklered at this time. The new facilities in the back, the maintenance facility and the water facility are currently in the East Naples Fire District. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though the ISO timing's out, they are highly protected buildings and -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that should make us a little more comfortable. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Under the aspect offrre, correct. The other four-minute response has to do with the EMS responses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: AJI right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Isle of Capri? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, I have a couple of questions here. Unit costs. And I have read your explanation. I kind of want to ask you to explain your explanation. Last year your unit cost was $ 1,230,000 per owned station. Your available inventory was that one station and your required inventory was a little bit above that. You've drastically changed your numbers, you're almost triple in aJl categories this year. Can you explain how we got there? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: From what I understand, I was talking with Chief Rodriguez, the aJlocation costs that they had were old numbers, and a lot of that had to do with the station replacement. The cost of current construction standards to Cat 5 because of the location significantly increases that replacement. And the vehicle costs they had originaJly have gone up considerably. The NFP standards have raised the cost of engines about $ I 40,000 apiece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last year at 1,230,000. You're now at $3,424,000 for the same single station. From an impact fee study basis, and I guess Amy may have to answer this best, you do coJlect impact fees, do you not? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amy, I hate to ask you this, but I need some information on impact fees. If this gentleman is coJlecting impact fees and he had to almost triple his value this year, how does he do that in correlation with the impact fee study, since it probably was the same impact fee study or similar that we had last year as well? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record, Impact Fee Manager for CoJlier County. Your question is how it affects the impact fee study? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you have an impact fee study that provides the rational nexus between the amount of fees that you charge versus the costs of the facilities, how do you justify the fact that we had an impact fee study last year that justified a unit cost of 1,230,000, yet this year that same unit cost has gone up to 3,424,000? MS. PATTERSON: The last impact fee study done for the dependent fire districts was done in 2006. 2009 would have actuaJly been an update year. That would be the time that we would capture those updated costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from 2006 to 2009 you had triple the value in stations when everybody else has been seeing the opposite? MS. PATTERSON: It's possible if it's the reasons that they're -- if they're having to build to a higher standard because of hurricanes and other things, then those would be things that would have to be addressed during the impact fee study process. So right now they're coJlecting impact fees based on the old costs that would have been built into the study. And when and if the impact fee is updated, it would reflect a portion of or all of the new cost, depending on what's appropriate. It is not a guarantee that aJl of those costs would be incorporated, we would have to make sure that that's aJl appropriate to be included in the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this mean that the impact fee rate goes up? MS. PATTERSON: It does. If there were that dramatic of an increase in cost without some other mitigating factor like big credits, if they were receiving large amounts of ad valorem taxes to offset, then it could mean a dramatic increase in their rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've gone from 2006 to 2009 in a recessionary market. Land values Page 12 ,- 16 I 1 A 3. ~ '1ePtembe::~'t 2009 '. , have dropped, costs for labor have dropped, costs for materials have dropped from everybody. Yet we're being told an impact fee study is going to show that the costs have increased to a point of almost triple and that there's going to be an impact fee increase because of that? MS. PATTERSON: Well, we would have to vet out those numbers. What they're showing is as the potential costs would have to be vetted out for the appropriateness of being included in the study. And also remember, if the study calls for an impact fee that's even triple, doesn't mean that the Board of County Commissioners has to adopt that rate. They may be satisfied with their current rate. And that just sets -- the impact fee study sets the maximum rate that can be legally applied, it's not the rate that has to be applied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but the basis of the study is what concerns me. I don't think anybody's seen increases to this magnitude and cost over the last three years. If anything, we've seen just the opposite. And if you have a study that shows this kind of an increase and somehow the original number was justified at the time, and it must have been justified for quite a period of time prior to 2008, because we had impact fees lor years on fire-- MS. PATTERSON: Since 1997. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't understmd this, what I consider a very substmtial change over a three-year period in a market that was down, not up, when you would expect just the opposite to occur. MS. PATTERSON: And I expect that the consultant would ask serious questions. Any time you se,e numbers that are increasing that much, even in a regular time, not a recessionary period, the consultmt goes through those numbers very carefully to make sure that there's not some anomaly, that there's a rationale for that. It's not just something that's just put in at face value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I'm not understmding, then. The consultant isn't the one that provided this unit cost of 3,424,00? MS. PATTERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where did that come from? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Chief Rodriguez. MS. PATTERSON: From the fire district. That would be based on their most recent costs-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe accept this number, then that could be the basis for an increase in impact fees? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No. The AUIR is representative of what -- the value ofthe building. It has nothing to do with impact fees. The current value of that building prior to this year's proposal was less, which you saw last year. The relative cost of replacement -- and that's what this asks, what is the replacement value of that building -, is going to be twice what it is last year, because that building now has to go to two floors. And with the new NFP A stmdards for fire stations, it has about another $180,000 alone in just sprinklering. So when you start looking at the value costs, and we went back and asked the engineers and asked the construction people what's it going to cost to replace this building to today's stmdard, this building built in 1975 in a Cat 5 zone next to the water? Well, we have to go two stories with it, we have to go up. Now, if you have to replace your home to Cat 5 stmdard, it was built, whenever, 1975, and you paid whatever for it, you're going to probably pay five times what you paid for it then. And that's what this is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the past year this has changed? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: He put the values in for this current year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did he get his values from? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That I cannot answer. I'd have to get back with you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I guess the only question I would have is, consulting the 2008 AUIR, the Isle of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District, the unit cost they had allocated was $3,308,700. That is only about $100,000 less than this year. So maybe I'm not understmding what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that may be my -- I turned to the same page last year. Maybe you had a different -- looks like you did. I was looking at Ochopee. You're right, my apologies. So ,_ COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- never mind. I was reading the Ochopee report ITom last year. It's on the same page Page 13 as this year's Isle of Capri report, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'll answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you -- oh, you can answer Ochopee? We haven't got to that one yet. Okay, anybody else have questions after I've wasted so much time on Isle of Capri? Go ahead, Janet. MS. VASEY: On Page 202, you show an available inventory of the 3 million, four, and a required inventory of the end ofFYI4 of five million, one. But then you show zero as the proposed AUIR for the five-year period and zero for the surplus or deficit. And it seems to me that if you're showing those numbers, you're either planning to build it in the five years or it is a deficit. MR. BOSI: And let me echo what Chief Rodriguez had said to the advisory boards last year and to the Board of County Commissioners. Ideally for response time, for ISO response times, that Mainsail Drive location will be constructed. But based upon the limitation of their funding, based upon the impact fee revenue that's projected, based upon the lack of revenue that they have, unless that money materializes, they will not build that facility. So yes, I mean, based upon the level of service standard they should have that building in the inventory. But unless that money is available from the impact fee revenue, they have no plans on moving forward with it. MS. VASEY: So it doesn't show as a deficit? MR. BOSI: And I guess we could have shown that as an individual deficit injust -- identifY the money alloca -- or the money necessary to construct the station, but it was the decision of Comprehensive Planning and the Isle of Capri basically to show that as a desire to meet the need but that the Isle of Capri was not going to move forward with it unless the funding was available. So I guess -- I mean, it's a matter of semantics. We can show it as a deficit. We could show it as a deficit to be able to satisfY that ISO response times. If you'd like to, we can modifY the book moving forward to the Board of County Commissioners. But that station is not going to be constructed unless the money is available. MS. VASEY: Right. It just seems like it's unclear as to what the intent is, if you're not showing it funded in the five-year program but you're showing it as a requirement for that five-year program. It's just unclear what you're planning to do with it. MR. COHEN: Ms. Vasey, your point is well taken. I think what we need to do is show it as a deficit, note that the funding source is unavailable, and that way the BCC will fully understand that there is a funding deficiency associated with impact fees as they move forward in considering this particular item. MS. VASEY: And are we totally sure that there is -- that this is an absolute requirement with the ISO ratings? I remember -- I wasn't in last year's AUIR, but the year before I remember looking at some of the things in it. It wasn't clear to me that that was an absolute requirement. The times were very close in how long it takes to get from your current station to the Mainsail properties. So are we sure that that's an absolute requirement? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutes are -- saying absolute is -- nothing's an absolute. A fire station's an absolute requirement. ISO bases itself on distances. Time is part of that distance. One point five miles is going to be your best rating. And I happened to do the ISO rating for Isle of Capri at the time. To provide a better rate for that area, their recommendation was to put a station within that area, which would also provide service to the area of Fiddler's Creek that is in Isle of Capri district also. Because once you get up into that area, you're getting at 4.3 miles and that was beyond their ability to capture a better rating up in that area. So that's what it's based on. It's not -- is it an absolute? No, it's not an absolute. Does it provide a better service and a better insurance rating for the people, which is a reduction? Correct. At what cost? You have to spread that over 20 years. MR. BOSI: And if you look at -- Page 2 of7 gives you the spatial justification for that 1.5,mile drive time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you go off that subject, just so Janet realizes it, Fiddler's Creek is less than two miles down the road from the East Naples Fire Station. So why wouldn't they then benefit from that ISO rating being so close to another station that you have an interlocal agreement with? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The ISO is a little particular on how they take in stations according to mutual aid agreements. They don't count that as part of the primary district. It's an adjunct that's added into it. There's nothing we September 21, 2009 16 I 1. A3 Page 14 1611' A~ :! ~eptemQr 'f1, 20081 can do about that, it's just the way they do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though there's a station two miles or less up the road, you have to put one right next to another project, close to another station because it's a different fire district, so that the people could benefit from an ISO rating that they already really have the protection from because the other station's right next to them. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. City of Naples has a station three-quarters of a mile from Goodlette Road. They don't get that benefit in East Naples from that, it's just an adjunct to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if there was ever a need for consolidation, you've just made it. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's been an ongoing problem with ISO for years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody-- MS. VASEY: That just kind of makes the requirement seem very iffy in real life. You know, I can understand how things are calculated, but as a real term, you know, in reality for taking care of meeting the requirements for fire and saving people and property and all of that, fm not sure that it's a real strong requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the problem, if we move that extra required inventory to deficit and the Board of County Commissioners sees that then as a need and they'll use that to justifY either more impact fees or more taxes, there really is no need. There is a need for these fire departments to start cooperating once in a while and form one district so that people can benefit from having stations side by side or not have to have stations side by side. I'm not sure if the solution is putting it into the deficit category without a firm understanding' the dample bei~g used is already met by another district and there's no sense to adding a station that close to ano district's statIon. MS. VASEY: Well, maybe that would be the way to handle it, though, is to show it as a deficit with a footnote that says this is not a high priority requirement. It's recognized that according to ISO it's needed but in reality there's some question as to whether it is needed or not. And so, you know, with that highlighted, it might make it more understandable as to what it is and whether it really needs to be met any time soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd hate to see this used as justification to change -- more taxation, when it really is not needed in this location. But I think that would be a good idea. MR. COHEN: And just for clarification purposes, the footnote you would want us to clarifY the mutual aid agreement and reference that, between the fire district? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be more broader than this, that if there are stations within a radius, regardless of which district it is in, that station should be considered in responding to whether or not another station for any particular district is needed. I think that would solve it from a much more global perspective. Not just in the Isle of Capri but anyplace else in Collier County where we have multiple stations or proposing to go next door to one another just to cover one's district. That's foolish. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Chief, the response time isn't the only factor in the ISO rating. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, the ISO rating covers multiple things. Fifty percent of that rating is your water supply, ] 0 percent's your communication system. The other 40 percent has to do with the training, to types of trucks, how many people are on the trucks, locations of stations, there's " that packet's about that big. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Type of construction. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Type of construction, right. There's a lot of things that are involved in that. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: And the reason that's important is that these are really mostly new buildings, at least in the Hammock and probably Fiddler's Creek. So these are buildings that would rank extremely high on type of construction and have sprinkler protection, probably. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The oldest ones in there, Tropic Schooner and the Mainsail buildings, were built in the late Seventies, early Eighties, the two-stories in there, unprotected, Type 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all the questions on the Isle of Capri element? Anybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: The last statement that was just made should be further footnoted, that's another Page 15 16 I 1.~ A,3ber 1009 reason not to build the station is because oftbe ratings, all the buildings, they are newer buildings, they are all sprinklered, they -- you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unfortunately the ISO rating is going to take the worst building, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some buildings in that vicinity, such as Port Au Prince and places like that where the buildings were built back 40 years ago or 30 years ago. So I'm not sure that that would fit in all -- would be the same unilaterally. So I'm not -- know if that would work or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the ISO equation it might not be good. The practicality is they're safe new buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll take up discussion on Ochopee at this point. And Chief, rewind back to where we started talking. Every number I said and every word I said applies to Ochopee, not to the Isle of Capri -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, let me go back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are the Chief of Ochopee, so now you can explain what you did. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah, those questions I can answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't get away from it this time. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not looking to. Last year is the first year in the AUIR we looked through this. I had some questions on how the statistics were run, how they were gathered and who put them in there prior to me taking over Ochopee. I got with Mike this year and I had some real concerns about what was being shown in the statistics for last year. Replacement costs of structures and buildings from our analysis was far off from what they would be. After going back to the -- some of the builders and asking them questions and getting some estimates of costs, going back to our vehicle apparatus manufacturers and asking current replacement costs, these are the numbers we came up with. Now, if you look at the first one, if you flip over in your page, you see a considerable increase. And the one you're talking about is basically the Ochopee station that the county owns. That's our station out on 4 I called 66 at the top of Page 246. Originally I think that was about 240 or 430,000 last year with some costs of some replacements of some items in there. If you pull that one out from last year. Well, that's a metal building. You can't replace a metal building in Collier County. So to replace that building with a CBS structure and Cat 5 construction, because we're in a five zone, that's the cost, today's cost. So if I'm replacing a metal building, yeah, $245,000 would have been fine. And that's what was in that for numbers of years, from what I understand. I cannot replace that building today because I can't put a metal building up. MS. DOWNS: Can I correct you? I think you mean Page 224 is the costs that you're talking about. CHIEF MmLAUGHLIN: I have Page 246. MS. DOWNS: No, that's not our page. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's not your page? MS. DOWNS: Page 224. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, different book. MS. DOWNS: Is that what we have, or do we have a different book? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: This sheet? MS. DOWNS: Yes. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Your 224? My 246, sorry. My correction. Anyways, if you look at the top there, that's where that cost replacement comes from. We did some adjustments on -- the equipment vehicles were kept there because the one prior was not relative to the vehicles we actually had there. We had actually put some at auction and moved some things around. And what tbe actual equipment was in that facility, we went back and did an inventory of that what actually was in there. If you look at the building cost of replacement for Station 60 in Everglades City, we don't currently own that station, but if we had to replace that station, that's the current cost to replace that facility today, and the current updated cost of the vehicle and apparatus in that facility stationed there to replace it today. If you go down and look at the current replacement cost of the station of Port of the Islands, we currently own Page 16 16 I 1 \At~Ber 2 ~009 half of the marina at $843,000. That's less the 430 to $450,000 renovation that we have to do plus the apparatus that's going to be stationed in there. Excuse me, the apparatus is listed there. And then of course at the bottom you see what we currently have for our office and contract rental descriptions. So that's where those numbers come from and that's why those increases are. We've added a station at 1.4 million almost that wasn't in last year's, and we've updated the current cost replacement of the two facilities that we currently use. And that is a significant increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a lot easier to explain that way than when you were trying to do Isle of Capri. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, isn't Ochopee in the Category 5 -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- storm surge? And yet the price of the building seems considerably less. CHIEF MmLAUGHLIN: Well, that particular building is inland and it is a fallback facility. It would not be a fully functional facility. And if we replaced it, we wouldn't replace it with the size of the facility we currently have. That's why that cost is less than Capri. Capri's a four-bay facility. We would not replace it with a four-bay facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My ques -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't have to go to second story as you indicated? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, we're further inland. We just have to meet a wind load. We have no wat -- we don't have a storm surge there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is your expectation of the building after a Category 5 storm goes over it? I mean, the fully functional fire station? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. Same as your new ASC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good luck. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah. Well, in Everglades City that's -- the cost of that one is we have to go up because of the location. We get a Category I with oncoming, we have to leave. We got water ,- you know, Fay last year we had water up to the top of the driveway. So we realize that the facility in Everglades City, to replace that will have to be a two-story facility to function. We have to meet 18 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With complete utilities -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Complete utilities to function. Everything would be up on the second floor, generators, living. The water would come in, the water would go out, and basically go walk downstairs and clean the mud up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You hope. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Hopefully. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the Ochopee Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, your third item on Page 224, which is your 246, it says donations, Station 61, Port of the Islands. And then it lists a series of costs. What was donated? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: What page do you have? I'm sorry. I read-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have 224, you've got 246. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: 246? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that one we had previously ,- you just held up a few minutes ago. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: To answer that, just give me a second to grab that back. Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your third block. It says in the beginning ,- well, it talks about donations. And the Everglades City one, I see the land is zeroed out, so I assume that was a donation. But the one below it, Port of the Islands, there's nothing zeroed out. I'm just wondering what was donated. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: At this time nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is no donation for Station 61, so that word probably doesn't mean anything Page I 7 J _ 16 1 l' \ III Septem ber 2l~~ in that case, right? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chief, isn't 61 the building the county bought and you're going to be Nithin it? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We purchased half of the marina facility. Basically that half we purchased is empty until the funding's available to renovate it. That renovation cost has been estimated to us at $430,000. Currently there is a grant into FEMA for station reconstruction that's out there that so far we haven't g' >t a pink letter on it. And they've already started the process. We currently are operating out of the motel under a lease agreement with Port of the Isles, LLC. So w, are there functioning, but we are functioning out of the hotel at this time, temporary interim basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the important point is you bought your way into the building, so .- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. We own 50 percent of that building currently and we're in the process (f renovationing (sic) it so we can put it as a full-time facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions on the Ochopee Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Isle of Capri Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we wrap these two up, we can seek a vote on how we want to stand OJ I those two. Mike, rm assuming it's appropriate to do that as we move through this instead of at the end? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: rll make a recommendation that we forward with approval as presen :ed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- okay, motion's been made and seconded. However, the Isle of Capri -- we've got to take them separately, fIrst of all. The Isle of Capri was the c.ne that we suggested making the change with a footnote, moving the value to a defIcit and adding a footnote as we pmviously discussed. And Mike, are you clear on that change to the Isle of Capri? MR. BOSI: The one thing about the footnote I thought it would be more appropriate to have it localiz"d where we're not trying to have a global issue, but based upon the newness of the buildings, that they are sprinkled, that within two miles the East Naples Fire Department can provide service, even though it's not recognized by thesle of Capri, decreases the need for that Mainsail Drive location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think you can't include all the subjects you just said, because as we noted, not all the buildings within this radius that has to be in are necessarily all new, they could be older. So we were kind of thinking that may not be the right thing to throw in at this time. So I think you were going to focus on the fact that there are other stations close enough to this area th: ,t we don't have a problem with the radius response time, or something to that effect. I know you'll word it more prcperly when it comes back to consent. Chief? MS. VASEY: Could I give it a shot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, absolutely. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I don't want to speak out ofturn here, and there's certainly not of the purview of the Commission or the Board, but I have talked with Chief Dyer, and that station you're talking about, they have i 1 their long-term plan to close and relocate inland further into Fiddler's Creek down the road, which would mow it fi lrther from that -- at that side of Fiddler's Creek. And Ijust had that discussion with him a couple of months ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're also looking at a station over on 41 which would be on the nort1 end of Fiddler's Creek-- Page 18 - - 16 I 1 sAe3er 21109 CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they'd just drive straight through the project. And I know the land's already been donated. So there's a good possibility it will actually get on the property instead of off the property __ CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's actually about a mile and a half further to get to the other end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't the concern with the footnote in one case the way it's presented it shows that there's a need that's not being met. The other way would be it would show that the need's being met but it's not being funded. Essentially the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let Janet take a stab at the language and see if you still think that after she-- MS. VASEY: Okay, what I was going to propose for our side is that we show the $1.6 million as a deficit, that was rounding, and then say as a footnote we do not believe a new station is essential at this time because other fire stations are within close proximity and other factors decrease the immediate need, and not get real specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that describes, you know, a lack of need, not a lack of funding. So I kind oflike it the way it is in the way it's presented, where they're showing that there's a need. We have reasons why we don't think that need has to be met or that level of service, as opposed to showing it as a deficit in funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, wouldn't the suggestion that it is shown, if it were shown as a deficit, wouldn't that in fact drive a budget? I mean, I recognize you can place the numbers in there and then put it on hold, which is -- I see this number as being placed there primarily, as I am interpreting it, obviously, primarily in the event that there's a catastrophe that causes them to have to rebuild it, and that's how much the estimate would be. This is not an accounting document, correct, the AUIR? We've been told this is not an accounting document. MR. BOSI: It's not a strict accounting document. The fmancial side is provided to give a clearer picture, but primarily it's a document that shows that we are satisfYing the level of service standards that have been adopted by the county. It's more about satisfYing demand than it is about making sure that the financial side is intact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, in this particular matter we're not satisfYing that, are we? And we're saying we can't satisfY that because we have no resources, no means of satisfYing it. So what -- by placing it as a deficit, what is the net effect other than knowledge? MR. BOSI: That's all it is, is knowledge. Because, I mean, Chief Rodriguez has said many times, unless there's funding they're not going ahead. They're limited by their millage caps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BOSI: They're not seeking money from the general revenue fund. They-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as it's not used at the predicate for driving something. You know, especially I think Mark brings out a good point, consolidation would tend to work out some of these problems, but that's perhaps far away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I would disagree with Brad that our statement addresses finances. It says we do not believe a new station is essential at this time because other fire stations are within close proximity and other factors decrease the immediate need. So ours is about need and demand, it's not about the money. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's why I'm saying is if you show the deficit in the level of service, you're discussing the need and the demand. If you put money in there and then show a deficit in funding, justifYing the deficit in funding by lack of need and demand, that's all. I mean, we're going to corne to the same point. It's not a big issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, though, if you tIy to meet the level of service standard, we already meet it. So we're not in violation of a level of service standard. We're only in violation of the political boundaries of fire districts -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so from an LOS -- from a level of service standard, is there any need for any additional unit here? And the answer is probably no. Page 19 16 \ 1 ~I~" i1 Seplenbel 21,2(0) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But because of the fact that be, you know, shows it in the year 14 ieS a requirement, that's where he's saying we have a need. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: He's looking at six years down the road with the reconstruction of the ast ,wo towers, and some additional units are supposed to go into that area. Now, I will let Chief Rodriguez address that further, because obviously he has more information than what he's just given me. But I do know that that's why that six years and that year down the road and not two years down the road, because the estimate is when this falls through and they restart, that construction projects look to restart about six years down the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it boils down to this is, you know, one is we want it, we (,m't afford it. The other one is it says we really need it but when we really analyze the neighborhood, we don't need it. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: And again, as addressed by Mike to Mr. Murray, this is an MSTU. l1t.~re's no general fund coming to bail anybody out here. If the money's not there, it's not getting built. That's the tottom line. It is a level of service aspect, trying to improve the level of service to some citizens in an area. Again, if you got to look at call statistics and how often Engine 90 and that crew is actually running back an" forth to other areas, they supply quite a bit of mutual aid and automatic aid to Marco Island. And fd let Chie f Rodriguez address that. So when you're looking at actual call statistics, number of times they're in the area, call volume.n all area, al i those have to be put together and compiled to look at what the need is. Then of course there's a level of need to the people. What are they willing to pay for, what do they want? And that's what the bottom line is. The need and the level of service should be driven by what the people want. CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Janet? MS. VASEY: I think maybe the answer is in footnote two when it says the Mainsail Drive staton has been postponed until year six, which is FYI5. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: 15. MS. VASEY: So technically it's not even in this AUJR. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: Technically, you're right. MS. VASEY: So perhaps the answer is to take it out of the required inventory and perhaps pro;ide a footnote that says in year 16 this is out there. But that takes it out of the five year. MR. BOSI: And basically what we would do is basically change the two to one, leave the footllJte ,md expand the footnote as requested by the advisory boards? CHAIRMAN STRAJN: I think that would be a better move. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody in concurrence with that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, much better. MS. VASEY: Yes. CHIEF McLAUGHLJN: I think Chief Rodriguez would be in concurrence with that also. CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That makes us look better. Because either way the other two, we're going t" look like we have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion and the second, and this is strictly for the Planning COIillr,;ssion side of things, was to accept the report with the caveat that we're going to reduce the required inventory to wh!.l's existing so it balances out and we don't have this issue. And leave the footnote to explain that in six years we have ,m issue that we'll have to deal with. Does that work for the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: fm good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Okay, from the Planning Commission, all those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 20 ..- 16 I 1 !~mJerI2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carnes 6-0. Let's go to Ochopee. MS. VASEY: May I make a motion for ours? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, if you guys are going to vote, that's fine. I don't know if you voted or not. MS. VASEY: I mean, you know, two of us, but -- as our sub-committee-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just nudge her and say, what do you think. MS. VASEY: We'd like to make the same motion. Do I hear a second? MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if you guys disagree, that will really be interesting. MS. DOWNS: It could happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the Ochopee Fire District. Is there is a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll, it can't be the same, it's got to be without any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion we approve the Ochopee Fire District as presented. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing, I'm not too comfortable with the value change. I understand it in this particular case, and I certainly would ask Amy if she could e,mail me the -- is she here? Okay, we'll, I'll catch her afterwards. I'd like to see the impact fee report for the fire service for Collier County. So at some point if that could be e-mailed to me, I'd appreciate it. And I'll explain to you on break, Amy, what I'm looking for. So with that in mind, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And you guys want to do your thing? MS. DOWNS: I'll make the same motion for productivity. Do I have a second? MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: Any discussion? No. MS. VASEY: And a vote aye? MS. DOWNS: Aye. .. Page 21 16 I slemL~,309 I MS. VASEY: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process is fun, isn't it? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. See you next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chief, thank you. See you next year. Chief Rodriguez will be well prepared to know what the questions are going to be. Okay. And before we go into the most tedious one of the -, I mean, the transportation part of the day, why don't we take our break now, because we're five minutes away. I'd rather not interrupt the presentation. Take a break, we'll come back at five after 10:00 and resume. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay evel)'body, welcome back from the break. And we left off finishing up the two fire stations, and we're moving into the Categol)' A facilities. The first one is county roads, transportation department. And the court reporter asked me to make a note of one thing. Any members of the public or county staff or anybody using this podiwn, that microphone isn't transmitting too well for her to hear things so she can type them fastly, so we need to talk slower and vel)'-- pronounce each word vel)' carefully so that she can get that for recording purposes. And with that mind, we'll go into transportation. Norm? MR. FEDER: Thank you. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'm going to be fairly brief. I'm going to ask Nick to walk you through the AUIR. We have since 2000 built over 400 lane miles of roadway, 240 new miles of roadway and 160 reconditioned roadway miles. I raise that for two reasons. One, to hit the issue that during that time the maintenance over the last nine years predominantly has either been done or under warranty for the major arteries around the county. And so therefore our maintenance needs have significantly increased as we brought of this new on line. And that's something we've hit some in the AUIR. I know the AUIR is typically just capacity, but we're tlying to remind people that we need to maintain the investment that we've made out there. The second reason I raise it is I hear that now we have managed to have job done. We've accomplished it. The emergency is over. That six years of not building anything and then they all came, we managed to get rid of that backlog and we're now well ahead of the game. I'm here to tell you that's not the case, folks. And if we assume that, we're going to replicate the past. Granted, we don't need II active major construction projects at the same time ongoing. We don't have that anymore, I don't think we'll see that. But we do need to continue to meet the capacity at the same time we find a way to meet our needs for maintenance, or else we find ourselves in a situation where we're going to replicate the past or where we just consume the capacity we have and then all of a sudden declare an emergency and take nine years to catch up again. And that won't be me, it will be my successor, I'm sure, but nonetheless one that I hope not to leave as a legacy. So what I'm telling you is we need to continue. Now, having said that, we also need to work within our revenues and our means. And as you see in our AUIR, three of our four major funding categories are down. Our impact fees are down dramatically. We're about 17.5 million, which looks good compared to most out there right now, but nonetheless that's down from almost 70 million, 50 million, 37 million down to 17 and a half. So you can see a definite drop in impact fees. Our gas taxes have never been indexed, therefore their buying power has always been going down. But in real numbers, gas taxes are going down. Our ad valorem is shown generally straight there, but it's actually going down a little bit each year. And 14 million of that is to pay for bond referendums in the past. So the revenue stream is rather tight. Our AUIR reflects that, as well it should, to be fmancially feasible. But I also call your attention to the fact that we do still have those needs out there, and that we're going to continue to tIy to address them, but obviously within financial feasibility. I say that because we're going after grants. That's the one area, there are actually now four that I mentioned, Page 22 16 I 1 seA~r2l,;9 went up. And the other is we did not take the 50 million in commercial loan monies that was set aside for us by the board. We held it for a couple of years to see whether or not we should move on it. Now we've decided that until we see a revenue stream that shows we have the ability to pay back, we're not going to borrow that money. So that is out of the AUlR, as Nick will go through in more detail. So just to give you a background, we still have needs. We've got a growing need in maintenance. Our program is fairly conservative this cycle. Obviously it needs to be financially feasible. And so that's what we're working from. And with that, rn ask Nick to walk you through the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director. Planning Commission members, Productivity members. On your first page of the AUIR we have our typical budget sheet. And a couple of questions that were brought up earlier, rd like to answer just to tie them in as I have notes here. We've gone a good job with the planning commission members to tie in development ordered rights to actual projects. So we talked about slipping projects due to permitting or utility jobs, a lot of the PUDs you approve will say something like no COs for the project until the project is let. So we tie those two together. To Mr. Murray's question about population, our AUIR does not use population numbers at all. It's all bilsed on traffic counts. Population numbers come into long-range transportation plan update. And then we start looking at population numbers. Federal Highway in their infinite wisdom has gone to year of expenditure. Where we have that projection cone, that 25-year long-range transportation plan, they want to refine that cone down to year of expenditure where we're dealing with population numbers and what year we would do a project 20 years out. We think that's ridiculous and other communities and jurisdictions also do. So we'll work on dealing with that as well. Your first page, if you look at, we have our average cost per lane mile is based on our impact fee study that was adopted recently. That's the most current number that there is right now. Design, right-of-way and construction at the bottom of your page have not changed. Roughly the same time frames. Your next page kind of tells the picture in a graphic format of what you see on the first page. If you look at the two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nick, before you go to the next page, under grants and reimbursements, there's a $50 million figure -, MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which if you look on Page 26, it's only 44, because you need to add in DCAs there. So it should read grants, reimbursements and DCAs for a total of50,120. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. Any other questions on the first page? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: rm going to seem to challenge your average number. rm really more interested in getting an awareness of how it was composed. The average number that you have there presumably is based upon the amount, if you will, the whole that you've been working with and reflects then all highest numbers because of the conditions at the time when these contracts were let. MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: ]s this number in any way adjusted to reflect a most recent? While you use average, you -- you know, tell me how you composed it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem. They actually take out the highs and lows. And this comes out of the impact fee update that had gone through tremendous scrutiny through the Productivity Committee. You can never get to that real time when you're doing something like the AUIR. Even the traffic counts get back-dated almost 12 months. Page 23 1611~ '!I SePteml'eAI~09 . So that number represents the number that's in the adopted impact fee study. How we get there inc ludes the right-of-way, construction costs, utility relocations, it includes future constructions of overpasses, it includ"s a lot of different factors that go into that cost. It's also compared against DOT state numbers, and those get brough t in for numbers as well, too. So other than to tell you that has it come down? We don't know until we put out a couple more bids. When Oil Well Road goes out or Collier Boulevard or Davis, we'll get a better feel for it. We went through a full update. And I know Amy's not in the room, but we go through indexing the following year and we look at some other numbers. But it's an amalgamation of a lot of different numbers that come in and it's based on the adopted study, and we have to use it based on the current study that's adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And does it ,- is it wrapped around a four-lane highway, a six-Ian" highway, with sidewalks, with -- whatever? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of the above. They take all different jobs you do -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it really is an amalgam of all kinds of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't use this though as a base to construct a budget for any given road, you use your real numbers that you've come historically to unders1and. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we actually do as part of the update for both our budget and the AUIR is we continually update our construction estimates. So the estimates you'll see in the further pages are based on the most current estimates we have, not this number. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Okay. That's important for the public to know and unders1and as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to ask you, Nick, I know you have a presentation. Would it be better for us wait till finish your presentation or go through page by page as you go through the presentation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your pleasure, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it's up to the -- we'll just ask questions. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I was just going to say, if it allays your fears, I have looked at -- compared ours with state averages and other counties, and the price per mile used to be nine million a lane mile, and six million is well within the range of what's going on in the State of Florida. So it's a figure I'm very comfortable with, for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, if there's no other questions on the first page, we'll -- Ms. Caron -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I actually do have another-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll get them page by page -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we may as well get them out of the way. At the bottom of the page, there is a footnote for your carryforward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says the carryforward includes the budgeted FYIO carryforward ~md does not include project funding encumbered in prior fiscal years. So those encumbrances that are going to come about, that are going to become known after October I st, are they included in that number, even though the specific project isn't being addressed here, or will they be in addition? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would be in addition to your capital five-year sheet. What happens is -- and Oil Well Road is a great example. We expected to let it in the fiscal year '09. So it showed up as a -- we had it as a budgeted line item in there. What will happen is we'll do a budget amendment, take the money and carry it forward. So why you're not seeing it in your FY I 0 forecast, it's there in '09 as we thought it was going to be encumbered. And what happens in preparing this document with Mr. Bosi, this is what we're into almost every year, there's that time we have to submit the documents and they start going through the peer review process and the county manager report and the time we're actually letting projects. So you will see something like Oil Well Road show up in FYIO, but you don't see it in this document now, even though it's going to be an FYI 0 project. Page 24 16 I s~e~er 4\ z39 ; COMMISSIONER CARON: So are you going to let us know all of these projects that are hanging out there? I mean, since you actually know them, you may not know down to the penny the dollar amount, you actually know right now today what those projects are and a ballpark of the dollar amount. MR. FEDER: Yes. Ms. Caron, if I can refer you to Page 26, which is our five-year work program. That groups of projects you see with no dollars shown on the top, that first group of 10 projects, add to that Oil Well because we thought we were letting that this year, okay, which is the two below that don't see dollars on the next line. Those are the projects. And all the monies that are still left on anyone of those projects, either available still and hasn't been expanded out of encumbered construction phases or the like will be what will be rolling consistent with those dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that be part of your canyforward then? MR. FEDER: It is part of the overall canyforward in the sense that what we have, and at each budget time, at the end of the budget you look at what was actually encumbered. I encumbered 20 million on a construction project. I had pay-outs during the year of five million. Fifteen would then roll. But until you come to the end of the year, you don't know if I encumbered five, six or four or what. And so that's why that's shown that way. The monies the prior year, they were encumbered. The projects take a time before the monies are expended but they are encumbered initially at the start of the phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: And that makes for me a very uncomfortable accountability of each project. , And since we're on to Oil Well Road, you know, you're boxing these funds from impact fees. Oil Well Road took impact fees from three areas: Fund 331, Fund 338 and Fund 339. I'm not suggesting any foul play, I just think it would be much more transparent to be able to look at that fund to see exactly what went into it and exactly how it was expended. Now, you're not going to be using those funds on Oil Well Road much at this time, so I'm wondering where do they go, who collects the interest on them? If that plan ,- you know my feeling on Oil Well Road. If that gets extended out several more years, why not bring those funds back to those districts they came from and apply them to current projects where there is a population? MR. FEDER: Okay, as we discussed, taking Oil Well Road is done by a development contribution agreement. It provided for the impact fees from that district and the adjacent districts, which is really one other district in Golden Gate Estates, be allocated specifically to the project. Over that time we've kept a full accounting, which is equivalent to what you're saying, boxed, of what impact fees have been collected. But recognizing just what you said, that we weren't moving on that project right away, those funds, as we kept an accounting of them, we used in the other districts, as a matter of fact, where impact fees are coming from now on projects like Vanderbilt, on Immokalee sections, to be able to bring those projects forward rather than just reserving that money relative to the DCA. So unfortunately what I will tell you is the nature of the beast is that we go through and when we let a project, you try to use your least flexible funds frrst and your most flexible last. And your impact fees are your least flexible and have to be expended over a period of time or else retumed if they're not used, theoretically. And so you go through that process and the accounting is fully there as to what was collected. The areas that we're now pulling from, because we didn't just save the funds from those two districts only during that time, are areas that benefited from that funds being spent earlier and the improvements made. MS. DOWNS: I have no doubt the accounting is all there, but it's not transparent to us. When we have the budget -- and this isjust an example of Fund 331, $35 million. I'd really like to see specifics of how that fund is managed, along with a lot of other funds, but-- MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do that. That's part of what we do through the budget. And it's detailed a little bit more in that budget, than their either further detail sheets, the one that you just held up, that show that. MS. DOWNS: Can you get that to us? MR. FEDER: Yeah. Any portion of the budget. If you have the budget book, which I know you've gone through, it's in there. And you've got the detailed sheets, you've got the roll-up into a fund level. And the AUIR isn't trying to get to that level, it's even a further level beyond that. But to try to answer your question, they throw in that detail. MS. DOWNS: So for at least for those three funds, 331,338 and 389. But seems to me any time you're Page 25 16 I sllt321 , ~- boxing impact fees for years at a time, for transparency sake I think it would be much better to be able to see exactly where those dollars come in and out, where they flow or don't flow -- MR. FEDER: We'd be happy to give you that accounting. And I think you have it in your budget, but I will make sure that you have exactly that accounting you need. But I do want to make one clarification. We are not boxing. If! had been boxing, then I wouldn't have done some other projects, and I -- MS. DOWNS: I use that term loosely, boxed. I know it's different. MR. FEDER: Okay, thank you. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This discussion has come up many times. And that's the difference between the budget and the AUlR. They want to see more details, and we kept it out of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Nick, before we leave that comment, in last year's AUIR you were going to spend 25 million in '09 and 21 million roughly in '10 on Oil Well. '10 hasn't occurred yet, so you show nothing in '10 for the expenditure on Oil Well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's, as Norman pointed out, is in that line. It was supposed to be let, this job, this year, fiscal year '09. So in a new fiscal year '1 0 you wouldn't have seen that 46 million. What you'll see is when we let this job, a budget memo will come forward, take it out of the funds. You'll see approximately $46 million -- I have to speak without Theresa -- minus any right-of-way acquisition we've already spent. So it could be $42 million. Or the actual cost of the job come in in a budget amendment into the new year. So that is listed as a zero because it was supposed to be an '09 project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it showed in '09 as a -- I mean, '08 as a two-year project, '09 and '10. MR. FEDER: Yeah, it showed '09 and '10, and your backup on that was the commercial paper loan to be able to meet that. So we showed it divided. We removed the commercial paper loan and we pulled the money into '09 totally and moved out some of the right-of-way phases. But yes, you did show it in two years in the '08 AUIR. And we're going to back that up if we're able to let it in '09 with the commercial paper at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know, the AUIR, shouldn't we know what's kind of smoking out there? I mean, all the facets that you're spending, shouldn't they be summarized? Isn't that what the AUIR is supposed to tell us -- MR. FEDER: That's exactly what it does tell you. And what facet are you not aware of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- what facet I'm not aware of. Oil Well Road. Where does Oil Well Road show up on the front page? Why don't you just tell me that, then maybe I can answer it -- maybe that will answer it. On this Page 2 I -- MR. FEDER: It is canyforward because it was assumed to be a '09. Because this, the '08 AUIR, led let to the budget that was '09. In the budgeting process we had already moved some of the 50 million and had pulled it into '09, both projects to be funded. We are not going to end up letting it exactly in '09, so that's why you didn't see any dollars there because it's all going to be carryforward. And we should be letting it in the next two or three weeks to construction. So we just passed the '09 fiscal year. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you said it's not in the carryforward here. MR. FEDER: It is in that canyforward that is shown as project-oriented. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that. I spoke with Theresa. MS. DOWNS: Mr. Chairman? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have this issue almost every year-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: And to ask for further clarification, back in the '09 adopted budget, the project from Oil Well to Immokalee, Everglades Boulevard and Camp KeaislState Route 29, it showed as another major project with a cost of 24-and-a-half million. Now it's up to 42, 43 million, which I'm not faulting that, but where did that ease in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a different phase. It's a phase. If you're asking us as transportation to come with you to AUIR with a budget snapshot for a certain date, we're happy to do that. Page 26 16 I se~jer~, 109 J The issue we're into since I've been here every year is you are just -- we're still going through the budget, as you know, we're hearing the budget hearings now. All these documents have to be submitted two months in advance. So if you ask for a snapshot, we can do that. Just pick a date and say as of this date, because it's in flux. What our budget people do is go through every project and do a one-day reconciliation and say as of today this is cash on hand and how much balance we have on the job. Are we on target for the job, have we let the job. What I need to say, it's got to be as of a certain date because it changes. By the time you get this document, it's been submitted to Mike for how long, two months, and in process. So if you want to say we'd like to see a snapshot of your canyforward, you know, going forward, we can do that by a certain date because it's going to be inaccurate by the time you see it. And we tried to leave out -- that footnote that we have tries to tell you that. We can't -- we don't have a handle on the canyforward until the budget's adopted until we hit our new budget year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't any of these numbers an estimate of what's going to happen next year just like your canyforward would be? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, there are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to provide a good faith estimate of your canyforward, that would break it down as to what projects you're dealing with, it would be more transparent. I think we are trying to follow it. And if you compare last year's to this year's, it doesn't follow. That's the trouble that I'm having. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oil Well is probably the big issue, there ,- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few circled when we get to that page, but Oil Well is probably the biggest one, yes -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is the biggest one. You wouldn't even see Oil Well, it would have been moved up to the top as an encumbered project if we had let it this fiscal year, if we didn't run into permitting delays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even your encumbered projects have -- are spending money. That's the whole purpose. If you've got 20 projects out there being built, but you only have a budget that you're presenting to us that could show five or six, some people may wonder where all this additional money is coming from. And I understand that it's an encumbered money from a prior budget year, but it would be nice to have a line item here explaining that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you would like that and that's the direction going forward, we can do that. It's just going to have to be as a certain date. We'll do a-- MR. FEDER: It will be a projected -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well think any of this is as ofacertain date. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this discussion came up last year and that was -- we were trailing the budget so closely that we thought a lot of those questions were answered in the budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll discuss it when we get -- Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I really do agree with you, Mark. When I looked at what was in last year's AUIR, you know, especially talking the Oil Well, in October of'08 it was in FY'IO for Oil Well. In the budget, which was probably started what, February, March, it's not -- it's in '09. It's totally out of the FY'IO budget. So it went from the AUIR in FY'IO, never was in a budget. It just kind of jumped in the '09 budget, because it wasn't in there when the budget was passed. So it seems like in just, like, five months it went from being in FY'IO to '09. And what made it so important that it had to jump the process like that? Is there some huge demand out there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's the demand is by contract that we're doing that. The actual western limit from Immokalee Road to Everglades has a demand right now, real time. The next section out by Ave Maria to Camp Keais, which is only a small section -- actually from Ave Maria entrance to Oil Well grade road is a small section, that's by contract. And you get that as soon as you are doing a project at the same time. If you have the funds, by contract you're supposed to do it at a certain date, a certain time. It was actually 2007 when we were supposed to let that job. The delays in permitting pushed us out. And we estimated roughly '09-'10. We'd like to have it all done back in 2007 but the reality is we won't have it ready to bid until fiscal year' I O. So it matches and it doesn't. But you're also dealing with permitting issues at the same time. Page 27 16 I lp1berA:~9 i CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Mr. Chainnan, that would take us back to Page I of our staff report, which the chainnan brought up earlier. And rm quoting, under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year CIE Capital Improvement Element, where the reason is lack or decrease in revenue. But we established that a lack of demand is a good enough reason to remove something from a Capital Improvement Element. I know you have a contract but you can prove lack of demand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I can't take that out of the project. Our county attorney's office has -- you know, it's a legal binding contract approved by the Department of Community Affairs submitted as back-up material. And that's pent up demand. If they had -- if we hadn't hit the slowdown that we hit right now, that two-lane section of road would be failing. And we entered a contract in with them. So I cannot pull that project out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, when you wrote the intro to this whole thing, you put in on Page 4 what I previously read to you, which said please note that this year eve!)' department division that has placed a capital project in the first three years of the AUIR is guaranteeing that construction of that capital improvement will be completed during that fiscal year. That's your bolded part. Then you further said they're also guaranteeing financial sources. By not listing this, anything in the AUIR for Oil Well Road, does that mean it's not guaranteed? How does that fit into your language that you bolded and highlighted to us in the first part of the introduction if it's not even mentioned? MR. BaSI: I guess the issue is it's included within the carryforward but it's not specifically named and designated as such, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you guarantee anything then? If you're trying, if! asked you is Nick's job on the line ifhe doesn't do his guarantee, he just wiggled his way in for perpetual employment because he's not saying he's going to do anything. He's just saying it's all here but rm not going to tell you what rm going to do. And literally nothing is guaranteed then. So what is the purpose of your statement if we're not going to have the specificity of saying what's happening each year, and then those years being met? Regardless of the need issue. I understand the argument Ms. Downs is making but rm still focusing on your intent and purpose in which you brought us into this whole thing this morning. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me help you out with that a little bit. Without the dollar value issues, it's not a dollar value issue. If it's a delay because of permitting, right-of-way acquisition, that probably should be footnoted in Mike's, guaranteed, you know, within the budget or promised within the budgetaIy constraints but subject to the issues that are outside the control of the budget. That is shown last year's AUIR in 09 and '10. And the only reason it gets adjusted is because of permitting issues. It wasn't a dollar amount issue. So there should be a footnote that says that, other than the fact that it's beyond Mike's control or my control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would assume that if you can't get a permit then it's a good reason, or you can't get right-of-way, I understand that, it takes a long process. But then, too, also not to get a permit, you just may put the wrong thing on the wrong line one day and you don't get the permit and it gets delayed again for another submission. It's real easy not to get permits if you don't want them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but rm trying to understand how there's any kind of quality control over what's being presented to us and we don't have the blanks filled in, Nick. I guess that's the transparency that we all would like to have. And I think that's missing from -- MR. FEDER: Your quality control and other things, just so you know, evel)'lhing that you see the blanks not filled in on that above line and then you see two below the line, the two Oil Wells, all those, other than the two Oil Wells, which are about ready to be let, have already been let. The quarterly reports on progress on those, the payments out, all the accounting are there. The numbers, the dollars were encumbered, the expenditures are out. If there's any change in dollars, they have to go through a budget amendment with the board. So the accountability is defmitely there. Page 28 16 I 1 t!3r21,i9 The only one that you have as an -- interesting now is because it didn't get let in '09, it got moved in on the budget, is Oil Well. That's why we're showing zero dollars, because it was supposed to be let in '09. Move up to that top group. The reason we left it in the other group is to show you that we knew we're getting very close and it's going to go just after this fiscal year to be let. Now, we have the permits, but we have an issue on right-of-way that was dedicated and committed to us and then some constraints placed on that forwarding of that commitment. We have an issue with the fill that was to be provided in cost, and we want to make sure that we're getting it at cost, so we're going through a lot of iterations to make sure that we can tell the public we got it at cost. We do have one minor change to the permitting, which is a modification because a development that was to take on stormwater hadn't built out. And therefore, we worked through the board, got an agreement, along with the developer. We're going to utilize a portion of their property but not what we anticipated to be using. So those are the things that have held up the letting, which was planned for July, which should be in October or November. So just so you understand. But there is an accounting on those dollars. What we show you on here and what that footnote from every year is, because until the end of the budget year, the start of the next, budget's approved and then there's an accounting, a full accounting shifted from one year to the next on canyforward. We don't have that now. We can try to do estimates, but in the past when we did that estimate, then it was why are you telling it. As Nick pointed out, it's again a slice in time. If you want a slice in time, we can do that or make a projection as best we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: So what fm hearing is that it's being held up because there's various reasons, but right-of-way and fill issues are not being fulfilled. So someone's not holding up the other end of the contract, and yet you're obligating, you're keeping the county right on task with their end of the contract. MR. FEDER: We are resolving those issues. One has nothing to do with the contract, it's outside of, although it was committed as part of another issue. MS. DOWNS: Which one? MR. FEDER: It is Big Cypress that was to provide the CDD, to provide the right-of-way. And they're now looking at some things they're trying to get into the agreement that we're trying to get it frnalized without some of those issues being addressed now. Just so you understand, the retention was outside of that agreement as well-- MS. DOWNS: That was not in the contract? MR. FEDER: Huh? MS. DOWNS: Retention was not in the contract? MR. FEDER: No, it is not in the contract in that area. It's a different owner. There is retention that is being handled within the contract. That's not at dispute. What I have is another development along the corridor that was to take on retention. Unfortunately with the slowdown, they didn't build, so we didn't have it to then put into their retention ponds. So now we're going through and we have a modification that should be very shortly approved so we can let. Again, I could have let this earlier with outstanding issues. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure all those issues are addressed so we then don't have claims and other issues to face in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Not to be simplistic, but this is an inventory and an update report. And this is like I recognize what you've said to us. But it does make sense to at least have placed there within the document that shows that there's process, that there's something that we can relate to. Because for all intents and purposes, to someone listening, seeing this on TV, this is a figment, which we know that it's not. So it probably is advantageous. Now I hope it's not a huge amount of additional work, but-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me take you a scenario. Because with what we've gone through, it's kind of interesting. We talked about doing this. You can see this work sheet that we talked about. I don't know what page it's on, it's your five,year work program. Page 26. This goes through the budget process just recently. And then we're supposed to update it after the budget gets approved, getting ready for the AUIR with the most recent engineering estimates. And then if you wanted to do Page 29 16 I 1:lmberA,309 i carryforward, then it's everybody scrambling as of this date, this is what the carryforward is. We can do that. We just need an understanding from this commission, and also the board -, and the board understood that last year, is that it's a slice in one point in time on that day -- COMMISSIONER MORRAY: That's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- okay. So if we want to agree that it's going to be on June 1st every year, we'll give you a synopsis of what it is. But this year's AUIR came a little earlier and actually overlapped the budget cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In fact, it's just logical, if you're going to include it as a separate set of items, state that it's a picture of the day so that everybody knows that it's there as information and not reliable in terms of most current information. MR. FEDER: And we will definitely do that. I think what we tried to do, as you notice here, we did not list the projects. And that's the point I was trying to make at the top of that page. We just didn't show a dollar volume because until we have that roll forward we don't know what that figure is that's going to go into that next budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, thank you. I have a question that I'm trying to relate to the guidance. On Page 1 it says under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year CIE where the reason is lack or decrease in revenue. When I look at the last year's AUIR for Vanderbilt Beach Collier Boulevard to Wilson, there was about $30 million in the program. When I look at it this year, there's about $15 million in the program. Now, what is the reason for that kind of a decrease, if it's not lack of revenue? Has the requirement for that road decreased or what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not a capital project, it's right-of-way acquisition, so the phase has not been removed. The funding can be adjusted every year, DCA is perfectly comfortable with saying, you know you're planning to spend $8 million in right-of-way acquisition in 2011 on a project, and then next year you do your budget and you say, well, I'm not going to spend eight, I'm going to spend six because my revenue forecasts in my fourth and firth year are lower. They're okay with that. It's putting it in capital project specially in the three-year period that that's where you start to have a problem with it. Your third -- your fourth and fifth year, you have of some flexibility, specially in the amount of allocated funds versus the actual project itself. MS. VASEY: Okay, so the project can't be removed but the funding can be modified. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The funding can absolutely be modified. And a project, when you say it can't be removed, that's also a subjective statement. You can make a case to DCA if it's not a demand issue to adjust your project. DCA this year by SB360 also gave you the wiggle room in your outer years as well as too. MS. VASEY: There's also flexibility in the three-years then you're saying for the funding? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Funding can be adjusted in the three-years, yes, ma'am. As long as the project doesn't come out. Because next year you may say costs have come down, I'm going to allocate a little less money to it, I didn't get my permits so I'm pushing the project out, I'm pushing one back. You just have to document to DCA why you've done it and what impact it has on your inventory of roadway systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one question. The Planning Commission, and we have to vote on projects that are going to have road impacts. I think it's Policy 5.1 or 5.4, one of them has a reference to the, we cannot approve a project unless it's already has concurrency or it is in the first three years of the five-year work program of the CIE. And I believe that's generally what it says. If you were to look at Page 26, the top section of this, there is no amounts in the first three years of the five years of the CIE. So basically none of those roads could have any new development approved on them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, they're let-- MR. FEDER: They are all let and encumbered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. What I'm trying to tell you is someone else -- say you guys disappeared, we all disappeared and someone was left in our shoes to look up and interpret 5.1 and say, okay, let's say that they're not going to spend anything in the next three years, therefore, we can't approve these projects. Page 30 161 ltA~ ; September 21,2009 What we're saying is the transparency that you tell us there's there, put it in black-and-white on here even if it an estimate and it's a range that's going to move because of phasing or because lack of permits, it's better to be here than not be there at all. I think that's where the crux of everything we're lIying to say here today is. Is that generally a consensus? So I think from an overall perspective your document needs to be completed on Page 26 as part of the AUIR. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, once a project's been let, the capacity goes into your pages that show your capacity sheets. So it no longer becomes a deficiency once the project's been let. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, the confusion that sometimes exists is the projects still do exist in the CIE, and what will end up happening is it will be modified, you know, in the upcoming CIE when those projects are either let or constructed, and that's when you see those changes. And sometimes we have that period oftime between the AUIR and the CIE change where we have that overlap a little bit and that's where the confusion comes on in. But I think providing that change will-, MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, we're hearing you loud and clear. We'll make sure there is a slice in time snapshot what tells you where the project stands, encumbered, with a rough dollar amount as of a certain date. I think we can do that, I think Theresa isn't going to throw anything too hard at me when we get back to the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those of us that don't live and breathe just these numbers all day long, it does help, that kind of -- for the future for reference -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's what we're asking-- MR. CASALANGUlDA: We're happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think, Nick, we haven't got past Page I, so are you ready to go to Page 2? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Okay, the two piecharts at the top. Obviously the comparison in total revenues is just really a picture of what happened on the page prior. One thing to note on your 2009 through 2013, you see $50 million in an aqua blue color, that was our commercial paper loan. I think we're one of the only departments, Amy, correct me ifrm wrong, we have not borrowed against our impact fees and we don't intend to. So we met with the board, county manager and said we can make this thing work without the $50 million. And they said, good, because you're not going to get the $50 million. So that's the biggest change. We have been successful in getting some grants, trip grants, advancement reimbursement with DOT and some federal grants. So our grant revenue increased from roughly 23 million to 50 million, which is good news. The charts below don't match in colors to the charts above. They're just showing you our revenues by category: Impact fees, gas taxes, general fund, grants reimbursements and commercial paper. And the colors are by year. So your blue was a three-year ago five-year look. Your red is a year ago. And then your current 20] 0 to 2014. Any questions on that? COMM]SSIONERMURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any stimulus money associated with any of it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The stimulus money went to the Marco Bridge. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exclusively? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exclusively, with some additional local pathway dollars that have been spread around. But it was the vote of the MPO board to make that the number one priority. So that went there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Any other questions on that page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, Ijust wanted to kind of clarifY one thing. You don't get any money -- you're not getting any subsidizing of your impact fees from the general fund, but you do get $]4 million a year for your debt service from the general fund. So you are getting something that has real value and that the general fund is subsidizing that. And that decision was made, incidentally, after we entered in the big road building program and had to borrow a lot of money and the commissioners at the time made the agreement that we would fund the debt service out of the general fund. And that amounts to $14 million. Page 31 16 seLler ~~i I MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Your next page talks about the traffic counts and what we've done. Just one clarification on the second bullet. We typically update our surface volume thresholds, which is what you measure against. We expected it to be done by this AUIR. It will go into our access management resolution in about three months, because we're still Q/ A -Q/C'ing. So instead of have been updated it should take that sentence out -- will be updated. And that's just ,- your surface volumes are what you measure against. A four-lane road, say, carries 1,800 cars peak hour, peak direction. And then when you're comparing your background traffic and your future traffic that's the measure you use against. And to the course of the past five years, we've done a lot of expansion. So we're going through countywide looking at every single roadway facility and saying what is the new surface volume, what can this road now carry as compared to what it did before. And we do make updates when a road is expanded but for an existing road, if the changes are has development come online, added new driveways to it, new median openings, that changes the surface volume as well, too. So we're in the process of doing that. Call out to the third bullet point. I know Mr. Feder my boss made it a point to bring it up, and I have to stress it again because it's an ongoing issue. There's nothing in this AUIR that talks about cost of ownership. And to me that's disappointing because your Annual Update and Inventory Report should talk about what you own and what condition it's in. And if that's the direction of this Planning Commission or the Board, we'll bring it up then as well, too. Because if you can't afford to maintain what you've built, what's the purpose of showing what you plan to build? And there should be section that documents we have X amount of facilities, they're at X amount of rating, and we plan to spend X amount of dollars to take care of these roads. It's not in the GMP, it's not required. But it's something we should defmitely talk about, because it's going to become a bigger issue in the future. General observations, traffic counts, we're down to 3.7 percent across the board. There's a graphic on the page coming up, which is Attachment C. We started that last year because trying to get a visual of what goes on. The ones in green have decreased, getting better. The ones in red have increased. And you can see the ones in red on that graphic are typically roads we've opened up or roads such as Everglades going north. It's a small road. So even a minor change, the new school, Tom, that opened up up there now is starting to show more traffic down that facility. Not as much houses, but they're starting to see more activity because of that school. It's is not a failing road, and this is not a failing roadway map -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going real good, real fast. I'm sure her fingers are burning right now. I want to bring you back to Page 23. Our Page 23. Just focus on this third bullet. And toward the bottom there is a sentence that says, and you're putting us on notice, the limited non-impact fee resources may need to be pulled out of capacity improvements to cover the O&M shortfall. This could reduce capital projects in the work program, resulting in concurrency problems, and could require an increase in the impact fee rate. Are you telling us that that's the high probability that's going based on the accounting that you have now, or is this associated in some way with your maintenance that you're trying desperately, and I agree with, to get it on here as an item? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's trying to tell you that if you don't put money aside -- and you can't use impact fees to do maintenance, let's be very clear on that -- you don't plan the budget. In other words, if we build 400 lane miles and we build another 400 lane miles we made it a point last year to tell the Board there is a cost of ownership. And it's not in that first five or seven years, it's in the seventh or tenth year, depending on what facility it is. If you don't put that in a program budget, you don't see it, you're going to all of a sudden get a call, a phone call, you know, your cover call, you own your mortgage, you own something. Well, you own the roads. John Vliet, who's in the audience right now, will say I have 10 facilities that are now below operating maintenance level and I need X amount of dollars. And if the Board says we don't have it in our general fund, then we take it out of that general fund portion that's in the capital to do that maintenance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I share with you your view, but I have a question that then becomes I think Page 32 ~ ' 16 I 1 A Atem.I' 2009 important to the rest of the AUIR and all of the other departments. You're looking for maintenance to be included in there. What then do we do about other organizations that also have maintenance needs? Will that become part ofthat? And I could treat this without difficulty, as a separate and significant item. And the others wouldn't rise to that level. This is certainly highly intense. But I think it's a question that needs to be at least posed at this point. MR. BOSI: The specific purpose of the AUIR is to maintain the concurrency management system. Therefore, it's for your capital improvements within ,- added to your system capacities for roads and for all your other category offacility. It's for concurrency management purposes that the AUIR was created. What you're asking has the AUIR started to expand beyond issues of areas of concurrency management to go -- which are real, which are -- operation and maintenance costs are real, which do need to have to be considered. But the purpose of the AUIR specifically is to maintain the concurrency management system and the level of service standards. If it's the desire of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners to incorporate more of a full budgetaIy process to the AUIR, that would be the individual discretion of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners. But it gets back to the original purpose of what the AUIR is for, is to maintain the concurrency management system and make sure that the improvements are contained within there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, I have no problem with that thesis but I think, as I've said, we've been put on notice and I think validly. Because while it relates to --look, you only have such a pot and it's only got so much in it, and if you start pulling money out for maintenance activities, you're going to increase -- your capital cost are going to have to come from the impact fees, which tends to be in many people's minds regressive in items of ultimately what can happen. So I'm not asking for that, per se. I think it belongs in some place. It may not be easily accepted that it could belong in the AUIR. But the roads are almost a dynamic thing, and maintenance on them is almost as significant as capital. When you start taking a road section and repairing it to the extent of relaying -- I don't know, what's the word here, Nick __ MR. FEDER: Resurfacing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Resurfacing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Resurfacing, yeah. When you start doing that, that's a significant cost. I don't know, what is the answer? I'm going to pose the question and I have no expectation that we're going to get an answer right now. But quite frankly, I think it has to be shown someplace. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you're hitting, there's is a good segue to this, I think. If a road's failing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we didn't plan this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. If a road's failing and you're required to fix that road and that capital budget is $ I 2 million, somewhere there should be a cost of ownership. Last year we had a budget workshop with the board in December and I said to the board, we as transportation are no longer going to bring you projects that just say that's a $20 million capital project. In the budget line item we're going to say $20 million plus one million dollars a year ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. Next budget item that we -- year that we go through you're going to see a line item that says maintenance for that project you just let. If a road is going to fail and you expect us to fix it, you're going to expect us to take care of it. So if there's a concurrency issue, maybe one of the questions to the Planning Commission, we're about to approve this project, are you going to participate in maintaining the road that we built for you, because we can't afford to maintain that project as well, too, in perpetuity. It's definitely a question that's come up and we don't address it and it should be addressed much more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Downs. MS. VASEY: Thank you for bringing up that sentence, that's got a couple of things in it that I'd like to pursue too. It says the -- it could reduce capital projects in the work program because of needing to use the money in O&M. Does that mean that some of the capital projects that are in this program are at risk of perhaps needing to be decreased to take care of O&M funding? Page 33 16 I lJAr~'200~ MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not right now, thanks to John Vliet and his team. He said, you know, I can milk this five years, I can do my job and maintain these roads. You are going to get to the point where Livingston, which is about to hit its seventh year anniversary, is going to come into resurfacing. So you're going to see in that new fifth year next time we do the budget, saying we need a larger portion of this unencumbered money, the capital general fund money to go towards road maintenance. It's going to have to keep coming up. So in your new fifth year when we get to 20 IS, you may have a capital project such as Golden Gate Boulevard that we're contemplating, it may have to wait one more year, because now a portion of those general fund dollars have to go on to maintenance of existing funds. So not in this five-year AUIR you're not at risk. We're letting you know that day of reckoning continues to get closer and closer and closer. MS. VASEY: That's of primary concem for me that we don't get anything in the capital projects that we can't afford. Because it's going to be a rough few years. And now you're having additional requirements coming up. But okay for the five years. Then also you say that it could require an increase in the impact fee rate. Impact fees are calculated based on cost of construction and land and those kinds of things. How would this action require an impact fee increase? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you took your general fund portion of your impact fee calculation and you removed that and we said no longer will we spend general fund money on roadway construction because we have to push it towards maintenance, the credit that you get in your impact fee rate goes away; therefore your impact fee rate goes higher. Right now your general fund that subsidizes road capital projects is considered a credit it in our impact fees. If you pull that out that credit goes away. The impact fee calculation naturally pushes the fee up. MS. VASEY: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I'm wondering if -- of course you can't retro it, but is there a way to dovetail onto level of service standards in the future to change -- you know, you do level of service, you're building a road capacity of say D for the amount of traffic. Can you dovetail onto that level of service to say in the future not only are we building a road for capacity, whatever, but that we'll keep that the road up to a standard, develop a level of service for the maintenance that it's required to be mowed every two weeks or whatever, assign a level of service for maintenance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually have that. MS. DOWNS: You do already? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have pavement rating conditions. John Vliet has a breakdown on a road of what it needs to be done. But as you saw this year in the budget process, a couple of million dollars went onto additional landscaping. And we said we don't -- is there going to be any maintenance dollars that go with that? And they said no, just do the landscape and make the dollars stretch a little farther. So we do assign a value to each one of the pavement ratings that we have and John puts up the flag, it's getting close. So we have a system that we do. Funding it's another issue. MS. DOWNS: What I'm saying, take for instance the six million a lane mile to give you a level of service whatever, D. Can you not add level of service for maintenance on that of a half million, three quarters of a million? Norm is shaking his head no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not in the impact fee rate. We're working right now, and I think John has met with one of our consultants, CH2, that's developing what is called a cost over a 20-year life cycle spreadsheet for every facility we have. We're trying to really get a grip on the cost of ownership. So he can plug in what that road has, how many lights, landscaping, pavement, curb and it will spit out in today's dollars what it will cost to maintain over a 20,year life cycle on a yearly basis. So we're working on that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I have one question. On your Page 26, and it pertains to -- I know you're not on that page yet but it's having to do with that maintenance issue on the third bullet. Isn't the 89 million being spent in 2010 under operations maintenance or not? Page 34 16 I !Pte!Ar~ 200~ MR. CASALANGUIDA: A portion of that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we are spending some money on -- which says here, bridge repairs and improvements and collector roads, minor arterial roads. I'm assuming that's resurfacing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's enhancements and also widening. Sometimes we get to a capital project because you're either widening or doing a certain activity at the intersection, you're including that maintenance aspect of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So of the 89 million, how much is maintenance and how much is new work, do you know? MR. FEDER: Most of it is technically new work. It is traffic operations, improvements, turn lanes, modification of signals. We do call making mast arms as opposed to span-wire changes, that's sort of in between the two. There's some of that in there. But generally speaking, the maintenance that we're alluding to, the resurfacing and those issues are in our operating budget, not in this capital budget. But there are some issues on intersection improvements and the like that are there -- and there's a bridge rehab that's there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick thing. You mentioned Livingston as coming up here on its seventh year and going to need resurfacing. So are our roads running to industry standard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say industry standard? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm looking at this paragraph in here that says that urban roads last six to eight years and rural roads last 12 to 15. And that's the industry standard. So my question was, for example are the roads and their impacts in Miami the same as our roads and our impacts here in Naples? Shouldn't our -- I mean, my guess would be that our roads would last longer than they would in Miami if it were just an industl)' average. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually run to a typically a little bit of a higher standard. Your arterials are roughly seven years or so depending on ,- 951, which we beefed up the typical section of it because we know there's a lot of mining activity on that road. Our typical sections are built to a little bit of a higher standard. In other words, 951 that we're building right now, we went with a little more of a heavier typical standard because we knew that that road carries a lot of heavy vehicles. So, yes, the answer to your question is yes. And they're running about that time period. What we're seeing is some of our more rural roads are hitting that 12 to 15 year span and they are starting to degrade. So we're running about the averages. MS. DOWNS: Can I ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: What does that mean, build to a higher standard? We're talking about maintenance after its built. You're saying you're changing the mix of your asphalt or something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. It's more than just the mix of asphalt. We'll run what we call a design year traffic. How many cars will be on that road and -- you know, truck factor and things like that. So we may beef up the subgrade base, the limerock, add more. We may go to a black base material which is even stronger, depending on what that road is going to be. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I think we're going into Page 26 when we got into questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nick, just out of curiosity, contingency, whenever I've done it in a budget, it's a little bit of slop that you need because you don't know what's going to hit you and you need to put it in there. And vel)' often you don't use any of it. Page 35 1611"1 \!I serlemb'A 0009 . But the process here is to put in a number there. I'm sure it was a reasonable calculation. But then you use it to build your total. And what happens if in fact in the four years preceding the final year you had occasion not to use any of it? What happens to that money? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's shown every year in the budget cycle. They'll ask us what we spent the year before and contingencies if any. And they typically do not accwnulate. They'll look at each year and say okay, that rolls into a project now or that goes into a different category. What you'll see is a change order, sometimes for the benefit. A project will come on line and they'll say while you're here, can you do this as well too. That contingency happens. It's used to defend against a lawsuit. Weare in five lawsuits right now. So that contingency money is to hire the lawyers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate its use, that's not my question. My question is on an accounting basis, I guess. I'm looking to see that we don't create an aberration by using nwnbers. We put placeholders in there and we generate a total nwnber based upon all of these things. So if! understand you correctly then what you are saying to me is that when you do your actual budget as opposed to the AUIR statement, we will see the reflection of the reductions, we will see a real nwnber. Ifwe could parallel these documents, this docwnent and the budget docwnent, we'd clearly see the changes, is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And I can assure you there's one lady in this room, actually two, that look at contingencies every year and see if we've spent them and how we spend them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's great. And I noted that there were a nwnber of placeholders in here. And I guess, I don't know, I am always suspicious of placeholders that have the same -- you know, that are repetitive. I recognize that you have to do something, and maybe it's appropriate, but I guess I'll let the productivity people, if they desire to talk about that, I don't know, do it. But I just make a comment regarding it that it doesn't give me a lot of satisfaction to see numbers repeated that are just placeholders. Yet I understand you really can't know those numbers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What should wony you is that they're not increasing. If they're static and they've been static for many years, you know that you're doing the same work and with less dollars because you have more of accounting to work with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, depreciation -- not depreciation. MS. DOWNS: Nick, don't you arrive at contingency, isn't it just a percentage each year? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically it is. But it can be adjusted down. And we have a requirement for reserves as well too, and I don't think it's shown in that as well. But typically it's a percentage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to make any comments on 26 before we ask the balance of our questions? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let you all ask questions. I'm sure you have many. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions on Page-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had one more and I forgot it. I apologize. On the DCA -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The DCA consortium. I know that consortium is kind oflike some of the leaves have fallen off the tree. Is this now -- this projection, it was kind of interesting, because it went from a million to 829,000 to three million, four. How is that reasonable relative to the changes in the consortium? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The consortium was adopted and they've actually all funded by letters of credit. So those numbers that you see in there represent each year that they're supposed to provide their certain funding. All the funding that's been committed has been backed up by letters of credit. So it's an approved DCA instead of a wish list. Because we went to the altar so many times, we actually had letters of credit from them. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: I understand that you've done that and I appreciate that. I'm not quibbling, per se, but I am asking, if the consortiwn had 20 members at one time and you didn't have letters of credit at the inception, and perhaps not even to a good period, and you started to realize some things were happening and you now have letters of credit for let's say] 5. So you lost five. But over time it's theoretically possible with this terrible great recession we're going through that you could actually -- these few others might just have to drop out through bankruptcy and other. The letters of credit are a guarantee? Page 36 161 llA3 ~ September 21, 20. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, they are. And eve!)'body that's in the DCA has a letter of credit. There is no one in the group that was approved for development that did not provide a letter of credit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And fm not sure of as an instrument but a letter of credit is a demand on a bank, but it's not a bond. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's actually a little bit better than a bond, actually. The letter of credit has to be backed up through that bank. I think the requirements that County Attorney's Office has put on them is pretty stringent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're assuring us that regardless, that this number is going to be satisfied. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do I have to promise my job on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 26? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, if you go down on 26 in the revenue section, which is towards the bottom, there's an impact fee COA revenue line that's running about 17.5 each year up to 20. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. VASEY: As I recall, the impact fees are about eight, so the rest of it is COA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, impact fees and COAs are a common term. It's both. Impact fees that people will payor COAs to promise to pay the back half of their impact fees. We call them impact fees as a generic term for both of those. MS. VASEY: Okay. But when I went through the budget, the total for a year on impact fees, I thought adding up the individual districts was only about eight million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Amy's not here. I think we're actually in the IS to 16 range right now. MS. VASEY: Okay. Then maybe I left out a district. Okay. But that total number for the five years is 95 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: And last year it was 170 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: So in one year you dropped $75 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. MS. VASEY: That causes me a lot of concern for what goes into the program in case it drops again next year by" it can't drop by a like amount. But if it drops, you know, substantially and we're hanging out there with these commitments, how will we fund them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's a good question. We have that same angst as you do. If you notice in fiscal years 'II and '12, there are no capital programs. We've kind of said you're not supposed to take any out of the three years, could you -- you know, one be delayed. We just recognize that in this time not to put anything in those top first three years that we couldn't realistically afford to build today. And if we did have an issue, we could make that reconciliation. So nothing comes back into the capital program until fiscal year 13. Now, we think our front end of 17-five a year is fairly conservative. We also think that our back end will be doing a lot better in the years four and five, but we still kept it low. So we kind of -- I think we played it right this year, based on our revenue projections. We didn't increase them as we think revenue will respond back in the fourth and fifth year. We want to see it before we move the numbers up. MS. VASEY: Okay. Another thing, on line -- on the general fund under revenues, you're getting a general fund amount eve!)' year of23-two. And as I mentioned earlier, $14 million of that relates to the debt service, which certainly cannot be touched. But there's another eight and a half million, about, that comes from the general fund. And when we're looking into F Y 'I I and having another large drop in property values and dropped property value revenues, what areas can we look at to take some money if necesSflI)' to -- in case you can't get that 8.5 million? Because that was -, as I recall, a few years ago the commissioners had extra money. That was when the property values were going up like crazy and there was extra money and they started putting in an additional $10 million eve!)' year. That may not be affordable as -- you know, in this time frame. So how -- if the commissioners Page 37 1611~A3 3 September 2'1, 2009 have to look to this area to reduce, where might that happen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can feel Norman cringing, as I am too, as you ask that question. As you look under -- not in the box, but you look at things like bridge repairs and maintenance, major/minor intersection improvements, things that we still want to continue to do, we're going to look at that. We'll also look at our capital program. Do we remove a million dollars from right-of-way acquisition because we have more time? I mean, anywhere you see on here we could probably make adjustments if we had to. We don't like to because obviously we've got a program that we want to keep whole. But if you said we have to come up with $5 million next year, $2 million, we would look at this whole program and say how can adjust this, 250,000 here, 750,000 there. We would look at that on a case-by-case basis. MS. VASEY: Well, I feel like from our point of view in productivity we need to at least have an opportunity for the commissioners to see what would fall out of a program, if it had to. Because, you know, another 30,20, $30 million drop, we have to look at where we're putting some money in capital projects. And this is one of the few places we are putting money. And it seems like -- I would recommend -, be looking to recommend from the Productivity Committee that you provide a view of what might be dropped from the program if the commissioners are concerned when they get this AUIR with, you know, the amount of capital dollars coming from the general fund. MR. FEDER: I appreciate your concern and I'm sure we'll be addressing that. As we said, there's three items here: The AUlR, the CIE and the budget at various times. I do just want to point out, though, as you mentioned, it was in the years when we were doing better, but even before that time when the halfpenny sales tax was not received well by the community. The commitment was to bond and to use that 14 million of ad valorem as support for lost gas tax revenue that was bonded out to 2023. The need at that time was estimatedjust under $300 million. The bonding was just over 200 million. The difference was a commitment of ad valorem to get at that capacity constrained. And so therefore the 14 million and the other. And it was structured initially at about 17 for payback and then trying to pull that money in, it went up to 34. And rather than do that, once we got to that point, Jim Mudd did a good job of leveling it off so that -- at one time it was 24, it's gone down a little bit. But generally it would be 24 million a year on out through that 2023, both in the debt service and in the dollars to get you to the full capacity improvement for catch-up. Just so everybody understands where it came from. Now, having said that, everything's on the table obviously each budgeted cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I've got a couple questions. On Page 26 you have a Golden Gate Boulevard to Wilson east to DeSoto, 60040. In your last year's AUIR in FY 12 you had the construction of that at 38,100,000. You've dropped it and reduced it to right-of-way of 4,000 and you have construction not even in the five-year plan. What's going on with that particular road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. I think we had the balance of that project with Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard received some trip grants. Also note, Golden Gate Boulevard east is a two-lane facility. It's down to 100 trips in vehicles traveling that road in a peak direction this year. It's only failing by about 40 or 50 cars, so it's one of those borderline roads as a two-lane how it will handle traffic right now. So while it's listed as a deficiency, it's not deficient by much and it's not deficient by much on a two-lane road. We did come in and get trip grant money on Collier Boulevard. That's a larger road that carries more cars in 2013, so we allocated funds to that and said Golden Gate Boulevard right now is not deficient by much, it's actually trending down in traffic, going down, while the other roads are still eking up a little bit. And the fact that, you know, we had to do Collier Boulevard in 2013, we pushed that out one more year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a road interior to Golden Gate Estates is showing a reduction in traffic to a point where you put off the construction almost indefmitely. It's not even on the five-year plan. But a road exterior to the Estates is showing greater traffic, and that's where you're moving the funds to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And it also received a trip grant as well, too. So we were able to leverage some dollars there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting application. I wonder if V anderbilt Beach Road extension shouldn't apply the same way. Page 38 n. 16 I sttembAz3009; COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you need to go there right now, because otherwise that doesn't make any sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What doesn't make -- it doesn't -- Vanderbilt Beach Road never made any sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: They don't make any sense -- well, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's never made any sense on Vanderbilt Beach Road, so there's no sense of beating that dead horse. And there's another one coming up that's just an nonsensical. 6116, the last one, US 411SR 951 intersection resurfacing. MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's that consortium. And I notice you've got 23 million in it. MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does that show up in your revenue stream? MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: That's eight to $9 million of impact fee dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's also going to be -- I'm sony, not impact fee dollars, prepaid impact fees. The consortium actually fronting their impact fee dollars. Roughly $8 million ofFDOT money, and that's shown in your fiscal year 14 as revenue. It's part of that 17 million. And also about $5 million of general fund, or impact fees outside of the consortium, one of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how much of that DCA portion is in grants, reimbursements and DCAs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately 16 to $17 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much of the DCA involving Oil Well Road is in the grants, reimbursements and DCAs? MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: $6 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're up to-- MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: And revenues from Ave Maria, and I can't -- roughly $30 million in Ave Maria revenues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- really your grant reimbursements and DCAs on the first page of 50 million, 120 is not due to an increase in grants, it's -- because your grants last -- that was 23857 last year. It's really mostly due to an increase in DCAs; is that a fair statement? MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: No, sir, no. There was trip grants of roughly $7 million that came in. And there were -- we were notified this year we were recipients of that. And also, we start getting the payback from State Road 84, the advancement reimbursement with DOT comes in into our outer years. It wasn't in before, it was the beginning of it. So more of that came in as well too. COMMISSIONER CARON: I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I only see five -, a little over $5 million in DCAs. MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: The one that's listed for the consortium. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right down at the bottom in the last box. DCA consortium, US 41, five million, 253. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then your grants and reimbursements are 44876. MR. CASA.LANGUIDA: And there's a combination there of ,- in those grants and reimbursements, like for instance, fiscal year '13, and I know Theres has the line item, but there are trip grants roughly six to $7 million of trip money. And in that year we're getting advancement reimbursements from DOT for State Road 84. In that year it starts the payout as well too. So-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why it jumped up so much in '13? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, right. Yes, ma'am. And then in '14 the bigjump was because of the DOT promising the $8 million for the resurfacing. So it's hard to call them all different things, grants, reimbursements. There are advancements contracts, joint participation agreements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you finished? Page 39 16 i '1' '1' se:tem~':r 2 , zA3 3 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down below where you've got 6908 I, pathways, sidewalks and bike lanes, y': u've got a new pathway, I think that's what you call it, all the way from 4] up to the Wal-Mart near Glen Eagle. I th i 1k it's called or something, Forest Glen, that's what it is. Part of that pathway was actually built by filling in the lakes and canals that were along the roadway ar d moving everything over, stabilizing it. And I watched it happen day after day, with vel)' expensive stabilizatiolJ and riprap. And then to the south you actually built a retaining wall section in which the pathway runs through the center. What did that pathway cost this county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That section was about $3 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that wouldn't show up on this pathways, sidewalks and bike lanes sectior, or is that where it would have shown up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it was actually part of a capital project. It was a 95] project, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We spent over $3 million on that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's -- wow, that's a lot of money to spend on something that's only going to be used by 10 people, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you -- I invite you to come to a pathway coalition meeting sometillles. I get both sides of it, so -- CHA]RMAN STRAIN: On your 350]3 and 60110 you have transit facilities and transfer site. I know that you got involved on a vel)' disputable issue over on Radio Road with a facility I thought y' >u purchased for a transfer site or a transit facility. Isn't that -- is that [mished, is that coming through? ] thought it was -- there were zoning issues Wilh it :md a few other comments. And if it isn't -- if it's been purchased and it's going to have to have work done on it, why wouldn't you have something in that line item? MR. FEDER: First of all, the facility that you mentioned was the old Morandi. It is already the CAT 01 the Collier Area Transit facilities out of that. What we're looking forward is a conditional use to allow transfer activities there. We've worked with the community, we committed to them that until we four-Janed Radio Road we w( uldn't bring that issue forward for conditional use. We also have committed to try and bring the issue forward, only during the season, because there's a k t of seasonal residents in that corridor. So that's delayed but it is still coming forward for conditional use. ]f that gets approved, then we would have -- that line item would have some budget, if there's budget available. Weare moving, though, under an intennodal grant from the state this year that's in their work program for transfer activities on the government center itself where we have the temporary looking to put full facilities th(,J'e. That would not preclude some limited transfer activities of the CAT, if the conditional use is approved. But it does" :Idress the primaty transfer activity, which is at the government center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- what is the transient enhancements? Would that be just the improvements to the routing, to the -- MR. FEDER: That's just a categol)' we've had in there that in the past we've done out of that area som" of the bus stops and other issues. Most of those have been funded and they're out on the street right now. We're movil Lg with others that have encumbered and being built. But that's just a categol)' for those types of activities: The shelters and for the facilities themselves for 1 he transit system. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: And you just don't have any need for funding then for the improvements to tit ~ facility if you get the zoning conditional use for it; is that -- MR. FEDER: When we get the conditional use, if we do, then there may be some minor improvement; necessaty there and we'd have to come in, if we have available funding as a budget item. It will probably he U11 :Ier that item number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 40 16 I slem~er A~ ~.'., ,. Anybody else have any remaining -- Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Since you mentioned strategic intennodal SIS systems, is 41 our only SIS strategic intennodal? MR. FEDER: One would wish. 41 is not even on there. The only thing we have on the strategic intennodal system is 1-75 -- MS. DOWNS: 75, that's what I meant to say. MR. FEDER: -- and on the emerging is 2982. MS. DOWNS: That's -- I knew it was 75. Emerging. How far along are you with that? Because you'll qualifY for a lot offederal funds if you can get it designated SIS. MR. FEDER: The emerging actually on 2982 exists today, which does make it eligible for funding, just like a real strategic intennodal system facility. We're trying to get that enhanced, emphasis on it. The state is advancing the design -- or the PD&E, excuse me, on that section, both here and in Lee County. It is on the system already. We're trying to get the Immokalee Airport and some other issues on the strategic intennodal system. But that is on there as an emerging facility today. MS. DOWNS: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on from Page 26 to -- Nick, I guess 27 and forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. The tables you see next are basically the line item details of each individual roadway segment, with the 2009 highlighted. The corresponding red in the black for remaining capacity corresponds your deficiency sheet. And really that sheet tells the whole story of these two pages. I If you look on that attachment G, it really talks about these two pages. When you/see the first segment there, it's Immokalee Road, Livingston Road to 1-75. The only reason that's on there, it was a board decision to maintain that as a four-land capacity while it was under construction. That is going to a modified six-lane quote, unquote eight-lane, a really expanded project that right now is under the control of DOT. So that will come off the deficiency segment. But as a board decision we agreed and we recommend to the board it stay as a four,lane, because new construction would take some time and we didn't want to put that capacity on line quite yet. Golden Gate Boulevard we touched on briefly, the next two segments right there. East of Wilson, all the way out to DeSoto. One thing to note about the Boulevard that I didn't bring up prior. It's a heavy what I call peak direction, A.M. peak direction P.M. road. It's a commuter road. So when this road fails, it's only for approximately an hour period of time in the morning and at nighttime, as opposed to you get into more of your urban area, the period that a road may fail tends to be a little bit longer. That was another reason our decision that Golden Gate Boulevard could wait a little bit longer. It's really a commuter facility. Davis Boulevard, those ones that show in the next section in orange, both of them are scheduled to go under contract hopefully fiscal year '10. We'd like to do it in '09, but it's going to be '10, per our CIE. The other section of Davis from Radio Road to Santa Barbara is in DOT's work program. Collier Boulevard, 1-75 to Davis, is currently in our work program scheduled again to go real soon fiscal year '10. And then Immokalee Road. The only reason that section of Immokalee, it's vested trips that are causing it to fail. Again, that's an IROX project, expected to be completed by Christmas, according to the paper this weekend. Goodlette-Frank Road -- actually Vanderbilt Beach Road from Goodlette to Airport is an internal county project for a six-land widening west of Airport for a small portion of it. And that will take care of the capacity issue that's there. But the rest are in 2011. Collier Boulevard; a section from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green; the section south of U.S. 41 from Wal-Mart to the Manatee Driveway, that's going to be part of our project for the intersection improvement. Old U.S. 41, intersection enhancement's being done by a developer. Tamiami Trail East is under design by the state and no funding for construction yet. Page 41 slt0b! 211001 A 3 And Oil Well Road, again, scheduled to be let any time, as soon as we get permits in hands. Your attachment H basically is a visual representation of what you've just seen, an attachment G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The existing deficiencies for vested trips on Vanderbilt Beach between Goodlette and Airport, when did you say that was going to be resolved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's under design right now. In fiscal year' I 0 we're hoping to let that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't you show that on your prior page? MR. FEDER: Major intersection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: My prior page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's item number 110.2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1102, Vanderbilt Beach Road. It is shown there as remaining capacity of minus 52. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but wouldn't you show the improvements that you're intending to make? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Labeled under the notes, yeah, typically we do. And that's just a catch. Construction in 2010. COMMISSIONER CARON: Should be all of those, if they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same would apply to 124, I think, Golden Gate Boulevard, east of Everglades to DeSoto? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And I think the attachment I was just " the next attachment breaks on the notes. But you'd like to see it on this here as well, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, wouldn't you want to show them in both locations so they coordinate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can. We should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just makes it easier to read, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. No improvement's a good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Looking for consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point before he goes on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUJDA: Okay? You're other two sections are the TCMAs, which on attachment H you can get a graphical representation of both, the northwest TCMA and the east central TCMA. Transportation concurrency management areas are measured in a group of roads. Those tables defme which roads they are. And as long as they're operating above 85 percent of level of service, they're considered functioning properly. As you can see by that report they both are, so there are no issues with the TCMAs. And that pretty much concludes the presentation with the graphics. And we can answer some general questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: You have under consideration the adding and exchange on 1-75 for Everglades Boulevard, which obviously is going to increase traffic on Everglades Boulevard. But there's nothing in the TCMA for any projected advance in traffic there. But then wouldn't it also -- and are you able to measure a decrease in traffic from your attachment H between Everglades and Wilson Boulevard? If you bring Everglades interchange on, it's going to decrease the traffic between Everglades and Wilson. Just stands to reason. So have you factored both of those changes in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have factored those changes in the submittal to the DR, the Interchange Justification Report. Because the capital project is not within the five-year element, it's not shown on this report. MS. DOWNS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Page 42 16 I 1 s\PteA~, 20;1 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I have just one other thing from a planning perspective. On Page 24 there's a note and it says, there is concern that the artificially low background traffic volume will allow additional development approval which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor and the addition of trips on the network. When things come before the Planning Commission with transportation staff approval, how are you factoring this in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I legally can't. I can make a note if a project is in a facility that we expect to fail in the next three or four years. We can caution the Planning Commission. We don't have a mechanism within our GMP or our Land Development Code to consider vacancy rates. I can COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's really left up to planning commissioners to make stipulations and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a recommendation you can, and we as staffwill too. That's a legitimate concern. I'm glad you brought it up. Probably my only bullet point I did not touch on. Your vacancy rates are going to be a critical issue. Randy and Mike brought it up. There is no development regulation that will control when those people move in. And right now the issue that you have is you say ,- you look at the roadway system, counts are I' , fantastic. Vested development, you've taken care of them. . When a building COs, it only has one person in that building of 50 units, you've considered that' ding on the ground and providing -- putting rubber on the road. They're not there. I made that comment to Commissioner Coyle and he said, well, Nick, it will be your job when they all show up to fix it. And I said I can't promise you that we get" respond that quickly, we're just trying to keep an eye on it as much as we can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust -- again, I've never heard anyone from transportation staff bring up this issue at a Planning Commission meeting. And it's a Iitt]e surprising to me that it hasn't been made as a note. And it should have been. And we've certainly had things come before us very recently in the past couple of months that affect areas where this will be a rea] -- this could be a real factor. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Knowing the lay of the land, most of the projects that you have in your five-year work program will cover those issues. The only facility that I can think of where vacancy rates really stand out to me is Pine Ridge Road. Pine Ridge Road right now is on the cusp. It floats back and forth between on,]ine -- but there's a Jot of vested development that has been banked and then removed from the banIe That when those units fill back up again, you're going to see a lot of traffic on Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to quibble, but I need qualification. Because you started out saying we can't legally state that. So before the Planning Commission starts making stipulations that aren't defensible, I __ prudence dictates that we know that and we consider it. But when you say it's not legally ,- that you can't legally say it, it's because it's not within the realm of planning that you do; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not within our Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code. I can bring it up. And it's one of those things we've talking about if a development -- a wning application was to come on for Pine Ridge Road, one of the pre-application notes would be to have the applicant provide some sort of analysis of what they thought a vacancy rate was in the area for consideration by the Planning Commission and the board. You know, he may say, like Randy had mentioned, you know, checking electric meters doesn't work. It's not a very easy thing to figure out how many people are actually living in the building as full-time residents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think prudence dictates that we take every piece of information and work with it. I just -- I'm sure we'll get whatever. If we have a stipulation question, we'll get good lega] advice. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, what I said was a recommendation, not a stipulation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. Page 43 16 I 1 1 ^'-Z !I September :Ir\~9 . MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commercial, it can be something you can really look at a little closer, how many units are open in a commercial building, if you're applying for an application across the street. If you notice that the vacancy across the street is 80 percent, you can assume that 80 percent more traffic will be corning on line. So it's a little easier to tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem is, Nick, when we rely on the applicant to provide information about how badly their project is needed when we talk around this community and see thousands and thousands of square feet empty, yet every report, and we just got one in last week that said we needed another quarter of a million square feet of commercial. Well, that is absurd, but it doesn't help if staffs not producing the report and it's being produced by the applicants. Because they're only going to produce reports to their favor. And that's what they do repeatedly. So with that said, I think we're wrapping up transportation. Does anybody have any other questions or comments involving the transportation section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if not, I'll at least suggest two things that we came across with -- that I heard, at least out of this discussion. Number one is that on Page 26, it would be completed for the encumbered projects, and that some value for encumbered projects as a snapshot in time be added to Page 21 with the appropriate footnote describing how it is entered in there. And number two, that the Exhibit G deficiencies be mirrored into Exhibit H and show up there as well. Those are two of the things I made notes of. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 21, our Page 21 anyway, it needs to read grants, reimbursements and DCAs in order to come up with that 50,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you're right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Otherwise it doesn't balance with Page 26. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any changes they want to suggest to transportation, or recommendations to go forward? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeab, on the snapshot date, I mean, is that something -- could that be the fiscal year that we're dealing with with predictions? I know that your budget's right before that, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're asking on Page 26 if we can make that snapshot but before the submittal to the board? I think we can put something together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember you were saying you wanted the date? MR. FEDER: Yeah, that date -- as an example, we move the AUlR. If you look on that table where we're going to now fill in some dollar figures on that estimate date, was 8/12 is when we get gave that update of that five-year work program. So what I'm saying is the date on the table where we've done the estimate update of all the projects, we'll use that same date, which may be 7/12 or 9/12 next year, I don't know. But we'll use that same date. And we'll make it clear that that's an estimate of what has been expended to date on that project versus previously encumbered, so therefore what would roll. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could make that the fiscal year we're dealing with, or is that hard to MR. FEDER: Well, that's the difficulty. Because our fiscal year -- and that's why we left it blank, because we -- a few years back we tried doing it and then it got confused because then all of a sudden two or three weeks later you get a certified roll forward and it's not the same. So knowing that going in, we're going to give you our best estimate. In this case we're sitting here talking at the end of September. It was mid-August is when we did up that table for estimate of cost and therefore where I would put in what estimate of what will roll. So it's about a month and a half -- actually it's two months before we'll really get a good idea of what the certified roll forward will be, which is about mid-October; is that correct? About mid-October. So we'll give you a date and we'll give you our best shot at it, which is I think what you're asking for. Page 44 16 I feplfAb11,2; COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So when we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- compare AUIR data to AUIR data, that will be consistent? That is to say, we won't see a modification in the following AUIR which was the budgetary qualification, we will see _, MR. FEDER: Yeah, I would like to -, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -, a projection and projection. MR. FEDER: -- say they'd be consistent, but they are sufficiently dynamic. You have the AUIR driving the budget which drives the Capital hnprovement Element. And unfortunately during that time -- as an example, last cycle we reevaluated our impact fees from 72 million, 50, then all of a sudden down, to last year's collection just over 20 to 17 and a half now. So each one of those documents are a little bit different, because when I change my revenues I've got to balance the budget, I have to move projects and modifY. So I'd like to tell you it's going to be that solid, but I won't be telling you anything that's not true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not asking for it to be a solid. I'm suggesting that-- MR. FEDER: The frame of reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I recognize that you're going to have a question. Maybe the box ought to be a double thick lined box to show -- call our attention to the fact that this is -- we put the turban and the c/)'stal ball and we start working. MR. FEDER: We'll make that clear. We tried to do it with an asterisk, we'll make it a lot clearer and we'll get you numbers; that's what I heard you wanted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that discussion, is there a motion from the Planning Commission to move the catego/)' A transportation department's forward __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the three stipulations that we discussed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, second by-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Does the Productivity Committee wish to make any kind of motion? MS. VASEY: Yes. I'm still concerned that the general fund revenue over and above the 14 million for debt service will not be available in future years, at least while we're having an economic downturn, so I'm going to make a motion that we -, to ask you to provide what programs would be impacted if $8.5 million of general fund revenue was reduced each year from FY 'II to FY '14. And then bring that, if you could, to the productivity meeting and we'd have the whole committee go over that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, by -- how much? You mean the whole thing? MS. VASEY: 8.5 million in each of the years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So taking out the 8.5 eve/)' year? Page 45 16 , 1sep~eAeOl'20; MS. VASEY: Right, right. And I'm not sure that that's what would be the outcome from the Productivity Committee. But if you gave us that full amount, then we can look at it and chew it over and perhaps make a recommendation out of that committee. So that would be my motion, to request you to provide the -- that program decrement. MS. DOWNS: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Thank you, it passed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys didn't have any discussion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to thank the Planning Commissioners -, MS. VASEY: Good point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -, the productivity members, and especially our court reporter who, God bless her, how she doesn't curse my name a million times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, she does-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You owe her big time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plenty of times. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we have a choice, we can try to get through the drainage and canals and structures before lunch or we can take lunch now and come back here in about an hour and five minutes. What do you all wish? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since Phil is on a couple of them, we may as well come back and do all of his. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but drainage is road -- transportation, so it's a separate department. If we start it, I'd like to finish it. But it may push our lunch back further. So let's " is that a consensus to go forward then? MS. VASEY: I do have quite a few questions, but fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we'll be here for a while. MS. VASEY: It's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, I've done this before, I made a decision to wait out the lunch and we've gone till 2:00. So look it, let's just take lunch and come back here at 12:45 and resume with the drainage structures. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Murray is absent for the remainder ofthe meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we're back in session. Welcome back from lunch. And when we retired for lunch, we left off with still Category 8 facilities. The first one that we wanted to go back into was the drainage facilities. And looks like we're ready to go. Jerry? MR. KURTZ: Good afternoon. I'm Jerry Kurtz with -- Principal Project Manager with the road maintenance department's stormwater effort. I'll just give a brief little introduction and then I'll be ready to answer any questions you have. Start with summarizing the two pages oftext really in the AUIR. We -- in March of2008, not January of 2008, we clarified the stormwater funding policy due to the fact that the cost-sharing efforts that we were trying to get underway with most all our projects were not working out very well with the MSTUs not being imposed on neighborhoods, and securing other sources of funding. So we clarified the policy in March 25th of2008. We got away from the one-third, one-third, one-third cost splitting requirement that we had. We are pursuing grants aggressively. We have another staff person now involved in stormwater who's more of a storm water planner and checking for grants on a daily basis. We have applied for three grants. One we did find out that we're not receiving, but the other two are looking Page 46 16 I 1 ~~r21,;9 pretty good to receive the funding on that. And it could total up to close to a million dollars in grants if we're successful there. And we should know within a few months. We focused in on our main capital improvement projects with some secondary replacement and repair projects with the stormwater program that was reflected in this year's program, as well as how we're reflecting it in the next year's program. We wanted to add efforts in for Immokalee. Immokalee's stormwater master plan did get adopted this year, and that is in our Capital Improvement Element I think of the Growth Management Plan. So we're easing into work in Immokalee. There's a number of stormwater projects that are master planned up there. So we've got money budgeted for that, and we're getting into Immokalee the beginning of this fiscal year coming up. So we're pleased about that. That's a brief summary of the first two text pages. I can stop there, if you have questions about those pages, or move on to the tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got some questions. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, under task nwnber two on the watershed management plans, are we still on track for that? MR. KURTZ: Well, the watershed management plans are still moving forward. However, the -- we need more -- as I understand it, we need more consultant tasks to be completed, so we need an amendment to the current contract with the consultant. And it was quite a hefty amendment, so the board did not approve it initially, and staff is coming back to more clarifY what is necessary to move forward with the watershed plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So right now we're not really on track with these right now. MR. KURTZ: Well, I'd say we're still on track. There's still work being done. But we do need a pretty significant amendment to go to the next level. It was always created in phases or pieces to get from the beginning to the end. So as far as I believe, staffs opinion is we're marching through the process. It is a big process, but I wouldn't say that it's off track. It's more in community development's shop, but stormwater's working closely with them and maybe you could clarifY, get more with the community development on the watershed plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, thank you. When you said you got away from the one-third, one-third, one-third, that was the old policy where the people who were benefiting from the project paid one-third, the people -- I guess grants was one-third and then general fund revenue was one-third? MR. KURTZ: Yes, grants was one -- well, it varied on the type of project. We categorized our projects into three different basic type of projects, but yeah, a lot of them fell into that funding split. MS. VASEY: Well, when you get away from that, does that mean like eveI)'lhing is going to be general funded then except for the miJIion or two dollars that you get from some of these grants? MR. KURTZ: No, it's still a variety, really. Of course it's worth mentioning again, the money we get from Big Cypress Basin is significant. They've been coming through and it is on a $2 million level every year. But we are pursuing other grants. We have a variety of ways -- some of our projects we actually get some sharing by donations of easements. So there's other ways where we can get cost share. One ofthe big controversial things though is the MSTUs. A lot of the neighborhoods are not willing to self-impose MSTUs, so the commissioners would have to impose MSTUs. So it's just right now it's not a real valid funding option for us. MS. VASEY: It just seems like that was a really nice policy in that it recognized that some ofthe stormwater projects had general total county benefit. Some benefited the people that lived in a certain area. And then the fact that the grants and things were helping. But now this looks like about 20 percent grants and 80 percent general funds, which is -- you know, that's kind of now the whole county has to bear a much larger percentage than we were doing years ago. MR. KURTZ: Well, we thought it was a good cost ,- equitable cost split for projects. And it's still occurring in various locations. It's not predominant. Forest Lakes for instance has a drainage MSTU, and they're getting a majority oftheir work done under that drainage MSTU. Page 47 16 Ilt:1rJ, 20; So we agree with you. And that's why when it was hard to establish new drainage MSTUs, we really turned our focus around to the primary system. In stonnwater there's a large variety of needs out there on a grand scale and a neighborhood scale on the other end of the spectrum, so we focused in -- back in on our main trunk lines, which makes a lot of sense too. Of course the big trunk lines are Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management's systems, but ours are right connected to those and there's plenty of those which we call secondary. And most all of our work now -- in fact, it's almost exclusive that our work is on those major trunk lines that the county has owned and operated for years. There's plenty of deficiencies right there and to work on for several years to come. And what we're fmding too, which is kind of nice, is if we improve the deficiencies on that intennediate piece of the system, often the result in the neighborhoods is their flooding and nuisance with stonnwater goes away. So it makes sense to go back to the downstream and fix what's down there, and that would be the secondary, and then possibly in the future have to move upstream into the more specific areas. So we have made that adjustment and we feel it's for the better and it's a better use of the funds. MS. VASEY: It just seems to me I guess that a faimess issue would be those that benefit should contribute. And that's totally been lost now. How much money are we spending on L.A.S.J.P. total? MR. KURTZ: On L.A.S.J.P. we spend seven million typically in a year; five to seven million. As much as with the right-of-way acquisition and some tricky parts of design and modeling, it could go up as high as nine million. But actually the numbers for LAS.J.P. are fairly high and significant right now. What we're actually trying to do is accelerate that project right now while we can. It's going veIY well. It's set up in a sequence now from the downstream to the upstream. We've had some developer cooperation on some big parts of the system. So it's a little-- weighted a little high for L.A.S.J.P. right now, but we're hoping we can accelerate, maybe finish possibly a little bit in advance. We're not sure, but that's a goal right now. MS. VASEY: And when you say in advance, of the penn it expiring? MR. KURTZ: Yes. MS. VASEY: And what year is that? MR. KURTZ: The pennit expires in 2015. And the plan that we have, the master plan, is to have construction completed by 2015. The last project to start construction is in 2014. MS. VASEY: And I was actually looking for the total figure, multiple years on L.A.S.J.P., the whole project. MR. KURTZ: The whole project, it started back in -- I wantto say construction started in around 2003. The figure from there forward is around 60 million, including monies we've spent in those beginning years up to what we think we'll spend through '14 and '15. It's varying a little bit with the cost of construction going down. First way up, then way down. We keep adjusting our numbers when we have to. But generally the figure is around 60 million. MS. VASEY: And how much of that -- I'm sorry, my last one. How much of that is from the general fund as opposed to grants? MR. KURTZ: Oh, boy, I would say probably -- and I'm going to include in developer contributions in there. I would say as high as maybe 20 percent is from grants and developer commitments. Maybe a little bit more. I don't have that calculation, but I'm sure I'm in the neighborhood there, 20 to 30 percent assistance on -- MS. VASEY: And 20 percent would be about 50 million would be general fund then, 48? MR. KURTZ: Yes. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Ms. Downs. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'm going to wait until we get to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I was led to believe that the L.A.S.J.P. pennit would be expiring soon. Has it already been extended? MR. KURTZ: It's two pennits basically. The water management pennit, originally similar to all others, is a five-year cycle on it. But our penn it is dual purpose: It's construction pennit with a five-year time frame and then a conceptual pennit. And the way you keep extending that pennit is eveIY two years you have to submit to convert part of your conceptually approved project to construction. So we do that on a regular basis. Page 48 16 I 1 Ar3ber ;009 , Typically in a year we modifY the permit to add two or three more sections from -- which are conceptually approved to construction approval. So it's easy for us to keep the Water Management District permit valid from year to year. The Corps permit is a one-time 10-year permit, and that's the permit that's going to expire in 2015. MS. DOWNS: And is there a way to expand that permit? MR. KURTZ: There is a way to expand. They tell you that you can expand the permit. However, with the Corps you're going to open the project back up to possibly new criteria, current ways they look at things. So you could -- the whole permit as a whole project could be opened back up and put through the pretty rigorous scrutiny that they're doing today. It's similar to what they were doing before. But I think if we did want to look at extending the Corps permit, we're setting ourselves up for possibly years and years of delay and a lot of dollars in consulting fees to try to work through that modification process. So it's really prudent to hold to that 20 IS and that way all our impacts as far as the Corps is concerned are identified and accounted for in our current mitigation plan. MS. DOWNS: That all sounds very ominous. Can you give some examples? MR. KURTZ: Well, the project -- the Corps permitted the project as a construction authorization. So to get a construction authorization from the Corps we had to put in all our mitigation up front. We have three mitigation areas, they are all constructed, and those mitigation areas account for all current work that's completed and all proposed work that will be completed. All the wetlands, all the other surface waters, all the impacts for all the improvements are currently mitigated for. So if we started getting into the area where we needed to extend the permit, they'd start looking at well, maybe we're not meeting what's currently being done as far as mitigation. So an example is we could have to buy more mitigation credits or do more mitigation work on the three areas that we have. We really don't know. What we do know, as long as we stay in our current method and work through it, we'll be okay. MS. DOWNS: Do you have a list of the stricter standards that are being applied today or that you anticipate coming on-line? MR. KURTZ: Our consultants do. Our consultants, and we have a number of them, different firms in town. But this is what we're getting from them and this is what we're pulling out of the meetings that we're having on our other projects, that even though the rules maybe had minor changes, that the time frame is a lot more. There's more scrutiny with wetlands and what they call secondary impacts and impacts to endangered species, so that's why we're preferring to hold to that higher deadline. MS. DOWNS: Could you make that list available? MR. FEDER: Yes, we'll get you information and make that available to you. I think that the basic answer though is your endangered species issues and other items are really where we'd have much more expansive look than we had maybe in the past, and in your cumulative impacts, which is becoming a bigger issue than it was when we went in permitting. You need to understand, though, as a frame of reference, L.A.S.I.P. permit was ]5 years to gain approval. Fifteen years. So it is something that we want to follow through on. And we have nice pictures, if you want those as well, of flooding in the area, which fortunately we reduced. A lot of it is downstream work. We worked with two major developments which helps reduce some of the costs on the project. But it's draining a very significant area, a lot of downstream items. And when you said, Jan, if I could, about areas benefiting, it's not always as direct. We just finished a project as an example, a small one, but it shows it up in Palm River. The folks right there next to that canal who didn't want us to remove the vegetation that had grown over a drainage easement and didn't want any work made it clear that they never flooded. Well, that's true. People upstream of them were flooding, though. But they wanted to keep it as was. So there's a tradeoff of impacts as well when you look at it. And we're concentrating on the secondary system, not on the tertiary. So I think maybe we've addressed some of your issue on that. And it was this body that helped us come to a clear indication that we weren't realizing those MSTU dollars the way the prior policy was structured, especially when we're dealing with secondary improvements. We get in the tertiary, they're almost predominantly being required to be MSTU driven as from now. Page 49 16 I IlptenA 3,2001 MS. DOWNS: So did I misunderstand when I was told that South Florida Water Management was being lenient about extending the expiration date of the Corps permits? MR. FEDER: If they are, that's news. They got a push from the government right now to lIy and work with issues on permits for people to get through. Mostly for development. Government usually doesn't get that benefit. Government, they usually decide that we have to show cost feasibility and move forward. Yeah, it's more for the private sector in a lot of ways in a lot of those issues, I think, from what you're hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and it's on the watershed master plan. What is -- the first step you describe in task two, what is going to be the fmal step of that? How soon is that going to happen? And -- MR. KURTZ: The final step of task one? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Well, actually, I think it might be task three. Is that defming the final step? Because we really do want that plan. MR. KURTZ: Well, this is our -- task three is final step as we integrate with the watershed management plans. A lot of it is inventorying the system so we can run a good model. But yeah, the most significant thing of the watershed management plans will be modeling to determine all these outcomes and deficiencies and needs and how to protect the watershed plan. But this more zeros in on stormwater's part to integrate with the watershed plan. MR. FEDER: But in answer to your question, we have the next five years structured on what's in our Growth Management Plan, particularly L.A.S.J.P., Gateway Triangle, as well as Gordon River. During that time we're following through on these steps. We're doing inventory work right now. We've worked with a separate area plan in Immokalee, which the board has approved, you see starting to move into our five years. But we're continuing to work with the effort at watershed master planning. We need that modeling and that information to be able to set tbe priorities. So we've got some time. In answer to your question, I don't see it tomorrow, but it should be soon, and we're lIying to pursue that so that we can move through these steps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the outcome will be full plan, an engineering plan? I mean, some of -- MR. FEDER: The ideal outcome is going to be somewhat like the analogy here, that I'll be able to identifY where my deficiencies in the system are, what order of magnitude and then prioritize funding against it county-wide, as opposed to doing basin studies and improvements within specific basins. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will be engineering data, not based as you described in an earlier paragraph on observations and stuff. I mean, you'll -- MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- know what's going on in reality. It's not there's a puddle here -- MR. FEDER: I will tell you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and a puddle there? MR. FEDER: -- the professional judgment. I will tell you that you've got probably two or three people I've met in this county, Jerry being one of them, that can tell you if! drop a bucket of water where it's likely to end up in the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MR. FEDER: So we do have some of that. But what we don't have is the pure modeling and the background and documentation and data to set those priorities. And that's what you're saying, and yes, that's why we're lIying to go through this process. But we will still take advantage of the observation. If I have a heavy rain, where am I flooding, and make sure it goes back to those issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in your funding, you only show money in 2010. You describe five Page 50 16 I 1 A3 ~ September 21, 2009 years. Where is the funding in the other years? MR. FEDER: We're doing most of our inventorying -- most of that funding for the watershed master planning is through CDES as part of the floodplain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FEDER: And so we're working directly with them. Jerry's on their staff. John Vliet in our maintenance is working with them. MR. SCHMITI: Let me clear the record on that, Norman. Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. Two different issues. The watershed management plans are different than the floodplain management program. Two separate and complete initiatives. The watershed management plan was looking at water quality. It was directed by the board back in the late Eighties. It's been delayed several times over a period of 10 years. Two years ago the board put $4 million into the budget. We're going to the board in October for Phase II of the contract under PBS&J to do the second phase. The first phase was the scoping portion to define what it is that needed to be researched. And then we go into Phase II. Part of that watershed management budget also paid for some new LIDAR data that we're using; up to two-foot intervals for LIDAR data to support all the initiatives in Collier County. So I just want to correct the record that it is two complete -- though related, they're two different initiatives. The floodplain management program is a separate initiative, just as the flood insurance rate map initiative that's been going on for a number of years and that's a separate initiative as well. Any questions on the watershed management plans? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean you're sharing data, so no one -- you're not doing-- MR. SCHMITI: Yeab, we're sharing data. They're all interrelated. They have to do with floodplain management and water data. But the watershed management plan was more a directive from the compo plan. It was a GMP initiative, but it was primarily dealing with water quality. And the net result will be areas to determine -- measure water quality at various locations throughout the county, those kind of things that are -- more have to do with water quality and not flood control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, they're kind of the same. It's the same thing-- MR. SCHMITI: Yeab. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ,- so, you know, it's the same molecule of water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're actually more the same than you may realize. I spent part of the lunchtime meeting with Robert Wiley over the floodplain issues that we discussed in our meeting a while back. And one of the things I couldn't understand is how we're going to proceed with FEMA in February with plans that are going to have a huge negative impact on at least 50 percent or more residents in the county. Financially it's going to be hard. It's mandatory so it's not a tax that can go away. It's not an MSTU they vote on, it's going to be something they're stuck with. Well, in that discussion I found out that the floodplain management plan hasn't taken into effect all of the other factors that currently or that will exist in Collier County that may help it. And one of those being the watershed management plan. And Robert believes that plan will be done, since he's also doing that, at the end of2010. When that plan gets done, it will most likely show a change, probably beneficial to the floodplain management effort. But because FEMA's coming in in February, they're going to lock in a floodplain management plan that doesn't have the benefits of what's going to be shown on the watershed management plan. MR. SCHMITI: I want to correct the record, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not done yet. MR. SCHMITI: FEMA is not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I'm not done yet. Can I-- MR. SCHMITT: Well, FEMA's not going to get a floodplain management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITI: That's not what they're going to issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I finish talking? Page 51 16 I 1 s!tembA3009 ; MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FEMA's coming in on Friday -- or in February. And what they're going to do is produce a document that's going to cause insurance rates to be impacted by new flood areas. Those areas will be modified once the watershed management plan comes out, but we have to resubmit to have that modification go into effect. And that will take another 13, IS months after the watershed management plan comes out. So we're potentially going to have two floodplain decisions, if you want to call it a plan, you want to call it a flood zone. One will come out in February and another one can be amended later on. And that's the information I just found out from Robert Wiley. And Joe, now if you want to go ahead. MR. SCHMITT: Well, your issue, the flood insurance rate maps. With new data we can go in and do what is called a letter of map amendment or letter of map revision. And then every five years they update the flood insurance rate map, if there's new data available. But you can submit any time with new data and do a letter of map amendment or a letter of map revision. Again, those are your flood insurance rate maps; Brad, you're very familiar with those, doing design work and understanding the flood zones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe've got stormwater management and we have watershed management and we have floodplain management, they all deal with the same thing, water. Why aren't we having one department manage all this cohesively, working together to get us the best rate possible as early as possible from our -- from FEMA? Because in the end that's how it's going to really hurt the public is the FEMA rates that are going to be coming into effect in February that will be impacted by these other elements, including the quantity, the velocity, the rate in which water is absorbed into the soils, the weirs that were put in different parts of the county that are holding back the water heights artificially. All that stuff is going to have an impact with FEMA. And I'm just wondering why we haven't got a program that brings all that together instead of piecemealing it out over the years separately. In the meantime we're going to be paying more. You may not have an answer, Joe -- MR. SCHMITT: I don't have an answer on the organization. But the flood insurance rate maps -- and I gave you all the backup on it, it's been going on since '98 or '99 when we were going to sue FEMA because we disputed the maps in 2000 that they wanted to issue. We stated they were based on faulty science and technical data. We then entered a partnership between South Florida Water Management District, Collier County and FEMA, working with their provider, at that time -- well, now it's Baker and Associates, who -- under the national flood insurance program. And working to revise the flood insurance rate maps, based on the most current and available data. And that has been an ongoing effort for almost four years. Naturally developments take place and things evolve. The watershed management plan as a separate initiative from the standpoint that was budgeted and the board said we would have that. We said we would finish by 2012, the GMP said it would be finished by 2010. The -- I guess the question you're asking, can we delay the flood insurance rate maps until the other studies are done? That's a decision that would be made at the federal level. We've been providing all the data through my consultant, Tomasello Engineering, been providing the data and working in cooperation and partnership with FEMA's provider, Baker and Associates, to produce what is now going to be called the digital flood insurance rate map, or DFIRMS. Yes, they -- more data is available. Every year you get changes in -- either in structures, if Jerry's out doing work, if he's doing work in the Lely -- or the L.A.S.J.P. project, wherever, that does impact future studies. We provide that data and then they will issue maps. They allege now that with the digital maps it will be far easier to amend than the old paper copies. But we're going to be -- in fact, we're going to be one of the first counties, actually, to go into what is called the digital flood insurance rate maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad's original question is the linking of all these. There is a definite Page 52 16 I 1 'sA3er 21109 link. And we will be benefiting, or maybe it could hurt us, who knows, when the watershed management plan comes out. And I wish it was all happening now. Because as you know from our last meeting, it sure would be beneficial to have all this on the table for one conclusion in front ofFEMA, instead of having to change it right after we get it initiated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one main concern is how -- what form the data's going to be in. Because in the thing we discussed before, as we build in some of these areas out west, we're affecting other people within the block, outside of block, and we have no way of knowing what that's doing other than observations you're going to come up with. MR. FEDER: We know a little more, but we're working with the watershed management plans and question how they pull together the FEMA flood maps. It's a related but a separate issues as far as stormwater is concerned. We're working directly, though, on the watershed management plans. We're performing our end of the role. It's been a study for a number of years. Projects being implemented, improvements being made to address problems are coming through stormwater. So when you ask on the organizational structure and how it's being done, we're addressing not only just flooding but also water quality, both of which should be addressed. But also your watershed master plan is in CDES because it goes beyond just the stormwater issues to land use, zoning, all the other issues that need to be addressed if you're going to manage a watershed area. So we're providing our support and our issues on it. And as I said, we've got a full plate on projects we're moving on now. But our future projects, our years six through 10, should come out of and we have a lot more modeling and priorities set through the watershed master planning to allow us to direct those upcoming years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the point, that it should be one process when you think of it. I mean, once a -- it's all caused by a storm. A smaller -- MR. FEDER: Well, it is and it isn't. Without the storm you're still managing. I don't have to have a storm to say that I don't want to do what they did in the Everglades, which is drain the swamps so effectively during the wet season and the dry season nobody has any water. So there's a lot of things you're trying to balance there. We're starting to get a better data, we have the LIDAR through the CDES efforts, related again to the floodplain mapping. So they're all related. They're being coordinated through. I also have pollution where something hits on the side of a road and toxins coming into the stream. That's over in utilities. Are they coordinated with us? Yes. Is there a separate issue and a separate focus program? Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the only reason I asked the question, is $100,000 enough in one year to do all that? MR. FEDER: And understand, that isn't the funding for watershed master planning. That is the funding to take our inventory data and to go into priority setting, working with the data and the modeling that's coming out of the watershed master plans. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where does the watershed master plan -- that's in Joe's -- MR. FEDER: That's in Joe's shop in CDES. But again, Jerry, John, others on my staff are very directly involved with staffing and coordinating on that watershed master planning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, are you -- the L.A.S.I.P. project, do you fall under the House Senate Bill 360 for South Florida permit extensions under that? You know they sent a notice out to everybody holding a South Florida permit that you can get extended. All you've got to do is apply for it by the end of the year. So I don't know if the South Florida permit side of it you could benefit from that. As far as the Corps side of it goes, if you don't modifY or expand the Corps permit and you just want to extend the expiration date, that's a rather simple task. And the Corps generally goes along with it, especially if you show reasons why it can be done. I've done that on projects, big projects, and it's not a problem. MR. FEDER: We may be there before it's over with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, you can't extend the Corps permit till 12 months before it expires. But if you apply at that time frame, you might get the extension rather easily. It's basically a letter delineating why. So anyway. Page 53 16 I 1 , st':e~er 2109 We can move on then to page -- Jeny, I guess we left off on two pages; we're on 38, 39 and from there. MR. KURTZ: The -- is your 38 table one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. KURTZ: Okay. Table one was developed to show the progress we're making on the big four, our big four projects. It's more of a technical water management table, but fairly easy to understand. Basically your projects involve improving water quality, which is how much acre feet of storage you're going to provide in each project. And flood attenuation, which is controlling the discharge rate. So for each of the projects, Gordon River, Freedom Park, Lely, Gateway and Belle Meade, we're got a row going across for each one of those. We identified the level of service need. Our deficient -- or our need and where we're at today, how much we've gotten constructed of that need. Like in the Freedom Park you can see, which is done, we've provided all the water quality treatment in that project. So there's nothing to [mish in the subsequent five years and no shortfall on water quality. Compare that to Lely, the next one down. There's the need and there's what we've built to date. In the next five years we're going to do 75 more acre feet, and also have no shortfall when we're done. And on down, Gateway's a little bit more of a challenge. We know the deficiency out there. What we did is we -- with Gateway we -- very challenging project. We need more land if we want to provide water quality for the whole triangle area. We're working with the CRA to see if that's feasible. But we bought up all the land that was vacant, and that's where these numbers are coming from. We've built part of the pond. Within the next five years -- actually with the next year we're going to build -- enlarge the pond a little bit more. But we still have a pretty good shortfall there. But we're working with the CRA to see if we can buy more land in the triangle as part of the redevelopment of the area. And it's looking like there's a good possibility that we can. So the Gateway project, even though we're showing it [mishing up next year, it's possible we could work in subsequent years and even get more water quality on that project. Belle Meade is in kind of a holding pattern, dependent on the watershed study being complete for that basin. Just makes sense to -- since we're busy with what we have currently on our task, if we could wait till the watershed plans are done, we thought that would be prudent, so that's why it has the footnote all the way across. And basically moving over from water quality to flood attenuation, it's the same, our rationale, to work through the chart just showing the level of service need, where we're at currently, what we're going to complete in the next five years, and any shortfall that would exist when we get done. So I'm sure there's questions about that chart. If you want, I can take those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, we guessed that one wrong. That means there's something wrong with the chart. We're supposed to have asked the questions. MS. VASEY: Next page. MS. DOWNS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Must have a real problem with Gateway. MR. KURTZ: Table two is really the gist of our program. It's broken down into some sections. We've got capital improvement projects. These are basically the big four. And we've added a fifth one, the Immokalee that I talked about. These are the ones that are listed in the Growth Management Plan drainage sub-element showing our funding for the next year and the out-years. Below that are some non-CIE projects. Actually the remainder of our program. We've got a couple of projects in there, including our NPDES program. And then below that is the revenue side. So this is just an expense in revenue of our program. Things to point out is in the revenue side, the money that we're receiving from South Florida and Big Cypress Basin, it's been coming in consistently. And even though they would only really guarantee or commit to one or two years out, '10 and' I], they do have a lO-year plan that shows that they're going to commit on through. Butthey're, like us all, there's no guarantees, but it's been very consistent. And part of that money is coming from the -- it pays our debt service for the Freedom Park project. So if there's any questions on any of this information, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 54 1611' ~emb.l, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you make a comment earlier that you had some DCA dollars in place, some developer contributions? And where -- MR. KURTZ: No, not dollars from developers. They've been -- we've been successful getting easements from developers at no cost. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Downs, then Ms. Vasey. MS. DOWNS: Just so I don't have to go back and look this up. The newspaper would love all these letters. What is NPDES- TMDL? Refresh me. MR. KURTZ: That's the federal program that's administered by the State National Pollutant Elimination and Discharge program. It's administered by the FDEP. And the county has a permit, an NPDES permit. And any municipality that operates a stormwater, stormwater management system has to have an NPDES permit. And we've had one for about three, four years now. And we've been in compliant (sic) every year. We have one person on our staff who's the -- majority of his job is to stay -- to keep us assured that we're in compliance with the program, the permit. The permit is really a program that has some educational commitments that we make about water quality, and he works county-wide with pollution control, utilities, all the divisions really. And this permit affects everybody in the county as far as operating the surface water management system responsibly. MS. DOWNS: Do you get any grant money toward that specifically? MR. KURTZ: Do we get -- I don't believe we get any grant money from that, no, but it's not an expensive program . MR. FEDER: Jerry, explain what TMDL is and explain what happens if we're not served by them. MR. KURTZ: TMDL is the next step. TMDL is a way the federal government is going to try to -- similar to air pollution credits, they're going to try to determine how -- total maximum daily load is the -- what the acronym means. And they are going to quantify how much pollution people are putting into the water bodies. And they're going to assign a number basically to every basin or every permit holder. So that's really the head of the program is the TMDLs. But it's being implemented slowly. They go through by basins, by watersheds. So that again ties into us having -- studying our watershed, having appropriate zoning and land use planning measures in place. Proper -- another acronym you hear is BMP's, Best Management Practices. These are all the current state-of-the-art terms for water management and where we're going with the state and federal requirements to basically totally know your whole system. If there's a spill somewhere, we're required to know exactly where that contaminate is going to go so we can quickly take action and capture it before it goes into a water body. So it's all a good thing. It's kind of -- it's forming, it's slowly forming, and we're working on it and we're in line with all the latest. We're right where we need to be on it. MR. FEDER: And we are. Just very quickly, I want you to be aware that those two acronyms, if we keep certified under NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination, if we keep consistent and certified there, then we don't have the state come in and control our activities through total daily maximum load requirements that they place on the area. So we've kept ourselves so to speak, back to the analogy, as near quality area we don't have a problem, so we're not hit with those extra burdens and requirements on every development by public and by private here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Before I go with a question on this page, I've got to back up for a second. Mr. Chairman, did you say that in applying for the extension to Corps permits it's not a problem, it's a very simple thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an -- when the question was asked, I thought the question was phrased can we get -- when are we going to apply for the expansion of the Corps permit. And at one point I heard a response talking about a modification. Those two would cause quite concern and quite a lot of time and problem. But to extend an existing Corps Page 55 16 I 1 se:teA3, 20J permit it's routinely you start the process, they don't even allow you to apply for 12 months prior to the current expiration. And it's just a matter of showing justification that you proceeded due diligently as far as you could, you've run into some time problems or in the case that I was using it was economics, and the Corps provided more time. It wasn't a much -- it wasn't a difficult process just to extend an existing permit that remains basically unchanged. MS. VASEY: Now my question was not expansion, it was extension. How does that jive with your answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just telling you from my experience I just -- not too long ago, so -- MS. VASEY: I appreciate that. I'd like to hear now why that's not a problem, why this is such a big problem to go for an extension. MR. KURTZ: Well, sure. I've never -- I haven't extended the Corps permit, the time frame ofthe Corps permit, and I really don't want to. The fact that it took us ] 5 years to get the Corps permit and it was just such a long process in having to go up through EP A and everything. Our -- maybe there's a difference. Our L.A.S.J.P. project is more of a flood mitigation project. It has water quality components, but it was very tricky. There were guiding principles with the LAS.J.P. project. Some ofthem were to stay in current corridors where there was existing canals. But to put in various water control structures, it's just a -- it's a very tricky project and permit. And we're in a rhytlnn right now. And if -- I don't know, it might be viewed differently. In fact, the few meetings that we have had with the Corps, every time the possibility came up we were briefly scolded a little bit and just told to just build it, get it done on time and you'll be fme. But that's kind of the feedback] got. Maybe it's a difference in the nature of the two. It's not a classic land development straightforward water management project. It's one that we did the best we could. And there was many reasons why we got more scrutiny. Because again, the basis is to move a lot of water from point A to point B to remediate flooding, and we had to do a lot of different things with -- to get our water quality. For instance, we have a pumping station that when one canal is flowing at an extreme peak, we can turn on this pumping station that will actually lift the water up out of the canal and pump it into a wetland over by Treviso Bay. And that was a measure viewed as just a way to -- we're doing both things: We're moving a lot of water to prevent flooding, but then we're nourishing a wetland with part of the water. So the L.A.S.J.P. project is very unique. And I've got to say that, you know, in my opinion we might have a harder time trying to justify an extension of the completion date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. I mean, from my experience, it was different than his, and he may have a bigger problem if he's got a controversial issue. The ones I had to do did not have. MS. VASEY: Okay, because we really beat this horse over the budget process. I kept hearing no, you can't extend, no, you can't extend, we've got to finish it on time. And, you know, if that's not quite accurate, I'd really like to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've extended it at least twice, two different projects for the Corps -- or with the Corps. So that's my experience. But neither one of them were the kind -- MR. FEDER: As you get closer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that he's talking about. MR. FEDER: As you get closer to the date, the end of your permit, if we have to extend we go forward, we find out whether there's an opportunity to extend. What] will tell you, because Jerry works too intimately with it and worked with -- I guess ]5 years to get a permit. What we first were dealing with there was a major flooding problem. Our issue in stormwater has been both attenuation but also water quality. But in that project, the reason it took] 4 years is nobody could come up with a way to truly meet the desired and growing demands on water quality and still keep water out of people's homes that was going into homes. And so there was a number acquiescence and handwringing on the fact that you were doing a little bit more in attenuation, flood control than in water quality throughout the L.A.S.J.P. permit area. We did do some things, a modification. Over that ]4 years we got some more water quality issues incorporated. But when you come back in, and as I put it, some of the roads too in some areas of this county, when you basically build the house, CO it, move the people in and then decide to put the plumbing in, it gets rather difficult. And so that's what you're trying to do is replumb a stormwater system for a vast area where it's already developed, and so there's a lot of compromises there in handling them on both sides. And they fmally issued the Page 56 16 I lPteLe~, 209 ~ us, again maybe for the productivity -- full productivity committee if that dedicated funding source was dropped from 1.5 million to .I 0 million, that would be -- I'm sorry, .] 5 to .I O. That would be about a $3 million cut in your FY II to FY ] 4. And see, you know, what might drop out of the program with that, and also a recognition that if you are successful you don't have that extra million dollars of grant money that you're working on now in the program, but some of these things could be bought back if you had a successful grant program. MR. FEDER: First of all, we'll do that if that's your request. What I will tell you, though, make sure everybody realizes, that .15 mill is of assessed value. The only part of the budget that was millage neutral was stormwater. It already has had more than a $3 million cut that we see here. That's why we extended some of the L.A.S.J.P. out and other issues. Obviously we can look at further cuts and what would happen, but you end up with product out. What you're doing too is you had the master plan for Immokalee was approved. That's why you're starting into some items in the new fifth year. It's the outer years five years out, it's not next year. You're asking us to look at next year. If you take it out, that has reverberations, just as the transportation, just to make sure you're aware, through all of the five years. And so you're not asking for .5 mills for one year, you're asking for five years worth. And so we'll have to show that in that nature. The other is that you've already done the cut. In the Golden Gate you do have a lot of class pipe, you've got some roadways that are getting undermined by some of those pipes. You did your first design plarming, you did the inventory and design plarming. This is a projection of what would be some of the costs coming up into the future. That's why it's more, because you didn't have the inventory in some of the first designs previously, just to answer that other question. But yeah, if that's your request, obviously we'll look at it and give you what the implications would be. MS. VASEY: That really does go back to the same issue of how much money will be available for capital projects from the general fund if we do have a major reduction. MR. FEDER: And your impact fees and other issues and everything we're dealing with, yes. MS. VASEY: Right. And this program did come in -- you know, it's another one that kind of came in when we had a lot of money. And maybe it's an opportunity to just take another look at it now that we don't have that kind of extra money. MR. FEDER: And again, this program only relies upon what the assessed values are. And that's why it was the one that went down significantly with the '10 budget request. MS. VASEY: Yeah, it seemed like it went from maybe 12 to 10 or something. MR. FEDER: It actually went down -- MR. KURTZ: To nine. MR. FEDER: -- to nine from 12. It went down about three million just in '09 -- in '10 budget. MS. VASEY: ']0 is showing 9.959. MR. FEDER: Yes, in total. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, and Janet asked the question, and Jerry, I heard your answer, that you're still trying to get your arms around some of these things, like the Golden Gate City one. MR. KURTZ: Well the approach, not the need. I mean, the need's really obvious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't have design yet, you don't have all the details yet, then why do you know you need to spend that kind of money? Wouldn't we be better served if you didn't show what you didn't know you need to spend and then later on as you amended and got more information as the years went on in future AU]R's, then show what you really needed. And that would not only have an impact on the Golden Gate one but possibly the Immokalee one. And Norm, I thought I heard you say that you guys had a new Immokalee master plan. Is it the stormwater master plan or are you talking about -- MR. FEDER: Stormwater master plan. Page 58 " 16 1 1 seA~r 2]19 ~'l permits after all those years with those frustrations. So our concern is, and yes, there are opportunities to ask for an extension, if we get to that point. We may have to ask for one anyway. But with all those issues and with more and more people coming in and more and more focus on water quality, we're concerned about having to reopen that issue, if that's what it comes to. But we'll do what we have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Janet, the safest thing to do with the Corps is never have to go back to them. I didn't know that you had previously tried to do that. But if we can avoid it, that's the smartest thing to do. Because the Corps is very dif -- with the exception of Mr. Schmitt, the Corps is very difficult to deal with. MS. VASEY: Well, frankly, I worked for the Department of the Army for a number of years, including the Corps of Engineers, and it's probably not even part of the Army. It doesn't seem like it. MR. SCHMITT: Hey, hey. (Laughter.) MS. VASEY: We used to have a lot of fun. We never wanted to do projects with the Corps because their cost was always 20 percent more than you could get it on the local economy, right, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: It was called OPM, other people's money. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: The truth comes out now. MS. VASEY: Okay, I did have a question on Page 39. Under your non-CIE improvements, you've got Golden Gate City, outfall main and repair. Last AUIR, that was about a 1.2 million program over the AUIR period and now it's about 5.5 million. Why is it going up? MR. KURTZ: Well, we've seen our cost drop significantly, I would say that as far as that. But as well we're spending a lot of time right now getting our arms around this one. This one's another unique one. It's basically going in between the streets and the canal and figuring out how to replace these rotten old 40-year-old metal pipes. We're looking at full-blown designs versus slip-lining the pipes versus replacingjust sections going in and videotaping or camera-ing (sic) the pipes. So what we've been doing this year and we'll spend a little more time the beginning of our new year is really trying to formulate our approach to this project. So the numbers are not solid numbers yet, but as we go through the out years -- I always approach these kind of projects in a -- I break it down into reasonable size pieces. A lot of people want to attack the whole thing and identify all the needs at once. We'll do that in a sense, but the way we'll get the work done is in smaller pieces, until we really know what we've got. And then when we hit that rhythm, we could boost it up. So the end result was a change in a number or decrease in the number, but it possibly could come back up as we really figure out what the best way is to do this. We're really not sure right now. MS. VASEY: Jerry, it increased from 1.2 to 5.5. So you're putting another $4 million into the program in the AUIR period. MR. KURTZ: Well, we're just -- we have to decide whether we're going to do full-blown designs on this versus more go in and dig up what we have and see. Well, one of the big things with this project is we don't know -- we don't think we're going to need complicated permits, we think we can just get a maintenance permit. But again, some of these working in between houses, we really don't know what we're getting into. So we're trying to project it out and get our arms around it. One of the things we did is we did do a complete inventory of everything. So we know exactly how many pipes there are and the locations. Now we're going to go through and basically grade them and look for collapses and we're going to prioritize how we get them done and try to group them into areas where it makes sense to go in and disturb one area and stay out of another area and move through that. So that's what we're really spending our time on right now with that project. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but it's another unique project that we have that we're just trying to develop an approach to it right now. MS. VASEY: Okay. And your Immokalee project now has about 7, $8 million in it. And it did not exist in last year's AUIR. So what I'm feeling here is that there's a lot of new programs that are coming in this year's AUIR or big expansions this year compared to last year. And I recognize that this program is funded by .] 5 mills that are dedicated and everything. Could you give Page 57 1611A3 ;J Jeptember 21'09 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that coincide to Immokalee's new master plan that hasn't been even adopted yet; do we know? MR. FEDER: It's coming out of the CRA and it's being coordinated with them. The master plan -- storm water master plan was done and approved by the board conceptually. As they work through their master plan we expect there'll be some modifications to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: But it is coming out of the CRA and the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you set up the budget for your drainage, do you set it up to meet the money you have coming in, or do you develop the amount of money you need based on what you have to do? MR. FEDER: I have needs that far exceed the monies. So in effect, just like in the other areas, you take the dollars, your revenue stream, identify your projects, your project cost and then try to meet as many of the needs as you can. There are needs not met here. And so I could put a box of those dollars, if it stays at .] 5 mills, even at assessed value. That's what you've got here is a budget that assumes that. And the grant monies we know, although we're seeking other monies, but the needs aren't fully met here out in Immokalee, out in Golden Gate City. We've addressed some of the needs in -- Gateway Triangle is not met. We'll have L.A.S.J.P. completed at the end of this project. What we're going to be doing in Gordon River we'll probably have accomplished. But we're moving on to others. Now what we looking forward and working hard in coordination with the other entities is the watershed management plans and the ability for that to give us new and clearer and more specific documentation in needs that drive the program further into the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I am a bit puzzled by some of it is that you've jumped from FY 20 I 0 for Golden Gate City from a quarter million to four times that amount just two years later -- MR. FEDER: That's when we look -- CHA]RMAN STRA]N: -- and many times even that two years after that. MR. FEDER: And that's because that's when we're starting to wind down on the commitments in L.A.S.J.P. and the ability to move that in. Those needs out in Golden Gate City are closer than that, but the funding is not available sooner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I have two other questions. And your number one, Freedom Park maintenance and monitoring, you have a half million dollars at $] 00,000 a year. You transferred that to the parks department, the -- MR. FEDER: The maintenance and ongoing operations of the facility as a park, yes. However, we're still responsible for the cleanup, the monitoring and the maintenance of the water quality, the lakes and the water quality features of the park itself for five years as part of the Florida community trust funds that we got to help purchase the land and build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where is the sale of the -- you know, your drainage department received revenue from the parks department, I would assume. MR. FEDER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, how do you show the transfer of one asset to the other? MR. FEDER: There is a process in the budget where they're moving it over. Essentially, though, we're not charged them for that asset. We developed as a water quality park and they're getting the added features of maintaining it as a park in the park system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then on the revenue fund number one, Freedom Park and land cost reimbursement, $5 million. What is that? Now what kind -- where's that money coming from? MR. FEDER: Which one? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's number one under your revenue fund on Page 39. MR. FEDER: Number one, okay. Freedom Park land cost reimbursement. That is a million a year that is coming to us from the Water Management District as part of the southern blocks. When the southern blocks were handed over, there was a commitment of a million a year, and that's what helped the other portion of buying the land for the water quality park, now the Freedom Park. That's the monies we're getting a million a year from. Big Cypress Basin for 20 years for the 20 million Page 59 1611'lJ\3 September 2 1,2009 i1i~: (i.j '''...~ commitment for the southern blocks in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it under the Freedom Park plan then? MR. FEDER: Because that's what we used that money for was to buy that property as a water quality park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you go to the regional park land inventory-- MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they have an acquisition of the Freedom Park of 25.] 6 acres for a value of 5.786800. So they're not spending any money or transferring anything to acquire this park, they're getting this park basically as a gift free and clear. You're spending money, but you're spending it from another income source that has nothing to do with the Freedom Park, but you're just using that money for it? I don't understand how that's all -- MR. FEDER: To develop the water quality park we had to develop the park in much the marmer that we've done. That was a condition of the Florida Communities Trust to get that grant. That's also what I'm having to monitor. I also had to provide public access and make it open to the public with the trails and walkways. We could keep it as a water quality park, Freedom Park now, but it made more sense to allow the unit that works with these issues, parks and rec., to maintain the parks and rec.'s feature and the access features of it. And that's how we've got a structure be done. I'll refer over to Barry. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. I don't know if] have an answer for you, but I can explain a couple of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WILLIAMS: We've listed it in our regional park land as an increase of25. I think it's 25.16 acres. MR. KURTZ: That's correct. MR. WILLIAMS: And we've identified it not as a purchase but as a transfer, an intergovernmental transfer from transportation. The park itself though is actually managed by three entities. Norm mentioned the stormwater aspects of it, which is why the park was developed in the beginning. There is the 25 acres that we managed the boardwalks, there are picnic pavilions, there's an interpretive center that we will solicit volunteers and run, and so that's the component that Parks and Rec. would have. There's another portion of it, though, closer to the Gordon River greenway -- or Gordon River, actually, that Conservation Collier actually has acquired, and so they will be managing that section. But it is split up amongst three. ]t is primarily a water quality park, and that's our role that we'll play in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, you said that a million a year is coming from South Florida Water Management District for something to do with the south blocks? MR. FEDER: The south blocks, when we gave up the south blocks for rehydrating the Everglades, that was the payment for all the road rights-of-way and the like that were owed. The 20 million was spent on purchasing this property, the old Fleischmarm -- the other Fleischmarm property for the water quality park. That million a year is being paid to us as being used as the debt service to payoff the 20 million purchase pnce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the money that you received for the south blocks, there was no tie to any specific project for that, it could be spent anywhere in the county? MR. FEDER: No, it has no tie to it. It was used. Naturally half of it will be used here, because we did get ]I) million from Florida Communities Trust. The other 10 million eventually in later years will come into the transportation fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? MR. W]LLIAMS: If I could just add one thing. Just one other thing about the south blocks transfer, and what Norm describes. There is another component of that that's found in our regional parkland with ATV. Part of that agreement with the south blocks was to find an ATV, a place for ATV riders. And so we've identified 625 acres that we're still working with South Florida Water Management to receive. We anticipate -- and not to get into parks AUIR, I know you're going to spend some time with this, but just to mention that was part of that deal too. Page 60 1611A3 I September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I guess Jerry, the last page is number 40, huh? It's just a map, so -- MR. KURTZ: Yeah, that's a map showing what the South Florida Water Management maintains in blue and what we maintain. And that's what I call ours is a secondary system, and South Florida maintains the primary system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there an action on this one? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, I have a quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question? COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Jerry, when you look at a -- we'll call it a ditch to be rude, but an isolated ditch, that's essentially like a retention area? Is that all that is? Is do these all have outflows even -- MR. KURTZ: Oh, they all have outfalls. There are some segments that might be maintained by a developer, but everything is connected up. It's hard to show the detail on this level, so we hesitated. But it gives you the big picture. But there are some things, some little intricacies that you can't tell by this map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the next question, the answer may be the same, is that there are some isolated control structures; that's the same answer, correct? .. MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's the end of stormwater. Maybe Jerry, or Norm, would there be an advantage to the county -- we keep harping about the fire departments to consolidate and they will not do that because it's -- who knows why. But you have three departments in this county now that deal with water: Stormwater management, floodplain management and watershed management. Would there be any benefit to the taxpayers to combine those into one group under one department? MR. FEDER: Again, when you get to watershed management plans, you cannot do that solely from stormwater only. That is also land use decisions and zoning requirements and the like. And I would tell you that I don't know that there's a value in moving the production away from where it has been, because while it took us a while to get started, I think the production of projects and the improvements being made are being handled very well by stormwater. We just need to make sure that our plarming and coordination and how we define and develop projects is consistent with the broader issues of the land use and the like. So I don't necessarily see it as a value. It's something that can be looked at. I'm sure the Productivity has looked at before as well. But I will tell you that you don't have all of the pieces in stormwater to do watershed management plarming. You don't have all of the pieces in watershed management plarming to produce product. We tried that for quite a few years. Even when I first came onboard we kept pI arming it and we never did it. Now that plarming is moved over into CDES, they did it, it is where it is and we're getting something done and I'd like to keep it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern rose mostly because had I'm sure the floodplain management committee that's studying this FEMA stuff realized, or the board of county commissioner realized -- the commission realized that the watershed management plan would have a bearing on the floodplain and FEMA outcome, there may have been more of an incentive to get the watershed management done in coordination with the FEMA outcome so that they could have benefited if there is a benefit to be perceived. MR. FEDER: And I'm not sure they understood that as fully as ] think you reviewed it today, I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Again, I think the confusion is the watershed management plan is a what if. And you're correct, if the plans would have been done probably five years ago and said these are the things you ought to do to improve the system, then of course it would have had an impact on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. But the maps are produced based on what's on the ground today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: It's based on what exists, how the weirs operate, how the district operates outflow. Had the -- like I said, had the plans been done and the plans identified shortcomings in the water management system and that those shortcomings could, and the operative word could, have had an impact on water management Page 6] 1611~\~ , September-f1,200P systems in Collier County, which then could have -- would have -- if they were funded and constructed, then the Flood Insurance Rate Maps would have reflected that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly what I have perceived from this discussion today. It's unfortunate we didn't see that years ago and moved those watershed management plans forward faster. But we didn't, and it's over with, so with that in mind, is there a position the Plarming Commission wishes to take on the county drainage canals and structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a second? Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISS]ONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- we're now 5-0. Let the record show by the way Mr. Murray left at lunchtime. And Janet, you're a majority of one. Do you want to discuss it amongst yourselves? MS. VASEY: I don't think I can second by motion. Could we wait until Gina comes back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. You knew that was going to happen sooner or later today, huh? MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is the -- oh, unless you want all want to wait to see what Janet's got to say, or she can communicate with you afterwards based on whatever recommendation they have. Next item up is the utility department. First item under theirs is the county potable water facilities. And Phil, we see you once a year -- well, more often, a couple times a year. It's good to see you again. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities, and I am here to answer your question about potable water, wastewater and solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that's the trade of yours, you don't waste any time on the small stuff, you're right down to the point. MR. GRAMA TGES: ] do not want to waste your time, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Okay, with that presentation, are there questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Phil, this is the yearly question. But in the discussion oflevel of service, part of our county is, or Collier County is, served by the City of Naples. Is there any analysis of how these people are meeting a level of service? MR. GRAMATGES: No, sir, there is no analysis on our part on the City of Naples or any of the other utilities that surround us. The only exception would be Orangetree, because as you probably know, we are in a contract to take over their utility in 2012. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, you know, we've had discussions especially in the fIre task force about how deficient those areas are. So is it fair to just orphan them and not deal with -- I mean, in an AUIR I know we don't provide them, but they are still part of our county. Page 62 16 I 1 s+enAr 3,2001 . MR. GRAMA TGES: Sir, we don't have any authority; that is, the public utilities has no authority and no way to really address that. It would have to come from the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: If they direct us to do that, of course we will. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: What I was wondering, could we at least maybe next year at least you could tell us what level of service they have and how they're -- ] mean, because we -- you know, again, we just orphan them and move on as if they didn't exist. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, I think that if you look at the 10-year water supply plan that we provided to -- no, I'm sorry, I take that back, they were not included there. But they have to submit a lO-year water supply plan to DCA, and I would suspect that that's a public document. So that's probably listed there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The City of Naples? MR. GRAMATGES: The City of Naples, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you maybe drag a copy into our report too? MR. COHEN: And I can tell you that is correct. They have submitted water facility supply plans. I can tell you what Marco Island's is in terms of their LOS, and it's actually 225 gallons per day per capita. It's that high. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the concern, you know -- and again, it's more for fire flow that I'm bringing it up, that it is deficient in other parts of our county, which we ignore in this thing. The other question, Phil, is everything here in our county connected? Essentially all-- if one ran dry, there's lines connecting the whole system together? MR. GRAMA TGES: As far as the water system is concerned, the water district, yes, it is fully interconnected. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Maybe -- ] was wondering, is the ability to provide a summary of everything together, or you're still keeping it broken down into different districts, correct? MR. GRAMA TGES: For the potable water, no, it's only one district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: Years ago we used to have two districts, but that was really not consistent because of the interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then] must have missed the combined -- okay, thank you. MR. GRAMA TGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on the potable water side of it? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, I do. There is a two million gallon daily increase capacity plarmed for 2012. It's the high pressure reverse osmosis expansion in north county. Looking at the chart on Page W-4, it doesn't really appear that you need that additional capacity in 2012, it looks like you need it quite a bit further down the road. Is there some reason that you're plarming to do it in 2012? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. The reason for that expansion has nothing to do with capacity. The well-field that feeds the north water plant was completed in 1999, and that was part of an eight mgd, eight million gallons per day, reverse osmosis expansion. Shortly after we began to use the well-field that feeds that reverse osmosis plant, we lost the use of the first four wells, one through four. They're on the westernmost end of the well-field. The reason is that the water that was coming out of those wells was very saline; it became very saline. Our medium pressure, our 0 system, cannot treat water of that salinity. So we had to shut down those four wells. The concern we have is that there is an upflow, up-counting the hydrogeologists call it, that is bringing saline water from some aquifer that's below the lower Hawthorne. And that has a possibility in the longer term to contaminate all of the other wells in the well-field. It was a recommendation of our consultants that we should extract and process that water in order to keep it from expanding into the rest of the well-field. So this expansion, this two mgd, is for high pressure RO in order to enable us to treat that highly saline water. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Page 63 16 I 1 ~~tembeAI3009 ; (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year that 2.0 was actually a 3.9 plant in the same year, in 20] 2. I'm just wondering what the difference -- MR. GRAMATGES: That was a different project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, that was the addition of the Orangetree facility in 2012. But we are not interconnecting them that early anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's been modified. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when does that -- is that the one that shows up in 2023? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your retained reliable capacity target values, what signifies what those will be? How do you determine what those are? Because they're a range from one minimum to six maximum. MR. GRAMA TGES: Yeah, typically it takes eight years for us for to be able to bring a brand new plant on line. And what we are trying to determine is what is the window that we have to react. Whenever the capacity for us to provide service goes below a number which is the lower number, we know that we have to at that time have the capacity to increase it. And when we increase it, we increase it by enough capacity to cover us for eight years. So that's how we determine the mix (sic) and man -- max. We need to have some sort of criteria to determine in an objective manner when do we need capacity and when that capacity needs to be put in line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that number's half of what it was last year. Last year you had a higher retained maximum. MR. GRAMA TGES: That is correct. And the reason for that is simply that the population growth has diminished considerably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what that's from. Also, I know it's not -- and I want you to confirm with me that it's not -- in this plan. And the immediate plan is that south proposed SERWTP? MR. GRAMATGES: SERWTP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Southeast regional water treatment plant. MR. GRAMATGES: Southeast regional water treatment plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that that one on Manatee? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. Yeah, that's the one on Manatee. That particular plant is now falling outside of the 20-year plarming horizon. The reason why it's there is because it was in that plan at that time. And we know that whenever we need expansion in that area, that's where we would like to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the time] know Mike forwarded a question from me to you -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you responded that that plant will be kind of connected, interconnected with the other plant in -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that area, and so it will not have a precise service area? MR. GRAMA TGES: No, as ] mentioned to Ms. Vasey, we have only one district for water, because they're fully interconnected. So it will be indeed interconnected with all the others. Now, since the growth that we saw is coming in the northeast and the southeast, that's where the capacity expansions are plarmed. And they will -- that water will eventually end up mostly in the southeast area. But it's not in any particular district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think for Randy Cohen and Mike Bosi's department, in the CIE under the Objective 1.3, and there's numerous objectives within the FLUE and the CCME as well that talk about public expenditures in coastal high hazard areas. The way it reads, it would lead you to believe that the only thing that plant could service is needs within the coastal high hazard area. And I'll read it to you. Page 64 16 , 1 sJpteJle31'201 Policy 132: The calculated needs for public facilities will be based in the adopted level of service standards and future growth projections within the coastal high hazard area. I know you don't need this plant now, but if you look at the various elements concerning the coastal high hazard area in both the CCME and the FLUE and the CIE, you may want to suggest some GMP changes to tweak it so that this plant can go there without any conflict in the GMP, if your review warrants it. So Ijust thought I'd point it out. And it's not a matter that apparently is going to be needed right away. But I'd hate to see that conflict come up in the future, if it is an issue. Is there anybody else that has any questions concerning the potable water? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Maybe just one more. On Page W -- well, I guess it's Page 50, you show expansion related projects of$18 million, and impact fees of about ]0 million, 9.6. About half of what your projects are. Is there any possibility that you might delay some of those because the impact fees are not coming in? MR. GRAMA TGES: The impact fee numbers that you hear are principally related to projects that are ongoing from previous years. We are completing some very large projects at this time. And the 2 mgd RO expansion that we spoke about earlier, since it brings expansion at this point ip. time, we have it under impact fees. That's all there is there. i The possibility of bringing that number below that is very remote, simply because there's not really a lot of impact fee related work that's going on. In fact, ] would say there's none with the exception of 2 mgd. MS. VASEY: Okay, well, this is a situation then where you'll be borrowing from your capital -- your regular account to pay for the impact fee shortages? MR. GRAMATGES: You're absolutely right. Our impact fee debt service is about $10 million a year, in fact, 10.5, as you can see -- 10.6, you can see there. There's not enough impact fees coming in to pay for this, so we are borrowing from the ratepayers fees, from the rate fees. MS. VASEY: And when does that -- does that start in FY 11? MR. GRAMA TGES: That starts -- that has started already. It will continue. At this point in time it will continue until 2012 we foresee. MS. VASEY: Okay. So it started in FY ] 0 then? MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ]f not, we'll entertain a motion from the Plarming Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward the county potable water with a recommendation of approval as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. I'd like to ask one caveat, and it doesn't need to -- just so the record's clear, I would like the comprehensive plarming department to make sure they resolve this potential conflict with the CHHA. And it can be done at any time, but I think it would be better, because] -- if this plan is built 20 years from now, I'll still be sitting here asking this question. And I'd hate to have you stumble around at that point and not know an answer. Be forwarned is what I'm warning you. MR. BOS]: As Randy pointed out to me during the EAR-based process, which is just beginning in earnest, this is the opportunity to make the modifications as you suggested, and we appreciate it, and I'll point it out to the appropriate reviewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that said, motion's been made and seconded to accept it. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMM]SSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 65 16 I 1 se~3;12],19 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. And you've got two motion to make, right? MS. VASEY: Yes. I'd like to make the same motion on the water. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Okay, that passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one prior to this you wanted to make a motion on? MS. VASEY: Yes, I'd like to go back to the stormwater now. I think I'd like to make a motion to request stormwater staff to provide what programs would be impacted if $3 million of general fund revenue was reduced each year for FY ] 1 through FY 14. And that would be kind of assuming a dedicated millage rate was reduced from .]5 to .10. Motion made. MS. DOWNS: Second. I had it worded a little differently. MS. VASEY: Oh, would you like to make-- MS. DOWNS: No, no. MS. VASEY: -- a change? MS. DOWNS: Just] said reallocate based on the millage of .10. MS. VASEY: Okay, that's good. MS. DOWNS: So do you want to second my motion? MS. VASEY: How about] would accept that change. Okay, all in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're wrapped up everything through potable water. Let's take -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right before we go here, I mean, let me ask Mike. Mike, do we have any obligation to look at the -- I know it's public facilities we're looking at, but part of our community is on private facilities, part of our community is on their own facility. But is it our responsibility to look at that, or consider again the City of Naples? What if -- well, for example, A va Maria. What if something inferior was happening? Should we know about that? I mean, Orangetree kind of slipped in with problems and we weren't watching, so what should we be aware of or not aware of? MR. BOSI: Well, once again, this goes back to the question of what the AUIR is intended for. And this is for capacity improvements related to concurrency management, and that's the primary purpose of it. As a Board of County Commissioners, I am sure that the commissioners are very concerned with the access to water and wastewater availability for every geographic area within the county. Public utilities are constrained to individual boundaries of their individual district. For the AUIR purpose, there's -- to me it would -- I'm not sure if the process would be improved by trying to acquire the information related to the other various utility districts that are within this county. But there can be a value to the Plarming Commission and the other -- and to the Board of County Commissioners, I'm just not sure how it fits. It really doesn't fit with what we're trying to do in terms of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? Remember, and I think it was about a year or two ago, I thought it was the EAR process where we actually asked utilities because of the language that was in that document to get reports from each one of those other entities, and we actually got a report from A va Maria that says don't ask for it again because Page 66 16;liA3 i September 21, 2009 next time you're paying for it kind of thing. Do you recall that effort? I forgot what that was. MR. COHEN: That was part of the] O-year water facilities supply work plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so-- MR. COHEN: And we are required to update that every five years. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MR. COHEN: But at the same time they're under no statutory obligation to provide u' that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But another five years -- I think every five years then Brad's going to get the information he's looking for, and we hadjust gotten it at that last review. It's outside of this re\ iew, but it is reviewed, just like you've commented on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The EAR will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the EAR. This was the utility -- what kind of plan was that? MR. COHEN: It's the ]O-year water facilities supply work plan. And that's the plan he was just asking about, the different levels of services for different municipalities. And they were required to do theirs one year after ours as well, too. So we'll try to get that information to you. But it's very difficult to get the information from the pIivate utilities. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: And we found that out last time. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, I knew there was a plan out there. We see so many plans, I wasn't sure what it was called. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust don't know if it's comfortable abandoning some of~1e citizens who don't have as good a situation as if Phil was providing them water. MR. COHEN: I think it may be appropriate, you know, if you'd like to make a recoITUnendation for us to periodically try to get data from the Water Management District with respect to their consumptive use pernlits as well as their level of service, what they've actually provided. You know, we can look into doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you get it right now every five years, right? MR. COHEN: We ask for it. What we ended up doing as part of the water facilities supply work plan is finally working with the Water Management District because of the lack of response from some of those special districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you want-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's it. Let's take a break until 2:30, and we'll come back at that time. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. We can move on with the next item. And this will be a rather lengthy presentation on rhe county's sewer treatment and collection system. MS. DOWNS: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Phil, I know you're probably just going to tell us 1 hat you're available for questions, so we'll move right into that, is that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, I am available to answer your questions, sir. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: I like it short and sweet and to the point. Does anybody have any questions on the sewer element of the AUIR that's in front of us here today? COMMISSIONER CARON: You just make sure that nothing happens to our sewer system and we'll be very happy. MR. GRAMA TGES: We're working every day to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- make sure that this stays monotonous and boring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have a question -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, is there any -- reclaimed water, is there any sort of a -- I know we don't have a level of service, I know it's not part of this, but do you have any data showing how that', going to grow over the next -- this period, or should we keep reclaimed water out of this process] guess is the question. Page 67 16 I S!temL21,A~ ~ MR. GRAMATGES: Well, as -- Collier County does, and if] may say so myself, an excellent job as far as reclaimed water. We call it irrigation quality water. Because every drop of irrigation quality water that we produce we send out. The only times that we do deep inject it is when it does not meet specifications, which is, I must say, extremely rare, or when there's not demand for it. Unfortunately during the rainy season there's not a lot of demand for IQ water, you get it free from the sky, so there's not a lot of usage, and we have only limited capacity for storage, so we have to deep inject it. But whenever we can, whenever there is demand, we supply everything we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have a map similar, you know, the one on Page 65, the existing and future areas, do you have a map like that showing the coverage of reclaimed, or is reclaimed pretty site specific, meaning you're pumping at the golf courses or something, or -- MR. GRAMATGES: Most of the reclaimed water, or IQ water, goes to bulk users. Typically to -- which are, by the way, the largest users of potable water that we have. What we're trying to do is we're trying to displace potable water and replace it with IQ water. And the biggest users of course are golf courses. We also irrigate the medians in all the roads. That benefits the entire community. And schools-- COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a map like this showing reclaimed areas, or not? MR. GRAMA TGES: The reclaimed area is the same area as you see in that map. In other words, the water sewer district is the district for IQ water as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not available in every location. MR. GRAMATGES: No, it's not, because it's limited capacity. There is a lot more demand than there is supply ofIQ water. So unfortunately we have to limit it. We wish we had more. But no -- well, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Just out of curiosity, I've heard the rates of loss to potable water, it's a very small rate to leaks and things like that. What is the rate for reclaimed; do you have such a number? MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't have that number, no. No. MS. DOWNS: I would have expected it to be lower than the potable water because it's a relatively new system and new lines. MR. GRAMA TGES: Plus there is a lot less of them. Most of the loss is for potable water, and you're right, they're very small. They're certainly a lot less than 10 percent. And we continue to bring the number further down. MS. DOWNS: And you're lower than the national average, right? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's very true, yes. Very, very much lower than the national average. This is a fairly new system and we have very strict controls over water usage. So you're right, I would say that's logical, but I would be speculating. MS. DOWNS: Just curious. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCH]FFER: What is the loss for the potable water? MR. GRAMA TGES: At this point in time it's less than nine percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. MR. GRAMA TGES: In fact, I believe this -- because we have recently looked at that very carefully and we continue to look for ways to eliminate those losses. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot less than that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm afraid I don't have the exact number to give you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil, on your map on Page 65, I'd like to ask you about -- just to update on three areas. Your southeast area, it's an area in pink, north of US 4] off the East Trail by about a mile. What is that? ]s there a plant there or is that a future area? What is that? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, eventually we are going to put a waste treatment plant in that general area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: We are looking at this map right now, and we're looking to make some modifications Page 68 16 J ~ep~m~r JI, !9 to it that you'll probably see next year. There are some exclusionaries in there as well that we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you currently charging impact fees to the people who are within that pink area -- MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the southeast area? MR. GRAMATGES: Generally speaking, no. There are some small areas in there that we are charging. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They're -- most of it's excluded, though. MR. GRAMATGES: The majority of it is excluded from ordinance. The only areas where we're charging impact fees is that band just north of 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the green band that's part of it. MR. GRAMATGES: The green band, yes. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about your east central area, are you charging impact fees for the potential that's going to be there some day? MR. GRAMATGES: No, we're not. We're not charging impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You probably recall why I'm asking this. MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, I do recall why you're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the northeast area, number one and number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, northeast area number two, as you see the yellow area there, is Orangetree. MR. GRAMA TGES: There are some services there, yes indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- yeah, I know, that's the Orangetree. But the blue is not. MR. GRAMA TGES: No, the blue, there are some areas in there that we service, and therefore we charge impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the only areas you're charging impact fees to are ones you have service availability to now? MR. GRAMATGES: We charge impact fees to all of the areas that fall within the water/sewer district, with the exception of the exclusion areas. So there may be some areas in there where we don't provide service right now, and we charge impact fees because we project that we will be providing services within 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- then let's go back then under that answer, under the east central area. Are you then providing -- are you charging any impact fees in the east central area? MR. GRAMA TGES: No, we're not. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that means you're not planning to do that within the next 10 years. MR. GRAMATGES: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the same would be the southeast area. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Okay, that's where I was getting at. Thank you. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, I happened to be looking at my water utility, water/sewer utility bill the other day, and it mentioned on it that there's an extra fee if you have excessive usage. It just kind of crossed my mind, why would you charge an excessive -- an additional fee for excessive use for an individual home? Because your costs don't go up if I use more water. I would pay for the more water. But you're charging me a penalty fee if] use too much water. Why is that? MR. GRAMATGES: We are trying to encourage you to use less water. We have an inverted rate fee. The more water you use, depending of course on the category of user that you are, the more you pay per gallon. MS. VASEY: I understand the theory of that, but then you get a whole lot of extra money over and above what your actual costs are because you're having this penalty fee. Because your -- that additional amount is not based on the cost of the additional water, it's to attempt to change my water usage and reduce it. So why -- I don't understand. I'm watching my water because South Florida Water Management makes me. I think we have the certain days you can water and that kind of thing. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct, yes. MS. VASEY: But I guess I just don't understand why a penalty fee should go to you and what you would do with that money. - Page 69 161 1";1 A3 ~i ~eptember 21, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: I am not sure that I -- I'm not a customer unfortunately of the Collier County WaterlSewer District, so I have not received that notice. I don't believe there's a penalty, it's just a surcharge. MS. VASEY: A surcharge that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Is it called -- I'm sorry? MS. VASEY: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. GRAMATGES: Is it called a penalty in your-- MS. VASEY: No, it's called a surcharge, but it's an additional fee that's not related to the capacity of water that] use, it's a penalty fee that tries to make me use less water. And then so you're collecting extra money that is not related to your expenses. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, all that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs I think has something. MS. DOWNS: ] would say] see that nationwide. It's very normal to charge that additional fee to force people to use water (sic), especially in the southwest. It's common nationwide, but especially so in areas of water concern. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, obviously there are a lot of water concerns here. I mean, we just went through a drought last year that was very significant. And the South Florida Water Management District was controlling irrigation in order to control usage to control the demand. So the inverted rate fee is a very important part of our control on demand. And that's one of the main reasons why it exists. As to what we do with the money? Yeah, indeed, we use all of it. And we use all of it in order to be able to pay for the operation of our plants. As you know, we're an enterprise system within public utilities, and we do not make profits on the water that we sell. So consequently that water goes to pay for chemicals, electricity, salaries. In these days mostly for chemicals and electricity. But yes, indeed. MS. VASEY: And reserves. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, but the reserves, as you well know, are not cash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions on the potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Brad, do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wastewater, actually. MR. GRAMATGES: Wastewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wastewater, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to forward a recommendation of approval, the wastewater system as presented. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. On to solid waste. MS. DOWNS: We make the same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. MS. VASEY: Second. Page 70 16 I IsetteA31,20J . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I keep forgetting you guys got to do it separately. MS. DOWNS: All in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Solid waste, is that yours too, Phil? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. I'm ready to answer your questions on solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, you're the easiest guy I've ever seen for the AUIR. It works out. MR. GRAMA TGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, your population on table one doesn't match the BEBR populations. It's much more. Is that because you're taking material from outside of Collier County or -- MR. GRAMA TGES: No, we're not. The district for solid waste is the entire county. While water and wastewater is restricted to the boundaries of the district, this population numbers are different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you're including only municipalities within Collier County. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're including all of them. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the only other question is, we get down to government buildings, you're loaning them money? How does that show up in your fiscal analysis here? Where -- MR. GRAMATGES: It does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you are, right? MR. GRAMA TGES: ] understand-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a four million dollar -- MR. GRAMA TGES: -- that we have recently loaned some money, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where does that come from, just excess revenue or -- MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have excess revenue. As I said a while ago, we do not have excess revenue. We use it all. We have been -- we have that money allocated for projects in the future, and what we have to do is simply reallocate it; we have to reprioritize the projects that we have. We expect to be paid soon, I hope, because those projects need to be funded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the intent is it will go in and out in this five-year period? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't answer that directly, because obviously I'm not in the finance department. But I will tell you that yeah, I do need the money to spend in projects in the future, so I would expect that yes, the money would come back quickly. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. VASEY: I have something on that. I'm not sure, I think that what we're talking about is there's a fund to start up a new landfill, should we need one. Or actually, it's to close down the old one. And I think that's where the money was borrowed from. There's no need for that money until it's time to close it, but they have to maintain that account in the event of closure and, you know, cleaning up all the stuff. I think that's where that money is. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they're using that reserve funds -- MS. VASEY: Yeah. There's no requirement for using that money in the immediate future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: On the chart on Page 68, column number three, tons per capita, disposal rate. I'm just wondering why after 2010 it goes -- it's averaged out to .59. You know, you went from -- obviously it's an estimated number, but how did you arrive at that? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, anything before 2008 is a calculated number. We get the exact number of tons that is disposed of, we divide by the population, voila, you come up with a number. Page 71 16 I irteiber ~2~9 ~ 2009 is sort of a combination, because 2009 of course is still not fmished. We're almost there. The rest of them's calculated. MS. DOWNS: Well, you don't have actual tons disposed yet. MR. GRAMATGES: No, we don't. MS. DOWNS: So I'm just wondering why you would assume that disposal per person is going to go up with -- I mean, you -- if it's true that efforts to educate people really helped reduce the need, you got more recycling going, why wouldn't you assume that stepped up efforts there would serve to only decrease in the future the amount? MR. GRAMA TGES: Because we have no basis to make any such assumptions. What we do is we take the average of the previous three years, and that's the number you see here. And that's the reason why if you take the .59 it's higher than the .52. Why? Because the previous year was .61 and then .62. MS. DOWNS: So you averaged three years to get to -- MR. GRAMATGES: We averaged three years in the past, yes. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on solid waste? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. The BEBR numbers, how far out in the future do they go? MR. BOSI: 2029, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what, 20 years? MR. GRAMA TGES: Twenty years. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Phil's department, and he doesn't use BEBR, but he uses another number that somehow probably is based on BEBR to project out what he needs for his districts. He uses a 30-year number. And the reason that becomes important is under testimony during the RLSA review, I remember specifically asking one of the consultants how many credits do you think you'd use in 20 years. And I thought the comment was, oh, I don't think we'd use 100,000, because they were looking for 435,000 -- 404 credits versus 318. So I'm wondering, if you're not using BEBR and you're just using some kind of progression that David would have used in your department, where is the RLSA factored in to these numbers? Since they do go out 30 years and there was testimony that something would be used in the RLSA of significance in the 30-year period, because they're talking 20 years. So how is the RLSA figured in for these? And the reason that's important is if we -- a landfill takes what, ] 0 years to permit practically? MR. GRAMA TGES: Um-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the RLSA kicks into high gear say] 0 years from now, and not five for sure, but we get into some ofthose projections where it's starting to be popular, how fast is that going to factor into this? Has anybody looked at that as a potential? And you've got that new electronic growth model that you've been harping on. Have you looked and seen when that's going to kick in for population out there? MR. BOSI: The growth model doesn't have that 20-year limitation. The growth model tries to look out towards build-out. And it projects when the villages and the towns in the RLSA are going to incorporate within. I can only assume, and I know the danger of utilizing it, that the BEBR population numbers recognizes the growth patterns that are contained within the county and encapsulates within their projections the regulatory environment of the RLSA lands. And a portion of that projections are recognizing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is beyond BEBR. IfBEBR's only going out 20 years, this is out 30. So where have we got the recognition in the last 10 years of this document that they've taken into account what may happen in the RLSA? And if you've got this interactive growth model, did you compare the last] 0 years of solid waste to what that growth model is predicting for population in the RLSA, since this is probably one of the few applications that we may even be able to see that on? MR. BOSI: Well, one, the numbers that were utilized by solid waste hasn't been compared with the growth model. The growth model is -- this is the first year that the growth model has been running the population projections. And we're only utilizing it right now for our GMP amendments are our projections in a limited basis for where we're utilizing that as a planning tool. Now, the numbers that are produced by the growth model for our 30-year projections, we may want to start Page 72 16 I lp~mA 3200J talking with solid waste, with public utilities in saying hey, we've got a localized version of population projections that has incorporated our development regulations as the component or the basis for what these numbers should be, let's start utilizing the CIGM population numbers for your population projections for the landfill. But we haven't arrived upon that point yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think it would be important that if you've got the ability to do it, we just run the scenario and see it. It sounds like you have the ability. That's what this model's supposed to have done. ]s that something that you can provide for us? Not now, today, but if we ask it, can we get that? Can someone run that in your department, plug the numbers in, or is it a cost prohibitive thing to do? MR. BOSI: Well, there's a cost associated with everything. I mean, we can -- we have an internal -- we can run the numbers for the Eastern Lands. The only problem is we don't have the CIGM for the entire county. And these numbers incorporates the entire county. We can only do it on a limited portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you know the last 10 years of this document does not include anything-- does not include BEBR. But BEBR only ran for the existing portion of the county. And as you said earlier, if it had included anything in for the RLSA it would have been static in the sense that they've already got it there and you wouldn't have known whether it was in or out. So why don't you take these numbers here and add to them whatever you come up with on the interactive growth model and see how far that backs it up to where we may have a problem? I MR. BOSI: But once again, the interactive growth model, the problem with these numbers are these numbers are for the whole county and the growth model has only just a population projection segmented east of 951. So I guess I would have to try to figure out, segment out which part of these numbers are the urbanized area, which part of these numbers are the east of 951 area to try to fmd -- to fmd out where the inconsistencies may be. We can run it -- we can run it and see if we can do that exercise. It's just not as clean, because we don't have the entire county under the CIGM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to waste your time, Mike. I'm more concerned if -- if David put this together, and I think he does the population statistics, doesn't he? So he would have probably had to come up with the ones past the BEBR number date. So why don't you just ask him what he factored in? I mean, he -- David would have done it, right? Am I wrong or right? ] can't hear you guys. Did David do the population numbers that are in the back of the book for Collier County that they would have used for this? MR. GRAMA TGES: Mr. Chairman, if you look at Page 69 under peak population, in the last two lines you see that fiscal year 2030 to '39 is projected based on average percentage increase from fiscal year 2026 to 2029 of 1.53 percent. MS. DOWNS: Page what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. GRAMATGES: Page SW-3. MS. VASEY: Number two -- I'm sorry, number -- yeah, number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's how it was done. You just took -- you took the -- where you left off, where BEBR left off and added 1.53 percent from there on forward. MR. GRAMA TGES: In other words, the assumption is that it will continue to increase in a monotonic straight line. MR. BOSI: Yeah, David's numbers only go to 2029. If you look back at the population numbers in the back of this book, they only go to 2029. And then I think their consultants just ran the average out for the last 10 years. MR. GRAMATGES: And the reason for that is that we have to show the life of the landfill and it goes out to 30 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your department's analyses of this, did you take into consideration any changes that the RLSA is going to have on that] .53 percent straight number that they use to see if it was still going to hold in those future years? MR. BOS]: No, because the numbers that were provided from DCA -- we don't have an option with the numbers that were provided for 2029. We can't even agree or disagree that the number that they've incorporated, the aspects of the RLSA, in an appropriate factor. We just have to utilize the numbers that BEBR gives us for BEBR Page 73 16 leJmb~r 2]A3 I medium, and we have to allocate those numbers spatially. But we're not allowed to -- we can't change that number. We're stuck with the number that BEBR gives us. So in that respect there hasn't been an analysis done over the last] 0 years, because there hasn't been a true analysis to whether we believe or have a high degree of confidence within the 2029 numbers as to comparing it with what the growth model has projected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand that. Every one of these things we've done today is projections, okay, so they're going to have a little give and take here and there. When -- the build-out plan for the RLSA is a 50-year plan, is that correct? Workout plan I think it's called? MR. BOS]: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got 30 years, you've got three-fifths of that plan taken up in the dates in front of us. And my concern is if we don't start thinking of the RLSA as realistic in regards to how fast it could develop out there, based on the testimony we heard during this last review and the fact they're increasing the densities out there substantially, or the potential densities, Ijust wanted to make sure somewhere in comprehensive plarming, because that seems to be what your department should be doing, is checking this stuff out in the long-range plan. That's all. That's what I'm -- and I'm not sure it got checked. MR. COHEN: What -- and let me go ahead and re-correct something, or restate something that Mike said. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Re-correct it? MR. COHEN: Re-correct, yeah. Long day. BEBR does provide us with armual numbers and estimates. On one occasion in the last five years we actually did challenge those numbers based on CO data that we had, and they did revise our numbers. So what we do do is we do we analyze where the development's occurring with respect to COSo We do spatially allocate those within the specific T AZs, and we do monitor them on an armual basis. Weare fully cognizant of what's happening with the RLSA. And when we've talked about the credits that the recommendation came out of this body, and also what came out of the BCC, we realize when we go through the RLSA amendment process that we're going to have to take a look at those to see if they will generate additional numbers as well too. So that coupled with the fact that we probably will end up with an interactive growth model county-wide by the end of the next -- FY 10, that will provide us with a lot more planning tools to spatially allocate stuff. And also in terms of time, DCA is requiring us to -- with all of our plans, whether it's water, sewer, we're going to have to go on a -- ] believe we decided to go 2025? I believe. So we're going to have to have all of our plans actually systemically be aligned with one another, and that will allow us to go on out. But we will take out the solid waste further when we get the interactive growth model more, you know, county-wide. And I think it's really incumbent on our department to really monitor the development trends as they move forward. And not only that, when we brought up BEBR earlier is to look at their numbers, and if they are off-base, to question them as well too, which we have done. So we've been on top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where I'm worried, Randy, if it takes 10 years to permit a landfill, the political process just to locate it in this county is going to take ] 0 years. And, you know, somehow we need to start looking at this long range. This is one of the more particular long-range issues. You can always build your own water plant and you can always build your own sewer plants, but it sure is real hard to stick a landfill anywhere in Collier County. MR. COHEN: And I know we've talked about that between our department and also with public utilities, and the recycling efforts of a lot of them to push that window out a little bit, but it's something that I -- I believe the County Manager asked your division to stay on top of and to continue to keep a look at. MR. GRAMATGES: The board has asked us to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll be here for the next 20 years arguing with you, so just remember that. Okay, are there any other questions on the solid waste portion of the capital A facilities? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Brad, you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. I recommend we move solid waste with a recommendation of approval as submitted. Page 74 16 I 1 I^ 2 !I SeptA~], 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- second? Seconded by Donna. ]s there any -- I'm going to get to you guys. Is there any comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Passes 5-0. MS. DOWNS: Same motion. MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: All in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if you guys disagreed after one of you made it and seconded, then we'd really have a problem. Now, the last -- not the last element, the next element would be the school facilities, which is a new one to this AUIR. And if I'm not mistaken, our goal with that one was to make sure by its portrayal we saw where it did or did not coincide with the other infrastructure elements ofthe other portions of the AUIR. And with that in mind, I'll turn it over to you, sir. MR. HARDY: Good afternoon. I'm Alvah Hardy. I'm with the school district. Mike Bosi suggested that as this was the fIrst time after the implementation of public school concurrency that the county would be reviewing and adopting by reference to the school district's capital plan that I give you a breach overview of the process that we use to generate our capital plan. I will point out that this plan was approved April] 6th by the school board. As was mentioned earlier in the meeting, our fiscal year starts July ]st and the first year of our capital plan is our budget for that ensuing year. So we're into our year. And in fact the board adopted their entire budget last Thursday, which is another vagary of state law that you adopted after you start your fiscal year. Basically we start with your data. Chapter one looks at information we get from the gentleman sitting in front of you related to growth and demographics, housing conditions, certificates of occupancy, all that kind of stuff. We also look at birth rate and survivorship using a cohort model, a survivorship model related to births and the number of children attending kindergarten six years later. We create enrollment projections by grade level using these types of projection models, and also look at our own enrollment trends. During the period of growth that we recently endured, the county growth numbers and the school district enrollment numbers coincided. Several years ago you kept issuing certificates of occupancy and we stopped growing, so we had to change our statistical analysis a little bit because the correlation between the two ceased to exist at that point in time. We also have to look at legislative changes. Most importantly recently was the Senate Bill 360 that has me standing here today so that we can talk to you about how we do our plarming. And then we go over a summary of our funding sources. The district is funded through many different avenues, all of which have to be spread into appropriate projects, based on state law. In chapter two it pretty much becomes a simple analysis of how many students do we have and how many Page 75 16 1 1~tembeA]~091 seats do we have. We also acknowledge that we have a different planning process than you do, as required by statute. We have an educational plant survey. We can only construct projects that are approved through this survey methodology. It is a district-wide assessment of seats and students. It does not account for any regionality. We do get some exception for Everglades City, as they're aware of the distance issues that exist there, and also Immokalee, given its location from the urban center. We also have the five-year work plan. Like the BEBR numbers, we are given state enrollment number projections for use in our capital planning process. And as long as the trends are consistent, they match our projections very well. When our trends change, it takes them a little while to catch up. For instance, they've projected a sharper decline than we've experienced, once we started to decline. But they always catch back up. We then use this cohort survivorship model plus the growth data. And then we disaggregate this through our school system on a school level over a five-year period and compare that to the number of seats available. Anywhere in that five-year window that we were to do a capacity enhancement, whether it were a new school or an addition to a school, that's taken into account and the number of seats available for that -- starting at that period in time, if it's year three, for instance, in the planning process. We also have other programs that affect our distribution of students. We have alternative education programs, we have career academies, we have a vibrant school choice policy, and we have to keep track of those. And also whether educational delivery models that may affect the way that our schools are attended. Chapter three is basically recommendations on what to do to deal with whatever enrollment changes we have. The rest of that chapter deals with maintenance in our instructional technology plan, our equipment replacement that are outside of the concurrency thing, but obviously we do more with our capital money than just build seats. In chapter four is where we have the disaggregated data for schools. We group them by high schools. Our feeder patterns aren't that strict, but it gives us a good look at how things are going regionally. And then chapter five is just more description as far as describing what each individual project is. Chapter six is our 20-year maintenance plan, it's quite elaborate, and five-year increments, five, ] 0 and 20. And then chapter seven is our] 0 and 20-year plan. Our ] O-year plan is based on numbers that we get from the county. And we look at a global need of how many seats are where, but we use the county plarming areas to disaggregate that data so that we can point that we might need a school in the urban Estates or wherever the numbers show that that's needed. The 20-year plan -- and this is interesting that you have 20-year numbers. We I believe historically have taken the I O-year data from the county and straight-lined it out for the 20 years, recognizing that the further out you get the less exact you can be. Chapter eight is our new chapter on concurrency where we use our levels of service to determine whether we're meeting our requirements, and that we will use the concurrency as we implement concurrency with the local development community as they come forward with new projects. That's about it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to point out, we didn't get all the chapters you referenced. ] mean, it's noted that we shouldn't have gotten it, but is there any -- the concurrency would be an interesting chapter. Is there a reason why we didn't get that? MR. BOSI: No, not intentionally. That's an oversight on my part for not including it within the workbook. I can get you that chapter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that would be the most curious -- MR. HARDY: It's broken out by concurrency service area. Uses the same format oflooking at each school in that area with the number of seats they have available, dependent on the level of service established, and then the projected student enrollment at those schools throughout that five-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one, two, three and seven, from what I can tell. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somewhere in between somebody's got a pile of those around. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 76 16 I Isep;eA~l, 20; MR. EASTMAN: Our capital plan's also available on our website. MR. HARDY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have this little policy, if it's more than 10 pages, we don't print. So if you could -- if the comprehensive plarming can get us the missing chapters, we'd appreciate it. MR. BOSI: Do you want all the chapters, three, four, five six -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is supposed to have contained eight chapters, we'd like whatever chapters are missing. We'd like the full package. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if you look at Page 80 you could see that -- because I 'noticed that reviewing it, that they did intentionally leave those out. My only question is, the only thing we're going to do with this report -- you think the concurrency, because that would give us what they're doing and where, would be the only chapter that would really be of use. MR. BOSI: Well, pertinent to the Capital Improvement Element is the proposed improvements. Those are there is that I thought I -- and I should have included concurrency service areas, because it's implementing concurrency management system. But the purpose of the AUlR is to review the capital improvements that are being proposed. The capital improvements that are being proposed by the school district in their five-year window is a 220-seat expansion to Laurel Oaks Elementary School. That's the sole improvement that's being reviewed and will be included within the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of this documentation is going to be in the CIE, just that one number? Out of all of this documentation -- MR. BOSI: It would only be a reference to the adopted schools capital improvement program within our CIE, per the public school facility element. The school's CIP is not included within our capital improvements element, it's only a reference within our Capital Improvements Element to the school's capital improvement program. MR. COHEN: And let me go ahead and qualify that. We do have a public schools facility element. And then on an annual basis we will incorporate the entirety of their CIP by reference. That's the way it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the reference, and see what happens down the road, on the Plarming Commission when we review something and we want to go to the CIE to see if it's consistent, and then the CIE references a document we don't have, that becomes a problem. So if you can send it electronically, I'll keep it on my computer electrically. That's fine too. I don't care, just as long as I have it somewhere where if it's ever needed I can pull it up. MR. HARDY: It's PDF'd on the website, you can download it. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions involving the school? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY : Yes, please, thank you. I'd like to go over a couple of your things on your summary of capital improvement program. It's our Page 82. I'm not sure, do you have the same book we do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. HARDY: Yes, I do. MS. VASEY: Okay. I notice that all of your additional construc -- the additional remodeling renovations, and I assume any new schools that you would build would be in that category. And you only have the FY 09-] 0 filled in. Is that sort of -- are you under the same rules that we are where you don't want to promise to do something you can't afford later? Because there's nothing in '] I, '12, '13, ']4. MR. HARDY: That's because there's no growth projected. And we have a chapter of new construction, there just aren't any, so we eliminated the chapter heading. So when we're doing new schools, there is a whole nother section that says new schools. But as we're not doing that, we just took it out of the summary. The summary is a roll-up of a large data base that feeds up through all of the back pages of the project Page 77 161 lIA3 ., II tfll ptember 21 , 2009 manuals and all that that describe the project. So no, the fact is, without any growth there will be no -- MS. VASEY: No rem ode lings -- MR. HARDY: -- projects out. MS. VASEY: -- no nothing. MR. HARDY: Hu-huh. MS. VASEY: On the next -- on Page 85, the revenue part. On your five-year total -- well, you've got -- you show the impacts for revenue, impact fees and the interest in Osceola transfer. Now the capital improvement tax, this is the one that's on our tax bill. Is that the ].5 or 1.75, or-- MR. HARDY: No, ma'am. In Thursday's board meeting where they just approved the budget, in 2008 the legislature reduced our available capital millage from 2.0 to 1.75. By referendum the school district and the citizens of the community authorized a transfer or a reduction in the capital tax and an enhancement of the operational tax by a quarter mill, so that took us down to one and a half mills. Subsequent to that referendum, the legislature also offered up a quarter mill discretionary transfer, which we opted not to take all of. So there is a .1780 transfer out of capital into operating that left the capital millage at 1.3 to 2.0 for this year. MS. VASEY: Okay, and is that the same number used for all years? Because it looks fairly consistent. Or did you take that -- MR. HARDY: No, actually what I'm telling you is what the board did Thursday. The book looked at 1.5. MS. VASEY: Okay, because that-- MR. HARDY: Because we did the book in April and the legislature just wraps up in April. We're chasing the legislature a lot closer than you guys have to with your October, October budgets. So -- MS. VASEY: Okay, so your number will come down some amount? MR. HARDY: Our book -- this is a budget book. This is a plarming document. ]t is not -- they adopted the budget on Thursday. All those numbers are set. But as you know, in government you have projected revenues and projected expenditures and you chase those all year till the last day of your budget year and then you reconcile everything. So we will be working with whatever adjustments happen. But that is the plan at that point in time. MS. VASEY: Okay, there's a line called beginning balance that for the five-year total shows $310 million. I'm just -- I couldn't figure out what that was. I understand -- MR. HARDY: It's a carryforward. MS. VASEY: -- the words but -- huh? MR. HARDY: It's a carryforward. MS. VASEY: Okay. So this is money you already had that you're now using off-- MR. HARDY: Yes. MS. VASEY: -- the five years? MR. HARDY: Yes. Actually helps get us to the end of the five years. MS. VASEY: Okay. About a year or so ago I asked Dr. Thompson what your debt was, your outstanding debt. And he said it was around $500 million. At the end of this five-year period, what will the total debt be? MR. HARDY: I have no idea. I'm the facilities person. I would suggest you talk to Mr. Spencer in finance and he would have those numbers. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. Okay. I assumed you were doing the whole thing. MR. HARDY: No, the finance people have it a lot harder than the facilities people. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the school? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just a couple on Page 109. Can you -- I looked at your countywide totals in the bottom of that chart, and ] couldn't match them up to a chart. Where did you get your population statistics? MR. BOSI: Last year's AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year's? Page 78 161 1 '^ ~ ~ ~ptemtlr-fI, 200~ MR. BOSI: Remember, this was done in April. This was done in April, so they can only use the numbers from last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the one that is here, I had no idea how they got there. Okay. How do you -- how have you plarmed or did you -- did it come into play in any preparation of this, the RLSA? Because I know you've got one school out there now. MR. HARDY: We have a site for two schools with Ave Maria and a commitment for a high school site. As these are DRI's typically, we get our due through the DRI process. With the implementation of school concurrency, we'll have even greater access to mitigation for impacts from development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The timing for the high school, then, if you already got -- you're not plarming that any time soon, are you? MR. HARDY: We're not plarming any high schools any time soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last question I had. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward the school capital improvement plan with favorable reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for discussion, Tom, do you think this is a good idea? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. EASTMAN: Also state mandated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ] was waiting for you to say no. Somebody else would be in your seat next week. Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMM]SSIONER SCH]FFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. You guys? MS. VASEY: We'd like to make the same motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in -- oh, any discussion? MS. DOWNS: No. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unanimous. Thank you. MR. HARDY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, next item up will be county parks and recreation facilities. And this first one is the community parks. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director. I ran into Phil Gramatges at lunch and asked him his what his methodology was in presenting, and so he gave Page 79 16 I 1'~ A" 7 !II Septembe ,.tJJ09. me some tips and so I'm here to ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, it ain't going to work. MR. WILLIAMS: Understand. I thought I'd try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not everybody jumps inside a water plant and gets familiar with it, but plenty of us have been inside the parks. It's a little different application. With that, then that's fme. Questions are usually a lot more directly to the point than presentations. So community park lands starts on Page]]4 and it goes to Page 117. So let's take that one first. Are there any questions from the panels on those few pages? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A slight one. Your population doesn't match what we have on Page 9. Is there a reason, or are you covering -- community parks, does it take in the municipalities? MS. RAMSEY: No. MR. BOSI: No. It's Unincorporated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it should be close to our -- MR. WILLIAMS: Population numbers should reflect BEBR, is what we use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they, or -- I mean, it looks like, for example, you're at 350 thou for this year. When -- I mean, it's slightly off, I guess. But Mike, is that appropriate that -- MR. BOSI: The 350 number, that's the -- I'm looking for the peak season population. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the numbers you gave us on Page 9, it has a seasonal factor built into them at 20 percent, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: 332. MR. BOSI: The population numbers from the staff report on Page 9 I believe are the county permanent population, which includes the municipalities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, then you've got -- I don't think so. Otherwise Phil's overrated his. MR. BOSI: Maybe not the -- the numbers from the staff report are the county's permanent population and BEBR projections. Community park utilizes unincorporated county populations, so it would exclude the city's population so they would be different than this number's. So maybe I'm not understanding the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 9, I understood that to be the unincorporated population. MR. BOSI: No, Page 9 is the county's population, including the city's. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is that number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then where did Phil get his number? Because Phil's numbers were -- MR. BOS]: Phil -- the water and sewer -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so much higher. MR. BOSI: -- district? The water and sewer district have their own individual populations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but some of Phil's numbers county-wide like solid waste was much higher than this. And the answer when I asked him that was that he's adding to this number the municipality, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, solid waste he did have to include the municipalities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, I really assumed this number was the unincorporated, including a point of20 percent factor-- MR. BOSI: No, this is not -- this is permanent population. This is permanent population including the municipalities on Page 9. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What number on Page 9 are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me read this sentence. Let me read this: The population method utilizes BEBR medium projections for the entire projection period, with a 20 percent seasonal adjustment factor. Doesn't that mean it's built into that? I hope it is. I'd hate to go back to the beginning of today and go -- MR. BOSI: The chart, the BEBR medium charts that are provided here, that is our permanent population, that's not our seasonal population. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, l'mjust reading what you wrote. Am I reading it wrong, or-- Page 80 16 I 1 s~A3r21,~9 COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I thought you were reading it correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's not particularly what I wanted to discover with the question, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your question -- let's go back to your original question, Brad. The community parks utilized the unincorporated area of the peak season population, right? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody said yes. MR. BOSI: Well, I don't know what the question is. I was trying to listen what the question was from Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I started out in their chart -- it started out giving the impression that there's 350,000 people today at this point in time, which was higher than the analysis. Which made me wonder whether it was for the whole county. But he said no, it's for the unincorporated, thus it would be higher. But what you're saying -- actually what you're saying makes it much worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, if you -- MR. BOS]: I'm not sure if it does. The -- I guess what that introduction statement with population for peak season purposes we use BEBR medium plus 20 percent. This chart is your BEBR medium, only your permanent population. Your unincorporated -- or your community parks utilizes only the peak season of unincorporated Collier County. There's segmentation for all of -- for each one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 232 is where they pulled the numbers from that they used on Page 115, which is what they built the chart off of, I believe. So if you look on the population of unincorporated, in 2008 to '09 it's 350,406. If you go to Page 232 under '09 you see the unincorporated area 350,406, and that's -- then it continues on there from there. So that's the numbers they used. Is that what you're trying to get to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, that balances some up. But now I have a question about Page 9. MR. BOSI: Page 9. It's a permanent population for Collier County over the five-year windows for BEBR from -- from BEBR's population projections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that matches your 230 spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Page 230. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where did Phil get all those extra people? But Phil's gone, we can't go get him. But anyway, go ahead, we're fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off on questions. Did you get your question answered, other than Phil's issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did. MR. WILLIAMS: We're not going to have lunch with Phil anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only ifhe buys, huh? MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. No buying. COMMISSIONER CARON: I love it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on the community park land category? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ] have one, and it may be more of an impact fee question than it would be yours, Barry. And that is the unit cost at 230,000, how do we retain the unit cost of 230,000? That's the number that we used in 2008 and 2007. So -- MR. WILLIAMS: Could I ask if Amy could come up and talk to that issue? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. The $230,000 is the most current acreage cost validated by the soon to be adopted parks impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we know that the acreage costs are not 230,000 an acre anymore. But land costs have gone down across -- ask the county commission if they've had problems with their revenue stream because of reduction in assessed values. Page 81 16 I 1 1 ^\-z J. Sept~bet2], 2 How is that 230 justified as being retained from years when we were in -- coming out of our boom? I don't get it. MS. PATTERSON: The consultant that worked on the park study did do a sampling. They went through and reevaluated the land cost because they knew that this was a concern of both the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, and of the Board of County Commissioners, and they still found the $230,000 to be an accurate number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's odd that the only one we've seen so far that had a comparison I would say is transportation. They had a one -- it went from eight million down to six million in their costs, which include right-of-way acquisition. So they've certainly recognized there's a reduction in cost. I don't know why Parks and Rec. wouldn't have recognized the same thing. And I certainly don't feel leaving the 230,000 per acre is justified in any marmer. It just doesn't work. Everybody -- ask the tax assessor. It's just not practical. So I know what you've just said. I don't know who you hired to do this work, but maybe they need to be from the local market more. MS. PATTERSON: Well, when we did the study in 2006 we hired a local appraiser to come up with land costs at that time, which was widely disputed and the cause of a lot of discussion over the follow-on years. A different consultant did this study and still came up with the same conclusion, unfortunately. I understand the concern and that's why they spent so much time doing what they did, but they still have come up with the same conclusion, that the $230,000 is an appropriate cost per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me that one -- MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- electronically as well? MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions on -- I mean, I'm certainly going to throw that in as an exception as far as my discussion goes with this onto the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Well, we remember also concerned with the productivity. And correct me if I'm wrong, Amy, I think part of the explanation given at that time is we were buying some shore property, putting in some ramps, some boat ramps, and that skewed the whole thing by having just a few acres of anything along the water. And I must be right, she's not saying anything. But that's the way I recall. MR. WILLIAMS: Just that that was a discussion. And I know that the Productivity Committee in particular in looking at the impact fee study has had some questions about whether the park land that would be purchased in the future, would it be lands that were on the coast, had we bought all the lands potentially on the coast. And that, you know, the per acre cost might be more suitable to going east and what the land costs are there. I think staffs point of view has been opportunities arise, and Port of the Isles is a good example, where there are properties that come available that have a public benefit that the Board of County Commissioners have purchased. So I understand Mr. Strain's point of view, 230,000 seems excessive in this market, but when you do look at lands that you would purchase on the coast still they're a high dollar amount. I think the other point to make, if] may, is that the dollar amount that is being used is more of a placeholder really for us in our level of service. What's more important is the acreage per thousand people. I mean, that's really what you're looking to determine whether you have adequate acreage. What the market will bear when we go seeking land, if we ever do again if we have money, is, you know, the market would bear and that price would be what we pay, not this placeholder of a dollar amount of 230,000 per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope you wouldn't pay more than you have to. MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust don't like the perception of showing a unit cost on an acre basis that is just not realistic in today's world. MS. DOWNS: And it's even more troubling on Page 121. Whether it's a swap-out or whatever happens with the A TV park, you have 625 acres valued at 230,000 an acre. And it can't get anymore inland than wherever that will end up being. MR. WILLIAMS: That's true. Page 82 1 6 I lePlAb~~, 21 MS. DOWNS: So that's really skewing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- Ms. Vasey did you have something? MS. VASEY: Yeah, I was trying to remember what kind of things went into that discussion. I remember we questioned it. And part of the issue was you might be able to get individual acres at a lot less, but if you're trying to package together a large acreage for a park, you would probably be running into higher costs. That was one of the things. I can't remember what else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess that's just an issue we'll leave out there. There's not much we can do about it except when we make a motion if we want to address it. Are there any other questions on the community park land? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Explain to me why, Barry, the city parks are not included in here and the parks within gated communities are not included in here, the parks of that nature are not included in here. MR. WILLIAMS: And that is a question that's come up over the years, and I think Mike may have a better handle. ] do want to say, though, before Mike may answer that question is that we have included in our inventory what those acreages are, what those city municipality parks are. In addition, what we've done this year, and you've asked from last year, is that we include the state and federal lands that are available, and so there's a graphic in there that demonstrates that. But I think Mike may probably have the better answer in terms of requirements from DCA, why we can't allow those city and private developments involved in this. MR. BOSI: And as we've -- this point has come up before. It's because we don't control those areas we can't count those within our inventory. They have been inventoried for informational purposes that these are available, that there are acreages available from the municipalities, there are acreages available from the state, and there are federally (sic) acres that are available. But the AUIR goes back to concurrency management. Concurrency management from the purview of DCA is they want to know what's in our CIE. What's in our CIE is what we control and what we own. What we control and what we own are the parklands, the regional and community parklands that are owned by Collier County. The only time that we include parklands that are owned by other entities is when we have an interlocal agreement that gives us specific control and access to those facilities. And as we have stated a number of times, from a staff perspective we want to provide you with the acreages of the municipalities' parks, of the state's parks, of the federal parks. And if you think because of the availability of those parks that the amount of acres per person or per capita that Collier County's providing is too high based upon those availabilities, then a recommendation to lower the level of service for parks would be appropriate. But we carmot -- per process we carmot include those facilities within our inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. That's what you said two years ago when I was here. Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Caron. MS. VASEY: This might be a good time to just kind of explain something that we did on the impact fees. I think you noticed at the beginning Mike told you that the impact fees for Parks and Rec. had dropped like 10 percent or 17 percent or something like that for the single-family homes. And I know two years ago you had the same feeling we had, that the impact fees were too high in parks. And when we reviewed the impact fees this time, we looked at the whole procedure for how impact fees are calculated. And what you do with an impact fee calculation is you take the number of acres that you have, you cost them out in today's prices, and whatever equipment goes with them, and then you duplicate that on all new development, all new construction and housing. And only housing, no businesses for Parks and Rec. What we found was that you would not ever duplicate what you have now in the future. Because number one, the areas where we have parks now are in high cost -- high land cost areas, like North Naples and Marco Island and along the coast. Future development will be interior for the most part, except for whatever is bought along the beach front. And that was another thing we looked at. So we said that all the land in future parks had to be looked at as being internal. No more high prices of $400,000 an acre or something for north Naples areas. 230 was what we said had to be used, because that was the price that was accepted for the internal areas. Page 83 16 I I1PtemtJ\~009~ And then we looked at the idea of coastal properties, and we said we would never be able to duplicate the coastal parks that we have now. So we took a factor, I think we took 25 percent out of that and cut that out of the cost, because you couldn't do it. And I don't know, that was our recommendation. I don't know, Amy, has that gone to the commission yet? The commissioners have not voted on that yet. But that was -- what we tried to do was get more realistic with what the parks in the future would look like. And to your point of including some of the other facilities that we don't own, if you take a look at what we own and try to duplicate it, if you put more into what we own and try to duplicate it, the cost is higher. So it's sort of there's many arguments not to include things that we don't control. And one is the duplication effort is so much larger. ]s that clear? It's very -- it's kind of a complicated process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but part of my concern was if we don't control it -- I understand why you wouldn't include it. But the mere fact that it exists severely reduces the need for people to go to some of these parks. I mean, I work at a community that everything is internal. I don't think a person in that community rarely goes to their parks. They've got everything for them. They've got pools, they've got tennis courts, they've got a golf course, they've got everything they want. And if you really take that population out of the statistic, what population do you end up with that is really using the parks, and then how many parks does that population really need? And that's kind of the piece that I keep harping on that I don't see here. MS. VASEY: Okay. You were talking about reducing the population as opposed to increasing the parks that have to be like included in the impact fees? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by not including the impact fees, I understand why that can't be done. But] think the level of service should be reduced to offset the people that aren't reusing the parks because they have their own private facilities. And I think that's why my concern is. And as far as the 230,000 per acre, man, I'd sell you property all day long for that in the interior if you want to buy it. I don't know why anybody would pay that much for property interior. Even the best residential property in the Estates isn't anywhere half that now. And it used to be a lot higher. And that's just the reality of the market. Does leaving this in this number as Barry's used it referenced as a placeholder? In your analysis of the impact fees did that placeholder value have any impact on the impact fee value? MS. VASEY: Well, actually it brought it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the higher the unit cost value brings the impact fee value down? MS. VASEY: Well, no, because they were trying to use the cost of acreage in North Naples that's much higher than that. And Marco Island, you know, duplicating all the parks and all the locations that we have now. And we said no, that's overstating what it is. You will for the most part be going to the interior part of the county, not totally but to the most part, and then not be able to duplicate all the coastal park acreage either. So we took all of that out and it brought it down quite a bit. Now, there was an update to the acreage cost out in the county, you know, the Golden Gate areas and, you know, where new parks would be. And I think that was updated as of the time that the impact fee study came forward. But there again, you know, like anything we've talked about today, there's a process time. You know, the person that prepared the impact fee study got this information on land costs back before they prepared the study, before it came to us, was reviewed. That land cost was probably at least a year ago, maybe more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mean to ask you this question unless you know the answer to it. I guess it could be one that Amy might want to address. But if the unit cost per acre is so important that it has to be analyzed and included in a report for impact fees, how does it not then directly impact the value of the impact fees that we charge? MS. VASEY: Well, now that is included in the impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I was getting-- MS. VASEY: Like I said, it's lower than it would have been from the initial study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it was -- if the 230 was lowered to what the interior lands really are valued at nowadays, wouldn't then the impact fees be even lower? MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's where I was going. Thank you. Page 84 1611 ~ A:o. .~ ~ptembe IZ>>09. MS. V ASEY: Yeah. But on this part for the AUIR, they're not really purchasing anything. When they talk about a placeholder, you know, the level of service standard is based on the acreage per person, per population. And all of these properties are either donated or -- I don't think we're actually buying them, are we, Barry? MR. WILLIAMS: In this five-year window we have a couple that we're -- if we have the funds to purchase, we would want. But for the most part they are interdepartmental transfers or donations, that's correct. MS. VASEY: I don't know if that helps. And probably other-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it helps a lot. I'm just trying -- I mean, I've got -- I know if] were to open up this book and see that we're using that cost per unit, that just strikes me as being in error. And I'm trying to figure out how something as blatantly in error as I perceive it to be should be left in here or not. So other than that, anybody else have any other questions on the community parkland category? Mr. Kolflat? COMM]SSIONER KOLFLA T: Is there anything we can do to readjust that level of service? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can recommend to the Board of County Commissioners as part of our review that the level of service needs to be adjusted downward. Yes, we could do that. That's certainly what we -- that's part of our right to do, that kind of recommendation. That's what we're here to do today is actually discuss the cost and the levels of services and items like that. And if we feel there should be some changes in those, we should make those recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as part of our motion. COMM]SSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, how does the committee feel about that then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I've been talking about here. And I'm not sure, I may be the only one that has that perception, so -- and it has to be a consensus in some marmer. MR. WILLIAMS: Just if] may, just to offer another perspective. And again, I appreciate -- we've heard from the community in particular, private developments in -- with the amenities that they enjoy in a gated community, isn't there enough recreational opportunities for our community? And that is a unique perspective that folks have that live in gated communities. And ] would tell you, you know] have a perspective of working in a park at North Collier Regional Park and see the use of that park and that facility. I as a Park and Rec. director am weekly dealt with phone calls, people looking for space to play. And I think the state and federal lands are a wonderful addition to what we have for recreation in Collier County. We're very blessed in that. But when we're talking about organized sports and we're talking about the variety of sports that youth play, we do have deficits, we do have needs. Perhaps they all are internal, internal Collier County. You know, Orangetree is probably the one spot from my perspective that really cries for a need for a park. And that park has been pushed out quite some time because of a variety of factors. But I would ask -- you know, your perspective is unique in what you see in terms of our development. I wouldn't want you to reduce level of service just solely based on your perspective. I would hope that you would continue to get data that you need to make sure that a level of service for Parks and Rec. in particular is what it should be in this county. So thanks, ] just wanted to throw that out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think for the past several years we've been asking these questions when it comes to parks. And while it may be inappropriate to include the state parks and the federal parks that we have, they have to have some bearing on the types of parks that we end up building. And, you know, where that leads, you know, I'm not sure. Whether that leads to a lessening of the LOS, I probably think it does. But again __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately I think sitting here today, I don't know if we've got enough information -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to determine it. Which is where we are every year when-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why we keep asking, though, every year and we never quite get the information we need to make a real value judgment on things. To that point, do we not have interlocal agreements with the City of Naples for both beaches and parks? MR. WILLIAMS: We do have an interlocal agreement. The board signed an agreement with the City of Page 85 16 I ~~1mA 2 200~ Naples I believe last year and it's a payment that they make. It's a million dollars a year. And what that agreement stipulates is reciprocal beach parking for their residents to use county beach parking spaces, as well as county beach parking stickers being identified and recognized on city beaches. It also had a provision in the agreement though that allowed for the county's use of the city parks. And the agreement outlines how the city has a great deal of flexibility to use the monies to upgrade their park system as -- park systems as they see fit. So about a half a million dollars was for beach parking, and the remainder half million was that purpose. So we do have an agreement. We don't control, however, the city parks. This is a contribution that the county makes to the city for access that the county has or for recognition that the county uses the city parks. COMMISSIONER CARON: But somehow the city parks for sure have got to be included. Because A, we're paying for them, or at least a portion of them. And B, we have every right to use them. So somehow those parks at the very least have to be included to some degree, even if it's a factor. If we say we'll, you know, account for 40 percent of that park. Some portion of it has got to be reflected in our park inventory. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER CARON: It can't just be out there nebulous a la Big Cypress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, though, but if you bring in the park, you have to bring in the population of the city. Because, you know, do the --] guess, Barry, what would be interesting, maybe, maybe, you know, because we do talk about this every year, so it would be nice if we really brought it to a head, is to look at the city's population and their parks. In other words, obviously whether they're community or -- and then see what we look like with everything together. MR. WILLIAMS: We do have that data in your packet, I would mention. In your inventory-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You include the population of the city and their parks? MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that we include the population. We do include the acreage of the community and regional parks the city has. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not fair to bring their parks in as if the city -- their population is not there that day. That's not fair. MS. VASEY: Doesn't it have the population of the city? MR. WILLIAMS: It does. It's in -- MS. VASEY: It's county-wide. For the regional parks. Not for the community, for the regionals. MR. BOSI: Regional does. For community parks it doesn't. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, we're talking about community. That's -- are we talking about regional or community? MR. BOSI: Both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Community came first. MR. WILLIAMS: The community park the city has that probably gets the most hits from county residents is Fleischmann Park. And one could question whether that should be considered regional park versus I think they have it listed as a community, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, to probably summarize this, I guess you're not looking at any additional revenues needed to maintain a level of service, so you're neutral in that regard. You have an expenditure mainly because you're giving away -- or an interdepartment transfer of an asset which is the -- I think it's Randall or something like that. MR. WILLIAMS: Randall Curve, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from a capital improvement viewpoint for the AUIR, you're at zero, you're not doing anything. So it doesn't do us any good to take anything away from you because you've got nothing to give in the first place. So you can't go out and demo the park to make it less. So I guess the practical application here is it doesn't matter at this point to change anything, with the caveat I would suggest that we recommend to the BCC to take a closer look at the unit cost and consider a realistic consultant maybe to see what that cost really should be. I'm not too enthused about what Amy has told me regarding this Page 86 16 1 1 iseA2r21,;t consultant, since they've left the number the same now for the third year in a row and we know that isn't a truthful statement. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what do you think -- curiosity, what would you guess the window for that number, a fair number there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be -- my opinion? About half. 130 to -- somewhere less than ]50. Only because I know what the pricing is going for out in the rural area and places where I live. And Golden Gate Estates is a nice place, but it's not -- and it's still more than your raw land. But even like the A TV park, ] can't imagine anybody paying 230 an acre for the A TV park. It's mostly wetlands, from what I understand, or portions of wetlands. So I don't know how they'd get to 230. Ijust can't see that. Even the best land that I live on in high parts of Golden Gate Estates is not worth 230,000 right now. I wish it was worth half that right now, to be honest with you. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Has the staff looked into any other possible levels of service that are used in other places? MR. BOSI: In 2007 we went through an exhaustive level of service analysis with this very body where we compared the level of service with this county that -- the coastal counties within the State of Florida. We've run through this exercise of comparing this county towards how other counties do it in terms of what our acreage is compared to their acreage. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Utilizing other levels of service other than acreage? MR. BOSI: Well, acreage is the consistent basis that's utilized through the counties throughout the State of Florida. It's acreage-wise, acreage to population based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Also my pet peeve, with these not counting in state parks and -- as well as within private communities. When you devise a measurement for roads, it's very complicated. Much more complicated than simply saying 1.2 acres per thousand, which is what we're doing with community parks. I would suggest if it's possible to do, Amy, to make -- and Commissioner Caron mentioned the word factoring. To make a much more complicated level of service calculation that factors in -- and this applies to schools too -- factors in the number of communities. You can look up the COs and see what communities have in the way of parks, park facilities, swimming pools, tennis -- MR. WILLIAMS: And I may add, this has come up in the past years and this is something that's been made available to you. I would tell you that the Board of County Commissioners actually adopted a level of service guideline based on facilities per population. And that tended to be the question in the dialogue discussion as I recall from having the reins handed over to me is that private development, for example, you know, they may have tennis courts, they may have golf courses, they may have swimming pools, why can't you count that and look at that? And so certainly that is true. We've done an analysis of what's out there in the private community. We've applied those level of service guidelines that the board has approved. We've got that in a table I think that's in your packet that shows kind of where we are with our current facilities and what we need. So there has been some of that work, just to mention to you. MS. DOWNS: Well, you're saying it was approved, a simple calculation was approved in the past by the commissioners. I'm suggesting it's time to do a more complicated. You know, with the roads thing, they don't say every two miles per person. It's the 100th hour, they skew it for seasonality. This is a ridiculously simple calculation in a unique type of population. You have older people, you have communities 55 and older. Why do they need to factor into the number of soccer fields you need? There's a-- there should be a weighting to this calculation. And I don't see that it's impossible to do, unless there's a state statute that says you are not allowed. MR. BOSI: We've had this discussion. It relates back to the impact fees. Level of service standards for park is acreage based. There's no county in the State of Florida that I know of that bases the level of service not upon population. What you're talking about, you're -- the way that you're describing it, and I understand the desire, is transportation's concurrency is based upon utilization of that road. Utilization of that road volume to capacity dictates the level of service standards. Page 87 '~I\i) i ' 16 I 1 Se;tember 21, 2009 And we've had the discussion similar to parks and to libraries, why can't we use door counts for our impact fees and our level of service standards? It's not as measurable and it does not translate as well for the impact fee calcu -- for utilization and for the establishment beyond population base. And I understand. What you're saying is the community has characteristics that you can't lump 1,000 persons within this community and then say that they're all going to utilize the parks. We've been up and down the issue a number of times. We've been to comparisons of level of service standards. We've looked at other Florida counties to see how they've approached this subject, and we all come back to the population base is the methodology that's established and utilized throughout the State of Florida. I'm not sure if we've ran the exercise out with Steve Tindal and our impact fee consultants, but I don't think that they've ever arrived upon or suggested upon a method, other than population base strategies for h'lw you can measure your level of service standards. MS. DOWNS: Then maybe it's time they do that. And I'm not questioning the 1.2 acres. It's the per thousand people. That's the number that should be weighted. There has to be some sensible measure. It's the same thing with roads. When you calculate the roads fee, it's based on the usage of that road, how frequently it's going to have to be repaved, when it's going to have to be replaced. You're doing the same thing with parks. You are unfairly estimating how many people are usi ng that park, the wear and tear on it and when it will have to be replaced, because you're using a population number that doesn't use that facility. So if the roads can fine tune that better to who does use that facility and wears down that road and has an impact on it, the impact -- I think we have to have a more fair number to how these facilities are tJUly impacted. MR. BOSI: That was the basis of our level of service standard exploration of two years ago, and the conclusion of that exercise was for parks and for libraries. A population base standard was the appropriate methodology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, there might be a solution to this. And you yourself said it. Every single year we come here and we have the same issue. We repeat it every year. Now, maybe some of us, including myself, can't catch it, can't get it. But I still haven't got it. I still haven't seen how all the private communities to which this county is glorified for has all those amenities taken into consideration. But] remember being told that they are, that had those not been taken into consideration, the 1.2 might be higher. If that's true, then why don't someone show us at the next AUlR how all that's taken into consideration. Give a listing of what you know to be the communities, the facilities, the populations. You can do that, you've got statistics all over the place in this building. And show how they are accounted for and why this 1.2 is so low compared to what it would be if those weren't taken into consideration. Maybe that's an exercise that just needs to be done to put this thing to bed. So I know that may not all be your department's work is and it may fold over into somebody else's, but] think this is going to happen year after year. Because I'm still frustrated with it. And I think there are others that may be as well. So anyway. MS. DOWNS: ]f] can share a real commonsense analogy that my good '01 boy neighbor made who knows nothing about government, came here from Pennsylvania, and he says the little town I live in -- and th is was true of my hometown, come to think of it. There was a city golf course, there was a county golf course. He said, well, how come we don't have any of those facilities down here? I don't want to pay $100 to play golf. Well, why don't you have any of those facilities? Because there are 90 public/private golf courses. 20,000 acres devoted to golf courses. So YOlI've determined we don't need any of those. Well, there's a lot of tennis courts, there's a lot of swimming pools, and yet you've determined we need more of those. It's inconsistent. MR. BOSI: And the only thing -- MS. DOWNS: And its perceived as very unfair. MR. BOS]: -- ] was going to say is I have made no determinations. These level of service standards were adopted by -- MS. DOWNS: I'm not-- MR. BOSI: -- the community as a whole. MS. DOWNS: -- beating up on you, Michael. I'm not beating up on you. I think it's time to revisit it seriously. Page 88 16 I 1 '\ 31 a September 2], t009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's all your fault. MR. BOSI: I'm beginning to think that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, look at, I think we've beat this horse to death. And let's just take a --let's summarize everything where we're at. Is there anybody that has any fmal comments on this one? And if not, is there a motion from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To recommend approval of the community park land segment with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: As submitted. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak. Now, I've got to ask the motion maker and the motion second, I feel it's appropriate that we highlight the unit cost to the Board of County Commissioners and ask them to consider that unit cost as if -- whether or not it's realistic in today's marketplace in regards to how it should remain on this page. - COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the second-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You accept it or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do accept it. But I think -- and I think what Gina is saying, the bottom of what Gina is saying is we could make this more complicated than it is and we'd be able to handle it. You know, the cost, that doesn't make sense, a countywide cost to begin with. So whatever the number is doesn't make sense if it's countywide. But I'll go along with Mark on lowering that cost and let the commission decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak do you second -- do you accept that as a second? COMM]SSIONER HOMIAK: Is this taking into consideration any property on the water or boat launches or -- because you're talking about people not using soccer fields that live in gated communities, but they're probably launching a boat. There's a lot of people launching boats, so they're using that facility but they may not be playing soccer. You don't want to count them. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: No, I-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In this discussion, I'm hearing that you don't want to count them and the property -- I don't know where you're going to buy property on the water for $230,000 in ] 0 years from now. MR. W]LLlAMS: I can tell you, Port of the Isles, I think the county paid 5.55 million for five acres. So it's a little over a million an acre there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're not plarming -- that's not a plan for the future to be able to accomplish what everybody seems to want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, the strength of Mark's point is that we're not going to be buying waterfront property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought I heard-- COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, as we evolve as a community, the park system goes inward. And inward land costs less than it did in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought I heard the Productivity Committee find in their review of this whole process was that the parks will be inland, not coastal any longer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there will be no more coastal anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to the times that those do pop up, the Planning Commission can always make an exception, like they did in Port of the Islands. That certainly wasn't on any schedule you got in front of you today, but they decided it was -- the opportunity was there, they took it. They can always do it. But to gear it for these higher prices is what I'm concerned about. It sends a false impression to everybody that that's the going rate that we should Page 89 ,# \ 16 I s!ember2]~oJ ~ Hll be paying, and I don't think that's realistic from an application of impact fee calculations or any others. So I'm just -- that's my position on it. Motion maker's accepted it. Does the second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For the commissioners to look at it, you mean? COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any further discussion? From the Plarming Commission perspective, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying a) e. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up, too, take a vote on something? MS. VASEY: I thought you were going to do it. MS. DOWNS: Same motion. Do I have a second? MS. VASEY: Maybe not. Yes, I'll second it, but I do have a little discussion. Looking over the -- I happen to have the impact fee study with me. I don't have the full one, but I have the one that we actually approved. And the scenario that we approved had 75 percent of the beach and boat access land value based on actual market values, and then the remaining 25 percent is capped at 230. So, you know, there's a recognition that you're not going to fmd any beach and boat access for 230. So it looks like maybe part of that was, you know, accepting that there was higher cost and lower cost. But for the purposes of discussion, I think it's not a bad thing to take another look at it. So I'm ready to vote. MS. DOWNS: All those in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. DOWNS: It passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're at a point where I think our court reporter could use a break. And while we're on the break, we need to come back and discuss how -- what we want to do. We only can be in this room till about 4:45 today and we need to break. And it looks like we're going to have to come back for a longer period than anticipated on Wednesday anyway, so we probably need to figure out a break point and we'll stop right now for 10 minutes, come back at 10 after 4:00 and resume for what little bit oftime we have left. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, if you'll please take your seats, we'll try to wrap up the next 35 minutes or 40 minutes or so this afternoon. And what we'll try to do is if we can fmish up today with two items; that is, the regional park summary and because the library is under parks and the library staff is here today, we'll go into that one and then that will be it for today. So if you're not here for regional parks and you're not here for libraries, you can count on us Wednesday morning at 8:30 in this room. We'll wrap those two up today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are we going to stay or are we going to leave? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind -- did you have something, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just had a couple of things] wanted to mention. One was for Commissioner Schiffer on the solid waste projections. Page 90 1 6 I lePtA~2~, 21 , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: They come from Page 232, and they are county-wide peak season projections. And Phil did have the right ones. They are the higher numbers. I did look it up. And secondly, back to the parks issue here for a minute, I think we do want to task staff to come back with some sort of a report to finally put to bed this whole business of the park calculations and to figure out and try to make it clear for all of us. So if we could get you to do that, that would be a good -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but let's make sure we have a consensus. And I think that's a -- it would be nice if for once we put that to bed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Does that feel-- everybody in favor of that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's one concern is staffs done that before. And what they'll do is they'll call around the state and show you what everybody else does. And that's not exactly what Gina was saying. What Gina was saying is we can make it a lot more complicated than a simple denominator like that. MR. BOSI: And I guess when you're tasking staff to derive upon a methodology unique to the county that can somehow take into account the usage of the facilities as the barometer of the level of service standard. MS. DOWNS: You have to do something that's legally defensible. So I would think you'd have to work with the legal department to -- MR. BOSI: Well, we would have to hire an outside consultant with our impact fees as to what possible arrangement can be utilized to measure your park level of service standard, based upon something other than . population. ] had suggested -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're going somewhere where Donna wasn't intending to go. Let's go back to what she asked you first. COMMISS]ONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to know, you just keep telling us that we have calculated certain information into the figures that we're using. We can't see that, we can't fmd it. We don't see it. So those are the figures that I'm looking to pull out of this. MR. BOSI: Maybe I don't understand. I guess what you're saying is go back and try to fmd out how we arrived upon the ] .2 acres per thousand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Because -- and I remember this from years ago when I fIrst made a lot of noise about all these numbers. I thought I was told at a meeting that the 1.2 or whatever it was at the time is as low as it was because it already takes into consideration all the private facilities. But we've never really seen that. We never really saw a count where all this came out and where it showed that in Grey Oaks there was 1,000 people living there and in those 1,000 people they had this much park acreage and they had these facilities in their private facilities, and therefore we didn't need to count them as much in the overall county. And that brought the 1.2 down to whatever it was at the time. Is that -- and Marla, you may -- MS. RAMSEY: No. Marla Ramsey for the record. No, it's not that specific. We talk -- when we talk about facilities, for example, we haven't bought -- we've built two tennis courts I think in the 12 years that I've been here. And the reason we don't build tennis courts is because the gated communities are building the tennis courts. So we build the tennis courts for those who are outside of those communities, and we do that based upon usage. Same with bocce ball. We've turned our racquetball-- or our shuffleboard courts into bocce ball courts and added a number of bocce ball courts within our system because that's the trend and that's what the community wants. So the park is fluid and they move and they change with trends. I was telling -- we also just recently took a PONY league field in East Naples and we turned it into a cricket field. We did that about three weeks ago because we have a huge number of people that want to play cricket, which is done in a circular fashion. So the things that we are providing to this community are not necessarily the same things that you would see within your gated communities. We have less of those kinds of activities in our parks, based upon the fact the usage of those is not as much of a demand. That's how we take into consideration the stuff within the gated communities versus that which are grouped and large and organized facilities like lacrosse and cricket and football and soccer and field hockey and all the other stuff that's starting to come about. If you see what we've built recently, it's been mostly water access, beach access and Page 91 16 IIi f\~ ; September 21,2009 athletic fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we may have a hard time tasking staff to do something that we can't clearly figure out at this point. Let us -- we're going to be back here Wednesday. ]fwe come up with anything between now and then, maybe we'll reconsider some direction. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: But while Marla's there, there's one thing you do want is acreage. MS. RAMSEY: I need acreage that's not in a preserve, that's in upland that I can actually develop upon. And when you add the state lands and the federal lands and all the preserve lands into my inventory in order to lower the impact fee, that's fine, but it doesn't really meet the needs of what the community is seeking. And if you see the growth in our schools, as you have seen over the years, a lot of young people are coming to this community. But it's not just young that use our facilities, there are a number of walkers and elderly. Our softball leagues of 50 and older are the largest they've ever been. So we have all ages that are within the parks. And if] don't have developable land, then we're going to get into an issue as we go down that the usage on my fields are going to be so intense that just keeping them up and keeping them green is going to be a very difficult task for us. That's how we kind of look at when do we need to add more fields, because my usage is so heavy on my fields that I can't keep it green. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think what we're going to end up doing is just holding off on our direction to staff. Let us reformulate. And if we have any concerns on Wednesday, we can express them at that time, okay? And with that, we'll go into regional parks. Barry, are you going to still follow Phil's -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommendation? MR. WILLIAMS: -- if) may. I still find that method agreeable. If there are any questions, certainly I'm here to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to make this disagreeable to you somehow. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm here for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- there's only a few pages in this. It's the remainder of the category eight facilities. Are there any comments, questions from the committees? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I won't be shy, I'll tell -- oh, go ahead. MS. VASEY: No, you go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm real concerned about --let's look at the table on Page] 19, because it starts there. What is this Bayview Park acreage that you're adding? MR. WILLIAMS: Iknewyou'd-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there was a long process about that and I believe the county commission trashed it. So why are we buying more property in Bayview Park? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I knew that that would come to your attention. I will tell you that we do have it in out years. We are still looking. As you know, we own a number of properties in and around Bayview Park. It was not rezoned in the way that we needed it to, and the board agreed with the Plarming Commission on that. And so a design for expanded parking next to Bayview Park was defeated. Weare working to redesign Bayview Park itself and to try to expand the number of spaces in that park for boaters. That is a very popular spot. However, we still have plans. The neighborhood -- and from time to time properties do become available that are for sale. And our contention had been in the zoning process, as well as with the board, that any efforts on our part would be -- we would look for the long term. We would look for as that community made itself available for potential purchase that we would take advantage of that in an attempt to with our existing properties attempt to do something there at Bayview Park because of the need and the desire for boaters to get to the Gulf. I know that seems inconsistent with us including it, but for right now we have included those opportunities to purchase properties that come available in those out years. Page 92 - 161 1 A3: J September~l, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, the defense that I kept running into of your department when we brought this whole Bayview thing up was that it was in the AUIR, it's been approved all along, the commission knew, it was on their agendas to -- I guess it was consent or summary where they bought all these properties. And we're looking at the same scenario all over again. So this will go marching on down the road and five or six or seven years from now you'll go and try to develop it again. And we'll say wait a minute, we told you guys back in 2009 it's been out in the AUIR for five years. And I'm sorry, I can't buy into that program. That's the one that got us into trouble the last time and the community was in an uproar over it and the Board of County Commissioners rightfully so backed away from it. MS. RAMSEY: Just so I can help clarify that just a little bit. Marla Ramsey for the record. I believe that the direction from the board was that they couldn't approve it at this time until we had amassed enough land in order to make it more feasible. And so that's why you find in the out years, five or farther out, maybe another opportunity to purchase if they come about. Because that was the direction. It wasn't really it's dead, go away, but it's that you don't have enough of the lands within that area to be able to do a rewne. So that's where we're taking our cue from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll deal with it when we make a motion then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, one -- if they buy property, tear down the houses and plake it grass, that's good for the neighborhood in the meantime. As long as they keep defeating it at the commission level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think the political pressure will be to leave it grass? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, remember, I voted for the parking lot, so be careful of me. But-- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and it is in the I O-year window. You remember, you are trying to affect something that 20 years from now what will that neighborhood look like? It's hard to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, if there's one person that lives there and lives there under the intent that he bought there in a nice neighborhood area, his -- he ought to be honored for what he did. And I don't think it's right to come in and buy land around any community andjust sell him out by saying we're going to convert this into a parking lot. That isn't fair, it isn't right for the neighborhood, and I just can't buy off on that. And since I've been on this Plarming Commission, at least, I've tried to defend the neighborhoods, and I'll continue to do so, so that's my position on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, one comment. We won't rehear that, I promise. But, you know, that big bam behind all the county properties is probably what should upsetting them the most. That rises for, you know, 30 feet above, 40 feet above. Anyway, let's move on before we rehear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question I have on that page is we bought Pepper Ranch for a huge amount of money and you're only getting 50 acres out of it? MR. WILLIAMS: We have had conversations with Conservation Collier about acquiring 50 of the acres of Pepper Ranch for recreational purpose. We haven't fmalized anything. In our discussions, you know, that -- if you've seen the property, it has enormous recreational opportunity. Under Conservation Collier there's some limitations that they have to adhere to. There are -- but we are continuing to talk to them about the management plan and the potential of trying to get 50 acres. In particular there's a -- in front of the property there are a couple of nice buildings on the property that have been used for a variety of things that have great potential. I think Conservation Collier is still working through what they would like to see happen with the property, though. But we had put out there the potential for purchase, not -- we certainly couldn't manage 2,500 acres, but a 50-acre parcel for camping, for horseback riding, for interpretive studies, that kind of thing certainly had an interest for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that was -- when it was bought, it was a heavily discussed issue, because Conservation Collier literally used up all their funds for now and for quite a while. I understood that as a caveat to the purchase there'd be a lot of public use ofthe property. Fifty acres is not a lot of public use of2,300 acres of property with the -- that was used with public money. MS. RAMSEY: Again, Marla Ramsey. Page 93 16 1 lplmbeA]~009 3 Just for clarification, what we were looking for more is a trailhead center, the center area where you'd have the heaviest impact. And then the trails and other things, the hunting and all the other stuff that would go on in the other parts of the land would not be directly underneath parks and recreation, just the active areas where the camping and the interpretive centers, the parking lots, the restroom facilities, et cetera. That's what we were looking at for the trailhead as being underneath the park side of it. But yes, the entire site will have recreational opportunities. But this is just the trailhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So long as we're not using it for --losing the recreational opportunity there. Okay. Janet, I'm sorry, did you -- MS. VASEY: I had a conversation with Amy Patterson at the break, and it was probably a mischaracterization to say that that was $230,000 for property that's out in Golden Gate Estates. ] remember saying that. That is not actually what it was. When we came -- when we told the consultants to go back and redo it to recognize that more of the property -_ that very little of the new parks would be along the coastal areas, they included some costs for areas that were along the margin. So it's not all Golden Gate Estates, it's other areas where they looked at where parks were planned, and not all of them are out in the Estates. So then they settled on a figure that was 230,000, which represents some of the really inland areas and some of the areas that are not coastal, but, you know, that are closer to the coast. So that was a mischaracterization. And we're going to go back and take another look at the study. And it's still not a bad thing to take a look at the land values. But I did misspeak when I gave the impression that that 230 was in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Well, you know, that 230 came into play, and I have a history of all the AU]Rs from 2003 to now. That 230 was bumped up from the year 2006 going into '07 and then '08 continued it. So the 230 came about at a time before your direction was relied upon. It included all the coastal areas, it included the whole county. So if now your committee's direction was to not include the coastal areas but more the inland parts of the county -- and I don't mean just Golden Gate Estates like you just said, but not the coast -- then why would the 230 still be the number if previously it did include the coast? Immediately by taking out the coast we should have dropped that number somewhat. And that's where my concern was. It doesn't appear to have dropped -- well, it didn't drop at all and I think it should. So -- MS. VASEY: Well, the regional parks -- and perhaps Amy can address some of it. The original study showed regional parks at $440,000 an acre. And we whittled that down by what the areas that we chose. So anyway, Amy, go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson again for the record. The proposed parks impact fee study has -- basically they looked at four different types of parks land: Community parks, regional parks, and within those categories the beach and boat access. All with their own distinct costs ranging on the high side from the $4.5 million an acre for the beach, ].4 million for the boat, the $440,000 for the regional parks and $200,000 for community parks. Now, going through all of these discussions with the Productivity Committee was how that $230,000 arose. The consultant prepared a number of scenarios for the Productivity Committee's review, applying different percentages and weights to the coastal properties, from not valuing the coastal property at all and capping the value at $230,000 an acre for everything, or then going up to the ultimate recommendation that the Productivity Committee chose where they valued 75 percent ofthe very valuable property at its cost and 25 percent they capped at that $230,000 an acre value, which is what we're calling the inland value, not necessarily Golden Gate Estates, but it is the inland value. So that's kind of the history of how that $230,000 a rose. Ifwe were to take the two acreage costs that we have validated by the study, the 200 and the 440, if you average those two together, you still come up with a land value of $320,000 an acre. So that $230,000 an acre all ofa sudden in comparison to everything else is fairly low. If we were to throw back in all of this beach and boat access property, we'll come up with a number that's significantly higher than anything that's reflected on these sheets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Amy. Page 94 - 1611 ~2\~ ~ptel\1W 2],. Does anybody else have any questions on the regional park summary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barry, who came up with the number for Pepper Ranch, which is 270 per acre? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? COMMlSSIONER SCHIFFER: The Pepper Ranch is 270 per acre. Who came up with that? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what you're referencing, 270 per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're buying 50 acres at ] 1 and a half million. MR. WILLIAMS: What part are you referencing, though, just so I can make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 50 acres at Pepper Ranch. I'm looking at Page 121 to get the information. The question really is who came up with the value for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 50 acres should reflect the $230,000 an acre. In your math -- you're telling me your math doesn't work for you there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna's got a -- MR. WILLIAMS: We need to look at that number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, never mind. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an excel spreadsheet with a formula. Formula driven, so hopefully it's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, me bad. MS. DOWNS: But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: You know, so we've established a price of230 and that's now the driver. When you look at every single item on Page 121, break them down per acre, what you're buying is '08-'09, Port of the Islands 255,000 an acre, Freedom Park, 231 an acre, and everything after that is exactly 230 an acre. Well, if you're a landowner that wants to sell the county five acres, you'd be a fool not to price it at 230 an acre. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, if] could-- MS. DOWNS: You just told them how to price it. MR. WILLIAMS: If] could reiterate, this is a placeholder. And it causes -- I know it's caused a lot of grief over the years. I've witnessed this last year. If you were to purchase a piece of property, there's a process the county goes through. You get appraisals, you get fair market value, you make an offer based on that. This is not -- we don't buy property based on the AUIR, the $230,000 -- MS. DOWNS: What did Mirasol sell per acre? MS. RAMSEY: ]f] can just clarify one more time is that I've asked the Plarming Commission every single year after we get done with this particular item that we take the land value off of our area because it means nothing to us. It really doesn't. But he says to me, I have to have a number to make sure that you're in concurrency. So that's why the number shows up. It really has nothing to do with the price that we actually pay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put 50,000 in there then. Barry had a good idea, it's a placeholder. So just put 50,000 there and let's run with it. MS. RAMSEY: That's what I'm saying, you could put any number you want to here. It really -- it does not drive our purchasing. Our purchasing is done based on appraisals. It has to have two appraisals over a certain dollar amount. Average of those two appraisals is the price that we would then come in at, minus negotiation, if we can. That's how we would purchase land. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: And let's talk about -- what is the problem of doing that? Because the value, I mean, it does end up with a bunch of crazy information what the value of all our stuff is. So why don't we just drop the price value, the dollar value and just stick with the acres, which is the unit we go by anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Mike is -- and Marla indicated that it was required to have a unit cost? MR. BOSI: This is -- remember, this is the document that prepares us for our CIE that's going to be reviewed by the state that's going to evaluate what the value of our inventory is and what the value of our plarmed purchases are. And there -- maybe Randy could speak maybe a little bit more. Page 95 1 QeJemlr 2~~0~! "" ',.:1. H MR. COHEN: Even taking it further, we have to demonstrate future fmancial feasibility as well too. That's why the dollar value is there. I understand, you know, that you may want to revisit that number. I think that's an appropriate recommendation to make, and have not only Amy look at it from the impact fee perspective, the Productivity Committee look at it, and we'll go that route and see if the figure is valid. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Randy, why don't we -- they're going to come up and they want to buy future purchases. Let them put a price tag on those future purchases. If it's by the ocean it's going to be high, if it's not it's going to be low. And let them just come up with what money they have to get from this point on. The inventory value of it I don't think is a necessary number to build on. MR. COHEN: And I think the key here is financial feasibility. And sometimes it probably should be adjusted at various times when you're buying land in the future. MS. RAMSEY: We used to adjust it based upon what we had done over the last couple of years. We would do an average of what that cost was. But we've gone into a -- I'm not sure, I think it came when we first got the numbers from the impact fees, although I don't believe that -- this doesn't drive the impact fees, it's the other way around. We just took that number from the impact fees because it was a number that they use for their best nexus, so that's how the number kind of just got in here is this placeholder number that we talk about. And you know, but if you look at what we're doing, a lot of it's coming to us from someone else. South Florida Water Management owes us 625 acres, which we're not going to buy at all. Even though it has a value to it, there's no out of pocket for it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why can't we do that? Why can't we just -- you know, forget the inventory value. They're going to price what they want to buy over the next five years and they're going show us where they're going to get the money to buy it. And that's the only thing we have to deal with. MR. WILLIAMS: But to kind of follow along on your initial suggestion, ] mean, do we want to tip our hand to people that may potentially have property coming to us if we do put a value on it. If we put like a value based on what we paid, we are tipping the hand, so to speak. We're losing some potential negotiation there. If you -- you know, 230 I know is an offensive number for you, but it is a number that has some use. I would be concerned if we were to exactly put a number of what market value looks like. I mean, just for a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it might be -- that's a good point, though, Brad. I mean, everything is public record, so if they itemize this, even though it's not in the CIE, their backup data to get the CIE number, which is the value of all their properties, could then be determined, and someone could say, well, that's what they put in as an AUIR value, that's what -- that's a base for my property. Maybe if we just focus on adjusting the unit cost to a more realistic value and then -- whether it's the average of all the future expenditures or something like that, that might be the way to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to not buy a piece of property without a series of appraisals. They're not going to horse trade properties. So the fact that they predict something costs something -- MR. WILLIAMS: Just, you know, I do appreciate Gina's point in that. Just you do lose a little negotiation power I think if you layout what you think that you should pay for a particular property that's not come into your inventory yet. So that would be a concern. I think if you were to look at this number, and I know that we've not been very articulate with a placeholder, that's not affected you in any positive way. I mean, the $230,000 amount, I don't know a better way to characterize it, it's almost like it's not viewed as the market value, it's just an amount that is identified as the highest one might pay for a piece of -- an acre ofland for a community or regional park. But even that doesn't sound adequate for-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if you need it, then don't complain about screwing around with it every year. This is what will happen to you. So let's move on. Because we've spent so much time on it, we're just trying to shed it. If it's going to mess up your bargaining position, then we'll play the game every year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a recommendation that we could do with the comprehensive planning for next year, but for this year I think the best we can do is suggest like we did in the first one, that they take a look at that 230 number and review it as far as its realistic value. And knowing the concerns of the Plarming Commission, maybe by next year if you guys could vet out whether or not this can be done in a different manner, that might be a solution to look at next year. Page 96 J61 . I, 1~A3 3 September 21 , 2009 Anything else on the regional parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a-- now, there's two issues forme, I don't know aboutlhe rest of you. One of them is the same as the first one, it's the 230,000 figure. The second one is, and I'm not asking anybody to jump on my bandwagon on this one, but the Bayview Park thing, I do not buy into that philosophy only because it's that philosophy that got us into trouble in the first place there, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't want me to make the motion this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can make the motion. Just make whatever motion you want. I'm still going to vote according to the way I feel about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, nobody else wants to make a motion? Then I'll make a motion that we forward with a recommendation of approval of the regional parks with one condition and that is that they reevaluate the $230 (sic) per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: $230,000. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: $230,000. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish it was 230. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Well, what he said he uses it for, keep it at $230. COMMISS]ONER HOMIAK: I second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Now discussion. I'll be voting no on the motion because of the inclusion of Bayview Park in the AUlR. With that in mind, is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 4-]. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up? MS. VASEY: We'll do the same motion, just looking at the 230,000 cost. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed. MS. DOWNS: Nobody's opposed? MS. VASEY: I would like to say one thing. We were supposed to have three members, but one person was sick, so it would have been three voting for most of this meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before parks leaves, could you just flip to the back of the book here on Page 251 I'm not sure why it's in the back of the book, but -- this is -- first of all, tell me what AC stands for everywhere. MR. WILLIAMS: Anticipated completion. These are projects that are currently funded that we're not representing in the five years going forward because they're already funded and they're actually rollover. And we anticipate the project to be complete at that timeframe. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is Norm's Oil Well Road chart, okay. Let me just go down here, because there were a couple of other things that I was wondering about. VBA number eight, there's a DCA, but it's in red. Why is that figure just over there in the margin in red? MR. WILLIAMS: It really should be in 20] O. ] think that may be an error on our part. There is a half million Page 97 161' ~ ^~ a sttember~, ;/009 dollar contribution up for that. That's -- that is the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the bathroom, right? MR. WILLIAMS: That's the bathroom. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Okay. Well, that's why, Ijust wondered why it was over there in red. MR. WILLIAMS: It should actually be in 2010. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that was a reminder for us to include that. MS. DOWNS: It didn't work. MR. WILLIAMS: It did not work. COMMISS]ONER CARON: And let me ask you about the Barefoot Beach preserve back bay pier of a million dollars. MR. WILLIAMS: That's a developer contribution agreement that we have. It's a commitment from the folks that are putting Aqua, that's the Coconilla Corp. that are developing that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that are in bankruptcy? MR. WILLIAMS: That are in bankruptcy, that's correct. Well, I don't-- COMMISS]ONER CARON: So you're still anticipating that in 20] 4 that million dollars will come to the county? MR. WILLIAMS: We are still very hopeful. But we understand that there may be some issues there. COMMISS]ONER CARON: Okay. Because again, that's tied to them building a second building, which is not on the horizon in probably your lifetime. Certainly not in mine. MR. WILLIAMS: We totally understand where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item we're going to try to finish up before we leave is the library so that all the parks personnel can be done here today. That starts I believe on Page 153. MS. DOWNS: I have 175, but-- MR. BOSI: You have the County Manager's report. MS. DOWNS: Oh, okay. I have no idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 153 is correct, guys? MR. BOSI: Yes, it is 153. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, last year we had library buildings and library materials. Are they combined into one this year, is that -- MS. MATTHES: No, they're two separate ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, where is the second -- the library-- MS. MATTHES: Buildings are first and then collections after that. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: 157, Mark. MS. VASEY: 157 for material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is. Okay, good. Okay, with that in mind, did you have lunch with Phil, too? MS. MATTHES: IfI did not eat with Phil, so I will say three words instead of two. Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. The library currently exceeds the level of service requirements for square footage, and that level of service is .33 square feet per capita. And as you can see on the table, and I don't have the correct page number, we've exceeded that level of service for at least the entire period covered by this AUIR. Should populations change, obviously we'd have to make some changes to our construction plans. We do have a current construction project, but it's funded all by donations. The Rose Hall addition to Marco Island branch library is expected to be completed in winter 2010. Library materials collection level of service remains at 1.87 items per capita. And we're not recommending any changes to that level of service either. If you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might as well tack them both. Page 98 16 I 1 ~ A3 I September 21, 2009 Does anybody have any questions on either segment of the library presentation? COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: ] do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my questions are all on 157. Just -- one's just maybe a scrivener thing. Under revenues, I think impact fee allocated to new, don't you think that should be items instead of books? That was something we spent a lot of time talking about. MS. MATTHES: On impact fees? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. See where it says shall be allocated to new books. Do you think that should be items instead of books? MS. MATTHES: Yeah, items, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the other question I have is that in here you make a note of approximately four percent of the libraries collections is replaced armually. MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is about $800,000. Why don't you include that? MS. MATTHES: Because they're not funded with impact fees, they're funded with general fund dollars. It's not growth related. They're lost books or books that are no longer useful, they've wam out, they have incorrect information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So because they're essentially replacing something previously bought-- MS. MATTHES: Then it does not qualify for growth or impact fees. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: It's a growth oriented. It is a lot. I mean, it would be your major-- MS. MATTHES: Actually, the standard for the country is five percent, and we've reduced that to four percent to make the budget number more manageable. And we found that four percent is more realistic for us. But there is a national standard of five percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it doesn't -- if you don't put it in here because it doesn't account for growth, why does transportation have all of its operations for bridges, repairs and all the other stuff? Those aren't counting for growth, that's -- a good potion of their budget is just for those kind of items. So if they have to do it, why wouldn't libraries have to do it? MR. BOSI: I think Norm clarified that what their AUIR components was containing was for the bars that are going to replace the wire crossings. And I think he said -- he mentioned that there was some improvements that weren't straight system capacity, but they were on the verge of that or somewhere in between. But their maintenance and their -- their maintenance and their replacement is contained but it's not contained in the CIE. They have a segment they label as non CIE components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not what I -- I mean, he's included resurfacing and he says bridge repairs, and he says things like that. Those are non-growth related. They're maintenance of existing facilities. And he had $89 million in for it. I'm not going to go back and revisit transportation, but I'm just wondering how that -- why that differs from libraries where libraries don't have to put non-growth related items in there. And that's -- I mean, I don't know what to do about your explanation, but I'm just -- if you don't know, then] guess I won't know. MR. BOSI: Well, if we have a government building that needs replaced, that -- we can't use impact fees. That wouldn't be included within our AUIR as part of the capital improvement program that would be -- that goes towards for impact fee related expenses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But impact fees is only one source of revenue on these sheets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: We have a lot more sources of revenue besides impact fees. So why -- if the AUIR was only for impact fees, why do we have all the other sources of revenue listed here? MR. BOSI: The AUIR isn't for impact fees. For category B facilities it is for impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all it is? MR. BOSI: The purpose of the category B facilities is to maintain to make sure that we were in line with the current impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's all you needed to say then. That's the difference between transportation Page 99 16 I 1r:!ber ~ 309 I and library. Okay, got it. MR. COHEN: That's twice that we can say that it's been Mike's fault. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the question, Mike, is why did you put that in the report to begin with? Why is it in there? MR. BOSI: Why is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The statement telling us that you, you know, replace books? MR. BOSI: It wasn't my decision to place it in, it was my decision not to make libraries not segment out that four percent of their books are replaced on an armual basis, provided for by general revenue funds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just -- is there a good reason to leave it in? MS. RAMSEY: No, I don't think you have to. Marla Ramsey for the record. I think in past years we've had that number in there. And then as we were going through and we're saying hey, this is just impact fee related, why are we providing all extra information? And I think that this is probably just kind of a holdover from that. Took the numbers out but kind of left that info. in, and we can take that info. out, if you wish. It's not really pertinent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else on the library section? Ms. Downs, Ms. Vasey? Either one. MS. VASEY: Well, Ijust went back to Page] of your guidance. In the very fIrst paragraph it says, this AUIR, like past AUIRs, identifies capital needs for both new facilities to serve projected population growth, as well as for replacements of public facilities that will no longer be adequate in the five-year AUIR time period. Is that paragraph just relating to the category A facilities? Because it kind of led me to think that you were talking about all of them. But I hadn't noticed that the libraries didn't include it. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, that statement is in a broad general sense that there are capital improvements that can be contained -- or there are improvements that can be contained within the transportation plans that are not related to the concurrency management system. And the resurfacing of roads, I'm going to have to consult with transportation as to the appropriate response to that. But from my understanding, the resurfacing of roads would not be something that you can utilize your impact fees for. MS. VASEY: No, but] just -- you know, it seemed that the sentence calls for the replacement of -- you know, to include the replacement, and maybe it shouldn't. I don't know, I just kind of expected to see that one in -- MR. COHEN: You know, and to be very honest with you, that statement has been inAUIR since I've worked for the county. I think part of the intent behind that is, is some capital improvements only have a certain usefulness. And even though they may not be impact fee related, it's always been used as a guide with respect to identifying future items that may need revenue sources but may not be eligible for impact fees as well too. That would be my guess. Especially in some of the major priced areas. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Marilyn, thank you for being here all day. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. MS. DOWNS: On Page 166, just for a point of clarification, you have the chart about the public Internet usage. ]f you have it. MS. MATTHES: Yes. MS. DOWNS: We're on the page? On -- just looking at the last year, fiscal year '08. Total 304,000, approximately, users of Internet. And yet somewhere earlier in the report you mention the number of library cardholders is ] 89,000 for that same year. So ] automatically assumed the additional] 15,000 hits were people sitting outside the library or someplace else, but your footnote says no. o where are those other users, people who don't have library cards can access computers in the library? MS. MATTHES: Currently, yes. The library advisory board has recently voted to impose a fee for non library cardholders for using the Internet. And I've not taken that to the board yet for approval. And once we do that, we will start charging those people who don't have library cards to use the Internet. And everybody who actually is a resident of Collier County is eligible for a free library card so they would not have to pay for Internet usage. MS. DOWNS: Okay, thank you. Page 100 1~A3 ; 1 6 I September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of either library buildings or library materials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, Marilyn. Your library buildings. Amy's going to hate me after today. Your unit cost it is up to $433 a square foot. In 2007 you raised it from -- well, actually 2006 it was $343.50. You raised it to 421 in 2007. You maintained 421 in 2008. And in 2009, with the recession and bad economy and a reduction in everything that cost anybody (sic) anymore, you raised it again to 433. Can you tell me why we raised it to 433? MS. MATTHES: The 433 is based on the actual construction budget for south regional. We don't have the final figures in for that project. And there's likely to be some be funds that are not used for that project. So I could -- if that's the basis, I could anticipate the basis going down next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the library that you're speaking of was bought out at a time when the market was still strong. Nothing like that is even close in the marketplace today. I bid out stuff constantly, none of the numbers are what they used to be. Land prices are less, everything is less. So we're back to the same argument I started earlier today, that's an impractical assumption to have 433. I know it isn't your fault, but that's an impractical assumption to remain in this AU]R. MS. MATTHES: The 230 whatever was based on the construction cost of the headquarters library at the time. And I'm not sure about the interim prices, but we usually base the cost on the most recent construction project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's going to be one that I'm going to question again, so that takes care of that. Is there any other questions on library buildings or library materials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we can ask for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. We'll take them one at a time but we'll do both and then we'll flip both of them over to the Productivity Committee. Is there a recommendation first on library buildings? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. ] move we forward library buildings with a recommendation of approval as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Discussion. I'll be voting no on this item because the unit cost is not justified to have increased in this economic market that we're in. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't we ask the county commission to address that as we did with parks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because he didn't put that in his motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we can ask him to do that. That how it happened the last time-- CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron would like to ask you to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only problem I have with -- and it's difficult to predict prices. This is a five-year period. You know, chasing our tail as prices go up and down, which just look at what's happened in the last five years, let alone what could happen the next five years, it would be difficult to come up with a number. Maybe the number is too high. I think it is too high. That would be a great commission to get a $433 library which is an expanse, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, out of the six-year history of the AUIRs I have in front of me, they changed the number four times. So I'm not sure the five-year evaluation holds. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I think what we did in productivity that should take care of that is we changed the measure on the impact fees. It used to be a ] O-year average for the smoothing effect and we changed the impact fees to two years, I believe. So the dips -- you know, you're not going to get the smoothing effect which people said they wanted. But the highs and lows will be reflected just with theoretically a one-year lag in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the current-- Page ]0] 161'''' '1 1 . sefrembeA ~09 . MS. DOWNS: So we thought we addressed it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's your current square foot number? MS. PATTERSON: In may, Amy Patterson, for the record. Actually, this is an update year for the library impact fee, which should have meant that we would have a new cost for square foot number for a new impact fee study. However, all of the 2006 studies to be updated in 2009 were delayed because of the economic downturn, and some other things. The Board of County Commissioners directed that those studies be delayed, and the study schedule is going to be recalibrated in the November/December time period. So what I actually was here to tell you wasn't that, but that that $433 per square number is the full cost per square foot of the library. That includes furniture and equipment. The full cost of opening the library. It is not just the land and the bricks. It is actually the -- everything included besides the -- MS. DOWNS: It doesn't include the books? MS. PATTERSON: --library -- not the library books. But other than that, the desks, lights-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I'm happy with it then. Let's just as -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The other thing is that we have no need for any new libraries till well beyond 2019. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I think -- and we revisit this every single year. So I think if we're tracking it, you know, that's what we should -- you know, that's what we should do is track it because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I agree with you, I think it's a ridiculous figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion is to recommend approval as it is written; is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the seconded's been that way. Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMM]SSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. And I'm opposed for the reasons stated previously. So whenever you write this up, that's why. Now, as far as library materials, do we have a motion on library materials? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, move to approve as submitted, with one exception, to remove the paragraph discussing the replacement of the collections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the change of books to items? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the -- well, that's a scrivener thing. But changing the word books to items in revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISS]ONERKOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Does the Productivity Committee want to take up this issue? MS. VASEY: Yes. On the library buildings, I'd like to make the same motion. Page ]02 16 11 1 1 .. sep~~mb"rA309 .. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: Discussion? (No response.) MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Unanimous. On library materials, I would make the same motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. No discussion. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we need to end today's meeting. We'll resume 8:30 Wednesday morning with starting out with county jails, then law enforcement, then emergency medical, then government buildings. Is there a motion from the Plarming Commission to continue to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Wednesday morning at 8:30 in this room? Made by Commissioner Kolflat. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMM]SSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. You guys want to do the same thing or not? I don't think you have to vote on being here, but -- MS. VASEY: We'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's up to you all. MS. DOWNS: Second. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA ING COl'ISS STRAIN, Chairman ~ PRODUCTlV]TY COMMITTEE STEVE HARRISON, Chairman Page 103 These minutes approved by the board on I-..(nlofi as presented V' 16ePtmr 2rO~ 3 or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 104 September 21, 2009 T 6 J 1 A3 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION . J /It J It,}, I J,Jilc, MARK STRA , Chairman PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE ~d,~ STEV HARRISON, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented V or as corrected I. I (1 (/1-'\/ I 20! 0 as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 238 cl - Fiala ~I:...~ ~"'Ia~' ~t:~~ 1sL-.J...er13, Jo92 Hennlng.-;.'"Jc..:If'-;-- .t 'O'u,v R. :J Coyle ---:-y~. ~ Coletta _...:;:s' TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUlR MEETING OF THE JOINT SESSION co LIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY CO~~~ E IVE D Naples, Flonda ~ September 23, 2009 JAN 2 0 2010 ~ " " Goard of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Plarming Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in Special SESSION at 2800 Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney ( absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (absent) I David J. Wolfley (absent) Productivity Committee Members: Gina Downs Douglas M. Fee Janet Vasey ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Plarming Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Plarming 1homas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District (absent) Mj,fsc.: Page I no:"lb. ~D* IfIm .: Copies to: 16 I selemtr A, ;t1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of the AUIR review of the joint session of the Productivity Committee and the Golden Gate -- I mean -- Collier County Plarming Commission. I'm thinking of the reading I was up late doing last night. Item # 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (AND ROLL CALL) Will you all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call? COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney and Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Wolfley are not here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman is also not here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the Productivity Committee we have Mr. Fee, Ms. Downs and Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Present. MR. FEE: Present. MS. DOWNS: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ] figured that. You guys -- Doug, the voting the other day by those two was great. One had to make the motion, one had to second it, and then they had to vote on it, so -- MR. FEE: I have a feeling everything was unanimous. Item #2 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES. CATEGORY A AND CATEGORYB CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, worked out real well. Okay, we left off -- we finished up all of Category A last time. We got started into Category B, we finished the library so that won't be heard today, but we have four items left: County jail, law enforcement, emergency medical and govemment buildings. And we'll start out with the county jail and Chief Craig Smith. Good morning, Chief. CHIEF SMITH:Gqod morning. CHAIRMAN sTRAIN: Did you talk to Phil Gramatges at all? CHIEF SMITH: I'm sorry? .CHAIRMAN Sf1RAIN: Did you talk to Phil Gramatges at lunch or anything about this meeting? Page 2 -.,: 1 h I 1 ^1'Z _ ~ptemb* ~ ~9 CHIEF SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. CHIEF SMITH: Was I supposed to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, but Phil had a way of setting everybody up for Monday's meeting. So] was wondering if you had already been prewamed. CHIEF SMITH: So how might I be of service to this group? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you had met with Phil, he would have suggested to you, say I'm here, you have my paperwork, would you like -- do you have any questions you want answered. CHIEF SMITH: Masterfully said. Thank you, sir. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's as fine as any way to proceed, I guess that works for us, too. So we have the jail AUIR in front of us. Are there any specific questions we can start asking the Chief about? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISS]ONERKOLFLAT: On Page 13], up in the second paragraph, it gives the occupation bed -- bed occupation for three years. In that illustration it said the beds occupied have decreased over those three years. And the next page, rather Page 133 on that graph, it indicates that the population of beds required has increased. Is that a contradiction or am I not understanding that? CHIEF SMITH: No, I think one is based on actual experience and the other is a projection. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Which one is the experienced, the occupied? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: ] understand there are changes to the ICE program. How are those changes going to affect your need for jail population for beds? CHIEF SMITH: I'm not aware of any changes to the current ICE program. MS. DOWNS: I thought the federal funding was dropping on that drastically. No? CHIEF SMITH: Not to my knowledge. If you can cite a source, I'll look that up and get back to you. MS. DOWNS: I can't right off the top of my head. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: On Page 132 you show a deficiency in beds in FY '13 and '14 coming to about 39 beds. But you're not programming your increase in capacity for beds until FY '19. Is there a reason that you're waiting so long as the deficiency builds? CHIEF SMITH: I think what we want to do with that is just look at it as we progress, you know, towards that time line and make an adjustment. You know, the good thing about this process, we go through it yearly, we can make those adjustments. But right now it wouldn't be the Sheriffs recommendation to program in additional jail beds, given our surplus currently. And, you know, just all the uncertainties that are out there. I think it's well to document the fact that there may be a deficiency. But jails are so dependent upon external influences that we really can't program in a hard number. And there's nothing to say you can't, you know, work with a population surplus for a little while as long as you're plarming the new facility. And we've got some things laid in with regards to plarming, such as the Immokalee jail center, that we could very quickly add another dorm onto if we need to to meet that time line. So what we would recommend is just, you know, to keep monitoring it closely and adjust it year to year. But I think that's a good number for right now as far as this report. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust need a little more explanation on the unit cost increase here. Seems like in every other instance costs have been going down and yet you're taking a standardized 4.1 percent increase. I'm sure that's based on an impact fee study. But again, that's historical and not current. And is that really Page 3 16tlb!A~9 '_ the correct figure that should be there? MR. SMITH: I think the best person to address that is Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Amy Patterson for the record. Actually, I just talked to Mike. There's a note in there in error about the 4.] percent. I think we had this note from law enforcement carryover onto jail. Jail, actually we just adopted a brand new jail impact fee study. It was their three-year update. So that reflects -- that update to the unit costs reflects the most current cost as reflected in the most __ the current adopted impact fee study. A lot of that has to do with us being able to realize the actual costs ofthejail expansion on the campus. So we have no other numbers to include that would show the cost of construction going down. And like I said, that's the numbers that are actually reflected in the adopted impact fee study. And those fees just went into effect on August 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the study is wrong. I was coming in today and on NPR has commentary about different things happening in the country, and one of them was the fact that the stimulus money's gone out to municipalities and they've realized a boom from the money. Instead of being 100 percent useful, it's at a minimum ] ] 6 percent usefu~ because they've got at least an average of 16 percent across the country in reduction in cost. Not a single item -- well, yes, there is one, and I'm going to have to -- I'll need an interesting explanation when we get to that. But other than that one, there's not any item in this AUIR that shows a reduction in unit cost. That is unreal. That is unpractical (sic). And I -- I mean, I got that same issue circled here. And after Monday, listening to the excuses as to why it shouldn't be reduced, I'm not there. I can't buy that. And ] think that whatever we're doing to pump these costs up wrong, I don't care who's doing the studies, I don't care how they're done, it's not producing a good picture for Collier County. And so I know you say your study says that, but that is not the real world. MS. PATTERSON: It's the actual cost at the time of construction. We have no new numbers to use. As soon as we do, those numbers will be put into the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is a 2009 AUIR. We shouldn't be basing it on cost from 2005 or 6, which is whenever you may have bid out the last job. It doesn't make any sense to do that. What that will cause is in the years coming up, if our prices do go up and we use this year as an actual cost we were to do something, in 2013 we'd be using a number that may be too low for the market at the time and we underbudget things. I don't know how we're to correct this, Amy, and I know it isn't your fault, but Ijust don't -- I can't -- I'm not going to buy into this. That unit cost should not go up, it carmot go up. And if the BCC of course wants to do it, it's their prerogative, but I'm certainly going to highlight it to them. MR. COHEN: Amy, can you clarify, is that unit cost which comes from obviously the most recent construction used to pay back debt service associated with that construction? MS. PATTERSON: With respect to the jails, all of the impact fees are going to repay the debt-- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Amy, I can't hear you too well. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear her either. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. With respect to the jail facilities, all of the impact fees being collected are being used to repay the debt, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: On Page 134 for Greg, the jail population trends. Toward the right-hand side, the last half of that chart, each year when you go from one fiscal year to the next year, and I'm starting with -- get my bifocals out. 05-06. Each year it switches to the next fiscal year is the largest jump in per inmate per day cost. From __ in '06 it goes up $7.00, '07 it's five, '08 it goes up $6.00 an inmate, and '09 another $6.00 an inmate. And throughout the year there's never a jump that high. It might be close. But I just wonder why from one month to the next what's the reset about a fiscal year that would show such an increase in per inmate cost? CHIEF SMITH: The beginning of the fiscal year is when those fixed cost contracts come renewable, like Page 4 16 ~ePlmbA ~009_ your jail medical costs, your jail food service costs. And so then you have to go back and reprogram that, and that shifts it up or down - MS. DOWNS: So all your contracts follow the fiscal year? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, the Immokalee jail, that is vacant, it's not being used? CHIEF SMITH: It's not vacant. We're not holding inmates there past fIrst appearance. But it is still opening and operational for booking and for the detainment of those confmed under the provisions of the Marchman Act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 130, the last line says, the Immokalee Jail Center is a 232-bed local adult detention center and booking facility. Currently the housing areas ofnC are vacant due to the reduction in jail occupants. Does that mean then you're not using it as a jail? CHIEF SMITH: It's being used as a jail, but that is a true statement. The housing units themselves do not have inmates in them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are the housing units what counts as beds? CHIEF SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the available inventory is 1344. But the required inventory, because you don't need the Immokalee jail facility is only 1112, yet you have 1383. How do you get to a required inventory if we have a 232-bed facility we don't even need to use? Because that would bring in the question that somebody asked earlier about why we have a shortage in the upcoming years. We may not really have a shortage, because we have a whole facility that's empty and we're not using it, and so we are real -- required inventory right now is only] ] ] 2. How do you correlate those numbers? MR. BOSI: Well, the required inventory is based upon our adopted level of service standard against our population. That's a static number. Even though there might not be a full utilization of all -- Mike Bosi from Comprehensive Plarming, sorry. There might not be a full utilization of all the units that are available, but based upon the adopted level of service standard that we have for -- that we have for jails against a population, that produces the req -- that produces what is required within our inventory to meet the level of service standard. But we're not utilizing that full requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we just proved that our adopted level of service is wrong. MR. COHEN: Let me -- for the record, Randy Cohen. If you go to Page 132 and you go to the line item 2013-2014, you'll see the number 1383. And what's reflected on Page 130 is actually what would be necessary at the end of the five-year plarming period, and that's why the number's there. Because we're trying to reflect what's necessary within the five-year window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, I realize that, Randy. But if -- we've been seeing a reduction in the increase in population, and by some statistics a reduction in population, and by the fact we're moving all the illegal immigrants arrestees out, apparently, or quite a few of them, our standard level-- our level of service may be too high based on the fact we have an empty facility out there. And it might remain empty for quite some time. We can predict we're going to fill it up, but I'm not sure that the predictions are going to prove out as they -- I mean, last year we predicted, or the years before we predicted we needed it, and obviously we haven't. We're going just the opposite direction, which is a good thing, it shows we probably are being more effective in law enforcement. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, your point is well taken. And that's one of the reasons that in the construction of the jail, with respect to any additional beds, has been actually pushed on out as we have the opportunity in conjunction not only with reviewing population, but the Chief and their staff over there take into account various factors that would effect the use of the beds. I know the immigration portion that -- program that you've been using has been very effective, but there's no guarantee from what I understand that that would be ongoing, so we have to continue to monitor that. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. CHIEF SMITH: Well, yeah. And Ms. Downs, you know, hinted in that direction a while ago. You know, right now there's been no change. But, you know, that's one of the things that we monitor on a daily basis out of Washington is just exactly what's going on with that program. And it's something that should remain on the forefront Page 5 16s1pteler ~*c3 a of our consciousness and the people who examine this as well, that if there is a shift in immigration philosophy in Washington, that's going to have a direct substantial impact on our local jail population, because in large part over the last 18 months the downturn that you see is directly related and attributed to that enforcement program. So that is something that you have to understand. And I'm sure that you do, because it's an easy concept to understand, that if you add back in the 360 some odd inmates that this program has removed, you're already past capacity. So, you know, that is something that bears watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next opportunity you have to build a facility or add beds is apparently, according to this, 2018 to 20] 9. And it shows 64 beds being added. How long -- how far in advance do you need to plan for both permitting, design and construction of a facility that would give you those 64 beds? CHIEF SM]TH: Typically it takes about two to three years to go through the entire process. Fortunately those 64 beds can be brought on line very quickly, because all of that front work has already been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for you to have in here a level of service of3.2 beds per 1,000 but an acknowledgment that you need no further revenues to maintain that level of service doesn't have any negative impact. And it wouldn't until we realized a closer period of time when we needed to have those beds. And if we knew it three years in advance -- and right now we're looking at 2018. So by 2015, if you still need those beds, then you'd start to show changes in your revenue needs possibly to put those beds on line. CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this year is really not relevant to that time frame. That's kind of what I was getting at. Okay, any other questions? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Well,] guess more of a comment. Chief, when we were doing the budget process, it was my understanding that there was also an issue with the downturn in the economy and a lot of people leaving the community, and it seems like it was a disproportionate share of criminals have left. Because that was part of the reason for the reduction in beds and the need for beds. CHIEF SMITH: That's true. A lot of those people who unfortunately fmd their way into the Collier County jail system are predominantly employed in the construction trades. So with the loss of that industry to an extent, that has, you know, also shaped the jail population. MS. VASEY: And that one would be fairly temporary. Because when construction picks up, that population would move back into the area. So maybe that would be a temporary one, a temporary thing that we're experiencing right now. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. Could be. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHIEF SMITH: We're just too early. I mean, with ]8 months experience, we're just too early in to really nail this down and say, you know, that's what we can rely upon. Because, you know, there's just too much fluidity out of Washington and in the local economy to really, you know, nail it down. But, you know, two things we can say today with certainty: Number one, that we're in really good shape as far as, you know, correctional beds go. And number two, that we don't need to program any additional funds today to service that need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, what's the line item from the revenues in -- it says loan from county-wide capital project funds 301. The reason I'm asking is last year was the fIrst year since 2003 that that item showed up. And last year the loan value was half of what it is this year, it was four million, and this year it's eight plus. What is that? What does that mean? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. That's the loan from the general fund to pay -- to help with the debt service where the impact fees have fallen short. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now how does that money get funded to the general fund, through ad valorem taxes? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, or any other revenue that comes into the general fund. It's -- so the general fund is loaning the impact fee trust fund money to make their debt service payments because of the lack of impact fee Page 6 . 16 j seiemJ.;;23A03 =' ~,::\:" revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me -- I'm trying to digest what you just said here for a minute. So the impact fees can be used for the debt service of the jail, and then when the impact fees increase again, instead of going into new construction, if it's not needed, it can go to pay back the general fund. But in the meantime the taxpayers have to use their taxes to float all this. MS. PATTERSON: It was the intent for impact fees -- actually, do you want to -- I'll turn it over to Susan. MS. USHER: Hi. Susan Usher, with the office of Management and Budget. The general fund gives a third of a mill-- an equivalent of a third of a mill for capital projects. Those capital projects can be IT improvements, maintenance and repair to various county buildings. It also goes -- it sometimes helps for new construction of items that do not have an impact fee. Computer upgrades. But here lately what we've been using that third of a mill is to help pay for debt service. Because impact fees have fallen, the collection of impact fees have fallen. The debt is out there. You cannot go to the bank and say sorry, no money. So what we do is we diverted that third of a mill and we're loaning the impact fee funds, the various impact fee funds money so that they can make their debt service payment. Now, that third of a mill has been dedicated for many, many, many years. So I don't think it's an extra hit, I think it's just an allocation we've made. Now, what has happened is we have not been able to do normal routine repairs, maintenance, buying of software, buying IT upgrades. All that stuff has taken a back seat just so we can make these debt service payments. So that's -- and when impact fees start coming in, we do expect that they pay back 30], and that's what it's-- that's the fund number is 30 I, so that we can finally get to the backlog that is now being created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can't change the debt service value, and so we've got to have the loan, and the loan could continue for years to come until the impact fees balance out against the value of the debt service. MS. USHER: Well,] hope there's not that many years, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not the optimist Janet is. So let's assume the worst. Because if you look at government as the worst scenario, maybe you'll still get something comfortable out of it. So when the impact fees turn around and we start having them not only cover the debt service but increase in the amount of revenue coming in, we can pay back the loans first and do capital improvements second; is that how it's generally done? MS. USHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we pay back the loans and that fund gets fat, the taxpayers then can see a reduction in taxes. I'm sure the BCC will jump at that chance, don't you think? I'm sorry, that-- MS. USHER: No, it's a third of a mill. I mean, every year the board dedicates a third of a mill for capital improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the money's paid back, doesn't it -- don't you get -- you'll have a lot of money coming back into the general fund then, right? MS. USHER: But I have a huge deficit that's being created because I have not been able to fund facilities management and IT and various other things for -- now this is the second -- well, '09 it started, it got hit very hard in '09. And 2010's budget no capital improvement was funded with that 301 money. Because all of that allocation was allocated to the various impact fee funds. So there is a backlog being created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I needed an explanation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,] have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Fee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's assuming that everything that the debt service is applied to would have been covered by impact fees? MS. USHER: Well, yeah. This debt service applies to correctional. So all of this debt service was correctional -- for a correctional facility for the new jail. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words -- MS. USHER: -- over at the Naples -- or at our complex. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: And here we have impact fees anticipated. In the past we never obtained that number that we anticipated, and you're loaning money from this fund to cover that? MS. USHER: In the past we anticipated a lot higher collection over a five-year period, but under the current Page 7 16 I }ePt~mber~,'09 I scenario that we're in, the current economy we're in, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for 2005 through 2007 they anticipated $12 million a year in impact fees and it dropped in 2008 to 4.5 and this year down to two. So they had a lot higher expectation from impact fees in the boom years than they do now. So if you add the eight to the two, we're getting back up to what they normally got funded for impact fees per year to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. FEE: While you're up there on this subject, just a little bit broader than just the discussion of county jail, but could you in ballpark numbers tell us what the general fund loan balance has been the last couple of years? Are we increasing our loans to these facilities or is it decreasing? MS. USHER: 1 think we have a -- I'm trying to find -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last year's loan was 4,144,271. This year it's 8,450,424-- MR. FEE: And I was going a little bit broader than that, Mark. I know that's for the county jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, for the whole county? MS. VASEY: On Page 237. MR. FEE: I wanted to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there is a -- MS. USHER: On Page 237 that schedule is showing money that's being loaned from 00], which is general fund, money that's being loaned from 301, that's the third ofa mill, and then we even have one project where we borrowed money from solid waste. That's 471. And I'm sorry I did not put the title of the funds, but 00] is general fund, 301 is the third ofa mill, and 47] is solid waste. MR. FEE: So each year is broken down on this, '05, '06, '07, all the way through '11. MS. USHER: To show the cumulative balances that are owed back to each of the three funds. MR. FEE: The bottom line says $50 million? MS. USHER: I'll trust what you say on that. Yeah, but it goes to three places. ] mean, it's going -- I mean, the money that was being borrowed from the third of the mill will go back to the third of the mill. What -- the monies going back to the general fund, it will go back to the general fund. So whoever loaned the money, they will get that money back. MR. FEE: This is a good chart. Thank you. MS. USHER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on the chart -- go ahead, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Okay, just sort of one clarification back on Page 130. When we talk about a loan of $8 million, that's over the five-year period, correct? MS. USHER: Yes, it is. MS. VASEY: So it's not like eight million a year or anything, it's less than two million a year in this account. MS. USHER: And remember, this is based on the anticipated impact fee revenue coming in. I mean, if we start seeing our upswing, that number will grow then. If we can anticipate more money coming in, then we need to borrow less, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, the anticipated impact fee revenues I quoted earlier were over that five-year period as well. So the anticipation has gone way down. So you're anticipating in this five-year period only two million in impact fees, compared to two years ago when you anticipated nearly 12 million, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: And since this is a five-year window we're looking at, what would the balance -- are you projecting that the balance of that debt will be this $8 million at the end of that five years, or are you saying that within that five years -- MS. USHER: Just the five -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you will borrow it? MS. USHER: There's more debt behind it. But that's -- we're just looking at five years. And that is the debt over the next five years, 2010 to 2014. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's debt that we will add to this particular item in five years. Page 8 16 I 1 slPtemA~2009; MS. USHER: It's not add. I mean, we have to -- we built the jail with a bond, we have to pay that back. It's like a mortgage. So that is the debt service requirement over the next five years. It's not new debt and it's not -- I mean, it's to pay back for the construction of that jail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but it is a loan from, you know, your fund to this particular -- MS. USHER: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, my curiosity is that -- does that mean that we will have impact fees of, you know, and I'll round it off, eight -- we'll have $10,000 worth of impact fees, ei~t of which will pay back that debt? Or is that going to be an additional debt to this -- to the jails? MS. USHER: Correctional impact fee will have to pay this debt back to 30 I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And will it pay it within this five-year period? I think that -- MS. USHER: Oh, no. This is the loan coming in. This is a revenue item to assist with the debt service payment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. USHER: This does not -- this page does not show this eight because -- this page does not show the repayment of the internal loan that we're loaning them to make their debt service payment. Because I don't know when they'll be ready to pay us back. Over this five-year period it does not appear that they'll have money to pay us back yet, so it's going to be in an outer year. But next year -- I mean, if we start seeing the upswing, things will change. They haven't borrowed eight million just yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. USHER: So -- but this is what it looks like. Ifwe continue in this economic downturn for five years and we're just going to the same rate we're doing right now with minimum growth, then yeah, there is a potential of them borrowing 8.4 million. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And increasing their balance by 8.4 million. MS. USHER: Yeah. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: While Susan is up there, this is not jail related; is that okay, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DOWNS: Susan, on Page 237 -- and I think to clarify, Mr. Fee asked the question what was the debt for '05. And we mentioned 50 million. Well, that was a cumulative debt for '05. According to Page 237, the impact fee debt for '05 -- I'm sorry, for 2010 is about 15 million, okay? Are you with me on that? Now that -- do you have that page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 237. It would be the portrait page. MS. USHER: Portrait page? MS. DOWNS: Because I want to compare that then to Page 245, which is a total impact fee related debt out to the year 2036. MS. USHER: Yes. MS. DOWNS: Okay, when you compare for instance 237, fiscal year 2010, like I'm saying, ]5 million, about, but when you look at your chart on Page 245, the 20 I 0 debt is 19 million something. On Page 237 you have not included regional community parks and impact fees. Why are -- they're omitted on every category. Why is that? MS. USHER: On Page 237 I am only discussing internal loans to assist the impact fees to make their debt service payment. 237 does not really address the outside bondholders and banks that we're making the payments to. When you flip to Page 245, these are the true debt service payments that are owed to outside people, to bondholders, to banks. So-- MS. DOWNS: In addition to Page 237? MS. VASEY: No. MS. USHER: I mean, so far parks -- this will be the last year, though, 2010. They've had -- parks has done-- has been -- Marla has been really good saving up money to build her parks. Because she did that strategy, she had Page 9 16 L1n423A~ 'I cash when the downturn of the economy happened. 20 I 0 is the last year they'll most likely be able to pay their own debt service without help from anybody. Unless the economy swings up sharply for 2011, I suspect that to assist her in her debt service payment, we're going to have to borrow her money -- she's going to have to borrow money from us in 2011. In 2010 she was able to make her debt service payment without any help from us. But I don't think that's going to happen in 20 I]. But it all depends on the economy. I mean, if we have a sharp upswing, it's possible that she'll be able to make her own debt service payment. MS. DOWNS: Okay. So that's why it was never included. MS. USHER: That's why it's not on Page 237, because so far she has not needed our assistance. But if you look at 201] on Page 237, I already have the shell for 2011. You can see Parks and Recs is listed. With no money there, but I strongly suspect in 20]] we'll have to give her some money so that she can make her debt service payments. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that -- okay, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine's a quick question, maybe. How big is that 30] fund? Just typical year, or last year. MS. USHER: Third of a mill. I'd have to get back with you. I'd have to look on the computer real quick. Because if I quote a number, I want to make sure it's accurate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm looking for, is this a little bit of that fund you're using or a lot of that fund you're using? Do you know what percentage of the fund you're loaning out? MS. USHER: The money that! have in 30], one-third has alway -- okay, I get a quarter of a mill. Out of that pocket of money, one-third has always been paid for non impact fee related debt. You know, I mean, we're paying on the court -- the old courthouse. Not the armex, the old courthouse, the old health building. You know, old structures that were built many, many years ago, well before we had impact fees. That debt can never be paid by impact fees, because those buildings are standing there, they're part of the inventory, I have to pay for them outside of the impact fee. So I do have some debt that will never be paid by impact fee. About a third of that money goes to always pay that debt. And it has for years. So that always left about two-thirds to help pay for capital projects. Now, out of that two-thirds, it's all now being consumed by impact fees, by loaning them money to make their debt service payments. And I can give you that figure, if you give me a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it doesn't -- but you're saying -- what I think you're saying is approximately two-thirds of the money you get is now being used to fund the impact fees that we're not obtaining. MS. USHER: Well, I have to loan them money so that they can make their debt service payment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 245, since I -- you touched on something, I'd just like some clarification. The first column, if] -- I'm assuming they all read the same way, where it says this one happens to be on the community parks impac -- regional and community parks. Down at the bottom you have 52 million, 702. So that's the total amount of money you expect to loan until the impact fees can pay for themselves? MS. USHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. USHER: That schedule is the debt service schedule for all the bonds and commercial loan papers that we have out there that we have to pay outside entities. This is their mortgage payments. ]f you look at this, this is truly their mortgage payment. There's no way of getting around it. Either they have the cash to make the payment or I have to loan them the money so they can make these payments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we determine -- do you have a chart similar to this then that breaks down what the anticipated impact fees are per year against the -- I guess the mortgage payments then so we know where you anticipate the deficiencies to run on a global basis? Page 10 161 1 SePtemrA2~009~ MS. USHER: That would be on each -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On each one. MS. USHER: On each page. Like on -- for the county jails, it's on Page 130. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But you could take and create this same chart using this as the basis for the total mortgage payments and debt to be paid by the county in another chart that mirrors this one, but instead of the debt to be paid by the county, anticipated impact fees that would offset that debt so that your net outcome on your totals would be the difference we have to carry; is that -- MS. USHER: Yeah, I don't want to -- I mean, I could do that for the fIrst five years, but I most certainly would not want to do that for the next 20 years. Because I don't know what's going to happen 20 years from now in Collier County. I mean, it's -- I mean, I have the population numbers and the population increases by year, but I think five years is about as far as I really want to guess on that. I would hate to go out beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't ask you, I was just trying to understand the philosophy. First of all, we have 20-year projections that are put out and used throughout this whole book from David Weeks' office. So if you could project for some of our things for 20 years by population statistics, you could use those same statistics to possibly project impact fee revenues over a longer period of time. I'm just curious as to when the bank's going to be busted, when you're going to run out of funds in 30], based on the mortgage payments needed and based on the anticipated impact fee revenues, based on our population growth. And I was wondering if anybody's done that exercise, when we're going to go broke. MS. USHER: Well, I'm hoping the economy swings up and we won't ever see that. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. And I don't want to see that happen, but I think we should always be prepared for the worst case scenario. And I'm just wondering if we ever looked at it that way. It doesn't sound like we had. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Susan's just talking about what's in her fund, her 30] fund. We'll never go broke. We'll just put more of a third of a mill in there, if we have to. So right now historically we've always used a third of a mill, but if we have to go to a half of a mill, we would go to a half a mill. Because we won't be -- you know, we will not fail to meet our debt payment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, going broke] guess is a term that couldn't apply to Collier County, because we'll just keep raising taxes too. So one way or another it's covered. But it would be interesting to see if we were to try to keep our taxes current where we would have a problem down the road if we are forced to do more to payoff the impact fee money that we used when it was during the boom times. MS. VASEY: Well, I'll tell you what's a really scary thought is if the Florida legislature changes things and we do not collect impact fees in the future. Then this is just debt we swallow, choke on, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and part of that, what we would have to choke on we would know by where we're at in regards to revenues against the debt service. So that's kind of what I was wondering, if there was another chart. Doesn't mean you have to run out and do one, I was just curious, that's all. Anybody have any other questions on the jail section of the document? Brad? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to close this thing, the bottom line is we're borrowing approximately 80 percent of the needed revenues to payoff other borrowed money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, borrowing -- we've hocked our future, so -- COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing you said, you know, Collier can't go broke, but the citizens can, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they already are, but I'm not sure that carries any weight anymore. MS. VASEY: No, my point really was we -- the general fund gets 3.56 mills right now. And a third ofa mill is a very small part of that. If we had to reallocate money, you know, that probably conceivably could be done without an increase in millage rate, you know, depending on how big an increase in loans we needed to do for impact fees. So, you know, one-third is a real small amount of the total millage rate for general fund, which is where we Page] I 1611~ '2 September 23~flf .Ii take this money from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so we could shift more into that without raising the millage rate, but then again we chose to raise the millage rate just here recently, so -- MS. VASEY: Well, that's true, but that's a resource alloca -- well, that's a decision on, you know, level of service that the community wants and, you know, you saw the budget hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw them. I had a very bad headache that day. I have one last question of the Chief. Your standards on Page 136, number seven, you need to talk to the fellow that runs this room. Temperatures shall be maintained with a normal comfort range. The prisoners have better rights than we have in this room. CHIEF SMITH: Is that a statement or is that actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just wanted to make sure everybody's aware that guy's subject to arrest when he comes back in here. MR. COHEN: I want to clarify for the record, that was an economy saving measure instituted by the division. So we just want to make sure that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, keep us ice cold, I understand. Maybe it will numb the brain. Are there any other questions on jails? Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion from the Planning Commission then on the jail element? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. ] move that we forward the county jail as presented. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ] won't be supporting the motion because of the unit costs that's shown here. The unit costs are unrealistic in today's economy and we should be smart enough to be able to adjust them. So I'll leave that as it is. Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISS]ONERMURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 5-] . Does the Productivity Committee wish to take up the issue? MS. VASEY: Yes. We'll make a similar motion --I'll make a similar motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chief, you're still up. We'll move on to the law enforcement category. And I'm assuming you're going to seek questions like you did before. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions under law enforcement? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a comment, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 143, it's showing a graph there. And I'd like to compare that one Page 12 -- 16 I 1sePtA~23'2a with the graph that's shown on the jails, the same type of graph, which is on 133. These are -- one is for population and one is for beds occupied and required. But in both cases it has an available and a requirement. In the -- 143 curves there, the available is in blue and the required is in red. On the previous graph the colors are reversed. It's not related directly because one is beds and one is population, but it talks about available versus required. And for consistency, you might want to consider reversing those colors so that they follow the same pattern. CHIEF SMITH: I'll let Mr. Bosi speak to that, because this is the county's report. We're just here to lend clarity to some of the issues. But the county puts this report together and owns it. MR. BOSI: And that's an error within our department in terms of not having the consistencies with the colors. We will modify that for the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, and] apologize for inconsistency. COMM]SSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on law enforcement? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Chief, on Page 145, the chart shows owned and leased law enforcement buildings. And near the bottom I see purchasing is at Mercantile Avenue on a leased building. Has there been any consideration given to moving that to Immokalee with all that empty jail space? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, there has been consideration given to doing that, but there's several factors that prevent that from really being feasible. One being the remoteness of Immokalee and the necessity to get hands on quickly to this stuff that's maintained in this warehouse. This really isn't purchasing, and I'll take that one on the chin because the county just prints the list that we give them. But purchasing has moved into the new building off of County Barn Road. This is actually our warehouse inventory that's maintained at this site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. MS. DOWNS: Any idea what the leased cost is? Sorry, Bob. Do you know what the least costs are for the two buildings? MR. SMITH: We don't have two buildings, we just have the one. MS. DOWNS: Oh, there -- no, you have Tamiami Trail. District 7 Everglades substation is also leased. CHIEF SM]TH: Okay, that's -- MS. DOWNS: I understand you can't move it, I just wonder what the lease costs are. CHIEF SMITH: I don't. Skip, do you remember what the lease is? MR. CAMP: I'll get it for you. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Hi. The East Naples substation, is that still being occupied, or have all the troops moved away into the new EOC area? CHIEF SMITH: The troops that were occupying that, the District 3 substation, have moved into the new EOC part that was designed and dedicated for that. Right now we are refurbishing that with the anticipation of other utilizations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it will remain in operation of the Sheriffs Office? CHIEF SMITH: Oh, absolutely. COMM]SSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions oflaw enforcement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, I've got the same concern with the unit costs. I'm not going to belabor the point, I'll just have to deal with it like I have. Under your revenues you have an impact fee anticipated of 1.4 million. You have a five-year surplus up on top of203 officers, which is $33 million. Page 13 16 1 lplber 2A3 ,.... t. First of all, on the surplus officers, last year you had 765 available officers. This year you show 949.9. Why is the difference -- what created that difference? CHIEF SMITH: Well, first it's very important to understand that we don't have anywhere close to 746 officers, much less the 949. This really has no relative bearing whatsoever on what the sheriff's staff is. And I'm just going to take a really uneducated swing at this, okay, so feel free to jump in and clarify this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, somebody better, because it says officers. CHIEF SMITH: -- if] really mess it up. But what that number actually is, is the space that's available could actually support this number of deputies if it had to. But this really doesn't show what we have as far as law enforcement officers pushing green and whites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why do we have so much space if we don't need the officers or don't have the officers to fill it up? CHIEF SMITH: I think because they've built out for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wholly cow. So why do we have impact fees if we're already built out for the future? MR. BOSI: And relevant to the discussion points that we had on a lot of these unit costs, impact fees are paying for past improvements. Past improvements had a price tag for what they were, and that's what those unit costs were available. The way that the officers are allocated within the AUIR, it's based upon one officer has an equivalent of a square footage. The total square footage available within the inventory relates to what is required and what is available within the inventory. But the actual staffmg level is at a different rate, based upon the operational demands within the Sheriff's Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, are we allowed to charge impact fees on improvements 25 years or 30 years or God knows how many years down the road? I mean, if we predict that we're going to need something 20 years from now and we're -- can we start charging impact fees for that now? Because I thought in the rational nexus test the impact fees had to be relative to a static point in time from when they were acquired or charged. Is that true or not? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. I don't -- we're not charging impact fees based on an improvement that's needed that far into the future. At the time that these improvements were constructed, there was a justified need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know we're not charging for that. What I'm trying to fmd out is how far in the future can we charge impact fees for? MS. PATTERSON: You have to justify the need at the time that you charge the impact fee. So the change in the economy in population now has changed the outlook of what we need now versus what we have. But it didn't change the fact that when they scheduled these improvements they were needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the scheduling ofthe improvements were based on the analysis of space that's never been filled by the officers in the quantity that would have been used to fill that space. So why are we creating that space if it's -- I mean, it was done before now. We had -- from what I think I'm understanding, last year there was 765 under the available inventory for officers. This year it jumped up 200. But we didn't have apparently now 765 officers last year, we had space for 765 officers. But we didn't need that space. So why are we creating the space with impact fees? Where's the justification? MS. PATTERSON: No? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Whatever the question was, the answer is no. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, I was distracted, I didn't hear the question. MR. COHEN: It was a side conversation. MS. VASEY: Could I suggest something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. VASEY: Didn't we just have anew --the emergency center come on line? MS. PATTERSON: Right, that was-- MS. VASEY: That was a huge square footage building for -- ] forget what you call it, but it's housing all the special forces people and all that kind of thing. And it was a very large space and it came in. And so that's why when you take that space and use it against the ] .96 officers per 100,000 population, that's Page 14 16 I 1 slArir 23,19 why we're getting so much -- such a large number. But it's not -- that's not all impact fees either. You know, some of the available inventory was purchased years and years ago and not with impact fees. So that's -- I'm not sure if that helps, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've just explained, though, is the reason we went from 746 to 949. MS. VASEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what Ijust heard was we never had 746 officers to begin with. We got something far less than that, but we've been built to accommodate 746 officers because we're building far into the future. That is not what I understood impact fees to be applicable to. They have to have a rational connection to some point in time. And I'm a little surprised that we're collecting impact fees -- and I'm not saying we shouldn't have impact fees for police officers. I thought this was going towards police officers. Now I'm realizing it's going to some space that could be occupied, which is doing us no good. I'd rather see the feet on the ground than behind a desk sitting in a building. So we need officers. We don't -- I think this shows we have way too much building and not enough officers. I don't how to bring that back to where it should be, but] don't like what I'm hearing. MR. BOSI: That's directly related to the current legal of service standard that we have. If you believe that the square footage that's being provided in relationship to the officers that are utilized within the sheriff's department, it would be a recommendation to examine the] .96 officers per] ,000 and validate whether that is still an acceptable and needed level of service standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a concern only because I've been mis -- I mean, all these years I've been reading this, I have not realized today it didn't mean police officers, because it keeps saying police officers, police officers, and it keeps repeating that this is for police officers. But now I'm finding out it's only for space for police officers. We don't really have the body there. Without that body, there's something's radically wrong as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Fee, then Mr. Murray. MR. FEE: Mark, your -- obviously this is showing a surplus, a five-year surplus of203 in officers. But you have the five asterisks there. And if you go down to the bottom of the page, to me they're explaining, at least one reason, it says the surplus within the -- I mean, everybody can read this. But basically the population projection was 45],451,000 for '08-'09 as projected back in 2006. Now it's projected to be 350,000, a difference of 101, which would be a reduction of officers required of 198. So I think we got ahead of the plan based on prior numbers and now those numbers have been adjusted downward. And in a lot of the capital areas we've gotten ahead from that adjust. Does that explain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I already understand. But that's why I'm asking my question, based on what you -- I agree with you. I'm asking my question, we have a large surplus now, and the surpluses for space that were never -- we could not use for a long period of time. Do we still need the level of service standard we're using? ]f it's not putting officers on the ground, which is what I thought it was in the first place, is it that valuable to us? I mean, we've got a nice fancy EOC sitting over there that cost us 60 million bucks, and that's another, as far as I'm concerned, a Collier County boondoggle, but we have a series of those in this county. And I'm just wondering, how do we justify more impact fee charges for items that we are overbuilt for that far in the future? That was the direction of my question. I understand the asterisks. MR. FEE: And the only thing I would want to add is when you do the impact fee studies, you are using population projections. And the consultants, they know those numbers and they come up with the cost. If the numbers change after you've done the study, well, then in the next study three years from now we will in fact adjust downward the dollars. Does that -- CHA]RMAN STRA]N: What about the impact fees? MR. FEE: So every three years we are squaring it up, based on the two factors, cost and population numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Doug, we haven't dropped the level of standard for -- since 2005. Mr. Murray? COMM]SSIONER MURRAY: Greg, a number of years ago I heard it eXplained that the level of service standard and the unit cost is associated with sheriff's deputies car, radio, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which is Page 15 1 6 I 11 sAe'3er 2;l09 essentially I guess transferable to or relatable to square footage. I'm making that gross assumption and I need that to be qualified. That being the case, if we have vehicles that are, as it were, for the temporary or for the period of assignment owned by a particular deputy, there would be more vehicles than, say, if there were vehicles being used ]2-hour shift and then another officer goes in and takes that same vehicle. Is that in any way associated with this? Am I correct in my fIrst statement and am I correct in my assumption that I've just related? CHIEF SMITH: I'd really have to have county staff answer the entirety of your question. I can make a relative comment, though. There are capital items that we do fund out of impact fees. The high dollar items like radio -- do we pay for cars -- radios, cars, you know, those type of things are paid for out of impact fees. The rest of it, you know, I'd look to Amy to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what we need to find out is what is it when we talk about square footage -- we can talk about building square footage, but is it -- I mean, the suggestion here is that there's a humongous number of square feet that officers are sitting there with their feet up, and that's hardly the truth. So what is the composition of that? MR. BOSI: The way that this is constructed is the impact fees basically have determined that we have a square footage associated with each officer that we have available. And to be able to provide for the level of service of] .96 officers per] ,000 people, we need "X" number of square foot to support that level of service standard. What we're hearing is that when we constructed the EOC in 2006, when the planning process was under way and we authorized it, we had a projection of population that was well beyond what we currently experience now. The Sheriffs Department was not -- is not blindly tied to the square foot that's available within the department. They're tied into the individual demands that is placed upon the systems within their staffing level. As people come into this county and pay future impact fees, we're paying for the improvements for that gap for the excess space that we have to be able -- because as the population increases, demands upon that -- their operation are going to continue to increase and they're going to add more officers to be able to fill those spaces. COMM]SSIONER MURRAY: Not unlike a water/sewer plant that is built and for the first year of commission its capability far exceeds its utilization. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I'm not seeing a chart -- I was thinking this was related to the Sheriffs Department, but it's not, it's EMS equipment. On Page] 76 they give us a breakdown on the replacement cost for equipment, and the Sheriffs Department did not do that. What struck me on Page 176, they list laptops at a cost of$5,000 apiece. Now, I don't know if that's a fancy laptop, but -- and I'm wondering what the breakdown is. Now that you're saying you have items that are included in the impact fees other than capital items, I wonder what the breakdown is, the cost per item. Are they as high as these costs seem to be? Nobody knows. MR. BOSI: No, we haven't provided that. It hasn't been something that we've in the past have associated -- or that we've included the replacement cost for specific equipment utilized by the officers in the field. But I'm sure the impact fee consultants have accounted for that within the total cost of an impact fee. MS. DOWNS: I'd be curious to see that same kind of breakdown on costs, similar to what we have on Page 176-- MR. BOSI: And just to give you -- MS. DOWNS: -- ifthey're included. MR. BOSI: -- the heads up, for EMS, the type of laptops that they utilize are much different than the laptop you're going to buy at Best Buy. And I'm sure Jeffwill be able to speak to that, to the cost and the justification-- MS. DOWNS: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- for the expense associated with those. MS. DOWNS: But I'd be curious, is it the same with their materials. Go ahead. MS. P A TfERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. Page 16 16 I 1 ~ S~t,er 2~09 The impact fee study does go through a full accounting of all the equipment that's included as part of the cost. And just to clarify, the capital cost and how we get to that unit cost is the cost per square foot of building, the land cost and the equipment cost. So we get to a total capital cost, and then that is divided to come up with the total capital cost per police officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute. I'm sorry, I thought that the sheriffs office was not able to own property. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. This is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we include land costs in it then? MS. PATTERSON: This is the Collier County impact fee. We build the buildings and own the land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so you're associating that, but not with this. MS. PATTERSON: The sheriffs office doesn't collect the law enforcement impact fee. Collier County collects it and uses it for the capital construction for the sheriff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's attributable, right? It's attributable to the sheriffs office uses? MS. PATTERSON: I don't think I'm understanding your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you're collecting a pot of money. The purpose of it is to support the-- MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: -- organization. If you're including land costs, which they don't have a burden of, then isn't that adding something in dimension that -- I want you to qualify. I'm sure it's quite legal. I need to understand it. MS. PATTERSON: They don't have the burden of the building either. We own and maintain the buildings for the Sheriff. No different than any of the other constitutional officers that we provide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they do. That same impact fee relates to capital costs associated with vehicles and other apparatus that they have, including radio and so forth, and that's in that same impact fee, is it not? MS. PATTERSON: All their capital costs. COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: Mixed bag of impact fees. Fascinating. Okay, I understand we're all one county. But we are trying to do things by organization. MS. DOWNS: Can you provide us a description of those costs? MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: If I could, just one more thing. I think -- several years ago the AUIR and the impact fee studies became very closely related. The AUIRs in the past did not depend as heavily on these impact fee studies as it does now. And so what we're finding, it does create a level of confusion. Because what's appropriate for an impact fee and what's required for an impact fee in this changing economy with changing costs now is causing this relationship with the AUIR. Our unit costs and things that are required for an impact fee, as has been commented, may not be what is appropriate for the AUIR, but I -- because of the direction that we've been given that these two must maintain this relationship, that's why you're seeing these things, these land costs and unit costs level of service now are all being driven by these documents that are the impact feeds. If that's to change, then that would be a policy change from how we've proceeded over the last several years. And it will -- then there will be differences between the AUIR document and the impact fee studies. MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen for the record. And I wanted to clarify why that's transpired. In the past -- some of you are new and some of you are not __ but in the past the ClE actually included all the Category B facilities. There's no requirement in state statutes that those items be in there. And the Board of County Commissioners made a decision that they did not want the state to regulate all the Category B facilities within this particular county. The impact fee consultant indicated that the only way that we could do that is if when we adopted the AUIR that it supported the impact fee studies and that's why it transpired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on law enforcement? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, looking at this chart on Page 143, if I'm reading this in a very Page 17 16 I 1 ~ teplber ~2009 simplistic way, which is hopefully what I am, is what we're saying in '18-'19 that year, our available inventory will double our required inventory; is that correct? MR. BOSI: That is correct. And l'lllet Chief Smith talk about the inclusion. We left the sheriffs operation building. What you're talking about is the addition of the sheriffs operation building. And FY '18-'19 would look like it's an urmecessary improvement. We left that in specifically as -- to keep it onto the table that there are long-range plans for a sheriffs operations building in the outer years. But at this time the need is not there to execute the plans for that building. But we wanted to leave those on just to let the reader know that those were long-range plans and the next improvement in the cycle. And with our individual meetings with the Sheriffs Department when we talked about that, Chief Smith said we will evaluate this on an annual basis as to whether that need is going to be materialized in that outer year. MR. FEE: And with that, on Page 141 you have staff recommendations. Staff recommends that CCPC and PC recommend to the BCC approval of the AUIR which contains no new projects over the five and 1 O-year plarming period. Is that correct now with you putting a placeholder in this chart? MR. BOSl: Based upon that, the specifics of that, the wording of that recommendation needs to be modified. MR. FEE: A little bit, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions or comments on law enforcement? COMM]SSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I don't like it, but I don't know what I can do about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like a lot of it either. You can vote -- you can, during discussion, insert your concern and then vote accordingly, Tor, in that way. It highlights it. ] certainly have concerns about the whole AUIR and the structure and way it's done, and l'll try to insert mine as we've gone along. I have a couple other questions on Page 146. And Amy, this is going to reflect on your issues. On Page 146 we have construction costs per square foot, and it's talking about different facility planning periods. The fIrst ones at $259 a square foot and 428 are the same as last year. Now, we've heard comments that the facilities increases have to increase because of our impact fee studies. Then why haven't these increased from last year, since we have increased the cost, not only in this category but all? Likewise, if you go down below and you look at the second five-year period, 458. Last year was 550. And the 534 -- or 535 was 535 last year. Again, here we've actually shown a decrease from last year in one category, yet in every category of the AUlR we keep seeing unit costs increasing. In here they're either static or decreasing. And I'd just like to know how that's explained, compared to the explanation we heard as to how everything has to go up. MS. VASEY: Could I offer something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. VASEY: The fIrst of the facility, the fleet facility and the emergency services center, are probably based on the costs awarded in the contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,] understand that because -- MS. VASEY: So those wouldn't change because they're static. You know, it was what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we were told the AUIR costs, unit costs are going up because of those increases from the past. Because of those numbers. And if you're saying what you're saying is true, then what I've been saying all along should be true is they should have stayed to what they were last year. Because we had the numbers last year and we're using them in this chart. That's not what's been going on throughout this document. Amy? MS. PATTERSON: Are we talking -- we're just speaking strictly about law enforcement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the example I've got. Let's -- why don't we start there. MS. PATTERSON: There's different reasons why -- what happened to different fees. If you want to go back to jail for a minute instead of law enforcement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, can you explain my question on the chart on Page ]46? Let's just start there. MS. PATTERSON: The fleet -- on ]46, the frrsttwo, the fleet facility and the EOC, are constructed facilities. So the costs are what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they were constructed -- they're the most recent constructed facility, which you previously had indicated that's what the impact fee studies are based on, right? MS. PATTERSON: Right. Page ]8 16 I 1 ~ePteAe33, 20~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these numbers are the same as they were last year. MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we having increase in unit costs on Page 140? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go back to 140. MS. PATTERSON: Back to ]40. If you look at the fust asterisk, there was a 4.1 percent-- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Amy, I'm not hearing you. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Sorry. If you look at the fIrst star under -- on the comments, the unit cost increased by 4.1 percent per impact fee indexing. That was a directed change of the Board of County Commissioners. Besides the formal three-year studies that each of the impact fees go through, they're also on a schedule of indexing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's back up then. I had previously asked in every category in this AUIR, and each category has a similar asterisk about the percentage, and I was told that that's based on construction costs to the most recent building which just happened to be in the highest year we ever constructed and therefore our unit costs have to go up. Well, now you're telling me that's not the case, it's because it was arbitrarily decided to go up by the Board of County Commissioners. MS. PATTERSON: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's go back to my-- MS. PATTERSON: We have to -- we can only --] can talk about each category differently, because something different has happened with each one. So if you want me to start with law enforcement, I can start explain law enforcement and then we can go back to the others and ] can tell you what has happened with them, if that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand. Because 4.1 percent on this one is different than the 4.] percent on the others? MS. PATTERSON: There wasn't 4.1 percent on -- there's a different percentage of increase on every other one, except for the erroneous com -- there was an incorrect comment on the jail -- an incorrect statement on the jail impact fee page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way that you establish the index -- let's forget the percentage then. Because if I use 4.] you're going to say that's wrong. Let's just say we'll call it the indexing schedule. The indexing schedule on each one as it comes about is a different reason? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. There's an individual index for every impact fee, based on individual components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know there's an individual index on each one-- MS. PATTERSON: And it's a different amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is -- yeah, I understand that. But the basis for it now is different on each one; is that what you're saying? MS. PATTERSON: The weighting is different on each one. So depending on the components, they're weighted differently, depending on how -- those components are weighted within the fee. So every impact fee generally speaking has a construction cost element, a land cost element and an equipment cost element. Those are weighted, depending on how they're evaluated in the impact fee study, and then through the indexing they're weighted and that's how you come up with the cost of increase or potentially decrease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what was the reason then for the increase in unit costs for police officers from 158,000 per officer to roughly 165? If it wasn't -- obviously the numbers for the construction are the same as they were last year, which seems contrary to what I had previously heard on the other categories. But be that as it may, then how does this category get 4.1 percent of an increase? MS. PATTERSON: It's a national index that is localized for the mid years between the full studies. When they come back, this -- it should have been this year, but next year when they come back to do a law enforcement impact fee study, they will look at those old costs, as well as any new costs to establish the new construction costs, the new unit costs. So those things that are done have a cost. Any new thing since the last time the study was done would then be evaluated and included and therefore the construction costs will change, either up or down or stay the same, depending on all those factors. Page 19 16 I le~(mber ~3, A03 . 1 The 4.1 percent is a combination off actors of construction cost, land cost and equipment cost weighted, which used to use a 10-year regression analysis and has now been changed at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to be a faster reacting two-year average index, which changed as you saw it early on the pages in the AUlR book. It was a very high index prescribed by the 10-year regression analysis that was changed down to a lesser percentage of increase and next year potentially, if things stay as poor as they are now, could go to a negative index. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you said that it's a national indexing schedule localized to our area. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the national indexing for this item? MS. PATTERSON: It uses a combination of the Engineering News Record construction costs, local land values and the Consumer Price Index for equipment costs. They're weighted at 43 percent for construction, 10 percent for land and 47 percent for equipment. And we go through and we take the percentage prescribed and then they do this analysis that provides some local layered and on top of the national. I have those. Construction costs this year was 8.1. This is the two -- using 2007 and 2008 data for the 2009 index. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Before you go any further, you have an indexing schedule fee here of 4.1 percent. What is the national indexing schedule? Just the number, just one number. Is it-- MS. PATTERSON: It's not one number, it's the combination of three numbers that have to be -- I know it's not -- I understand it's not making sense, but there's three components that make up the law enforcement impact fee. Each one of those components has an index and then they have to be weighted and added together to come up with that 4.] percent. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Does the national indexing generally have an increase across the nation? MS. PATTERSON: It had an increase, yes. It has. And it's been-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So nationally because of Engineering News Record -- which] used to subscribe to until I realized it was written for the industry and not for reality -- so they use that magazine, along with some other numbers they get from other sources to determine that even in an economy when everything is less expensive and the reports are that we've re -- we actually got an at least] 6 percent better buying power now, we have an increase in indexing and cost. MS. PATTERSON: You had an increase in six categories for indexing this year, with the idea that moving from the I O-year regression to the two-year average, that you will actually have decreases next year. It just couldn't get there all at once. Your land cost has already gone.] percent negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Page 146, right there it proves my points, we didn't. But I understand what you're saying. You have reasons to raise them. And I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with you about it so I'm going to stop at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Amy, you said you used the 2007 book, right? MS. PATTERSON: 2007 and 2008. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So things were not quite coming down yet. MS. PATTERSON: Which the Board of County Commissioners did acknowledge. And the reason that they moved to this two-year average is in the acknowledgment that probably next year they're going to capture a decrease on many of these fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, it's difficult to predict. I mean, a problem we have is our prediction skills a couple years ago was predicting a major rise. Obviously it didn't happen. So we can't assume today -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's going to go down forever either. I mean, so we've got to be careful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking anybody to predict. I know what reality is, not prediction. So anyway,] have another question on Page ]50. I don't know who's got the answer. On that chart on Page 150, on year 2008 it looks like the only year you ever give warnings. Is that something the new Sheriff decided is nice to do and Sheriff Hunter never wanted to, or how is -- how come we only have warnings in that year? CHIEF SMITH: You really want an answer? Page 20 16 I lepLbeA~~09 &1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? CHIEF SMITH: You really want an answer to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. It stands out like a sore thumb. So I'm just curious. CHIEF SMITH: It's not something that I'd associated with the AUIR process, but nonetheless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's in here, Chief. I guess that gives us the right to ask about it, so-- CHIEF SMITH: That was just the way the numbers came out. I won't attribute them to one sheriff's philosophy over another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- but we never gave warnings prior to 2008? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir, we gave warnings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They were never on the chart. CHIEF SMITH: Again, I don't put the chart together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess that chart's not -- doesn't need to be in the AUIR anymore then, does it, Mike? MR. BOSI: If that's the recommendation of the CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not accurate and it doesn't reflect possibly what could have occurred, why do we have it here? And if it's not -- as the Chiefs indicated, he didn't realize it was part of the AUIR. Maybe it isn't. I mean -- MR. BOSI: We -- once again, the AUIR purposes for concurrency management and for Category B is to make sure we are legally defensible within our impact fees. We provide demand numbers and ancillary information to provide a much more rounded picture for the board to consider and evaluate to see whether there's justification for the current levels of service, for the activities associated with each individual division in the department. If we would like to limit the scope specifically only to the concurrency management and not provide some of the demand numbers and provide some of the activity statistics, if that's the desire of the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, we most certainly can go more narrow within our focus. But we wanted to try to provide a broader range. And unfortunately I'm not sure why we didn't cull out the warnings issued before 2008. We can try to find out that information for you. But these are just to provide a broader picture for the activities associated with each division in the department. And it's not -- it really doesn't have any bearing towards the AUIR, whether we're within a legal defensible position for the collection of impact fees and the impact fees that we're charging, and maintaining of the levels of service that we as a community have adopted for the particular division and department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't see its use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the only thing I was trying to comment on, as a result of the discourse or discussion here, if you put something in the AU]R that nobody knows how it got there, why it got there, how it compares, why the questions are, then don't put it there. I mean, if you can't defend it, why have it? ]f we want answers and we can't get them, don't give us things that you can't answer. ] don't know who put it here, but that just is common sense. I'm not telling you to take it out, I'mjust telling you somebody better be prepared to have an answer if we ask a question about something that's in this book. That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, maybe they're showing compassion to the downturn and just issuing wamings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They ought to try it on red lights. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I am -- I'd like to get down to a serious discussion here of our level of service. I think that's really where we need to focus the discussion, on whether or not the 1.96 per 1,000 is a correct number or not. It seems to me that what has been shown over time is that that number is too high. Weare now -- we can house 203 or five officers that we don't have and that we don't need. So it seems to me that the real number -- because the unit cost numbers are a trailing. It's either, you know, trailing something or getting ahead of something. And only over time can that unit cost number catch up or average out or whatever. It's really the level of service number that I think we need to concentrate on and figure out whether that's a Page 21 16 Is1mtr23,2~ 3 ~ correct number or not. And personally I think it's too high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: To add to that, that was my question. Where has that number been, 1.96 per] ,OOO? Let's say five years ago, three years ago. COMMISS]ONER CARON: Same. MR. FEE: Has it remained the same? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2005 it started at 1.96. It's been static since. MR. FEE: And how is that arrived at? Is that a state, is that something the Board of County Commissioners has picked? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm afraid it's impact fee related. If it is, you'll never figure it out. Just accept it as a mystic number. MR. BOS]: Before law enforcement used to be covered, law enforcement and jails used to be covered by general government buildings. And when we adopted impact fees for each of those respective components, they became sections within the AUIR. And 2005 was when we first adopted the impact fee related to law enforcement and jails. And the 1.96 standard was the standard that was related to the impact fees, the fee structure that we adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. FEE: So that number is in the impact fee studies and the data. Okay. The only other thing I wanted to add was as Productivity Committee members, we spend hours a year studying the impact fee reports and then making recommendation to the Board of County Commission. I'm not sure that the Planning Commission also does that same. Are you provided those reports? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on what I've heard today, if we were provided to them, they were written in such a marmer that I'm not sure] would understand them. MR. FEE: And the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just confusing to hear all this different analysis to get to something that's so common sense. But that's the way government works, I understand that. MR. FEE: Those reports can be 20, 30 pages from the consultant. And if you follow them year over year over year, you can get to understanding the methodology that they're using and the changes and the construction costs and all that. But if one isn't looking at those reports or involved in that process, it's hard to -- you know, so I'm defending the process and what reports are available to come up to -- I'm not saying the costs are right or wrong, it's just what's in those reports. And if you have not read them, and I know you guys have a lot on your plate, I wouldn't suggest you add anything, but that's where part of this equation is on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,] didn't say] didn't read them. I have them all. Amy sent them to me a couple years ago, I have them electronically. ] have read them. Whether I understand them because of the way they're written, I can't tell you I do. And obviously I don't agree with what I'm hearing here today. Not that Amy's wrong. But if that's the basis under which our common sense has gone out the door and this is the way we're establishing things, I'm not buying it. And I guess you can go to -- anybody can hire tons of people to do a study to say anything they want. And we see that at the Plarming Commission every meeting. The -- there's no developer that comes before us without an expert telling us that in spite of our common sense we need more commercial in this community and we need more this and we need more that. Yet it's always there and they prove it by numbers just like they prove through the impact fees. But without an organization, let's say trained in understanding these studies, and I'm speaking basically of a group like CBIA, they for all intents and purposes don't exist. Because if they did, they ought to be challenging this on an expert basis from those of us that can't get into it like that, and suggested alternatives. Before I forget, on this level of service standard, I have for years thought this was for police officers. Because it says police officers repeatedly, officers, officers, officers. In no way does this county ever need to reduce its number of officers. In fact, we need to increase them. And in fact, ] thought the benefits provided here go to salaries and other things to help officers. In the past I would never consider have cutting such a thing, because I don't think we need to. We need to do just the opposite here. And that's my concern, if we change the level of standard. Page 22 .. .. 16 1 }eJtjmber 2A~ ~1 I would rather see a Category B element that talks about the feet on the ground, not the whatever you want to call them, bottoms sitting in chairs. I'd rather see -- knowing what we have out on the street, what we have doing the most effective work, rather than empty space and buildings. And if that's what this pertains to, if this pertains to actually the people on the ground, then I don't want to see a level of service cut. But if it's just for creating empty space and buildings, there's no need for it, so -- MR. BOSI: Page] 48 provides the actual staffmg numbers that are employed within the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my question is, if we adjust the level of service standard, is that going to negatively impact the staffing level of the personnel that are hired by the department? MR. BOSI: If you adjust the level of service standard, you're going to negatively -- you cou~ potentially negatively impact the space available to house the necessary prisoners that the Sheriffs Department d termines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's jail. This is not -- we're not -- officers aren't the prisoners. is is the jail __ MR. BOSI: House is a term for where they gain employment and where they do their work, outside of their cars. COMM]SSIONER CARON: Yeah, he did. But I think in this case I don't believe -- based on what we just leamed today, that this is not an actual police officer, it's a space that could house a police officer -- that that the level of service for individuals would not be affected, unless we went down. Unless we were running a negative figure here. And according to what we've got here, we're not going to be running negative figures. CHIEF SMITH: ]f [ could make comment to that. It's not really where officers are housed. You need to understand that it's space needed to support the officer contingent that you have. It relates to any number of different utilizations. It's training space, it's the space used to repair their cars, it's the space used for having shift briefings, it's the space used to come to do the assignments, you know, any time you have to come and cut paper, to do the reports necessary to generate to facilitate a booking of an inmate. It's not just a vacant office waiting one day for an officer to be hired so that he can sit in it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But right now what this report is telling us is you could hire 203 new officers and you would have the space to accommodate them; for fixing their cars and training them and doing whatever else, that's what this report tells us. CHIEF SMITH: That's exactly what that report's telling you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So that's what I'm saying is that for -- I think that the level of service could go down a notch or two. And] don't know what that appropriate number would be. Because we've been tracking at 196 for at least five years and maybe longer, which keeps building us up this reserve that we're not using. So we're over-inventoried here at this point. And I don't know, you know, backing off slightly would just -- would not -- I don't want to go into a negative situation, but it would seem to me that we don't need to be quite at the level we're progressing now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee, then Mr. Murray. MR. FEE: The analysis of that number, Ms. Caron, the 1.96 -- Amy, are we going to get an opportunity to evaluate that level of service number in the next impact fee update? And you said that's coming up. MS. P A TfERSON : Yes. Amy Patterson again for the record. '09 was an update year, full update year for law enforcement. The board has slightly delayed those '09 studies, but I expect come November or December they're going to reestablish their update cycle and law enforcement, and the level of service will be a part of that study. MR. FEE: So] think we can hear what you're saying. And when we see that study, that can be a key question, the cost being one, but the number used. And we can certainly raise that. Today you carmot change that number because it's in the data that we're using right now, it's been adopted and -- MS. PATTERSON: It's the number that was generated by the last full impact fee study. If there was a recommendation made to the Board of County Commissioners to change that level of service number, they would have to evaluate that against their current level of service -- the impact fee level of service, I mean. And also then the anticipation of the new impact fee study. So all of these actually in time would be appropriate around the same time period. Page 23 16 I sJe~er ~2; I What I'm saying is if there were to be a change to the level of service, they would have to coordinate it with the impact anyway, because the adopted level of service can't fall below that that's call called for the impact fee study. MR. FEE: Okay. And the only other thing is, has there been a draft of that impact fee study yet? MS. PATTERSON: No. No. In November or December, probably early December, the board will establish what they want to be the study time frames. At that point then we'll send out the commitments to our consultant to start work on those. And once they get going, they can -- it's usually -- except in unusual cases like parks, we get the studies turned around probably in a -- at least for a draft in about a six-month period. So before the next AUIR there would be at least something available. MR. FEE: And maybe you stated this, but do you anticipate an actual drop in those impact fee numbers in this study? Can you predict that yet or -- MS. PATTERSON: No, because it's been -- since it's been the full three years and there's been quite a bit of construction activity, we would have to see how the changes in population as well as the changes in costs, how all the factors play in overall to effect the impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Close to average. MR. FEE: And when we do adopt that, when the board adopts that and if there is a decrease, then next year during these hearings we will see a lower unit cost, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. FEE: We could see a lower-- MS. PATTERSON: Right, whatever the actual unit cost is and the level of service reflected in that impact fee study, we would bring forward through the AUIR process. MR. FEE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, this is -- the AUIR is a budget document. But the level of service standard, seeming to have a significant difference between what is need versus capacity so to speak. ]s it the intent of your organization to utilize this information so as to increase your budget, or do you rely upon it to increase your budget? CHIEF SMITH: We do not rely on this document to size our budget. This document is really used for planning purposes for future facilities as its use to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your budget, and] understand now that the last budget, actually it was reduced some from what a prior budget was. So that's pretty clear that that doesn't happen. So in terms of what mayor may not be real capacity, this is your means or this is the county's means of totaling up what seems to be there to support your organization. And it may appear, because of circumstances, that you have more than you need. ]f we had a rapid change and changes in government and so forth that precipitated additional crimes, would you see this so-called excess evaporate? CHIEF SM]TH: I think you fIrst have to categorize it as an excess. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I use that word, because there is-- CHIEF SMITH: Understood. COMM]SSIONER MURRAY: -- a sense of it that it might be excessive need and therefore in order to adjust it, the suggestion may be to bring it down. And I'm concerned if we bring down the level of service will we do ourselves a disservice. Because the way government works and a lot of organizations that are large, there's a lag in things. So would you help us with that? CHIEF SMITH: Sure. And I'll get to it eventually, so bear with me. There are any number of studies and metrics used on a national scale to say basically here -- you know, all factors remaining equal, which we know they never are, any case there's differences. But all factors being equal, this is the amount or the recommended amount of law enforcement officers per thousand. And that number is -- depending on which organization, you know, you're taking the information from, it's always greater than two. And I've seen it range as high as 2.3. So when different organizations look to an area such as Collier County to, you know, try to relate quality of life and, you know, levels of protection and levels of service and those sorts of things, they judge them based on those national numbers and see just exactly where they are. Page 24 1 6 I 1 tlte3er 23109 So, you know, could you stand here today and surmise that there may be some kind of negative connotation to adjusting that number downward? We could probably make that case. But] also know that, you know, in instances like if you want to talk about the fleet facility, I know it has capacity for the future, I'm not worried about that. But when I go out and I look at the various substations that we occupy outside ofD-3, which is now located in the EOC, I see a need. And I see, you know, that we're not going to be able to go very much longer before we do have to start talking about facilities again. So, you know, to adjust that down, it I think is going to put us in a situation or has the potential to put us in a situation where if there is a spring-back in the economy rapidly, that you're dealing with a deficit which then you must build out of before you utilize impact fees to go forward. So I think in answer to your question, could it be detrimental to the agency if we tried to reduce what we're doing now? Absolutely. Are we concerned if your recommendation is to reduce the level of service of law enforcement officers? We would be. But that certainly, you know, depends on the feelings of this group. COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: Thanks, Chief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Law enforcement officers, though, are set by the sheriffs budget, I'm now realizing, this wouldn't set (sic) law enforcement officers. So us doing anything with this theoretically wouldn't impact law enforcement officer reduction. That's what I seem to be understanding from what this now applies to. And if that's true, what I certainly would like to suggest to our comprehensive plarming department is that any reference to police officers on here gets removed. It's very misleading. And for five years I have understood this to be the wrong thing. MR. BOSI: And back to the purpose of the Category B facilities. Category B facilities are to ensure that we are not running afoul of the legal proceedings related to impact fees. The impact fees state the levels of service based upon the standard that's expressed within the AUIR document. Any departure from that would require a departure from our current methodology of the impact fee studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, all I'm saying is stop calling it police officers. MR. COHEN: Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't police officers. It's police facilities. You can call it buildings, you can call it anything you want, but we're not talking about police officers here. Yes? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen. What we'll do is we'll consult with our impact fee department, as well as our impact fee consultant to see whether or not we can modify that in accordance with your request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just mine as one member. I'm-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just suggesting it's misleading. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: ] mean, isn't it really saying capital cost per police officer? So it's just-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Composition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- an index. It's not really police officers. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it isn't. And that's what I'm saying, it needs to be clarified. Because the titling -- the way this is titled is extremely misleading, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, to me it looks like-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to take a break too. So at some point we either wrap this one up first or we take a break and come back and wrap it up. I don't know how much more discussion there's going to be. And on the safety of our court reporter whose fingers are probably beat, let's just take a break till 10:25 and we'll finish up when we come back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from the break. And our court reporter is smiling, so that means her fingers are ready to go. And we left off asking the level of service standard for law enforcement. We are going to work our way into an eventual conclusion and motion. Page 25 16 1 1 ~ 3 (,1 Septeml 'er 23, 2"00" Is there any further discussion on the level of service standard issue? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm still concerned about this disparity between availability and requiremem that occurred in this section. Is there something we can add to the recommendation of commissioners to encourage them to pursue this issue further? I realize it's law enforcement and that the option primarily is to improve it, but I'd like to add an addendum to bring these points to light when they discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be appropriate if we wanted to have the level of service ,;tandard reviewed for the next AUIR. On this one it wouldn't be possible to do anything, because at this point it's recommendations to go forward, I believe. ] think if that recommendation included a careful review ofth" level of service standard relative to the fact we have such a large surplus, that might be a relative point to make in the motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I make a motion to recommend approval with that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, is that appropriate for you guys's needs? MR. BOSI: It's one of the potential recommendations at the end of your staff report. It says, the option to recommend evaluation or modification to any of the level of services is an option that is available as part ,of the recommendation process from either of the advisory bodies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMM]SSIONER CARON: I would second that motion. Also adding Mr. Fee's point from earlier that talked about the 1 O-year planning period. Mike's going to make that adjustment here on the wording in th,~ staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so a motion's been made. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: ] would also add that there be clarification of definition of officers that you mentioned as the third item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be sure of something. MS. VASEY: Have we fmished the discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to discuss the motion. MS. VASEY: ] thought we were-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion came faster. I hadn't asked for a motion, but Mr. Kolflat vo lunteered one. Ifwe have discussion, ] can ask the motion maker and the second to hold off. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Sure. COMM]SSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MS. VASEY: I had my hand up before we went on break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember, I'm sorry. MS. VASEY: That's all right. Well, I did a couple of calculations, and I think part of what's confusing this whole issue is that in the last ye"r we added 82,000 square feet of space in this area. That's about 10 percent increase over what we had before. And th" way buildings are added, you know, it's big chunks. You don't just add a few feet for every year when you add a few more people. So you've got those things happening. And in both of those cases, the people came out of leased space. And it was expanded for the future. So yes, it's more perhaps than what we need right now but it's looking to the future in the way building chunks happen. So I felt that should -- I wanted to make that point. Also on the jails, I was talking to Amy during the break and she reminded me, and she was right, when we're looking at building costs for jails, it was true that we based it on the actual cost of the jail increase, the jaiJ expansion in 2006. But we did have an architect come in and cost out things to update those numbers. And he looked at what else was going around in our area, he compared it in other Florida areas because it had been several years. So I had forgotten that we had done -- made an attempt to try to take another look at those costs. And all those costs, you know, are not just land costs or building costs, you know, they're the cost for equipment too. So you get all kinds of things in there. And if you know what the cost of construction, square foot for construction of a building is, you hav,' to remember that you're adding equipment to that too. So just a couple of things that I felt need to be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 26 16 I 1 se13J23 , 19 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Janet, and I think that's why I supported Mr. Kolflat's motion the way it was made, because I also talked to Amy at the break and I know that we're going to get an impact fee update on most of these categories. And so we will be able to reflect -- as even Mr. Fee indicated, we'll be able to take a look at those next year. So I think the update will tell us. And nothing's going to happen, we're not building anything, nothing's happening in the upcoming year so __ MS. VASEY: Right, we have a little time to clean up some of the stuffwe need to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think it should be noted too, and ] talked with Amy -- she was talked to by everybody, I guess. Kidding aside, you know, we've been using a regression analysis and now we're going to go to an average. And two highest years. And next year you will not see a significant change downward. I don't have a problem if the motion is an evaluation. A modification] wouldn't be able to support. I would like to see an evaluation of it. And if I understand Ms. Vasey, that's already essentially been done. Did I understand you correctly that you actually, through the Productivity Committee, effectively got an evaluation of this level of service standard? MS. VASEY: That was for the jail. Ijumped back to mention the jail. This one is coming. MS. PATTERSON: It's an '09 study, so we're hoping the board's -- I'm sorry, Amy Patterson again for the record. Law enforcement was going to be an '09 study. We anticipate in November or December that the board will reset their study schedule and we'll be doing the six required '09 studies in 2010 so in time for the next AUIR. MS. VASEY: Okay, we'll take a hard look at that calculations when we get the study in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, as long as we follow a process here, I really don't have a problem. Certainly evaluation is always working. If the cost of evaluation doesn't create additional burdens unnecessarily, that's good for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs, then Mr. Fee. MS. DOWNS: Well, we do, productivity does work closely with impact fees and these different studies, so just to shed some light on that. I know there's frustration, and we talked about some of the frustration yesterday. The frustration is to get these calculations as true and accurate as possible. Whether it takes the fee up or down, we all want a more realistic figure. And we're required by the state to have impact fees. We had been for State Bill 360 and so far we still are. There are only two companies that I know of in the United States that do impact fee studies, Duncan and Tindale-Oliver. There are others. Those are the only two we have used. MS. P A lTERSON: There are some other -- those are the two best known companies, Duncan and Tindale-Oliver. There are some other companies in California that do some. Henderson-Young Company in Washington, who the board did work with in the Nineties. However, we had a situation in the mid 200's and we no longer have a relationship with Henderson-Young. And it is currently the opinion of the county attorney that we work with a Florida company, because they understand the dynamics with Florida and the legalizations in Florida the best, and they would prefer that we work with a Florida firm, which leaves us right now with Tindale-Oliver. MS. DOWNS: The other firm is Duncan. But they were challenged in court over the last year and lost, and so we -- the county settled with Tindale-Oliver because they have a better track record. Every impact fee has to be legally defensible, such as the CBIA should be challenging them. They do nationwide. So that was one reason the comfort level with Tindale-Oliver studies. There are thorough. Could they be more fmely tuned? Like we said with Parks and Recs yesterday, I would like to see a lot more factored into the equation, if it's legally defensible. Therein lies the rub. Some of the smaller companies do not hire impact fee providers. They come up with their own figures. But that's taking a huge risk, and we're much too big of a county to do something like that. Now, they are required to be reviewed every five years, am I right? Every three years is the impact fee review. And they all don't come due at the same time on the third year. They're staggered. Now that we've had a downturn in the economy, we could go back and ask for a review on every department. And if I'm right on this, the cost of each review would be about 75, $85,000? She's saying yes. Page 27 16 1 1 ~~..\ ,. SeptembJ;\6009 So for each department, if you wanted to review it in between that three-year time period, it's like Mr. Murray was saying, you have to adjust for the cost of doing that additional study. Now, the only thing I can see that is something we could possibly impact right now, right here goes back to the BEBR numbers. The county seemed to be justifiably quick to ask the state to move up the BEBR numbers from medium to high when we were having tremendous growth. Now that we are in a contraction, I think it's very reasonable to ask the state to drop down to the BEBR low. We're not even having low growth, we're having zero growth. It doesn't mean in two years we can't go back to BEBR median. But by adopting BEBR low, it would impact every single cost that we're looking at. And I've looked at the BEBR low, median and high. Can't remember the numbers off the bat, it seemed like it was about, can you help me, 60,000 population per year? Does that sound right? Off the top of my head. MR. BOSI: Not sure. The comment that I was going to make is the BEBR population projections really don't account for the cost of your impact fees. Your impact fees are based upon your population at the time of the study and the improvements at the time of the study, so -- MS. DOWNS: But you're taking out a five. You're applying -- MR. BOSI: Right, right. MS. DOWNS: -- per population. So if you -- MR. BOSI: What the BEBR population -- MS. DOWNS: -- drop that population-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got to both talk separately. And Mike, you need to slow down a little bit. MR. BOS]: What the BEBR population projections are utilized are for what improvements would be required over that five-year period. So you're correct in the sense that if we went to a BEBR low, it would show that the new improvements that we don't have plarmed within our five years that are out somewhere in that five to 10 years, they may be pushed out to the] 0 to the] 5 years, based upon the further reduction or decrease in population projections. If that's -- I mean, that most certainly could be a recommendation that would be contained. But the increase -- or the decrease from a BEBR high to a BEBR medium had a significant reduction in terms of what we were expecting. As you can see, as Mr. Fee pointed out, as one of the notes that were provided related to why we have so much excess space within the law enforcement was when the buildings were commissioned and authorized. For 2008 and 2009 we had projected, based upon our projections was 450,000 people. The reality turns out that that 450,000 people aren't here today. And that's why we have such excess in that space. And if we would go to the BEBR medium, we would further prevent that excess from happening. What we would potentially do is when there would be an upswing, we would be forced with bringing new improvements on quicker and without the consideration or the timing meshing with our prior plans. And that simply -- and that's a policy decision. That's a policy decision. Should we be more conservative, meaning that we expect that we're not going to grow and we're not going to do the __ we're not going to program improvements based upon the assumption that we're going to have flat growth, we're going to have no growth over a five or a 10-year period. Or should we be somewhere in the middle and think that the population may come back once the situation -- the economic situation begins to stabilize and have a population projection that is somewhat closer to what we've experienced in the past 30 to 35 years within this county. That's a policy decision. And that's most certainly a recommendation that either of the bodies can provide as part of the AUIR process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: I don't know if the motion is for the Plarming Commission or whether we would join them in that same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you guys do your own separately. MR. FEE: We do our own. In the motion that was mentioned here, we talk about on Page 141 the recommendation. And staff puts in here there are no projects in the five and 10-year planning. The motion is indicating we would change that because listed here out in year '] 7-'18, there's 2.2 million and Page 28 .... 161 1 t^'2 '1 ~epte~t13, 200') in '18-']9, there's 32 million. Do you know if in last year's AUIR those two projects were listed in the approval? Are these being added this year? MR. BOSI: No, those have shown up all the way -- I'll check the 2007. ] know it's in 2008. MR. FEE: Okay. So if the answer is yes, they've been in there, if you go to Page ]46 where it lists the individual expansion projects, there's a note with four asterisks that says based on 2009 master plan update. Who hears that, and is in that actually adopted now, the master plan? Is there a Sheriff's committee or-- MR. BOSI: I would defer to Skip Camp from facilities on that question. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp. There is a master plan. And things are so dynamic right now that we asked for a master plan update last year. Things changed in six months so radically that we actually had to do an update to the update. And quite honestly, we've reviewed it with the sheriff's office. We know that the elements are valid, but when they actually come into place, we're going to be deferring those year after year, depending on the need. MR. FEE: Okay. And my question then is do we want to modify the motion to say there are projects in here, or do you want to modify this graph to eliminate those two projects? Because it says they're tentative in nature. If they're in some master plan, then obviously you want to put them in here] 0 years out. But if they haven't actually been adopted in that master plan, if it's changing, maybe you do not want to show those. MR. CAMP: From a staff perspective they're valid projects. It's just when are they going to actually be needed. That's the unknown. But they're valid projects, based on professional space plarming. So we don't want to __ we want to make sure the projects are always addressed. When that actually happens is really unknown. MR. FEE: Okay. And then the only other point is, what Janet's saying, that you have to add capacity or expansion well ahead of when you're going to need. We do that in water treatment. You know, we have a graph that shows how many people are moving here and we have to stay ahead of that demand. And I know it's the same way with this facility. But my question would be, if you look at Page] 42, when we add the plarmed capacity you still are in an overage. You're not requiring that amount of space. So I guess I'm just questioning -- I know that's 10 years out and who can guess, but should it actually be on there? MR. BOSI: In 2008 it was shown in the tenth year. This year we've shown it in the tenth year. And we're going to continue as the conditions remain flat, as the conditions remain as they are presented, that the need does not -- is not being triggered. The intention is to leave that in the tenth year. Because it is a project that's documented as a need within the master plan, and we want to leave it out there in the tenth year. And as the conditions warrant, we would adjust it -- we would adjust it forward. MR. FEE: And then the final, going back to the master plan, is it actually a document that has been drafted and approved that in fact it's in there? MR. CAMP: It has been drafted. Staff has reviewed it both on the board's side and the Sheriff's side. We're in concert with each other. The board hasn't seen it yet. And quite honestly, it's because things are so dynamic nothing's going to happen in the immediate future. So we're trying to make sure the environment stabilizes a little bit before we get final approval. MR. FEE: Okay. And I know I'm belaboring the point, but when that gets adopted, in fact you will see these facilities in that adopted report? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. MR. FEE: It won't be eliminated? MR. CAMP: No. They're in the report, it's just a matter of when they get done. MR. FEE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any discussion further on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Mr. Kolflat had made a motion to recommend approval of this with some stipulations. One is that the level of service standard be reviewed. And that the reference to this entitled section of police officers be more or less redefmed or defined in a manner that's more accurate. ] think that's a fair statement. Page 29 16 Isl~L2A3 ~i COMM]SSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. And it was seconded by Donna Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and that's what I was going to -- and Ms. Caron added an addition to the motion concerning the correction to Page 141. And Donna, did you want to reconsider your -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think all you have to do is just eliminate and ] O-year. So we're approving no new projects in the five-year plarming period. MR. BOSI: What my modification was going to be was after and it say no new projects over the five-year plarming period and tentative improvements for the] O-year plarming period. Or I can just eliminate the reference to the 1 O-year plarming period. But there are tentative improvements that we put in year 10. Whatever the discretion. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't even think we need to go there. I mean, I don't think it's -- you know, it's not really a commitment on anybody's part, so we don't need to go that route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that consistent then with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second seconds the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changes? Any further discussion? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the bottom line here, I mean, with everything we said, we're essentially just approving using debt to pay debt, that's all we're doing today in the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, no new changes, no nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a no-brainer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going to be voting against the motion because of my continued and persistent concern over the inaccuracies of the unit cost in today's marketplace. So I'm not changing my mind on that. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor of the discussion, say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMM]SSIONERKOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMM]SSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 5-1. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take the issue up? MS. VASEY: I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval. And the level of service standard will be reviewed in the next impact fee study for law enforcement. MR. FEE: I would second that. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MS. VASEY: Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Unanimous. COMM]SSIONER KOLFLA T: Same vote as us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is the emergency medical services. And Chief Page. Welcome, sir. CHIEF PAGE: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. On Page 168, I do have a change here that I was just made aware of this morning. Page 30 16 I sltemLA,309 " For the total revenues, if you can adjust that to 4,714,800. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which? There's three, four -- there's several lines there. Which-- CHIEF PAGE: I'm sorry. Under revenues, total revenues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the total number? CHIEF PAGE: Right. That total number is going to be 4,7]4,800. The general fund loan to make commercial paper for the debt service payments, that's actually going to be $3,859,039. So the -- at the bottom there, the additional revenues required at the level of service standard reduction, that would change to 3,750,000 instead of the 6 million, 112 that's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with questions of the Emergency Medical Services, EMS. Anybody have any questions? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you shook your head no, that's -- I thought you were saying I don't have any this time. Go ahead, sir. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, one thing. You know, we year after year mention that some of these travel times could be increased by, for example, bridges in the Estates and stuff like that. Has that been looked at this year at all? Has transportation worked with you to -- CHIEF PAGE: They always work with us. Especially any road closures, things of that nature that are either temporary or permanent. Future bridges, things of that nature, yes, they do. MR. BOSI: And to point out, as part of the East of 951 Horizon Study, one of the components that came out of it from the transportation side was the actual bridge study, and the bridge study where they identified 12 locations to bridge within the Estates that were based upon the input from the individual first responders, from fire, EMS and law enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And has anything gone further than that? MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- basically it's been accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, but it's accepted and can only be acted upon when funding becomes available. But other than that, there has -- that's where it stops. And I guess it's related to funding. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: So it didn't show up in transportation at all, in any long-range plan? No, probably, right? MR. BOS]: I believe that the long-range plan would factor in -- would factor in the locations of the proposed bridge locations to increase the capacity within individual systems. But there's no money on board to actually schedule the improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then I think my other question is, is right now some of these things are based upon support from the ALS, correct? CHIEF PAGE: The ALS engines? Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you ever lost that, how would this change? CHIEF PAGE: We had this happen once before where the City of Naples and North Naples Fire had ALS engine programs with us, and they backed out for a time period of a few years, due on staffing adjustments, things of that nature. And there was no impact, really. . The fire districts would continue to respond on a first responder basis where they have automatic external defibrillators and they do CPRs. So that part wouldn't change. Whether they provide the ALS procedures or medications associated with that, typically less than one percent of the calls that we run on are actually cardiac arrests. So the significance of the impact, whether they provide the ALS portion of the protocol would not necessarily have an impact on the cardiac resuscitation rates because they would still have the defibrillator and things to actually save lives with. The medications that we provide enroute to the hospital typically are not going to have an outcome on the __ whether the patient lives or dies, it's just to provide support during the transport. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the emergency medical services? Ms. Vasey? Page 3 I 1 QepLl~L~o~ 3 , MS. VASEY: Yes. When -- to follow up on Brad's question, when you have the ALS responding right now, do they use very many of these procedures, the paramedic procedures and meds? CHIEF PAGE: Well, we've actually looked at it now for two years, and what we've found is that in East Naples the number of medications used prior to our arrival was down to 21. And when I say medications, that includes like aspirin, glucose, things of that nature, which really probably aren't life-saving medications. So I would have to say no, that they're not really -- there isn't any evidence that they're really doing a lot as far as the medical administration prior to our arrival. Now, when we arrive on scene, of course when we're there it's further into the call. And you've got to remember, initially there is a set protocol of, you know, taking the patient's vitals and administrating oxygen, basic life support stuff that happens well before you actually start an IV. So they make get as far as initiating an IV, but even in that case it's very rarely -- because what we've found is that 87 percent of the time one of the two of us is arriving within a minute of the other, and you just can't get that far into the protocol to really get into advanced life support. The NFP A standard put out by the fire department recommends that you have a BLS component, a basic life support component within a four-minute travel time or six minutes on scene to provide an AED response and basic life support. The ALS is an eight-minute travel time or ]O-minute response to that scene. And that's when the drugs are administered. So what we're finding is they're basically getting there for the majority of the time at the same time we are, within that eight minutes travel time. And I think what the medical director is trying to focus on is perhaps having a larger component of basic life support/first responder capability to where whether you have code enforcement out on the street, if they have a pager similar to this and there's a cardiac arrest around the corner and they're having AED or automatic external defibrillator equipped, and whether it be a CAT bus or whatever, that they actually respond to the scene as a fIrst responder. And keep in mind that most if not all the Sheriffs Office vehicles out there on the road, and there's hundreds of them out there a day, they all have AED's now. So if you're able to capture that type of force for that initial response to a cardiac arrest to administer whether it be CPR or the shock, if it's required, that's really what's going to save lives. So I think that's where the medical director's focus is, is that initial response. And the ALS component coming somewhere down the line. So in answer to your question, we still have -- there's two districts right now. East Naples and North Naples are no longer providing the swap program to where their paramedics ride on our units. Dr. Tober had made a requirement that they ride at least one shift once every three months. And there's been a number of them that have not complied with that. He's decertified, as you've read in the paper. And we expect by the end of this month several more will be decertified to the point where right now in the agreements East Naples is supposed to provide us two ALS engines every day, 365 days a year. Today they have one. North Naples is supposed to provide seven every day. They have two up today. So that staffing's going to continue to go down. As long as they continue to not ride on our units in defiance, so to speak, those two programs will go. Now the City of Naples, the City of Marco, both those programs are in place and I think that they will continue to be so. Whether we're able to work out with the boards collectively or able to work out an agreement with north and east down the road, that remains to be seen. MS. VASEY: But even if they don't send an ALS engine, they still are sending somebody that can do that first responder? CHIEF PAGE: Absolutely. MS. VASEY: Okay. So what they have historically done, with the exception of the 21 cases in East Naples, and you didn't say how many in North Naples, that they've been providing the actual paramedic intervention. So everything else is just going to work the same. So that's just that one small piece that's dropped. CHIEF PAGE: Sure. MS. VASEY: Okay. One ofthe things that we did in the master plan last year, we looked at where you were located, where your engines were -- or yours trucks were. What did we call them? Page 32 . 16 I lJA- ~hool CHIEF PAGE: The transport units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ambulances. MS. VASEY: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ambulances. MS. VASEY: Okay. An ambulance, okay. We looked at where they were located. And you were plarming to put in several more actual PhY,' I stations. And we decided not to do those. Or we recommended not to and the commissioners agreed beca of the ALS units.' Where do we stand with those, since we didn't go forward with building those stations? CHIEF PAGE: Well, one of the things the medical director, Dr. Tober, had done is we had sent staff up to Wake County, North Carolina to look at a program that they have implemented or were getting ready to implement up there. And it utilizes advance practitioner paramedics that are above average skills that respond in a quick chase vehicle or fly car, and they'd have all the components that they would need, med boxes and such. And we have for several months now have been utilizing two to three, based on what staffmg's available, of those up every day. And those quick cars actually maneuver into vacant zones as zones are vacated. They may move in to fill in as a first responder ALS unit. And that's what we've been doing with -- as these ALS engines have gone down we've actually been having -- and it's only up for] 2 hours a day, I have to tell you that. But where the preponderance of calls are, it's staffed. And they continually move in and out of zones to areas that are either vacated or a serious call comes in like a cardiac arrest. They typically are the first response on the scene because they're in a much lighter car. They are actually in the vehicle all the time. They're not responding out to a truck and getting in and going. So they typically have a faster response time. So that's worked very well. And] think you'll notice, if you look at the tables in the ALS versus EMS call volume and response times, you'll see that our call volume in the urban area, because ALS engines are only in the urban area right now, you can see that that number is starting to compact to where I think there's like one to two percent difference now. But even with the ALS versus just EMS. And I think some of that is due to that MedCom activity out there. So I think that, you know, we're pretty progressive. Weare always looking for different ways to skin the cat. And if there's another way or a better way to do it, ] have a number of staff below me that are always coming to me with different ideas and different ways to do things. So I think we're going to continue down that line. And certainly this MedCom program with these quick chase cars, that is working for us. MS. VASEY: And you have the cars to do that that can-- CHIEF PAGE: There were existing staff vehicles. ] mean, if one of the units are down being repaired or something, they take my car. It's -- you know, everybody's car is up for grabs. So some of them came out of training and -- it's just existing cars. We had, you know, removed some of our battalion chiefs back into the field to fly on the helicopter. Well, when those cars became available, we actually took the MedCom program and used those vehicles. So we haven't expanded anything in the number of vehicles, we're just utilizing -- or reallocating those vehicles. MS. VASEY: Do you suppose that that will-- this is like a test period that you're trying this out? Because it could really change the whole complexion of requirements under level of service standards if this becomes a way to go in the future. CHIEF PAGE: Well, it certainly is a pilot program, I'll give you that. But the challenge that I'm having is these we call them MedComs for medical commute. These guys that are in these quick fly cars, they're running three times more calls than most units, you know, that are at a station, because they're going all over the place. And then they're coming off that unit and going back on a truck and they're running the rest of the day. I'm not paying overtime to do that. So those guys are getting kind of run down a little bit. But so far, you know, because part of the -- in the pilot program we're wondering just how long would they be able to do this, you know, and still -- but they're very enthusiastic about it. They see that it is meeting a need. And so far they're continuing to do it without any additional compensation. It's not like they get an extra pay bump or anything. So as long as we're able to do that, we will. Page 33 161l ^7 i ~e b!r ~2f1l9 Now, another part of this is, is that the long-range plan is that, you know, as we get closer to the virus and the inoculations that are going to be required for health care and for people that are shut in at home, we see these individuals as also, if they're not running on a call, they're going to be utilized for other services. And let's say you get to the point where Dr. Tober expands their expertise to allow them to make home visits or in lieu of going to the emergency room maybe they go by and check someone out. I mean, that is the long-term goal and that's where you want to get to. But right now they're so busy running calls we just haven't got to that point. MS. VASEY: One last quick question. Along with the station usually comes the truck, the ambulance. What -- you're the only one that can transport. You know, ALS can't transport and the units, the MedCom units, can't transport. So are you okay on transport vehicles, or is that a problem? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I will tell you that Friday I was notified by the county manager's office. North Naples has submitted the request for their own certificate or COM for an ALS license of their own. And East Naples has indicated -- I guess they've hired an attorney also to look into that. Now, so far from what I understand, it's just to provide advanced life support and non-transport. So I'm not expecting them to by transports. However, if they have a COM, they could. But as far as the units, you know, I think we addressed, actually on Page 170 and 169, the amount of replacement vehicles and how far we are behind in that replacement strategy. We're not looking to expand any stations, so that's good. However, we are looking -- I think -- well, I know that this fiscal year right now we're going to have a surplus of revenue over what was budgeted. And what we will probably be going -- I haven't talked to the board about this, but we'll probably be going back to the board and asking them if we can utilize this three or 400, $500,000 in excess revenue over what was budgeted to allow us to catch up on some of these replacements. Because we do have -- I've got one unit out there that's 13 years old with well over 250,000 miles on it. And some of these units do break down, and they break down more frequently as they age, and the potential liability is there, so we need to address it. But so far we're maintaining our own. MS. VASEY: Well, the budgets are just being approved. The final approval I guess is this week, and you already have $300,000 extra revenue? CHIEF PAGE: Well, by the end of this month, I mean, projected right now, it will be over $300,000. MS. VASEY: Oh, that's for this year. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. I'm thinking next year. It seemed like it would be hard to do that already. CHIEF PAGE: And] think we also have in the budget is to do a lease option on one of those, so -- MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the EMS? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On our Page 176 it's EMS equipment replacement cost. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you help me do some math here? Down at the bottom it says the average equipment replacement cost per unit is 428,593. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: How did you get to that figure? And let me --l'll give you the premise under which I'm working and then you can tell me where I'm wrong. But if] take your most expensive unit, which is an ALS ambulance, it's 256,200. And then you would add equipment from the top, correct? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if] add two portable radios, a laptop, two mobile radios, a UHF radio ambulance and a couple of pagers, two or three pagers, if] add all of that up I only come up to $28] ,300. I can't get to the 428. So what am I missing? CHIEF PAGE: Now, I may have to phone a friend here, okay, but let me see if] can explain it first. ]f you look at the total replacement cost on the far side and you total those all up and you get that total vehicle and equipment cost. I think that if you divide that by the number of units, it gives you the average equipment. In Page 34 . 16 I 1 s4>~~23, * other words, it's not just taking what's on the ambulance, it's everything else. I don't understand why it's done this way, but I think that's -- is that my explanation? Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay, so it's not an average per unit. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, Ithink that it's-- COMMISS]ONER CARON: It's an average of all your equipment. CHIEF PAGE: Right. And that could be a boat trailer, you know. So it's not -- it's the cost of doing business. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That'sjust a very odd chart and a very odd way to do it. CHIEF PAGE: ] agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? COMM]SSIONER CARON: Makes it look like we're paying, you know, close to $450,000 for something that probably -- CHIEF PAGE: That would be a fire truck. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- couldn't potentially -- yeah, couldn't get over $300,000. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: The level of service on Page 168 mentions one unit for 16,400 population. CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MR. FEE: And obviously there was an adjustment here. And I know when we're talking about AUIR we talk about the level of service and then we also go into the cost component of it. And Commissioner Strain has voted against some of these based on the cost components. So] have some questions on this. Some of it is probably related more to the impact fee discussion, but I might as well take the time while you're here. Underneath unit cost it says $3.2 million per new unit and then it reads 1.8 million per collocated unit-- CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. MR. FEE: -- and it has asterisk. Collocated unit is typically located in a fire station, EMS joint? ]s that __ CHIEF PAGE: Well, I have a number of stations. The best example would be probably Station 22, and that's in East Naples there where we bought into 37 percent of their actual building costs. So that's collocated. And that can vary from station to station. Station 24, which is across from Fiddler's Creek -- or, no, Grey Oaks, that station is actually a three-way split between North Naples, East Naples and EMS. So there are occasions where we have -- and they have to factor in what that number is. But there are collated stations where -- in some cases where we're actually renting. In other cases we have an actual piece of the construction cost itself. MR. FEE: With that, if you go to Page 174 where it lists the existing EMS stations, you then have a column that shows leased versus owned, okay? And if] could draw you to number 43, which is a station located at Vanderbilt Drive, that would be a fire station where you collocate? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. MR. FEE: And then down below it says for the east stations no rent is paid but rather a fIxed monthly utility charge. CHIEF PAGE: In some cases. Now, there is one station in North Naples where they require us to pay ],500 a month in rent payment. And I'm not clear on this, I didn't think you could use impact fees to build a station and then lease that out. However, most of the stations in the agreements that we have where we're collocated and don't have a portion of it, we actually have in lieu of rent a portion of the utilities, and it's factored in based on the square footage. MR. FEE: Okay. Again, I know the discussion is the amount of units that you need per population. So some of my questions aren't going to change. I'm sorry if I'm going -- but I need to -- on your Page 173, individual, you have a yellow EMS proposed station and you have a blue EMS planned station. And I can see those located on this map. What is the difference between an EMS proposed station and an EMS planned station? And there's four located in North Naples: Station 73, 411,45 and 49. Some are considered proposed and some are considered plarmed. Page 35 :.6 I 1. tft 2 \ ~I September 2r,\~ CHIEF PAGE: Okay, just a second. MS. VASEY: Do you own some of that land? CHIEF PAGE: We have -- for the proposed station Medic 411 and Medic 73, we aheady have that hu d purchased. MR. FEE: That's the land? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MR. FEE: Okay. CHIEF PAGE: Proposed stations, like Medic 45, that is a station that actually the county owns tne Ian j already so we're not expecting to actually have to do anything with that. But those are stations in the future. And they're actually outside of this AUIR. They wouldn't be built. I don't believe, until -- MR. FEE: Well, it says year 13 through] 8. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, 13 through 18. MR. FEE: But I guess my point is you list them separately proposed and plarmed. And the proposed (mes on this Page 174 through FY 13-] 4, that still seems to be -- is that in the five-year window and the plarmed are outside of the five-year window? Is that the only difference I'm seeing? CHIEF PAGE: That's it. Because actually we had a design in place for the proposed. The plan structnres, however, have not -- initially we were looking at doing a joint station with North Naples at one of them and Heritage Bay. That plan has, you know, probably been scrapped because it's been changed so many times and things have changed so dramatically back from three years ago. MR. FEE: And maybe my final question is, if you go to Page 172 where you list the individual statiors, and they're in green highlight, you've got Vanderbilt Beach Road/Logan, U.S. 4], Old 4], Goodlette, Immokalee, and Immokalee/951. Those are also listed in this list, obviously, but my question is, they all seem to be in the very North Naples area. Is that only because that's where the county is seeing the growth? CHIEF PAGE: Well, yes, it is. Because number one, we always look, and -- all the time. I mean, I C'1Il tell you every month we look at the call volumes to see where the call volume is. Now, when you're talking about plarmed versus proposed, things can change dramatically to where wI at was plarmed, these stations for FY '15 and FY '] 7, they may not be where we're going to be wanting to go by then. In other words, if it moves further east, those will be scrapped and will be moved. But at the time that we prepartd the document, that's where we were seeing the need. MR. FEE: Okay. I think that answers what I'm looking for. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say, Chief, that you already own the land for the V anderbilt/Lc gan and the 41/01d 41? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: ]n both of those situations you already own the land. Okay, thank you. Does any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. COMMISS]ONERCARON: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's to staff. I couldn't find it, or maybe you didn't do it, but there's no staff recommendation for this one. Is there e, reason for that? Are you hiding or is it just a -- MR. BOSI: No, that would be an omission by negligence on my part. There's no -- we're not shying 'lway. We would recommend that the both advisory bodies forward a recommendation of approval as presented. COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just checking. MR. FEE: In could make one more comment. CHIEF PAGE: You have my cell phone number. MR. FEE: Yeah, I know. The bottom line, though, on Page 168 where you talk about the unit costs, it's less expensive to nave a collocated unit than to have a new unit. Is the county plarming to do more collocated units so that the cost is different, or is it more beneJ1cial ,0 actually have them separated? I guess I go to the consolidation issue. Page 36 ,- . 1611 A3 \II ~, September 23, 2009 CHIEF PAGE: Well, I'll give you an example. We had tried to get into Station 73 up there on 951 toward north, rather than go to Heritage. But the amount of rent they were requesting us to provide I think was -- I think it was] 70,000 a month or, you know, totally out of my ballpark. But -- so that was a situation where we try to locate, collocate in some cases. Another example would be in Golden Gate. We've got one on ] 7th there right across from the library. We originally tried to add some construction to their station there. They did not want us to join them in that station, so we built across the street. So we do try, in most cases, I think in every case, to collocated. However, on the other side of it is if I'm building a new station, what I see for my need may not be the ftre department's need. Because the fire department basis their need of stations like every five miles. It's based on a fuel load, you know, where is the biggest ftre going to happen, that's where I need my ftre station. I know in Lee County they were looking the same thing we were trying to do. However, there is a difference. Because where the medical emergencies are may not be where the ftre emergencies are. Another instance, you know, they may need to build a fire station because the water access is not available to those constituents, so they need to have in this area. That's not the same need that] have when you get into the rural areas. They may need to move a fire station because they have a number of structures out there that aren't covered by insurance. That's not my need. So it varies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of emergency medical? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is the Plarming Commission ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMM]SSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the emergency medical services with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be voting against the motion only because of the unit cost changes that] don't feel are necessitated by any valid study. With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISS]ONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISS]ONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those posed? Aye. Motion carries 5-] down. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up? MS. DOWNS: Productivity Committee will make the same motion. MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: All those in favor? MR. FEE: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Passes unanimously. CHIEF PAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chief. Next one up is our government buildings. And that would be Skip Camp. MR. JONES: Hank Jones, for the record. Page 37 16 1 1 ,t A3 ;J September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Hank Jones is coming up. MR. JONES: Commissioners, I've reviewed this plan and it really shows that we're not doing any new projects within the five-year period, merely fmishing up the one or two that we have still on the books that already started in the previous years. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I ask questions, I just got a statement to make, and Mr. Jones, I want to mention it to you. I've been tracking your department's costs. In 2005 you had a $307 unit cost and you went up to 514 il 2006. 2007, when things started to turn, you went down, I hope in reaction to the economic climate, to 45]. Last year we went down to 352 and you maintained that. You're the only department to do that. And I know if] were to ask Amy to explain that I'd hear some 70-year regression analysis upside dOW1, backwards, explains it. I'm not going to ask her, but] want to congratulate you. Because your department is more in reality than the rest of the ones I've seen in this meeting since we started on Monday. And so I certainly won't haw an exception in my voting in this issue with you guys. With that in mind, is there any other comments from the -- any questions from the Plarming Commission? MR. CAMP: Could we just go now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish everybody used -- whoever did your study used the same people, because we'd be a lot farther ahead in this county. Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: ] have a question that might better be addressed to Susan, and that's I can see on your :'age 190 several loans coming in for your department. I'm wondering how the interest on those loans is handled. MS. USHER: At the moment these loans are not paying -- we're not accruing interest because the impact fees are not earning interest. So -- but that is right now in a state offlux and most likely will change here very shortly. So I really can't tell you what's going to happen next month. I can't even tell you what happened in August. July all the impact fees did earn interest. So once the impact fees start eaming interest, I suspect that they'll be obligated to pay the interest to the general fund and to the one-third of a mill and to solid waste. So I think there-- we're in a state of flux right now. MS. DOWNS: How long have they been interest free loans? MS. USHER: Well, some of these just started getting loans this year, '09. So whenever they started earning interest, we need to review it and we will come up with a final determination. But, you know, my gut's saying that if you don't eam interest, you're probably not going to have to pay interest. But once you start earning interest, guess what, you need to start paying us interest back too. But like I said, we're in a state of flux right now. We're not quite sure on how that all is going to get resolved here in the next couple of days. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on government buildings from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's no other questions, this will be the quickest one of the two days that we've had. Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. Move we forward government buildings AUIR with a recommendation of approval as-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Kolflat. Discussion. I'm not going to have an exception this time. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMM]SSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 38 -,. - . 16 I ]:ptfberA\i09 , . COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take this up? _ MS. VASEY: I'll make the same motion. MR. FEE: I can second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MR. FEE: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Cohen and Mike, is there any issues remaining that we need to address? Are you guys satisfied with all the issues we have addressed? MR. BOS]: Yes, sir. I think we have heard all of your recommendations. My task will be to consolidate these recommendations, provide the forward to Ms. Vasey of the Plarming Commission's recommendations which she will edit and provide back to me so I can provide to the Board of County Commissioners. And] will provide the recommendations that the CCPC has heard for your October 15th Planning Commission hearing on the appropriate agenda plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Downs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: I wonder when these transcripts will be available. I want to make sure we follow up on some of the requests, such as the line item on each of these impact fee funds. THE COURT REPORTER: Two weeks from today. MS. DOWNS: Two weeks from today. And they will be on-line or where will we find them? MR. BOSI: They'll be on-line. And what] can do is forward the specific link. MS. DOWNS: Would you do that, please? MR. BOSI: Sure. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think if it were possible, it would be nice to see a summary of-- or individual statements of recommendations made by the Plarming Commission and the Productivity Committee to help us with continuity each year. We sometimes go through the same process again and again and again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he said we were going to do on the ] 5th of October. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me, I must have been in deep space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he's providing us with. Randy? MR. COHEN: For the Productivity Committee, I know at one point you mentioned going back to the full Productivity Committee. Are you going to do that as well too and then make a recommendation as a collective body? MS. VASEY: Yes. Right now I'll be getting the information from Mike on our exact motions that we made as a sub-committee, and then we will take everything back to the Productivity Committee at our October meeting and then we'll provide a letter, that's what we normally do, that gives the full productivity position. Because right now we're acting only as a sub-committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray needs to make a clarification. My interruption, and I apologize, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were headed in a different direction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're all striving to do the right thing. Page 39 16 1 ls~embe~330091 My thought was not just now, because that's logical, that's certainly desirable. But perhaps when we do the AUIR next year, a restatement of those things that were said here, those views that came out either in our motions with any stipulations or perhaps some key element recommendations, so that we have a starting point. Because as the cast of characters changes, a lot of questions are being -- or would be asked or maybe they're not going to ask them and they should. Because it's a continuum. And it helps people to get their feet down. They can still take issue with the items, but I think it might be useful. MR. COHEN: Would you prefer both from the Plarming Commission's perspective and also from the Productivity Committee's standpoint to include that in the appendix? That way you can reference those documents and have access to them. That's a good place for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, where you put it is immaterial. The important part is that we get -- we revisit where we were, instead of trying to figure out if we really qualified that effectively. We know that something was relatable and that goes from there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am very, very anxious to see us adjourn this meeting so I can go outside and get warm. So would someone please make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Kolflat, second by Ms. Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISS]ONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMM]SSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are out of here. MR. BOSI: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 ] :3 7 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY :e,- Gc~rJf- MA STRAIN, Chairman PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE STEVE HARRISON, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 40 September 23,2009 MR. BOSI: Thank you. 161 '~~A3 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :37 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING C?M~ISSION rvkull))&\;tl,," MA STRAIN, Chairman <- HARRISON, Chairman These minutes app)Oved by the board on A r Ai I presented V or as corrected '20)U as I ( Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 91 :;;~'~ ~\1f[-Stl/).;i _ :-1ol"s __. L Hrhning_.:r.: Ce'/Ie Ce, etta 1 6 1 Otb~9~09 :y TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED AUIR TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT and THE CONTINUED GMP AMENDMENT MEETING COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 29, 2009 RECt::iVl::D JAN 1 2 2010 f-'::08tC: D' C0!Jn:y Cumm~ssion~)rs 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 SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor KolfIat Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning David Weeks, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Misc. CoIres: 011I: Page 1 ltemt: Copies to: 16 1 1b~tl~, 2~1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what they say about how many county employees needed to change a light bulb. MR. COHEN: But when it comes to microphones, it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It only takes two. Okay. Boy, if that's the setting of the tone for this meeting. Welcome everybody to the Collier County Plarnllng Commission Special Meeting. It's actually a dual meeting today. We're going to fIrst talk about the transportation changes to the AUIR, and then we will go into a discussion on Growth Management Plan Amendment for Logan and Immokalee Road. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be next Thursday. Does everybody plan on being here next Thursday? Anybody -- oh, wait a minute, no, next Thursday's been canceled. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They canceled Thursday? Oh, my gosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, because they ran out of stuff for us to do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursday's not canceled, our meeting is canceled, though, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will not be a plarnllng commission meeting on November 5th. Boy, you guys are on the ball this morning. I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm looking for the next date. I think it's the 19th. Yeah, next one is November 19th. And it will be Page 2 161,1 ~^~ ~ OctQ~, 20" a -- first thing up on that date will be the remaining item for GMP A amendments, and it's the one on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. And then we'll go into whatever regular agenda we have that day. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make it? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will be out of the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, we will have a quorum. Before we go into old business, I just want to make sure we -- everybody's aware of what we're discussing today. So if those in the audience are waiting for a particular issue, we're going to rehear a small item on the AUIR. Actually, it's a huge item on the AUIR, but it's small compared to the paperwork we got on the second item. The second item is CP-2007-5, it's an advertised public hearing for a GMP amendment on the comer of Logan and Immokalee Road. So once we finish with the AUIR review, we'll go right into that. Okay, and with that, Mr. Feder's here and we'll go -- go right ahead, Norm. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Appreciate your indulgence in taking this issue on today. We came to you last meeting after having presented the roads portion of the Annual Update and Inventory Report, AUIR, and specifically noted to you that with the information having originally been started in about April, May for the AUIR, we got information on our year end relative to impact fee collections. And the graphic that you now have up here on the prompter basically shows you what's happened to our revenue streams. In your AUIR you have a bar chart of at least the last three years, but this goes a little bit further back. And that line on the top, the red line, if you will, is basically our impact fees. And you can see how they've moved over time. They were moving up. As probably no surprise to anyone that they're coming down. The only part that was surprising to us is how rapidly they came down. And last year at the end ofthe year, '08, basically our collections are about 13 million, versus almost 70 million two years before. With that in mind, we had had in the AUIR that we presented to you already pulled back, we thought sufficiently, but obviously not enough, for 17 and a half million the first two years and then 20 million for the three years in the outer portion of the AUIR five-year program. We have now removed five million a year, bringing us down to 12 and a half for the first couple of years and then down to 15 million for the last three years to bring it in line. This graphic right here is a little bit hard to work with, but what it shows you is over time we've been responsive to this rather rapid change. And in the various mechanisms that we have, the AUIR __ in this case an update to the AUIR before it gets presented to the board, and that's why we wanted to come to you, because we had presented to you previously -- and the CIE itself where typically you chew it up and it's a little closer to the real data time. We've had to make the adjustments, and that shows you the five years, how it's pulled back since our peak of almost 70 million where we thought we were conservative then, if you look at that first graph 1 gave you, showed you we were over the dollar figure we started using in that AUIR at that time. And now for the '09 AUIR, as I said, we pulled back to ]2 and a half and then 15, or five million out of each year or a 25 million reduction. Page 3 16 1 1 ~tA3, 2~Oa Page 26.1 in the AUIR. I'll put it up on the screen for others. 26.1 basically walks you through one of the changes from the AUIR that you saw previously. Obviously the biggest line is the level of impact fee collections, which is shown as now down to 12 and a half, as I noted, and 15, rather than 17 and a half and 20. That $25 million reduction is basically taken, as you see in the various categories, through some of our contingency, brought out in some of our programs and bridge programs and in other areas. We did not impact anything relative to the projects at this point that comprise our efforts to meet the dem,mds or the needs, which haven't changed under the AUIR that you saw. So what I'll do is rather than taking too much of your time is open up for any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Typically we start -- go through page by page, and I'd like to do that this morning so we can catch everything. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the first page is the summary form. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on the summary form? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the new one that was just -- that should have been mailed to everybody. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, the carry-forward was 29 million in the previous version, now it's 23. What happened to the other five million? MR. FEDER: Basically what you're seeing there is just a truing up of difference in dates. As we've told you, the AUIR is a snapshot in time. That's just that some of those funds have been expended in that time. So that's the difference in fees there. The other one, obviously the big difference is the 95 went to 70 million on the impact fees. But yes, the carry-forward, because it's a changing item as of3:00 a.m., I believe it is each day, this is reflecting when we pulled this off to give you as true and accurate a picture as we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reserve revenue -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you run -- continue to run with the reserve revenue, does that mean that you're eventually going to need to use -- add that to the general fund reimbursed costs, or how is that -- MR. FEDER: No, that is a statutory requirement for five percent to be held in reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's shown as a negative. MR. FEDER: It's always shown as a negative, because it's held back in reserve. It's required by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not usable, it's just holding there. It's not additional reserve you have to spend, it's reserve out of what you started to spend. MR. FEDER: And after you spend down, you can get to spend that. You're holding five percent in reserve. So it reduces. As you see, I've got 17 here and I had 19 previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then you're -- in 2007 and 2008 you had loans of$50 million? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are those loans on this sheet? Or are they -- MR. FEDER: We never took out that loan. We were offered up to our max, the 13 percent, the ability to go with a $15 million commercial paper loan. We looked at that. We didn't need it immediately. Page 4 16 I 113~9'2; And then as we looked at it over the succeeding two years, we determined that we, especially with the income stream and impact fees, which would be the commitment for payback, we're in a position to borrow that money, so we did not. So that's out of our program. And as you see on the graphic, which is basically many ways the same on Page 22, which should be the second page, we've removed that from our income stream. We never used it. It was made available to us. And if you remember, I think it was three years ago when we showed you about $180 million shortfall, we've done a number of adjustments, and one of them was we had brought in that 50 million as part of our answer. We never used that funds (sic) and are not in a position to pay it back, so we did not obligate those dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you put those funds in as a potential for 2007 and 2008 and the AUIR was supposed to span a five-year horizon, where did you build in the interest payment and principal payment payback of that loan into prior AUIRs, and how is that reflected in this new sheet? MR. FEDER: Again, we never borrowed the money, we never used the money, and so what we did is gave up that commitment of our availability to use the dollars. So it was never used, there was never an interest payment to be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand that. I know you never used it. But you anticipated using it in 2007 and 2008 because you put it in your summary form. MR. FEDER: We put it in the summary form. We had some payback. We took that out, as well as the $50 million proceeds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you anticipated a loan, that means you should have anticipated the negative the loan would have created on the books for both principal and interest payments. MR. FEDER: Correct. And both of those are out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know that. Where did they come out of? So if we were to go back and reflect then, your expenses were decreased for the amount of principal and interest on that potential $50 million loan? MR. FEDER: Correct. And that's from the prior AUIR. We no longer were assuming those revenue streams and worked accordingly. Some of that was resolved by estimates that are somewhat lower because of the cost of delivery of products. And you see some of our estimates of costs down. Some of that was impacted by reductions and right-of-way and different projects like Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and the like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the impact fee number you have here and the ones you projected for the five years -- I think you've got 12 million five and then 15 million for the last three years -- does that include increases or decreases in impact fee value? MR. FEDER: It includes only the current rate of impact fee assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the value of your road construction having gone down, it looks -- I think it's 30 percent or 33, whatever it is, are you anticipating a reduction in impact fee value? MR. FEDER: That's why we didn't go up as much. We're assuming some growth in the outer years, but because our impact fees mayor may not go down, we didn't include as much growth. That's why you only see it going from 12, five to 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are your impact fees tied to your road costs? MR. FEDER: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in essence that's going to have to be recalibrated. I know they've got -- MR. FEDER: Constantly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fancy new formulas every time we go to take something back-- Page 5 16 I l' A'3 ,:I October 29, 2009 MR. FEDER: Every three years we have to do a full methodology, which we did last year. And then every other year we do an indexing. And yes, we do expect that there will be some adjustment. And again, that's a constantly moving item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions, Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2 is a chart. Are there any questions from the chart" (No response.) MR. FEDER: What I will point out, that shows that our other revenue streams, ga,: taxes are going to step down, as has ad valorem. So as our maintenance costs go up and as our needs continue to some degree, we're getting very strapped fmancially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about page -- well, it says Page 3 in blue ink on mine. I'm not sure what nwuber you all have. But it's called -- first page of attachment B. MR. FEDER: It should be 23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 23? Does anybody have any questions on Page 23? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll just make a comment, that under the third bullet -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I think you need to take the word "while" out ane capitalize "the" in order for it to be a complete sentence. MR. FEDER: The first word "while"? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on that page, first page of attachment B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm -- do you have more? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the third sentence of the third bullet you say over 250 additional lane miles of urban, rural, arterial and local roads have been added to the county system for maintenance since 2000. Then you go on, historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standard,. for anticipated life cycles, which are six to eight years. Where do you develop your industry standard from? MR. FEDER: Industry standard, as the name implies, is pretty much a rule of thumb that is used nationally and definitely in the State of Florida, and is borne out unfortunately by the conditions we see on portions of what we built at the beginning of2000. Livingston Road right now has areas that need to be resurfaced. And as a major e:rterial, you're in that six to eight-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get to my question, because it might be simpler than what -- where you're going. MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roads are affected differently by the temperate climate n which they exist, whether you're in Maine or whether you're in Florida. MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send me the reference to the industry standards you're using-- MR. FEDER: I'll get you something on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I can take a look and match it up to Florida? I know you've probably done that, but I'd like to have my own level of comfort on that. Page 6 16 I lJA3\001 MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the next item, next sentence, funding for road surfacing is such that required maintenance can only be performed on an average 50-year cycle. So even though you're saying the life cycles are six to eight years, we're doing them every 50 years? Is that what that sentence means? MR. FEDER: We're a little bit better than that. We're about 42 years. So we have pavement that has to last quite a while, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're already not hitting the industry standards? MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By two or three times. MR. FEDER: By at least twice, yes. Because a lot of our mileage is in the rural area. So to clarify on that, you're probably about twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the second sentence from the end, you refer to the O&M shortfall. lb.is could reduce capital projects in the work program, resulting in concurrency problems and could require an increase in the impact fee rate. How do you factor -- MR. FEDER: As I move -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- impact fees react to O&M? MR. FEDER: As I move my gas tax and ad valorem to maintenance, less of it is a credit against your impact fee. So as your impact fee is calculated, it's also calculated with a credit based on how much gas tax, ad valorem, which are my other two sources of fund, go to the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure I follow all that, but I heard you, and I'll just have to digest it. Anybody else have any questions on that page? MR. FEDER: If my credits go down, the fee could go up. Now, the fee's going to get adjusted by the cost, as you pointed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: But this is just making the observation that if] have to pull the other credit sources out of the capacity program, then I have less of a credit against that cost, whatever it's determined at that point in time, for the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on that page? If not -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No other reason than just to qualify further on that 50-year cycle. You probably, I'm presuming, and ifI'm wrong I'd like to know, that while you've stated this way here, I would think that you'd have a tiered system of averaging. And could you disclose what, for major roads like Livingston, what your expected frequency would be? MR. FEDER: The expected frequency, as noted, is basically a six to eight on average. You've got some that are in better condition. We don't resurface unless pavement conditions warrant. So in some roadways, even on arterials, I'll last longer. Some of them I'll be in that situation sometimes a little bit closer, depending upon the amount of truck traffic, other issues that come to bear. We don't have the snow, the hot and the cold, but we do have the considerable heat on asphalt, and so therefore our issues are heaving and other issues that can create hydroplaning more than necessarily the cracking, but we get cracking and other issues as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate that before while we had fewer roads, the maintenance probably in tandem, but functional. But now that you've built all these additional lane miles and they're high use lane miles, that changes the relationship for maintenance, doesn't it? Page 7 1 6 1 llAe~9 203: , MR. FEDER: To a degree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes the maintenance greater-- MR. FEDER: But I think you answered some of it there. We've added lane miles, but we've also added traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. FEDER: And so we still are having them utilized. And the key is that when I started in 2000, watched 250 lane miles we added. While we were in the process of adding those lane miles over this nine-year period, basically the contract was maintaining those roadways a good portion of that time, or they were brand new. So their maintenance needs are now coming up. And while they were being developed, I wasn't maintaining another 150 lane miles of the existing lanes that also got addressed and were being maintained by the contractor a good portion of that time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good piece of information. That fills in a blank, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I keep looking over at the clock and realizing we shouldn't have started yet. Mike and Randy, since you guys were so good and took two county employees to fix the speaker, how many will it take to fix that clock, do you think? It's going to throw us off all day long, I can tell you. MR. COHEN: That's in advance of the change in time that's going to occur this weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? Okay, we're getting prepared. We're a step ahead. Kind oflike Norm's doing. MR. FEDER: It's an efficiency measure. We're just trying to be ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page, second page of attachment B. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, on note two you talk about there is an artificially -- there's a concern that the artificially low background traffic problem will allow additional development approval which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor in the additional trips on the network. But I do know that you bank trips on the network way in advance of when they're potentially going to be used for all the developments out there that have not progressed as they thought they would. So we do have a lot of excess in the system. Is there some way that you can recalibrate your system so that we're not building roads ahead of time based on ghost density that may not happen now for five, 10, 15 years down the road? I mean, I know some projects right now that are way off in their projections. MR. FEDER: Yes. And we already made some adjustment. Ibis relates to another part of it. But very quickly, when we started out on the concurrency management real-time concurrency, what we did is based on about three different indicators that told us that generally on average developments build out within about seven years residential, commercial of course faster, that we would take one-seventh of that capacity and bring it in each year. For the last two to three years we've slowed down on that because we haven't realized that kind of build-out level. And so we've already made some adjustment that we're not pulling that in as quickly those vested trips into the network. But added to that is those trips, when they're coming in, are assumed to be in the system when we do basically the background traffic, we do the traffic counts and say what's in there. And then assume some more that could come in from development. As I said, we slowed down that bringing in of those vested trips, but we're taking the background traffic with an assumed level of development. What we've got right now is development that isn't generating any trips, called vacancies. And that Page 8 16 I to~r~'~09 D vacancy rate is very, very high. So here I've got development that may come on and want to go, and I've got an assumption in my background trips with a reasonable level of vested trips that developed, and we've done rooftop studies and things, so we've slowed it down some, because it wasn't growing as fast as one-seventh, as you said. But those rooftops exist. So when I get my background traffic it's in there already theoretically. But we know it's basically understated because many of those are vacant. Now, I don't have all the specifics, but the vacancy rate generalities we've given you here. The importance of that is as we're considering development those vacant trips can come on-line very, very fast. And they pay nothing to come on-line as new trips onto the system. They did previously and that's where the capacity was there. But it's also assumed in there and then we look at it with all that development that's out there, the rooftops that are out there, and we look at what our traffic counts are, and it's giving us a little bit of an understatement, is what we're trying to point out, because there are -- there is a rather large vacancy rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way to utilize the suspension of this absorption rate that we used to have in Collier County and it's kind of on hold for say a year or two __ MR. FEDER: In general-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to realize it into the road system build-out? MR. FEDER: In generalities we are pretty close to that. We've slowed it down quite a bit, bringing that one-seventh in, because it's not happening that fast. But this is just a recognition that even if I suspended it, I've got a lot of vacant units. When I do the ground-truthing, traffic counts, even in don't pull any more vested trips in, I'm getting an idea of what my capacity is. And what we're saying is it's a little bit understated as to -- it's overstated what my available capacity is, because there's a lot of vacancies out there not generating the trips that one would have expected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we go on to the next sentence in there-- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have a couple of words that I need to understand. It says, observation and sampling continue to indicate that there's a 20 percent vacancy rate east of Collier Boulevard and 20 to 50 percent in the urban area. Whose observations? MR. FEDER: We went out and, as we said -- first of all, we did the rooftops. We also did some work with utility bills and whether or not they've been turned off to available units. And so that's why I said we're calling it observation, because it's not scientific data or anything we could do extensively, but it was just to try to get a feel for this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says and sampling. What kind of sampling? MR. FEDER: Just going out and going certain areas and looking at what level of vacancy you have in some different developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me copies of your observations and-- MR. FEDER: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sampling that you have in writing? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page is attachment C. It's our peak hour directional volume map. Anybody have any questions on that? Page 9 1 6 .. 1J\ 3~ ~\, i .. I Octo ber = 9. 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page is the attachment D, and that's the one previousl:' put CIl th,~ board with the yellow highlighting on it. Involves the specific project names. Does anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I hate to keep taking all the time, but I still have a lot 01 que;tLons. So Norm, on that particular page where it says Oil Well Road-- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you don't have anything on Oil Well Road for the fOrthCOmillg fi",c years, but I know that a lot of work is planned for out there. Why don't we have anything in the forthcoming five years? MR. FEDER: As we discussed with you when we did the AUIR, that was scheduled to be in last year's fiscal year. It is now out on the streets. We expect the bids in very shortly. But we had a nunlbcr of issues we had to address, not the least of which were the fmalization of the permitting items. W c had ,orne right-of-way to acquire. And this coming Tuesday one of the last issues that we have on it, which is the right-of-way from Collier Enterprises, is -- was approved last Tuesday. So we're in a situation right now where we're ready to open bids and move on it. But thc monJcs were in fiscal year '09 and they rolled, assuming there (sic) was going to be let in '09, and it wasn't b-xaust: of those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your anticipated cost for Oil Well Road is? MR. FEDER: I believe it was $34 million. COMMISSIONER CARON: Forty-seven. MR. FEDER: $47 million, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, by the way, did you have another question on that .ssuc? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to say, all those figures for those dol larsbat we don't see that we all know are out there on attachment J, and that's where the 47,821,000 for the two OLl Well projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's reading attachment J, which spurred my question from the attachment D. Because previously I had heard indications that the Oil Well Road cost was going to bc' 60 million or above, yet your attachment G only shows 47 million. And if that's the case and it was to be allocated in 2009, then it would need then to have 13 Lullion further spread out from FY '10 to FY '14. And if your costs have gone down to that point wher,: it's n(- longer 60 million, I understand that now, so -- MR. FEDER: It was never 60 -- well, it's not 60 million. What we have committed with the .l7 million, which you show in attachment J, which is what you had asked for when we came to you with the AUIR previously, is the amount of impact fees that has been collected within the two impact fe'c districts. Which is what our commitment back was to the construction on Oil Well Road. We're out to bid right now and we'll find out whether or not that gets us the two segments that we're looking for, the western and eastern segments. We just had our meeting with the contractors. We had an exceptionally high volume ofpeope interested in bidding on this project, so we're optimistic, although we'll wait and see what we gd for hids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a question, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Since that was originally part of'09 but did not get let until right now, it has to come through on your carry-forward, right? MR. FEDER: That's correct. And that's what J is providing for. You had asked what ,- COMMISSIONER CARON: So there's 135 million in projects on attachment J. Page 10 --.-.----- 16 1 1 'At~r29,~9 MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's only 23 million in carry-forward, including your bonds, on the first summary page. MR. FEDER: Yeah, first of all, you've got two different issues in c_-forward. One is encumbered projects and how they roll. So this is really in J is what would be termed as roll forward money attached to projects. When I let a project for 25 million and it's over three years payout and I payout five million the first year, 20 million will roll so that I continue to be able to pay the bills as the project continues the next two years. That's roll forward. Carry-forward is more an item of the budgeting, and that's one that we get a little better handle on. It changes daily, as you saw by the first page, giving you the newer number. COMMISSIONER CARON: So your roll forward dollars don't show anywhere on this? MR. FEDER: No, and that's why we had the category up here. Because they get trued up only after the budget's developed. And they're a snapshot in time. It depends how much I pay down at the end of the year, that gets trued up and then the establishment of what that roll amount is. And that's why we had the category up here and have had it for a number of years, showing you all the active projects that were previously encumbered that still have some level of money on it. You had asked to see that, including the Oil Well, and that's what attachment J is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? I mean, it may not be okay, but-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would say I would thinlc it's not okay, but it is what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, back on attachment-- MR. FEDER: You're always going to have some level of roll forward, as I said, because you have payout curves in times. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. My problem is that it doesn't show and it wouldn't have showed unless we had asked for -- MR. FEDER: And we'll provide it to you each year, as long as it's understood it's a snapshot in time, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as that attachment D under your DCAs __ MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's only one that you mention. That's the consortium on 41 and 951. I know we have other DCAs in the county. In fact, you're benefiting from one for the Oil Well extension. MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you factor those in, or where do you show those? MR. FEDER: It's showing it in as grant funds, DCA, consortium, but you also have grants and reimbursements, and so you're seeing that down there. You have not only the Oil Well trip funds, we also have trip funds on two of the Collier Boulevard projects. One is six million, the other two together are over nine million. Those are shown down there in your grants. And again, as direction of the board and as this committee's concerns, we're very conservative on that. If we haven't gotten a strong commitment of that money, it's not shown. But that is part of your grant funding, that money on Oil Well, as well as other trip monies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess I'm a little confused then. You just said we have more DCAs than the one that's shown on here specifically. It says -- and it differs, by the way, on the top of attachment D than on the bottom. On the top of attachment D you have the 60116 and for that you show a total of 20 million, 646. But down below you show 5 million, 253. Do you know why those differ? MR. FEDER: Yeah, because first of all you've got the total cost in there. I've got monies that I'm working with Florida DOT. We're taking on the resurfacing of951 to the south, a little over 7 million. Page 11 ., t. ..J l' 1~3. 81 October 29, 2()O') That JPA has been executed; it will be made part of this project, as well as tbe intersection. And you've got the monies that are coming in. Over time you had an initial shot of monies and yo I have the other monies that are committed out of that JPA with 951 consortium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put this attachment D in the yellow fOlrnat back on the screel? It was on there earlier. MR. FEDER: Yes. It's going up now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look where it says FY '13 and go down to 60116, Hat's in b.e left column. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Follow it over. You have a yellow highlighted I:; million, 393. And over on the right from that it totals in 20 million. But if you go down to DCA consortium, US 41/951 below 60171 underrevenues, you have all th,: other years for that US 41/951 consortium equal to the one up above, but you don't carry the 1539:\. Wh: did you exclude that specific year? MR. FEDER: Because those dollars are predominantly coming out, as I said, from the JPA with Florida DOT and is -- a set of grant funds have been brought to it. So it is not just the consortilllI1 lIas beL n brought down there and is part of the DOT, JPA and the overall intersection design. Because we have a JP A with the state for both the intersection and the resurfacing below it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then where down below is the 15393 included? In which ones 01 those numbers? MR. FEDER: In the 19657 (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6677 MR. FEDER: 667, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the 60116, it's only included there: because it's paJt ofthl resurfacing, it is not part of the DCA. MR. FEDER: It's part of the overall project. Down here you're looking at the funding somces. I p there you're looking at the overall project cost of all funding sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we move on to the next line below where It says operatior improvements program? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinlc whoever did your sheets may have missed something. Could you turn to the second page of attachment F, I believe it is. It's your big spread sheds. Ye ,. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the lower right-hand corner of that last page you have a series 01 numbers that reflect operations and maintenance, but they don't correspond with the new numbers you h,ve under operations improvements program on the page attachment D. At least I can't make them correspol ,d. MR. FEDER: And they may not. In the update of this, I'm not sure that tlble got updatec. We'll make that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have an item under 60171 called advanced right-of-ways. What is that? MR. FEDER: Excuse me. That is opportunity buy, as we look at certain corridors. Most recent Iy we've used it to purchase some retention ponds on Randall Boulevard based on negotiated purchase, hay mg done about 30 percent in-house design plans. And so it's basically to look at opportunity buy outside of specific project activities that aJ e progranuned for right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so how far in advance do you buy land for projects? For example, Page 12 -.--.... 1611~ 3 r:J ocAer 29, 2009 ' say you have a project on your long-range transportation plan that's 20 years down the road. Would you spend money in the next five years under advanced right-of-way for the goals ofthat project? MR. FEDER: Not unless I had at least some level of design, first of all, to make sure I knew what my right-of-way needs were. I wouldn't just go off of the long-range plan. Generally it would be something closer and it would be to exclude or preclude, as we are aware of it, a development that might not allow the corridor to be developed, or to acquire like in this case on Randall some ~the retention ponds before development makes that very, very expensive or very difficult to do. So it would be nearer term but it's not something that's in our five years. And we'd have to have some level of design to back it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next page is a -- just a cleanup of the first page, at least the one I have. Whoever's got that phone on, please stop. It happens to be me. You know what? When I'm working out in the yard I put this thing on noise so I hear, and that was last night, so now I've got to put it back on vibrate. Sorry. Attachment E would probably be the next attachment. Does anybody have any questions on attachment E? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get to attachment F, which is a fold-out II by 17 page. Anybody have questions on attachment F? (No response.) MR. FEDER: And we'll make those adjustments we just spoke about, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Attachment G is a spreadsheet showing updated deficiencies report. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attachment H? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attachment I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the last one is attachment J, which we already discussed. And then the two charts. Does anybody have any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know the Productivity Committee has taken up this issue -- or they're going to. They will hopefully have issues involving the financial part of it that I thinlc they are __ probably understand better than I certainly do. And I don't necessarily disagree with their position, but I don't know if it's a planning issue for the Planning Commission, so at this point I want to ask anybody, do they have any questions involving this? COMMISSIONER CARON: Norm, have you already met with the Productivity Committee? MR. FEDER: Yes, we did, we met with them. The sub-committee met with the full committee and we presented to them, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And what was the outcome? MR. FEDER: They recommended the sub-committees recommendation that we look at taking eight-and-a-halfmillion out of the roads program and three million out of the stormwater program. In your AUIR you have the letter that was drafted and signed for I guess the chairman. COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't have that. MR. FEDER: Okay. It's in the AUIR in the introduction. I would tell you and we'll be discussing this with the board, and I have a correspondence that's just gone out to everyone. The statement is that the transportation administrator said that the only implication Page 13 1A~' IIllf 1611 H.i l:itJ, October 29,2009 on the roads program for eight-and-a-half million out a year for the four common years was that two 951 projects would be each delayed one year. That is extremely far -- relatively inaccurate to my presentation, including both the written material that I gave and in my verbal presentation in issues that were discussed. But we'll discuss that with the board. It would be very significant impacts if that were followed. We recognize that well, as we already have, it used to be 10 million, it's actually not eight-five anymore, it's seven-six beyond the debt service, which has been constant, that is made available in ad valorem to the capital program in transportation. But even if you took that out at that level, you will have basically everything that is outside of the current year other than one 951 project. The one at 13 from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green would be removed. The 41/951 scope somewhat modified remains, the others would be out. Your prospect's to fund all of the projects under that funding level scenario, even assuming that impact fees stay at the exorbitant 20 million, depending where they go, of course. But if you keep other things even, if you will, you're talking 2022 just to deliver on what's in your AUIR today. That's with no other issues coming up. So we recognize, just as we've gone from 10 million down to about seven-six that we're probably part of the solution when we're looking at reduced ad valorem assessments and therefore revenues. But at the same time taking all of it out other than debt service is rather draconian is what we're going to at least present to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Whatever that letter was, the Planning Commission did not get a copy of it. MR. BOSI: And I apologize. That's a recommendation from the Productivity Committee -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. BOSI: -- to the Board of County Commissioners. It provided with in the books that it was going to the Board of County Commissioners. It was provided -- I guess we should have provided it as an additional exhibit for the review of the transportation component. But when I distributed the transportation component by FedEx, that was not available yet per the Productivity Committee. MR. COHEN: And what we'll do is we'll e-mail it to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just provided, though, the example as to why the Board of County Commissioners saw it best for the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission to jointly hear this. While they are numbers crunchers more than we are and we are more planning effort, it would have been nice to hear their position and hear it debated in an open forum where we're all present like originally anticipated. I know that had to change because of the add-on at the last minute, but I certainly would have liked to have heard that portion of it. But on the other hand I've got to ask you a question, Norm. I thinlc we're going to have a tougher year ahead of us than not. I think 20 I 0 is going to be another -- more of a reaction year to the economic problems in this country for us because of our high level of standards we have here than other countries may have in reaction in 2010. And if it takes us longer to come back, we have to do things next year that are going to be desperate, And some of those is maybe the gold fleecing on the outside of our buildings has to peel off. And maybe we have to do not quite so much glitter and get down to some very, very hard basics just to get by without imposing additional taxes on our citizens, which I certainly don't thinlc we need in any category whatsoever If you go forward with this AUIR and the board decides because of the reduction in revenues next year that they go along with the Productivity Committee either now or next year and they want to cut this, Page 14 16 I 1 O~,9'2_ are they able to? MR. FEDER: Yes. And obviously we're going to the board. The Productivity Committee will be presenting their issues. But let me just hit a couple of things, in can have your indulgence. First of all, as well as they send you the Productivity Committee response, I'd like to have them send you the response that I'm providing as well as follow-up to that. I need to tell you that this board, while we have both entities that we presented to, the issue is the AUIR. The AUIR is to identify what in a snapshot in time, based on the level of service that we establish, our anticipated revenues, whether or not we have a cost feasible five-year situation. Which then leads into both the CIE, which has to be a cost feasible plan, and our budgeting. But it is not a budgeting item. And what I'm dealing with is one month after having established a budget, a request to develop a five-year budget. And interestingly enough, their comments from the Productivity Committee found that all others were fine except for take eight-and-a-half out of transportation, it's really seven-six, and three million out of stormwater. There was nothing in that discussion about what it does for concurrency. Let me discuss for just a minute. We had a savings and loan crisis in the late Eighties and early Nineties. We had a growth curve that wasn't quite as extreme, it was more recent. We then had a leveling off and somewhat of a drop because it got very hard and very tight to get money. And everybody declared that well, the growth spurt is over, we're okay. I came in 2000 at the end of the crisis that was created by being okay and deciding not to do anything for six or seven years. I spent nine years of my life, it feels like 25 as far as age, trying to get us out of the hole. What we are proposing here is to do it again. It's deja vous allover again. As the great philosopher, Yogi Berra says, it's deja vous all over again. And I hope that we don't go to that -- that's why I called it draconian -- orientation. Do we need to pull back? Yes. Am I at level of service E, which is the lowest level of service? Yes. So I'm not guild-plating the issue. I'm not even maintaining at a proper level. So I'm not advocating increased revenues. And I've already said to you, as I said to the Productivity Committee, we recognize that we're part of the solution as well. And the times call for belt tightening, and we're going to have more of that. But the idea of only taking one area in the whole county, who has already the lowest level of service set, and resolving your issues on that basis and recreating what we did before tells me we've learned nothing from history. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me reflect on something I heard the last time we talked about this. Not you and I but in a meeting, I think Nick was there. I questioned the fact that Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson was now kind of like off the books, it's postponed for years when it's got a level of service F and there's backup traffic, and the money I was told had to go to other areas that we're committed to. And I understand that, I'm not even complaining about it, because I knew it was a commitment. But I said well, how can you just move it from the books from the year it was there till these past years? Well, you know the failure is really only at the peak time. It's only early in the morning. After that it works just fme. Well, I drive 951 probably more than you do. I drive it continuously -- I shouldn't say continuously but I drive it many times every day. And it is only peak time in the mOrrllng that it's backed up. And it's not Page 15 16 I l~octA~' 201 backed up for more than a couple oflight changes. I've been there from 6:00 in the mOrrllng to 8:30 in the morning to 9:00 to midday to late day going north and south. So if that's the inconvenience we have to have in order not to have a tax increase, that's not a bad inconvenience. And alll'm suggesting is, and I think you already answered it, is if the board realizes next year we have to cut further and these are programs that they may want to consider, that isn't as bad of a thing to cut in my opinion as other things that could be done. So MR. FEDER: And that's fine, that's what the board will have to decide. The only thing I'll say on that is Golden Gate Boulevard is slated to be, at least at the program stages here, even with the impact fee reduction, slated to be the new six-year project. And that's why you see a balance maintained at the end of the fifth year to allow the revenues in the sixth year to allow that project to go. It is a backlog. It's identified in your AUIR as a backlog. And it's one that we hope to get to. So I don't want to minimize that issue. And it isn't just a little bit in the moming. I've been out there. First of all, it's particularly in the morning because the school buses during the school year. But it's also other times of the day as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, it wasn't me that was said it was a little bit in the morning, that was the answer that was given to me is that it's only a peak hour backup just in the mOrrllng. Well, okay, well, so is 951. MR. FEDER: All of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you can-- MR. FEDER: All of the systems-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can justifY it on one, you can justifY it on all is alll'm getting at. MR. FEDER: All the system by its very nature is a peak hour backlog. At 3:00 a.m.l've got plenty of capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, I can't let the day go without complimenting or talking about Nick. In all the questions you've got here today, you can thank Nick for those. Go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mr. Chairman, you do have one speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. BOSI: Ms. Janet Vasey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet, you want to come up and speak? Do we need to swear her in or anything for AUIR? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Hello. Janet Vasey for the record. I had planned to tell you about what the Productivity Committee did at our meeting this month so that we could close the loop with you. Norm has alluded to a lot of the things. Not exactly the way we saw them, obviously. But basically on the road program -- well, let me just back up a second. Our concern, when we were in the workshop with you, is what the future funding looks like. And you know in FY '10, property values dropped only II percent, and it was a $30 million cut to property tax revenues. And we ended up having I thinlc a 13 percent increase in property taxes for FY '10. So our vision for this was there's -- there was only -- really only roads and stormwater in the five-year program construction. Nobody else has any big pieces in here. And that's why we looked at Page 16 .. ~:"4 16 IllJA3009~ transportation. So we feel like a lot of people are talking about maybe a 15 percent reduction in property tax values in FY '11. Well, ifit was 30 million for II percent drop, you know, we're talking in that ballpark for 15 percent too. So we have to look ahead. And we were concerned about being locked into a five-year program that we could not afford without property tax increases. So that was our view in what we were bringing to the discussion and to the Commission. Now, as far as the changes that were made on the road program, there were very minimal changes. Very minimal changes in the first two years, 'II and '12. I thinlc $6 million. And you never got any of the analysis that we got. We had a whole one of these worksheets with all of the numbers based on our $8.5 million reduction each year, and we could see how the programs change. And basically in 'II projects, about $6 million of projects dropped out. But in '12, 3.5 million came back. So we felt like for those first two years there was very little change for taking out 8.5 million in 'II and '12. But of course you will feel the impact. I mean, you can't take that kind of money out without impact. But it's not in 'II and '12. It happens really in '13 when the project on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green moves from '13 to '14. And then in '14 the Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Canal to Green moves from '14 probably into '15. And then another one, the SantaBarbara Copper Leaf to Green moves from' 14 to the out years. That's the impact if you have 8.5 million every year of the four-year period. Now, I don't believe and I don't believe anyone in the Productivity Committee believes that that would be necessary to have that kind of a cut for the next four years. But we do really believe that there's an important issue in 'II and maybe even '12. So in our -- I thinlc in the back of our minds we were thinlcing 8.5 would probably come back in in '13 and '14, which would buy back some of these roads. So what we were looking at when we looked at the road program was yes, it's a slippage, yes, there are issues, but there are funding problems that are very serious and we wanted the Commissioners to look at this option. And I know that's not from the purview that you look at it, but that's what we were trying to look at. So I wanted you to understand how that is. And we had -- you know, we had worksheets. And I was surprised, Norman said that it would affect the US 41/951 intersection. And there was no money taken out of that in the new numbers he gave us. So that's kind of the way we looked at the roads. And then we had asked for a look at what would happen if the millage rate was cut for stormwater from .15 mills to .10 mills, you know, one-third cut. And we got the paperwork on that. And I don't have it to compare to your change sheet on stormwater, but basically what happened was we said we couldn't really live with that whole cut. It would have been about $13 million. But Norman took $4 million out of the Big Cypress Basin grant program each of the years 'II through '14, and he said there wasn't enough money -- I mean, there's too much uncertainty to leave that in the program. So we said okay, we're not going to take the full 13 million, we only recommended taking 9 million out. And basically what that does is it takes out some of the new programs that were put in for the first time in this AUIR. And we also recommended that they rework the L.A.S.LP. program to try and achieve some savings. Commissioner Coyle himself thought, you know, there were some areas there. And we had a big discussion on L.A.S.I.P. in the workshop, so we thought maybe that could save some money. And then we wanted them to aggressively pursue the grants. Not the Big Cypress -- well, we Page 1 7 16 1 jOb!29,2~3 .1 wanted them to get the Big Cypress money back, but aggressively pursue other grants that this whole program was set up to attract. And then also try and get down to the .1 mills. So, you know, we're still kind oflooking in that direction. And I did forget to tell you, on the roads we also made a recommendation that they look at if the program slippage that would occur by taking the 8.5 million out in each one of those years is unacceptable, we suggested looking at some bonding. They're projecting that impact fees -- no, I'm sorry, the gas tax money would be increasing in the program in some of the years. And so we said take a look and see if there's any opportunity for bonding to buy back some of these roads, you know, a little sooner than would be achieved if you took the 8.5. So I thinlc that's -- I wanted you to understand what we were thinking about. And I'd be happy to answer any of your questions, in can. We'll be at the meeting on the -- next week for the AUIR presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Janet? Go ahead, Donna, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I thought that the county was pretty well bonded out and that we weren't able to do that. MS. VASEY: Well, that's why we were looking at the increase in the tax revenues for gas taxes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just the increase in -- okay. MS. VASEY: Yeah. I can't remember who, it might have been -- oh, yeah, Jim Gibson on our committee is really the bonding guy, and he looked at some of the increases over the years that are projected. I think you can get a -- this is not my area, but he was talking about you could get a fairly substantial amount of money, like $300,000, in debt service for the bonding. And some of these impact fee -- some of the gas tax money was going up enough to cover some of that. So it was something to look into if it turns out that the 8.5 that we were suggesting couldn't be lived with. MR. FEDER: We bonded at the level of23 million a year on gas tax. We are now down about 18. And our AUIR shows that we might get up to about 20. We are not in a position to re-bond. Although we are asking our finance, because we're bonded out to 2023, which is also the last year, unless it's re-upped in some manner, of the local option gas tax. But we are asking fmance committee if there's any opportunity to bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Janet, since we do this every year, are you really worried about this year? In other words, three years ago we had a beautiful vista on the top of a bubble. Now -- you know, to avoid being shortsighted, what do you think? Are you worried about anything this year, or is this something when we look next year we'll know better what's going to happen to the economy, what fuese numbers are going to do? MS. VASEY: What do you mean by this year -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words -- MR. VASEY: --FY'lO? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we look at the AUIR for five years every year. So, you know, obviously we want to make sure the five-year works each year. But next year we'll have a better feel for some of the predictions. MS. VASEY: Right. And see, as you say, we redo it every year. And we're saying that, you know, we thinlc the funding should be reduced for this AUIR, looking at the next year or two and what might happen and the fact that we don't want to lock into programs in the out years that we can't get out of just Page 18 ,. 1611 !A2 " Oct ~, 200" because of funding shortfalls. So we would redo it next year, and next year the situation might look better and some of these programs could move back in and we wouldn't need to take that kind of money out. But we're really kind of trying to protect the Commissioners' flexibility in, you know, taking a chllflk of money if they need it so we can avoid a property tax increase again next year. So, you know, it's totally up to them. But this is our view of what should very seriously be looked at for not locking ourselves in on the AUIR and for, you know, going into the next budget year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, Janet's point on the bonding is interesting, because it brings up kind of another question. If you had the ability to establish a loan in the last two years of $50 million and you decide you didn't need it so you didn't take it, do you still have that ability to establish that loan? MR. FEDER: I'm not sure whether we've met the 13 percent, which got maxed out when we were offered two years ago, that 50 million. Because you've taken out more on ad valorem support where impact fees and other areas were taken out based on bonding, not able to be realized and general fund is supporting the payback on those as a loan. So I'm not sure if we're in that bonding position. But again, we didn't utilize it because we didn't want to end up in that same mode of having committed our impact fee schedule to a debt service payback when it was such a volatile source of revenue, as you can well see, from 70 million down to 13 million last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but in order to get by for a year at a time until we could feel the economy turning around and your impact fee schedule changing, wouldn't we want to look at bonding loaning out a year at a time, and we're talking 8.5 million and the debt service on that's going to be far less than 50 million? But if you had that line of credit available to utilize for those times, wouldn't that be a good idea? MR. FEDER: We have a couple of options here, depending on how the board wants to go with the recommendations. I thinlc what needs to be clearly understood -- and look at our work program. Y Oil have no new initiatives, no construction projects in years 'II and '12. The savings that are being talked about would be realized by the 18 million that we're carrying forward to go to projects in four and five specifically, because this board and its cost feasible plans did not want to commit construction until we knew we had it, especially in the first three years that can be relied upon. So you don't have any construction phases in 'II and '12 and so the request for savings are coming out of the funding that would allow you to meet your concurrency needs in '13 and '14 and then hopefully in '15 with Golden Gate Boulevard, by the savings of additional dollars at the end of'14, along with the new $15 (sic) to be able to bring it in. So it does have an impact, a very significant impact if we pull it out as it's proposed. But it is true to say that in 'II and '12 you don't have a major impact on projects. You don't have it until you've taken it out and all of a sudden, like we did in the early 1900's -- excuse me, 1990's through 2000, when we basically didn't build it and they came. And if anyone believes that it's not going to turn around, the question is when. But do we believe that yes, we have an issue and we agreed with Productivity Committee that probably we're looking at 15 percent reduction in ad valorem? And has transportation been and does it need to continue to be part of that solution? Yes. The question is to what degree you impact the program and the degree that's been asked has very, very significant aspects that the board's going to have to decide on those tradeoffs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, since we can't take anything out of the five-year program Page 19 '. 6 1 IttobeA~0'o91 , using the reason that we have lack ofrevenue or increase in funds, we can take things out if we come to a lack of need of an element, correct? MR. COHEN: It's probably more proper for me to answer that with respect to the CIE. If you're going to take items out of the AUIR which would end up in the CIE, you're going to do an assessment of need to determine whether or not that improvement is still necessary to address deficiencies that exist. Because we're required by DCA to commit ongoing revenues to address those needs and deficiencies that exist. So we have to show progress towards addressing them or in some instances because the progress has been going along for a certain amount of time we have to get to the point of construction. MR. FEDER: And that's really the issue for you here at this party and to the Productivity Committee in many ways. What we've turned into -- and I understand why, I understand the times we're in, okay. But we've turned this into a budgeting discussion. I thinlc you correctly asked when we get a little bit closer to that part of the process, can we make this decision as opposed to trying to make it now when the issue is one of where we are. Now, Janet's concern is that locks you in. I thinlc that's a bit of an overstatement when it says absolute funding. That's not what the statute says. And we do this every year and we make adjustments as necessary. But we're trying to maintain real-time concurrency. What's interesting up in Tallahassee is that, at least Pelham, somewhat protecting it, they said that we still can maintain what might be a more aggressive concurrency program than is proposed for the state, which is 10 and 15-year concurrency, if we can show that we can financially afford to do so. Now, if we don't financially afford to do so, then we may be in long-term concurrency. And the interesting part about that is that my successor won't come upon a big backlog trying to figure out how to fund it because there's another piece of statute called a concurrency backlog authority that basically requires you to fund it. And guess what? What income streams do you have? Well, you're a wealthy county with a very low ad valorem rate. So just what we're trying to avoid we may create. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Janet, thank you very much. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Are there any other speakers? Anybody in the audience wishing to speak on this AUIR transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not here for this. And I'm sorry that we probably had to bore you with a lot of this talk for the first hour, but we're getting beyond it. In fact, we've only been here for five minutes, according to that clock. MR. BOSI: There are no more registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we need to entertain a motion. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward the 2009 county arterial and collector roads AUIR as presented in this revised version today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is there a discussion? (No response.) Page 20 16 1 loclobeAa09 I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been some recommended changes to it that we discussed. So the version that we got today needs to be modified at least to those questions that we had. Donna had a graphical clarification, and I pointed out that the pages don't match. So I thinlc we need to make those changes. And I would want to consider one other thing: This department had on its books for two years a $50 million loan, bond, letter, line of credit, whatever you want to call it. And with the pending problems that could occur next year, that should be something they ought to try to reestablish. Not necessarily take it down, but reestablish that ability to have that there in case it's needed. And so I would thinlc that would be a good consideration as an alternative if the board decides that the cutting of 8.5 million isn't appropriate. That also lends to the question of Norm's discussion about concurrency. We have concurrency on paper a failure, and maybe at a peak time, but in reality it may not be. And by using that line of credit or potential loan or bond, if it's needed, it gives the board an alternative to offset, you know, any ad valorem increase. So if you don't mind amending your -- I could support your motion if you would amend it with the ability to ask that that be reestablished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that amendment. But I do have a question. Norm, that's some financing. I mean, in this environment can you assume that it's still there? I mean -- MR. FEDER: I'm not sure it is. We've got a maximum, and I thinlc it's good that Jim Mudd established a 13 percent maximum to our debt capability. I'm not sure if that got realized as we handed back what was, I understood, the last 50 million that brought us up to that. So that would be one question. But I thinlc if you make your motion, obviously the intent is for us to look at whether or not we have some options. We have shied away from both that 50 million when it was available and the issue of debt without an ability to know that we can fully pay. And so that's issues that need to be discussed. But I understand the nature of the question. And obviously ifI'm trying to maintain real-time concurrency and I do need to pull ad valorem out, I need to find a way to do so, so I thinlc that's what is being raised. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll accept that, Mark. I mean, do they know how to word that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thinlc it's just worded well enough for the record that the alternatives of one of those ought to be sought to match what we used to have in 2007 and 2008. MR. BOSI: And basically say the recommendation from the Planning Commission was for this transportation services department to explore the reestablishment of the $50 million loan that was available as in '07 and '08. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. I'm good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, did you have anymore? Okay, then you both accepted the changes that we have, the -- I guess the tweaking of the document to make it right. Is that a nod yes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any further discussion? Page 21 16 I LJber 29,1~~ ; (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. Norm, remember who caused you all these questions this morrting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before we leave, Mike, in the packet I got, as we reviewed it, it was obvious there were more things. Attachment J was the last thing that was in my packet. So if there were charts and things that were referenced after that, would you send them to me? MR. BOSI: The other attachments that were contained in the original AUIR book, if they were not, the documentations that I sent you, those were only the documents that were changed. Everything else had remained the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the Mount Everest funding that was shown today, I don't have that so I'd like that. MR. BOSI: Okay. I'll obtain the chart from Norm and get it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just for the record, I did ask for some additional backup material. And once Norm gets that collected, I don't know why the rest -- unless the Planning Commissioners don't want it, I sure want it. And if they would like it, you might want to poll them at the time. Does anybody else care to have that additional data? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I thinlc should just be e-mailed to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just e-mail it to everybody once that's available, if you could. I asked Norm for a couple items that they -- during the discussion. Item #4G CP-2007-5, LOGAN BOULEV ARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT And with that, we will move on to what I thinlc everybody is really here for, and it's the advertised public hearing for the Growth Management Plan Amendment. It's CP-2007-5, and it's for the corner of Logan and Immokalee Road. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please -- let's do this group swearing in thing again. Please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti? Page 22 1 6 1 l' tctoberA,309 I COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone conference a few weeks ago with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold a few weeks ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybodyelse? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I too had the same con -- I don't know if they were the same conversations as yours. I did have conversations with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Y ovanovich. I also had conversations with Diane from -- Diane Ebert from Olde Cypress, and I thinlc some e-mails with the Oakes Advisory Group, and that's the extent of it. Randy? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. I notice the number of people that stood on up, and they're quite in excess of the number of speaker slips that I have, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need the speaker slips. They can -- everybody can speak. And as we go -- we'll start with the speaker slips. Once we fmish those, I'll just ask the audience to come up, those that want to speak, one at a time and we'll call you up. MR. COHEN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department, Planning Manager. Mr. Chairman, I understand what you just said, but I would say that it's helpful to staff and the court reporter if you would have the speakers fill out a slip, because we need their name and address. It's helpful for the court reporter, but it's also helpful for staff because we need to provide that information to the state with our submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, every speaker that comes up, especially during GP A amendments, they're required to tell us their name and their address in the beginning of their discussion. So you're getting it on record both in transcript from the court reporter and in video. If you have the paper, that's fine, but I will not, let's say, deny the public the right to speak regardless whether they filled out a piece of paper or not. So with that, we will move forward and Mr. Y ovanovich, it's -- whoever's making your presentation from your side. You usually like to make those, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good moming. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. Also with me today is Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, Chuck Mohlke with Frazier and Mohlke, and Reed Jarvi with the Omega Consulting Group. I'm going to start with what was the original petition. Wow, I think just out of sheer luck I got that right. The original request and information you have in your packet was to establish the Loganlln1mokalee mixed use sub-district on approximately 41 acres and requesting 260,000 square feet of C-I through C-4 type uses. At our neighborhood information meeting on September 10th, 2009, there was a mixture of opinions regarding the project that we presented. Some residents objected to retail -- any retail at all. One square foot they felt was not necessary. Some residents supported the full request, and some residents supported retail but did not support the entire 41 acres and 260,000 square feet. Page 23 1611 ~1\3' 11 October~, 2009 After we held our neighborhood information meeting we met with our client to discuss the results of the neighborhood information meeting and then subsequently met with our client to discuss the results of the staff report, which we received around October 1st, 2009. Based upon the results of the neighborhood information meeting and the staff report, we decided to reduce the request to the 18 acres owned by Mr. -- well, it's owned by Dan Peck, the beneficiary of that trust is Mr. Bill Longhi (phonetic), and to reduce the request to an 80,000 square feet retail center and 40,000 square feet of office. And I'll put that up. And I'll briefly take you through what that did in relation to concerns we heard from the residents of Satumia Lakes, which is really our inmlediate neighbors. And as you can see now, we have very little -- we just have a corner of our parcel -- a comer of our parcel actually will now touch Satumia Lakes, where previously the project went all the way down to here, so you had this entire cul-de-sac and this entire cul-de-sac actually fronting on the project. We reduced the request. And Wayne will take you through some exhibits to show you that in actuality none of the residents within Satumia Lakes will be within 300 feet of the proposed development on the project. And in fact, this distance is far greater than 300 feet when you're talking about this particular cul-de-sac. And we did that in response to several people at the first neighborhood information meeting saying you're too close to us, we'll be overlooking your project. So we scaled that back and thus scaled back the square footage request as well. Between our scheduled hearing last week and the meeting today, we held another neighborhood information meeting to discuss the changed project. I will tell you that those who were opposed to retail overall, that didn't change, they still want zero. So we were not able to persuade people who were fundamentally opposed to retail to now jump on board with the proposed reduction. There were people who did speak in favor of the reduced request. And we tried to address any concerns that neighbors raised as questions. We had people -- people say they were concerned about uses, what uses were going to be on the property, and we asked well, what uses don't you want, so I can make sure I list those as prohibited uses. The only information we got was basically a gas station. I'm sure there were other uses, but we tried to elicit through the neighborhood information meeting process what other types of uses would they thinlc are inappropriate on this particular piece of property. A lot of people, I thinlc when we showed them how far away we were from the project, it wasn't so bad. We showed them -- and Wayne will take you through -- the 80,000 square feet retail would be up near the corner near Innnokalee Road and then the office would be back on the southern portion of the project. One of the concerns was will you have two stories of office. Since that neighborhood information meeting we've talked to our client, we can agree that all structures on the site will be single story. We have 18 acres to put 120,000 square feet on, so we can easily accommodate that request to have just single-story uses on the site, including the office, which we would submit to you is fairly compatible with single-family homes in the area. We heard comments regarding the vacancy rate of existing retail. And interestingly enough, one of the people in the meeting was actually in the commercial real estate business and provided me a f<'port that he had received from CB Richard Ellis regarding the current status and projected status of retail arid office over the next two or three years. Now, keep in mind that best case scenario, if we get comprehensive plan amendment approval about this time next year, maybe summer of next year, that would be 2010. We then do our PUD on top of that will take about a year, that puts us basically summer of2011, then you've got to do your site development plan and build it safely, that will be another year. Page 24 16 1 11: Aa ~ October 29, 2009 So basically best case scenario, we wouldn't be open and operating for business until the summer of 2012, which is basically three years from now. That's the best case scenario. We don't really expect the best case scenario to happen. We're not going to inlmediately put more inventory of retai I and office into the system today. But what the report provided to me shows is that today there's a vacancy rate in rl,tail of seven and a half percent. So they -- your hope for is to get to 95 percent occupancy, and we're at basically 92 and a half percent occupancy right now. Now, it looks a lot worse because there are some centers out there that are way off on their occupancy and there are several centers out there that are basically at 100 percent occupy. And it really is a center-by-center analysis. I mean, if you look at the Greentree Shopping Center, I thinlc it's pretty much at 11)0 percent occupancy. But if you look at some of these non-anchored centers that are not doing so well, and they're probably at a great then 50 percent, or around a 50 percent occupancy. So the perception out there is worse than the reality. And plus you have some of the nationals that went out in the last year. You lost The Expo and Linens 'N Things in that center on lnlmokalee Road and US 41. So there's a perception out there that there's really more vacancies than the reality is. And those aren't numbers that I came up with, those are numbers that were provided to me, it was from somebody that was sitting in the audience who was basically saying I think the people in the audience don't really understand, it's not as bad as people thinlc it is. Now, office vacancy's higher. It's about 12 percent right now. Probably will go up a little bit. But nobody's building any office right now, so that will get absorbed. And again, we're not going to be coming on line any time soon for that. Now, Chuck Mohlke will take you through in much great detail the supply and demand analysis and our disagreement with staff on how they calculate really the supply side. I don't thinlc we're so far off on the demand side, but on the supply side we thinlc that staff is not analyzing the supply appropriately. And Chuck will take you through greater detail. I will note that staff took some shots at our market analysis, and in particular they reference on Page 4 that we failed to include commercial that's in Mirasol. I'm fairly certain, since I did Mirasol, there is no commercial in Mirasol. So I thinlc that staff was considering that exists in Mirasol in their recommendation. They were in error in doing that. They also say on Page 10 that we failed to account for the impact on our market area of commercial that will be located in rural villages in the RLSA. Well, we're three miles from the urban boundary. I do not understand, and maybe it's just me, how any commercial that may somehow find its \\ ay into a rural village will impact our market study area, but we were criticized for not analyzing it, and ] would like staff to tell us how that would affect the supply side. And I'm really confused about how stuff that's out in the RLSA will affect our market analysis. So maybe staff didn't factor those into their decision, but they sure did -- they did criticize us for not putting that in our analysis. Wayne will also take you through what's kind of the standard distance between activity centers that's on the Future Land Use Map. And generally you'll see that activity centers are two miles apart. Some are closer, some are slightly further apart. But in generalities you'll see that your activity centers in your Future Land Use Map in the urban center have activity centers about two miles apart. And there's a provision in the Future Land Use Element that if -- you can request another activity center, as long as there's not another activity center within two miles. We're not asking for an activity center. Your typical activity centers are four quadrants, 40 acres apiece, totaling 160 acres. We're asking for something much smaller. We're asking for a neighborhood Page 25 A3 1, 1 6 I 1 otber 29, 2009 . oriented center of 18 acres, which would be one-eighth the size of an activity center. We are at the intersection ofan arterial, which is Innnokalee Road enter-collector (sic), which is Logan. And there is no retail on Logan essentially from Bonita Beach Road south until you get to I believe probably Golden Gate City. Because Logan is actually an extension of Santa Barbara. So for quite a north-south segment there are no -- there's no commercial opportunity. And I would say that a similar situation occurred on Livingston Road, there was no commercial under the compo plan that was on Livingston Road, no activity centers. But over time the Planning Commission did approve some commercial opportunities on Livingston Road. You have Pine Ridge Road as an example and also you have Vanderbilt Beach Road as an example, where there's commercial on Livingston Road. Not in all four quadrants, but in a quadrant next to residential. So it's not unlleard of to do that. Because again, there was no retail really on all the north-south Livingston Road. We thinlc that, and you'll hear in much greater detail, that there is demand for what we're asking for. The demand will be there over time. Again, we can't look at today's snapshot, but today's snapshot is not as bad as everybody thinlcs it is. In the future we hope, and if it doesn't come back we're all in trouble, but the economy will come back and the vacancies will be absorbed and there'll be need for new space. I'm going to turn it over to Wayne to take you through some of the planning aspects of our project as well as some ofthe conceptual plans we showed the community to address compatibility issues. And I thinlc there was a lot of compatibility issues related to the neighborhood information meeting that we needed to address through the revised comprehensive plan process. And with that, I'll turn it over to Wayne, unless you have questions about anything that I've said to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tons of questions, Richard, but I guess it's going to wait 15 minutes and we're going to wait to hear Wayne too. So we'll take a break till 10:10; by that clock it will be 9:10, IS-minute break for the court reporter. (Recess.) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And through the efforts ofKady, she came in and tried to fix the clock, took it down from the wall, monlceyed with it and it didn't get fixed. But Kady, thank you for trying. We'll have to just remember to add an hour. So, Wayne, you're up and go right ahead. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, and I will be following up where Rich left off. I'll just leave the graphic up there right now. But as Rich alluded to, we have a corridor that's a very long corridor. And you're going to hear Chuck Mohlke talk to you about our market area in a little more detail. But if you look at the 18-acre boundary that remains, we have one comer where we touch Saturnia Lakes. The other quadrants, we have the Oakes neighborhood to the west across Logan extension, and then we have to the northwest we have Longshore Lakes, and to the northeast we have Olde Cypress. There is no other commercial planned or permissible on those other three quadrants of this intersection. You have what's in the Golden Gate Estates area master plan to the west, and that would have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment to obtain that. You would have to likewise amend the comprehensive plan to have any commercial allowed at Longshore, which I thinlc is pretty infeasible considering you have rooftops there, and then at Olde Cypress again. So the process of having commercial and this leading to more commercialization I thinlc is probably not an accurate characterization for this particular site because of its configuration. Page 26 16 , loAb~~,2; To the south, what was formerly in this property, as many of you know, it's a landscape nursery and it's a landscape maintenance business operation. That property is zoned agriculture and it will continue to operate into the foreseeable future. This is a copy of your planned unit development map that the county has. And I've identified our 18-acre site. The areas in yellow are the residential. You see another pattern of yellow, which is the Estates. And then you have the tan colors which show commercial zoning. And you'll see, I thinlc the map exhibit doesn't correctly reflect the new Mirasol zoning, but 1 don't thinlc we have commercial in Mirasol, as Rich said. The most dominant feature that you have here are the two activity centers. The one on the west at 1-75 is an interchange activity center and those are meant to be highly intensive and they're really attractors for regional uses. Some of them allow industrial uses. This one does not have industrial uses in it. But to the far east side of that exhibit it's Collier Boulevard, and you have commercial obviously at that intersection. But when you look at the spacing, we're about a mile and a quarter back to the interchange activity center to our west, and we're almost two miles to the activity center to the east. And as Rich said, your comprehensive plan indicates that our activity center spacing should be about two miles. And in this case we are almost two miles from an activity center, but we're asking for far less commercial than you could find in a typical activity center. But I thinlc this graphic identifies that you don't have a commercialized corridor on Immokalee Road, and you certainly don't have a commercialized corridor for Logan Boulevard, which now is a collector road that goes and extends all the way down to Rattlesnake Hanunock Road, soon to be open segment, and is designed to be a road that will extend into Bonita Springs into Lee County into the future. One of the things that we did, we held the second neighborhood informational meeting. It was an informal meeting that we held between the last scheduled hearing and today. And we wanted to discuss the proposed changes and reduction in intensity with those neighbors to find out how that was received. And as Rich said, I don't thinlc there's a clear answer. It was a pretty diverse group of people. We had many residents from Satumia Lakes, obviously, our nearest neighbors, but we also had residents who lived in the Oakes neighborhood to the west and we also had residents from Olde Cypress who were there as well. I thinlc it would be unfair to say that there was large opposition to the project. 1 had many residents come up to me after the meeting and talk about the need for certain types of uses here, especially things that could be more daily use type things. And that would include things like grocery store, restaurants, banks, things that they didn't need to drive back through the interstate to get to, and something more convenient for them and appropriately sized for them. One of the things that we heard from the neighbors was the intensity. 260,000 square feet sounded like a lot. And 1 thinlc we confused a lot of people with the inclusion of the agricultural component, which was really meant to deal with the existing agricultural operations that were now to our southern boundary. But nonetheless, 1 had our landscape architect, we sat down and tried to look at some concepts for the revised boundary and how we could look at 80,000 square feet of retail and an office component and make that the most compatible we could with the residential neighbor we have at Satumia Lakes. And I walked through those three examples at the informal meeting we had earlier this week, and I'll take you through those, if I could have a few minutes to do that. This one we had called concept A. And what you see is Immokalee Road to -- at the top of the page. You have Logan Boulevard to the west. And the tan type structures are what we would envision to be retail oriented uses that are primarily at and focused on the intersection. And then to the south we have water management preserve area that we're required to have by code and then a small office component. And you can see -- if David can pull it back a little further. I've Page 27 16 I 1 . A 3. 1 .ltktober 29, 2009 identified -- outlined the existing structures in Saturrtia. You can start to see those and see the relationship we have to them. And that's about 300 feet from the nearest unit to the office component that I'm showing on that. We're showing access over to Logan Boulevard. There's an existing ingress/egress easement that extends over to Logan, and we're also identifYing right-in/right-out access on Immokalee Road. Here's a second concept that we presented called concept B. And again, the same idea. We have our retail oriented to ln1mokalee Road and we have offices to the south. But this one we've reshaped thc water management area and put more preserve between us and our neighbors at Saturrtia Lakes, again keeping access to both Logan and ln1mokaIee Road. I thinlc it's an arrangement that to me makes good land planning sense. It certainly reduces the intensity as we move closer to our neighbors. And certainly by keeping the preserve there, I thinlc that makes it very compatible with Saturrtia. The third example we presented was one that I thinlc represents probably a little bit more traditional look at retail type development where you would end up with several tenant type spaces. But it again presents the focus to ln1mokalee Road and the intersection. On this one we've divided our water management up into two areas so we can put a focal point at ln1mokalee Road. And we can also can keep preserve and water management again closer to the neighbors at Saturrtia Lakes. All of these, we presented the office primarily as a separate office component to help make that transition as we move south to our residential neighbors. I thinlc that -- what I believe is that this site does not set up well and would never be utilized for low density residential development. I know that one of the first zoning actions that I worked on private consultant after I left the county was Saturrtia Lakes. It's known as the Rigas PUD. And it was impossible for then GL Homes to assemble the lands that went up to this future intersection. You know, had that been incorporated into a master plan community of a couple hundred acres, you change the complexion of how you would design that and you can buffer yourself from those impacts. But left with an 18-acre parcel at this intersection, we don't have that same opportunity to make a project work at three or four units per acre, which is a density that's probable in this particular area, given the relationship we have to the Estates to the west and the master planned communities to the north. But we thinlc this is an appropriate location for commercial. Certainly we've downsized the commercial to a point where it does become more of a neighborhood oriented type retail opportunity at 80,000 square feet. We have enough that it can be a viable commercial. We also have an office component that makes sense. We have a client who's been willing to make concessions in this regard. And as Rich said, our -- he's also authorized us to limit heights to one story. So I thinlc with that in mind compatibility isn't an issue for this particular property. And I thinlc it makes sense for commercial land uses. I thinlc that's demonstrated in Mr. Mohlke's analysis where he looked at demand. And when you look at the geographic trade area that he established, it's one that's different than the county staff. And I'll let him describe why that is. But when you look at this roadway corridor that literally it's five miles down to Green Boulevard where you have your first opportunity for commercial as you travel on Logan Boulevard. And obviously Logan Boulevard was designed to carry that of traffic. The focus was to get traffic off of Oakes Boulevard to the west, thereby removing the signal to discourage people from using that road. And I thinlc you'll find that anybody who lives in Oakes neighborhood will probably tell you their traffic has gone down. And the focus should be on Logan Boulevard, which is designed to be a future four-lane road, to carry that traffic. And as I mentioned earlier, that road is designed to go to Lee County, it's designed to go all the way Page 28 16 I 1 ttArJ, 201 south and is under construction right now to Rattlesnake HaJ1illlock Road. I'll answer any questions you may have about our planning efforts or our neighborhood. Rich, if I didn't leave anything out, we can move on to Mr. Mohlke, if nobody has questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the Planning Commission have any questions before we hear from Mr. Mohlke, or we can wait till afterwards? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you put that first slide up on the board, please. MR. ARNOLD: The PUD exhibit? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Now, starting left at the large activity center off ofImmokalee Road, if you m9ve this along the right toward the east, what is the next little brown place there? Is that the commercial component? MR. ARNOLD: That is what's known as the -- I thinlc it's Quail II. And there's an office building there and I believe that's also got the gas station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinlc there's some retail in with the office. Or there is a strip center there that's got retail in it as well. (Audible comments from audience.) MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You guys, everybody that talks got to be on a mic. You'll all get your turn. So just let the guy on the mic respond, if you could. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that is a component that is commercial; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And then you move over to where the site is, and that's what you're proposing to be commercial now? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: As you move further east along there, there's another brown spot. Is that commercial also? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And then you move further east and there's a large spot. Is that commercial? MR. ARNOLD: That is the activity center at Collier Boulevard and lnlmokalee Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So in that stretch ofImmokalee Road there, those are all commercial centers. Now then, those commercial centers are nearer each other than they are in other places in the county. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I would agree with the statement that they're closer than they are in other places in the county, because -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the activity centers are generally two to four miles apart, aren't they? MR. ARNOLD: Two-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Through the county on an average? MR. ARNOLD: Roughly two miles on center. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But these here are no more than maybe. 7 mile difference separation. MR. ARNOLD: Right. But I thinlc the difference is those are very small-scale commercial, primarily office on the one closest to 1-75. And then you have the other one that's closer to Olde Cypress, and that is a mixture of -- it's got I thinlc indoor self-storage and it has a gas station/convenience component and some retail. But they're not part of activity centers, nor are they sized to be. Page 29 ~ , 'lo< 1 6 J lctAr~, dOb~ COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I agree that the area is small, but the locations are many. That's what my point is. There's many locations on that stretch of street that have commercial, even though the areas might be small. Now, let me ask you another question about the site, ifI could. Is there access off of Logan road onto the site? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we have an access easement that extends to Logan Boulevard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that an easement? MR. ARNOLD: It is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's not the entrance that is there for the nursery now? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. That entrance is further south. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why did you select the easement rather than the existing entrance? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the existing entrance to the landscape nursery was within our boundary previously, but when we retracted Ihe boundary of our request to have the 18 acres, we don't control that property to the south. But there is another ingress/egress easement that extends to Logan at the southern portion of our project. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When was that easement executed? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know; some time ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Kolflat, it's been of record for, gosh, many, many, many years. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, it's been many years, though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's been there. That was an access easement that exists across all of those properties on their southern boundary and the northern boundary all the way across. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That's all the questions I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody -- Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, what would distinguish this project from a strip mall? What is it that you propose that would be so significant that would not -- I mean, that last rendering showed, just looked to me like it could be, if it were extended out straight, a strip mall. What is it that would be so different here? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I thinlc the distinction generally would come about at the time that we would rezone the property, and we would then identifY a master plan. I mean, these were three concepts. They're hand-drawn sketches showing how we can develop the 80,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 square feet of office and different configurations. I know that just responding to the comments that I heard, the neighbors would support things that they can use on a daily basis, things like the restaurants. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, when you presented the other day for the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson, you guys talked about an anchor store and a CO that would have to be -- do you have any kind oflike offering on this one? I mean, all of the reading that was done here was associated with this humongous thing, and now we're talking about something just zoom. And I want to understand where we're going with the changes. MR. ARNOLD: Fair enough. I thinlc if you look at this exhibit, for instance, that's up there and you look back at 1-75, the focus at 1-75 has clearly been regional commercial. I mean, you have the supers of the world. You have Super Target and you have Super Wal-Mart. You have other regional commercial uses; you have Hodges University, for instance. I mean, that activity center, except for the Strand -- which is 100 percent occupied, by the way. You have a grocery-anchored shopping center. You have another grocery-anchored shopping center out at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. But you don't have the true activity center where you can have those other uses other than regional uses here. Page 30 16 J lJA3009 'I And I guess this doesn't have to be a traditional strip center, if you will. I don't know that without an anchor tenant you're going to get financing these days. So it will. I don't thinlc Rich and I are in a position to tell you that as we bet the farm on that project you referenced with a grocery store anchor, I don't thinlc we can certainly make those kinds of commitments today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I didn't really expect that you could, but I'm trying to rationalize. I mean, we'll hear from staff and we'll hear from the public, but I'm trying to rationalize what it is that you folks responded to, having heard the public, and what it is that you are translating for us to tell us that they thinlc that they want or feel that they want or want. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I thinlc we offered -- you know, I thinlc that you'll probably hear from one of the speakers that the C-I through C-4, when you look at how many pages of the Land Development Code that is, it's over a dozen pages of uses. Well, a lot of those uses in C-I through C-4 are duplicate uses, they're carried forward in each of those zoning districts. So I think the question is, if it's the C-4 component that makes people concerned, what are those uses? And I at the neighborhood meeting said one of those uses that you can have in C-4 is a car dealership. Does anybody here thinlc that that's an appropriate location for a car dealership? I don't thinlc there was a clear answer, but there was a lot of rumbling in the crowd. And, I mean, it's certainly a use we don't intend to put there. And like Rich said, gas station was one that was mentioned specifically. And to the extent we can prohibit uses, as you have done in other of these sub-districts, we can certainly try to get to that list. But if the dominant answer from some of the residents who aren't even your nearest neighbors is no retail, we have too much, then that's a hard part and a hard position to negotiate from. : But I do thinlc that we're certainly willing to place reasonable restrictions on the property to assure the inunediate neighbors that they're going to get a quality designed project and one that's well buffered and compatible with them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure ifit goes forward we would be delighted to place some restrictions on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Wayne, could you put the diagram up of the property that shows the ingress and egress, please? ln1mokalee and Logan. MR. ARNOLD: Any of them work? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Okay, obviously the one on ln1mokalee is going to be right in/right out. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Now, let's talk about this easement down there on -- what, is it just called access easement? MR. ARNOLD: Urn-hum. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that's where you're going to be entering? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. What kind of -- will that be a full right-in left? MR. ARNOLD: That segment -- yes, it would be. Because that segment of road currently is two-lane. And I'd have to let our traffic consultant answer what happens in the event that it becomes a four-lane road segment, but right now that would be full movements on a two-lane road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, I got that. My problem was when it turns to a four-lane. How deep is the prop -- what's the distance from that 30-foot access easement to ln1mokalee Road? MR. ARNOLD: I believe it's about 900 feet, plus or minus. Page 3 1 1\. 1611 I tit Oc ber~,~09 · COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So it's under a quarter mile. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So once it goes four-lane, I mean, you aren't going to be able to even go to Island Walk, back to -- you know. That's my -- that's my issue with it is I don't know how you're going to get home. I don't know how people are -- MR. ARNOLD: Like I said, I don't know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Worst thing that could happen is that you're doing right in/right outs, U-turns every which way. And that's not a good -- that was my biggest issue was-- MR. ARNOLD: Well, unfortunately that's been the nature of how we have dealt with transportation access issues throughout the county. It's become the norm to deal with those as right turn only and U-turn movements. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Pine Ridge and Livingston. I mean, you go into breakfast there, try to go north -- I mean try to go south from there, it's impossible. MR. ARNOLD: And I understand, I utilize that shopping area as well. And I deal with that access issue. And it's just the nature of the beast. I don't know too many -- unless you get a traffic signal, you're not going to be assured of full access. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You can't on this site because it's too close. So, I mean, fix that somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we go to the market issue? Then we'll come back to the applicant again. Wayne, as a follow-up to Mr. Wolfley's questions, 30-foot access easement. I didn't see language in the documents you supplied to talk to us or tell us what that 30- foot access easement, how it's written. The reason that's important is because you've got issues like utilities and drainage. And 30-foot, you're going to have two 10- foot lanes as the narrowest you could possibly put in. On each side you're going to have gutter either -- if it's a valley gutter it's two feet on each side, so that's 24 feet out of30. It leaves you six feet to fit your drainage elements and anything else in, plus any signage that you'd have to recognize the facility out in Logan. Have you taken all that into consideration in your design of that access? MR. ARNOLD: We have. I mean, we have not designed the access per se, but we understand that we probably will have limitation on signage. That's going to be a challenge, we know that. We believe we'll be dealing with some of those issues at the time of zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And based on only two lanes, it would be a right in/right out, I would assume. You couldn't fit a left turn lane in. Otherwise you'd be blocking your people wanting to make a right. Is that what you're anticipating? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure we would have to have a dedicated left turn lane. I don't know that yet, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious if you -- how far you've thought that out. Thank you. Chuck, welcome. MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman and members, thank you. For the record, my name is Chuck Mohlke, and I'm here representing my firm, Frazier and Mohlke. We had the privilege of conducting what I will regard as one of the more challenging responsibilities that we've had recently in terms of generating a profile of the community that can represent fairly the opportunities for a commercial enterprise at this intersection. Let me share with you briefly what those challenges were as we tried to address them. Us bean counters have a responsibility of determining what to count and what not to count. And in this particular case we chose, as the Section I of the study will reveal, to address the issue of how many Page 32 1611 JA3~'2J persons we need to account for in respect to the areas surrounding this particular site. And also how do we address the issue of what is typically referred to here as the seasonal population. As you know, from reading the material that's in there, the basis for many of our conclusions were census information that was provided in census tabulation area, as it's called, by those folks, 34119, which we all know is the zip code for this particular area. It tells us how many structures, it tells us how many permanent persons in the population, it tells us the household size. And when you look at that profile, you're confronted with the fact that there are many more structures than are occupied by permanent residents. And you're then confronted with the issue of do you introduce into the analysis what many people refer to as the functional population, those folks who are here six months or less, or technically domiciled somewhere else but who are part usually in these well designed and livable gated communities that surround this particular site. In some manner you have to account for them. Are they seasonal? Apparently so. But we really don't know what their pattern of residence is and won't know that until about 18 months from now when the census to be conducted six months from now -- (Microphone interference.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a couple minutes and stop the recording while we figure out what's wrong. Break for a minute or two. (Recess.) MR. COHEN: Mics are back on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the county attorney's fault. MR. COHEN: That was the timer going off, letting Chuck know that his time was up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as soon as Kady gets back across the hall, we'll get back on the record. So let's give her a minute or two -- or a second or two. Okay, everyone, let's go back on record. We found the mystery noise, whatever it was. And Chuck, sorry for the interruption. MR. MOHLKE: Not at all. Mr. Chairman, this reminds me a little bit of an extemporaneous speaking contest that I was in in high school in which the recess bell rang right in the middle of my remarks, and I just paused briefly and as soon as the bell stopped started again. And the judges in that favored that approach, apparently, and I was accused of one of my fellow contestants of timing this so that I would appear at the time of the recess bell and give me some sort of interim advantage. I hope it gives me an interim advantage with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The story will, anyway. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good story, thank you. MR. MOHLKE: Well, it just occurred to me, that happened 55 years ago. So my memory is, shall we say, durable on issues like that. Mr. Chairman and members, in dealing with some of these challenges, we chose to take two approaches. We knew that we had to account appropriately and in detail. And that's why Mr. Kolflat's questions interested me. And if you choose later in the discussion to know exactly what's on each one of those parcels, the square feet, the acreage and many of the uses, we could provide that information. Probably not appropriate to introduce it now, but we could at any time that you choose, including a density calculation in which we compare square feet per acre and have that calculation included in some material which we shared with Mr. Schmitt and with Mr. Weeks. We chose, because of the unique character of this site, to take account of the fact that there is about a 1.9 center mile road length between the edge of the site and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension that has exit points only for the future at Satumia Lakes and currently, not an egress -- an egress point only at Island Walk. And then to ask ourselves the question, can we fairly extend that further to include parcels of land south of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Page 33 16 11 J*b~9'21 We chose to include them. And as you can tell from the material which is provided in the market study, we tried to count them only as secondary trade areas and not as fundamental to the analysis as the area immediately surrounding. We had to deal with the issue of access points. Many of the related communities do not access directly near this site, but we have to account for them. And the staff in a very forthcoming way dealt in detail using the surrounding lands analysis, which they put into the staff report, to tell you at some considerable length what existed between Collier Boulevard/951 and the interstate. They however did, in an abundance of caution, I think, provided a radial three-mile analysis, which included many developed, but also some undeveloped properties, which are west of the interstate. It struck us that that was a comparison that was instructive but ought not to be crucial in any decision that you make as to whether or not that is fairly competitive with an enterprise or enterprises that might be located at this particular subject property that we are talking about. We believe that when you account for the regular and what we call the functional population, including seasonal residents, that the resident population of the area, both the primary and the secondary market area, somewhat exceeds 26,000 persons. To make a deteIDlination about whether or not that number of persons could equate to a per square foot analysis of what could be permitted at this site or in sites that surround it, we came up wiIh a calculation under the old analysis, when we were looking at the possibility of a community shopping center, of something in excess of222,000 square feet. That recalculation is yet to be. And we stand ready to assist this Planning Commission and the staff in adapting the report that you have before you for that purpose. We have added features to a summary of the staff report, which we thought well done and appropriate to the information needs of the Planning Commission. Some very detailed look at their identified areas and surrounding lands that have commercial enterprises located in them. You've seen their calculations as to mileage. We agree with all of those calculations. And actually, we came up with a number of acres and square feet of commercial that exceeded the analysis that the staff provided. And that material is available to Mr. Weeks and Mr. Schmitt. And Mr. Chaimlan, I could give that to you now, if you wanted to circulate it. But we thought it would not be fair to suddenly impose upon the Planning Commission brand new analyses that you have had but a modest chance to look at, if any. And we thought it appropriate first to give that to the professional staff so that they might then make their own assessment. What their recommendation upon looking at that material will be to you, I don't know. Let me add one thing that we did add to the analysis because of the enllanced role of office space at this particular site. And we could discuss this in whatever detail you, Mr. Chairman, and your members decide to. But if we were to take a typical example of the way in which a calculation of need is made, you'd look at what is readily available from the property appraiser for the year 2008 that would tell you that in Collier County there are 435 acres devoted to office space. And that office space occupies somewhat in excess of 4,900,000 square feet. If you divide that out against the population, you'll get first of all an acreage calculation on land zoned for office of about 11,000 square feet per acre. But the more important consideration is the population. If you divide the population for 1980 (sic) of something in excess of332,000 persons against the 4,900,000 square feet, you come up with a per capita average of 14.73 square feet per person. That would equate in this market area to something in excess of 332,000 square feet of office. In the area that -- best of our ability, and we stand to be corrected by professional staff, there is only Page 34 16 1 lo1Ar~20~J , 8.55 percent of that represented in the trade area that we have proposed to you. Now, we could do while I'm standing here endless examples of this kind of comparison of population to existing need, but I don't know that that's in the interest of the Plam1ing Commission or the public. But we're prepared to do that, if you direct us to. Mr. Chairman, I thinlc I probably exhausted my time. I don't thinlc the recess bell is going to ring again, but I'm ready for it if it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good way to look at it. We never thought of it as a recess bell, but good point. Are there any questions from the marketing perspective at this time of Mr. Mohlke? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I do have questions, but I'd ra -- more in line oftrying to understand why staff saw your document in the way they did. So I'm going to really defer my questions to be more effective when we get our chance to talk with staff. MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I thank you and members. We'll be available for whenever you choose to call on us again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant's team? I'm assuming, Richard, you've call all your team members you want to speak at this point? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And we have Reed here to answer transportation questions, if you might have some of those. I would just point out to what Mr. Wolfley brought up about having full access. I think under the current transportation standards as far as what would quality as access, I'm not sure that any of the activity centers now would qualifY to have a full access, because I thinlc you have to be at least a half a mile away. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it was a quarter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's a half a mile for full -- half a mile for signal. It's a half a mile to get a signalized access point. And I don't thinlc they'll give you any if you're on a -- and most of these roads are all six lanes now, so I'm not sure you can even get an un-signalized access point on -- a full opening on a six-lane road anymore. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, then along those lines, Rich, what are your plans? How do you plan for someone to get to Island Walk from here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not to but from here to Island Walk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that any future project, unless you're going to buy a half of a mile worth of frontage on any future activity center that you're going to be able to do that. We're going to be stuck with the norm being U-turns. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it was 1,320 feet. Because we dealt with-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On a four-lane we could. But on six we won't. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We dealt with this on a development just south on Collier Boulevard. But I don't want to get into that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that whole issue was -- I had that same issue there, and it exists today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we may have to work with our neighbor to the south __ COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: South to get-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to get an access easement to go further south when that situation comes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would be a little bit over 1,800. Page 35 '~3 "! 6 .. .t, 1 J olberi9, 2009 .. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we wouldn't be technically right on the number, but we'd be pretty close, I believe, on the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I don't thinlc a six-lane is in the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I thinlc -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- 10 or 20-year plan, I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, quarter mile for a four-lane, so I thinlc it's roughly 1,300 feet. So we'd have to work with our neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exac -- that was going to be my point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Yeah, Rich, this easement thing, it runs all the way behind this property, it runs behind the piece of property that you're dropping from this application? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: And it enters that other property to the east of that; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It goes across from a west to east. From -- it goes across the little triangular piece, then goes across our boundary of our property, and then to the property to our east and the property to the east of that. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: And the property to your east, is that by the same ownership or is that another owner who's dropping out of the application? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's another owner who's dropping out of the application. What happened was is the eight acres to our immediate east and the 15 acres which is the nursery and landscape business are owned by the same people. Not titled the same way, but owned by the same people. So they've dropped out of the application. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go to staff, are there any questions of the applicant any further at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll take the staff report. David, that means you or Randy or whoever you want, Corby? MR. WEEKS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if we have a staff presentation. Ours is based on the original submittal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. WEEKS: And the petition has changed significantly today. I won't say staff was unaware of the change through verbal communications and including Corby's attendance at the informal NIM that was held Monday evening of this week, staff became aware of the verbal intent to make a change. But we have not received any application materials, we've not received data and analysis. And I know Rich has a response to some of what I'm saying, but the fact is we don't have the changed materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the staff report, Richard. So go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: We did receive Mr. Mohlke's response to the staff report market study portion this morning, but I submit that that's not adequate time for us to review and digest that. The short of it is though staff has had because of the verbal communications some time to prepare, I thinlc it would be appropriate to continue this and would suggest to the November 19th hearing. That would give staff time to receive the materials from the petitioner, review those and then write a new staff report and present it to this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to go through with our questions as we typically do and hear Page 36 16 l 1 ~CA~9'21 from the public, and we'll take all of your recommendations into consideration, and that includes the recommendation, if one is to consider, and we'll just see how far it goes by the end of the meeting. But Randy? MR. COHEN: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to add, I know Mr. Yovanovich, he discussed some data and analysis that was presented last week, which we would like to take a look at as well too in conjunction with this particular petition, as well as some vacancy rates. Because we haven't -- you know, it was mentioned but we haven't seen that data or analysis. Also, I thinlc it's probably appropriate for the County Attorney's Office to review the access easement that was discussed here as well too to ascertain whether or not it's for ingress and egress as well as public utilities as well, just to make sure that we cover all our bases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you want to move forward? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, given the situation where we have new information being presented to us only at the beginning of this hearing and the significant changes being made to the application, I don't find it useful to make a presentation at this time. So if you've got questions on the portions of the staff report that might still be applicable, I'd accept and answer those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Corby, how many reports or how many presentations from the agent did you get relative to this subject? I mean, how long have you been studying it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did the application first become submitted and how many times have you responded going back and forth with the applicant, I think that's -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, I believe-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'd like to know the intensity of the interchange. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, there were at least three rounds of sufficiency in which both the traffic impact study and the market conditions study were found insufficient for one reason or another. And as time grew tight, even though some of those insufficiencies still remained, there was no time left and we had to move on to substantive review. So at least three. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Corby, has staff done not any applications specific, but have they done any analysis of what uses should occur on this comer? MR. SCHMIDT: Insofar as the uses that are already permitted there by both planning and zoning, certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what are they? They're agricultural, right? I mean, the question I'm asking is what we do here is do gatekeeper zoning where the applicant wants to do something, but is there any kind of planning within the department that analyzes these comers prior to an applicant __ MR. SCHMIDT: Analysis that analyzes comers prior to applications? I don't believe so. We have hundreds of comers and we'd be spending our time doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have planning studies as future uses until an applicant arrives at the gate and we decide to let them go or not. MR. SCHMIDT: That's a different question. MR. WEEKS: The short answer is no, we don't. We're not studying intersections for land uses by Page 37 16 11Ao2r2~,19 our department. The opportunity to do so would be through an EAR process, but even that is typically not to that detailed level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in response to Brad's question, though, you did do that at the time we initiated our comprehensive plan for Collier County. That's how we originated with our activity centers and how we decided to place them. The reason I know that, I was involved in it back then, so -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly back with the original establishment of the adoption of the plan in 1989, the time period leading up to that. During the 1996 EAR, evaluation and appraisal report process, the opportunity was there. Again, I would not say that staff or the public went to the level of detail of looking at each intersection or each major intersection throughout the urbanized area, but the opportunity at least was there for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just didn't want the impression to be that we never thought ofa master plan in the community. We have. It just isn't done on a regular continuing basis. It was done initially, and then we've been living with it since, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: And certainly, Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat -- oh. MR. SCHMIDT: -- ifI may continue that thought, I was asked about this specific location and the uses already permitted either by our comprehensive plan or by the zoning. And that's part of your staff report, but I will answer. The land use designation allows for the residential development of the site, a variety of community facility uses: Recreation and open spaces, institutional uses such as child care facilities, churches, other places of worship, assisted living facilities, adult care facilities, nursing homes, other senior living facilities, social and fraternal organizations, public and private schools, a variety of agricultural uses and essential services. So there's no lack of viable uses for the piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it's zoned agricultural and those are uses within the agricultural zone; is that right? MR. SCHMIDT: That is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, some of those uses that Corby identified would be allowed under the agricultural zoning by right or by conditional use. Most particularly in mentioning residential development, that would require a rezone -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. WEEKS: -- to allow higher density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, but this is a hearing on growth management, is it not? It's not a hearing on PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I need to understand some of the comments you made in your original staff report on Page 8. You have a paragraph titled defining a support area for analysis. And your staff -- it says staff notes that the geography of the support area is not the typical radial measurement, nor is it the road mileage Page 38 1 6 I 1 ~A 3ctObl, 2009 distance mirroring expected traffic patterns. It is a support area approximately seven miles long by approximately 2.5 miles wide. How did you come to that conclusion? I've got -- I mean, I may have been looking, we got so many documents. This is the document that I thought was the support area document. This is apparently not? MR. SCHMIDT: One of the colors on that image does show you the support area as presented by the applicants, yes. The study that the staff performed was really two-tiered. Because we often see radial studies, it's typical that we see gravity studies. We see road distances used as bases for your market areas. We saw none these. But we thought it was useful to show you at least the large three-mile diameter -- or I'm sorry, radius -- around the subject property that was typical. And that's your yellow circle on that diagram or your image. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put this on the overhead. MR. SCHMIDT: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'd like you to show us what the applicant's market area was and what you were trying to say in that statement you made. There you go. Now, the circle I guess then is staft's; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the applicant's? What is the applicant's -- I thinlc I know what you're going to tell us, but I'd like you to define it for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: With the exception of some existing commercial colors or communities being highlighted, it's that light green-colored market area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant believes the market area goes from looks like the north Collier line all the way down to Pine Ridge Road. And that's the two and a half mile by seven mile longitudinal reference you made up and down? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And typically staff uses a circular radius like you've shown on here for yours? Is that how it should have been analyzed from your perspective? MR. SCHMIDT: Technically staff doesn't use any of those, but what we're used to seeing from market analysts or other professionals, our radial measurements are something more similar, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason why it's better to go with a radial analysis over the applicant's analysis? And again, I understand the answer, what you're probably going to say, but I'd like to get it on record as to why you saw it this way. Because I read your report and it wasn't as clear. Do you feel the circle is a better depiction of the market and the commercial needs in the area or lack of needs in the area than the one that they had presented or used? MR. SCHMIDT: We don't necessarily agree that their choice of a market area is better than ours, but I couldn't say for sure that ours is better than theirs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you seem to prefer one over the other. And I was looking for your reasons for preference, that's all. Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- have one on that one. Maybe you know, Corby, maybe I know, we'll find out. My understanding oflarge corporations who are in the business of doing these things typically use the radius as a form just because it talks about travel distances. It's a capture rate, so to speak. And isn't that what is more like tradition than anything else? MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it's traditional because it best represents a market area generally. Page 39 16 I 1 1 A3berloo9 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probabilities, yeah, and that's it. And I find that the -- it's kind of interesting the market approach that goes all the way down to Pine Ridge. That stretches in my mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, on Page 10 you have a second paragraph on there that reads, of particular interest is the study's use of data on Tables 3.2. and 3.03, which includes TAZs located outside the proposed sub-district support area. Of the more than 240 acres listed, only 80 acres lie inside the support area. Can you explain that? MR. SCHMIDT: I can somewhat. But because much of our information in the market study that was examined by staff was mismatched or different subsets of one another and not apples to apples as we usually see. This was a situation where they were showing us information from one study area or selection and not representing it as the subset we were looking at. Here is something that they've included additional acreage outside their own study area, and we don't know if there was a necessity or intent there or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this study area that you have on the screen, at the intersection of Immokalee Road and 951 there's a large activity center. But from the indications -- from the indications you're giving, they wouldn't have considered that in their analysis because it's outside that green area; is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. They selected their market area without that portion of it involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me make sure I don't have any other questions of staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that activity center is still existent there, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. My next questions would be of transportation. So anybody else have any questions of Corby before he departs momentarily? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, I know that by your mannerisms you're anxious. You'll have to wait. And as soon as we finish with staff, you can have a moment to discuss whatever it is you want to do. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, ifI could just quickly put on the record that the exhibit on the visualizer is from the -- it's an attachment to the staff report which is in your binders. I just want to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hi, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning. John Podczerwinsky, Transportation, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had time to review enough of either what we had been presented with or the previous one to know where your department's position would be on access to Immokalee Road from this property? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, we have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was my main concern. Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the information you had received before and have analyzed led you to a conclusion, did it not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it did. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What was that conclusion? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The previous conclusion was that we did not favor access on Page 40 16 I 1 ~ At~r2919 Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is -- by not favoring access, is that the same as having the ability to deny access? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not in particular, no. We were going to recommend against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your reasons for recommending against it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Distance to the intersection and the impacts on the functional operation of the intersection were part of the reasoning for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the best they could hope for ifit was in would be right in/right out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Now, when I read the staff report, this following appeared in there: Adjacent roadway network will not be able to accommodate traffic that will be provided by the project. Do you recall that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Was that from transportation's statement, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That was from the staff report, our staff report. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't recall it offhand, but-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you verify that? Because I believe it was from the transportation probably originally, but it was quoted in the staff report. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can check on it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It was a rather unequivocal statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Tor? MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Commissioner Kolflat, it may be in relation to the current status of InmlOkalee Road, which is under a policy constrain at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get this page, we can put it on the screen, then you can take a quick look at it and resolve it real fast. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone's saying page-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Corby, can you help me on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Corby. Can he help me locate this in the staff report. MR. WEEKS: Is this it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. You may find it on Page 12, Tor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's page 12, number one in bold, transportation planners. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 12, up at the top under one. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Mr. Kolflat, yes, that is our language, transportation's language. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that was your recommendation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of transportation at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I noticed you've changed a bit since we've seen you last. Congratulations. The key to it is not to shave so much and trim it so much, but let it grow out much thicker. Page 4] 1611~A3; October 29, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Thank you, sir, I'll keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff at this time? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sorry, gentlemen, more. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you have any suggestions for their ingress and egress? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no. We need to analyze this a little bit further-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Flyover. I'm sure they'd be happy to give you a flyover. All right, thanks. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, if you wanted to jump up and say something real quick before we go to the public to -- you were all anxious there for a minute. I don't mean to cut you off but everybody gets their turn, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I do have to address a comment that was made about the lateness of the change. And I thinlc David will confirm that I did call David probably well over a month ago and said, David, I would like to modifY the request to reduce the acreage and the square footage we're requesting and provide the modified request. And I was told that ifI did that I would be taken out of this cycle, placed into the next cycle and I would -- my client would be allowed to pay another application fee. And I said, but what happens ifI make the change at the Plamting Commission? He said, that can happen. So it wasn't because I didn't want to give staff the information ahead of time to give them an opportunity to analyze it. What I would request is that -- I don't have an objection to going to November 19th. But I do request that staff review the information, and we're prepared to give it to them immediately, and we have given them the revised traffic analysis. We will give them the revised market study that will simply reduce the square footage, because we analyzed much more square footage than we're now requesting. I will give them the access easement. All I simply request is that they actually review it, interact with us as to what further questions they mayor may not have with that prior to writing a staff report so we can discuss professionally any other revisions or concerns that they may have. And we would be happy to move to November 19th, if it will give the Planning Commission the benefit of the staff analysis. And again, it's not because we didn't want to give them the information ahead of time. We were prepared to give it, in fact have given it and were told it will not be reviewed. Specially the traffic we were told it will not be reviewed because of it not being provided sooner. So that's my request. Hear the public, they're here, or ask them to come back, either way. But I would request that since staff is now saying they haven't had a chance to analyze it and they're requesting a continuance to November 19th to do so, we would agree to that continuance. I thinlc it's fair to us and I think it's fair to staff and I thinlc it's fair to the public to have that analysis done. But I didn't like the way it was portrayed as if we just simply sprung it on staff. And maybe I'm the only one that took it that way, but it just seemed -- it seemed to be -- that's the way I took it, as if we didn't try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, we're going to go through the day like we had planned. We're going to hear the public and hearing everything everybody says. At the end of that, we may decide that we have a position or not or we may decide that a continuance is the best idea. But we're going to wait and hear that first. Page 42 16 I 1 ~0329'_9 But in regard to the possibility of a continuance, David or Randy or Joe, if anybody wouldn't mind e-mailing Ray Bellows and trying to find out from him how booked up November 19th is already so that we know what we've got dealing with us. Okay, Mr. Schmidt will take care of it. And then at the end of all of our discussions today we'll have a discussion about whether or not it even needs to go that far. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you'll allow me briefly to let Reed come up on the transportation issues? Or do you want to wait until after the public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd rather the public heard everything that your group has to say as well so that when they come up and speak to us they have all that into consideration as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, because I would like Reed to come up and tell you what his analysis is, now that it's 80,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 square feet of office, and the functionality of the intersection and functionality ofImmokalee Road. I think that would be beneficial. Now, staff obviously will not have had an opportunity to review Reed's information, but at least you'll have the benefit of his analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And we'll hear Reed then in just a moment. I want to ask David one question. Because something you said, I'm not sure it coincides with what David had intended. And since he's busy talking to Corby, maybe Randy can answer me. And Randy's not even there. I thought he -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's on the phone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He's on the phone on the floor. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He's on the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he is? Boy, he sure gets small quickly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's ducking your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had previously I thought made a suggestion that if we wanted to consider this you would try your best if it was continued to November 19th to review it. I didn't -- is that a request of your department or is that just something you're suggesting if we want to see this -- if we think there's some reason to consider this? MR. WEEKS: If you want to entertain the changes that have been presented today, we would-- staff would request a continuance to give us time to evaluate it. Which would be very limited. We're tallcing about five or six work days to evaluate this and write a new staff report, revised staff report, and provide it to you. If you don't wish to entertain these changes, then we stand by our existing staff report and recommendation. And also, just to quickly respond to Richard's comment, not to get the back and forth but just to say as far as the working with the applicant, again because there's only about six days before we would need to get staff report out to you, that does not leave us time to work back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. WEEKS: Regrettably. Because we -- staff doesn't disagree that there is a benefit of having that dialogue, but you need to have this a week or more in advance, November II th is a holiday, we're just tight on time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of anticipated that would be the outcome anyway, so -- MR. COHEN: But Mr. Chairman, at the same time, we would commit to obviously meeting with them initially right afterwards to ensure that we've got the totality of what they're submitting, you know, and that we would be reviewing it accordingly. Page 43 16 I l' At;r 29,19 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And then Reed wanted to come up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's what I was asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your presentation was previously fmished. Let's just keep this to the point and we'll go on after that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just going to call Reed up, that's all I was simply going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is this not a question also whether there's sufficient information that already has been submitted to make a decision? And perhaps the information we have is sufficient to make a decision. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- no need to stretch this out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the discussion we can have when we get done hearing the public. We can have all those discussions, Mr. Kolflat, absolutely. Okay, Reed, go right ahead. MR. JARVI: My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer wiili Omega Consulting Group. I did the second and third -- or I guess it's the third and fourth traffic impact statements for this project, being the one previous was the 260,000, the 41-acre parcel and then a more recent one beginning of October for the new program of 80,000 of retail and 40,000 office. And just to highlight that, we responded in our TIS to the comments from the staff in this new program, and I'll just highlight those, as the main issue seems to be lnlmokalee Road at the intersection, as John said, that is a policy constrained road, I thinlc. Is that the right words? Policy constrained in that we are required to look at it as a four-lane road, which was previous to the six-lane construction, which is -- and then the now eight-lane construction that's currently under construction. So with that data today, this segment of the road is over capacity. And with our project -- with this project it would be further over capacity. However, that segment of roadway, the 1-75 interchange area which is going to eight-lane and will have some kind of modified six or eight-lane capacity in the future, that is scheduled for completion the end of this year, first of next year. So it's soon, well before this project could ever possibly put any traffic on the road. With that said, I've discussed the potential capacities with Mike Green at transportation planning, and using his numbers or using the numbers that were there previous to the -- excuse me, the capacity numbers previous to the policy constraint, that segment ofImmokalee Road does function within standards, or will function within standards, projected to function standards, with or without this project. So lnlmokalee Road does not seem to be the answer -- does not seem to be an issue from a concurrency standpoint in the near future. Currently, yes. Near future, no. We've also looked at the intersection that was mentioned that -- with all the U-turns at the intersection. I have done the analysis looking at 2015 as a threshold year, and used only the only in access on Logan Boulevard being that anything that would go east would have -- excuse me, everything would have to come out of Logan Boulevard, go north and do either a right turn, left turn or U-turn, and some northbound. With that in mind and putting in the projected number from today, we did a count about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, projected that to peak season as we normally do, projected it to 2015 as we normally do, put in the vested trips that are already out there, put in our project trips. It does work within level of Page 44 16 I 1 ~A~erI009 service standards. That's the intersection using all the U-turns at that intersection; so northbound to southbound U-turns. Assuming there is no left out of the project. Also assumes there's no access on Innnokalee Road, which is, you know, the most conservative situation. As John said, they are not saying necessarily no to an Innnokalee Road access, it's just not their preference at this time. My estimation is having a right in/right out on Innnokalee Road would probably benefit this project and the traffic circulation in that area. The last thing we did look at, there was a statement that was highlighted here, I thinlc it was Page 12, that talked about the project doesn't meet the standards with -- and I'm paraphrasing -- vested project in zoned trips. As you may remember when we've gone through the TIS guidelines several years ago, there was nothing about zoned trips. It is impossible to know what the zoned trips would be. We do a growth rate, we do the AUIR trip bank, the vested trips, yes. We don't do zone trips. However, I did talk to staff about a long-range forecast, 2013, and they have -- the most recent numbers are from the interchange justification report at the 1-75 intersection -- or excuse me, potential interchange. They gave me numbers for that for 2025 and 2035, which we equated to 2030 looking at long-range projections. It still doesn't meet the -- what is assumed to be the standards ofImmokalee Road in the future. So in a nutshell it appears with this new project, all the projections I've done show that it does fall within what we thinlc the future standards of InnnokaIee Road will be. And that ends my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you started I knew that you would not be agreeing with staff, so thank you for your discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Reed, irrespective of whether you have sufficient availability on the roadway, on the Innnokalee entrance is there room for a de-cel. lane? MR. JARVI: Yeah, I don't have the exact frontage in front of me, but I thinlc it's about 700 feet, if I remember right, on Innnokalee Road. A typical de-cel. lane would be, for 45 miles an hour is 185 feet, I thinlc. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I can't imagine with a 45 mile an hour road that you'd be inviting traffic at 90-degree angle turns in there. That certainly wouldn't be something. MR. JARVI: It's six or 700 feet. So there is adequate room to put a turn laJle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the property that we're talking about that we were shown would also probably have to be given up in order to facilitate that. But that's another matter. Logan, assuming you cannot make a left out of that easement over into Logan, you spoke of U-turns. And I don't know, sure it can be qualified, but do they do U-turns at major intersections? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. In fact, the -- as we talked just briefly about, most any major intersection has U-turns at it right now. There are some that actually prevent U-turns. There are some -- and that's because of the phasing of the signals. But aInlOst every intersection in the urban area has U-turns. And with the access management plan we have now in place, as Rich alluded to briefly, it almost requires U-turns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. JARVI: Because as we said, the intersection spacing with the access management plan, because the speed limits are deemed to be high speed, the division is 45 miles an hour, and almost all of our six-lane roads are 45 mile an hour speed limits. So that's deemed to be high speed. That intersection spacing for a six-lane road is for signals half a mile. For a full access it's a quarter mile. However, realistically you can't do a full access on a six-lane road, or you shouldn't, because it's an issue. Page 45 '16 I I ~tAe~'2dl COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I appreciate your answer, but I'm having a hard time appreciating how this project could even capture -- adequately capture any traffic going eastbound on lnlmokalee or people coming up from the area that was shown as the market area, in effect without being trapped in traffic situations that probably would require some significant changes to the intersection to allow all those U-turns. MR. JARVI: The intersection currently has two northbound left turn lanes, and the left most of the left turn lanes would be the U-turn could be a left. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute, orient me correctly. Which intersection -- which road on the intersection? MR. JARVI: Logan Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: The northbound approach on Logan has -- was constructed when they recently did Logan and lnlmokalee Road for an ultimate configuration, which has two northbound left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right -turn lane. So it's an ultimate configuration for that intersection. In fact, maybe something that wasn't brought out, Logan Boulevard in general in this area is a two-lane road, but the intersection is set -- is done for four lanes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm confused, because there is no light there, right? MR. JARVI: No, there is a signal there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a signal. I'm not obviously seeing that. MR. JARVI: It's fairly new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: But there is a signal there now, and it does accommodate U-turns currently. In our situation we would anticipate more than likely there could be left turn out of this access, but when there's a four-lane configuration, there more likely will not be left turn out because the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I hear you. And maybe if I get to talk to John again, I'm going to ask him whether or not they intend to permit a continuation of U-turns at an intersection which is going to be intense with all the people going home and after work and so forth. But maybe it's moot, I don't know, I'm going to find out. MR. JARVI: When we did our count, I don't have it in front of me, but there were a few U-turns at that intersection. I thinlc it was more the east-west direction than north-south, but there were a few U-turns, not many. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'd like to go to public speakers, unless there's any other questions from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. David, do you want -- Randy, do you want to call public speakers. And then anybody that hasn't submitted a slip, we will still ask you to come up. Please identify yourself and state your address for the record, including your zip code. That way if any mailings have to be sent out, we have it on record. And we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but that's not a hard fast rule. Just if you're not repetitive that's the best thing we can ask for. MR. COHEN: JoAnne Day, followed by Gary Lusher. MS. DAY: Hello. I'll try and be brief. My name is JoAnne Day. I live on Khasia Point in Saturrtia Lakes. First I thinlc it's disingenuous for the developers to say that most are in favor of this project. I've been to both of the community meetings. I have seen one person who is in favor of it locally, and one who Page 46 16 1 11At~r29109 comes in and speaks for the developer. So that to me -- unless I'm unaware of somebody else, I don't know, maybe I was sleeping. So anyway, first of all, when you -- I'm not telling you anything you don't know. When you look at the photos, when you look at the aerials, you see Olde Cypress, Longshore Lakes, Saturrtia Lakes, the new Saturrtia Falls, which is right across the nice green area, they're all residential. Logan, down Logan, all residential, no commercial. This developer must prove a need for a change in the development area. There is no need for commercial and retail space here, not in the middle of thousands of residential homes. There's already an abundance of empty store fronts locally. Within a quarter of a mile there's empty store fronts; across from Gulf Coast High School there's empty store fronts, down Inunokalee there's empty store fronts. It's unbelievable, as you well know. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know. And Target as well. So what we have are two large areas, commercial areas, on either end. We have the Target area and then we have the Inunokalee and Collier area that are large commercial areas with also large areas for growth. So those are there as well. Then we have what you all were just discussing which is the traffic pattern at Logan and Inunokalee. And I would love people to come at rush hour and try and take a U-turn, follow the traffic up north coming to go to 75. It will -- it's getting worse. It will become a nightmare. When you see people trying to cross that road to get into say a Lowe's or a Home Depot or a gas station, it will become a real nightmare for a traffic pattern, there is no question. I mean, it's asking for problems that we don't need at this point. I mean, there's just plenty of other areas that are more easily accessible to have. Plus the idea of tractor trailers coming into that small area doing U-turns where they cannot do them will be a very interesting exercise. I'll be anxious to see them. So anyway, we also believe and are concerned in our community that the commercial space can become an attractive nuisance for the high school, which is very close by, the students walk, and the elementary school, which is right next to the high school there. So, you know, we have a lot of school age children that walk right around the comer there. And if we put in some commercial properties that we -- could be an attractive nuisance, we could have some problems there as well, everybody knows that. Anyway, it's my opinion, as well as many of my neighbors, that this project does not belong here. We agree with staff recommendation that it really belongs elsewhere. We hope that you agree as well, and we thank you for time and effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. COHEN: Gary Lusher, followed by Mary Jane Cary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we doing okay here? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. MR. LUSHER: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the record, my name's Gary Lusher. I'm a resident of Olde Cypress, I live at 3080 Terramar Drive in Olde Cypress. The zip code is 34119. I'm here today on behalf of the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association board of directors. I serve on that board. And I would like to enter into the record a correspondence that we drafted for Mr. Schmidt with the comprehensive planning department related to this petition. And I'll read it to be very succinct. On behalf of the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association, please accept this letter as notification of our objection to the amendment of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to remove the property urban residential sub-district designation to establish the LoganlImmokalee mixed use sub- district. Page 47 1 'A3t 'I 16 , October 29. ~009 Our intent is not to impede commercial development on lnlmokalee Road. But we feel that the! ~ are more than adequate established commercial sites and opportunities available both east and west of t! e property under consideration that should accommodate commercial expansion for many years into the future. We have also taken into consideration several additional factors that may become issues, shouh! the petition be approved, which are as follows: A commercial development entry to the property just east I' 'the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection will affect the traffic flow through the intersection. Tb, need for a turn lane will also add to this specific problem. The existing developments to the north and east of the property were developed with specific iT' ent to maintain a gated residential community signature and esthetic appearance. This was intended to mai Iltain value, desirability and attractiveness of the respective communities. As a community, Olde Cypress is uncomfortable with the unknown commercial interest complementing what now exists. The renderings provided by the agents for the petitioner at the information meeting held on Oct! ber 26th show retail and office space that was substantially blocked from view from both Logan Boulevard md Immokalee Road. Although only an opinion, it would appear that retail establishments would have litt1. : use for space without maximum visibility to the public. Agents for the petitioner named at least two projects in Collier County where mixed use sub- districts have been established. A brief examination of those will reveal the presence of significant commercial activities in the immediate proximity prior to the change of designation. There is none at tl ,is location. Agents for the petitioner related that independent study revealed the highest and best use for Jhc property as commercial. Although this results in more taxable value, it does nothing to preserve the gel eral scheme of the established residential communities. Future traffic demands related to the four-lane expansion of Logan Boulevard and the continual on of Logan Boulevard north of lnlmokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road also is of concern based on incre<l ,ed traffic and egress issues for southbound travel from Olde Cypress and any additional communities nortl of aide Cypress. Presently two large residential developments are planned. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and please contact our association president, Sh01! ld you have additional questions. Thank you very much for your time and attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Mary Jane Cary, followed by Walter Cary. MS. CARY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mary Jane Cary. I'm a small busine, owner and a property owner in Satumia Lakes PUD. I live at 2073 Painted Palm Drive, Naples, Florid: , 34119. In order to understand an issue, I like to gather the facts from all the parties involved and make observations. So for this project I need facts from the developers, as well as from Collier County. So what data have I found? From the developers, I gathered an April, 2007 aerial map with the' original 40-acre proposed project. Well, I was out of town for the first neighborhood information meet ,ng but attended the second one October 26th, where I saw an aerial map of the proposed 18-acre project. saw three proposed conceptual designs, even though the developer said, quote, the client hasn't seen them, unquote. Regarding building heights, I heard the developer say, quote, nothing would be taller than two-story, unquote. Page 48 16 I, 1 ~~lerJo09 I also heard the developer say that the county's commercial planning projections are wrong, but were any facts, analyses or reports provided? No. Was any traffic analysis or reports provided? No. My husband requested a copy of the revised traffic analysis from the developer. Have we received it yet? No. Now, this morning I did hear some new information. But I'm hoping that some facts and analyses and reports will become more available. - Moving on. What kind of county data have I found? From Collier County I found zoning maps, land use maps, ownership records. I found the current Land Development Code with its descriptions and permitted uses for agricultural and Estates districts, PUDs and C-I through C-4 commercial zones. I found Exhibit A for the proposed BCC ordinance, along with the county's planning staff analysis report for the original40-acre project. And I started to notice that the staff analysis report matches some of my observations. I live surrounded by Estates and single-family homes. There are commercial centers within one to two miles at the 1-75 and the Collier Boulevard intersections, and traffic in those areas seems to flow in, out and through those areas, you know, as kind of as if it were planned. These areas have several empty store fronts and there are also open undeveloped areas in those centers for future use. There are two smaller commercial districts within a half to three quarters -- or two-thirds of a mile at Quail Creek and Olde Cypress. These smaller districts have even more empty store fronts. And they have some additional open space for future use. And look at the parking lots of all these commercial centers. They're a third full, which means they're two-thirds empty. So maybe the county staff conclusion that we have three times the commercial space we need in the area now seems kind of reasonable? In fact, given the amount of own space awaiting future development in all ofthese existing centers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the needs of the current and projected population in this area through even probably 2030 can probably be met through the continuation of the existing Collier County Growth Management Plan. So where is the compelling argument in favor of modifying the zoning of this property? Has anybody seen any compelling data in the developer's analysis or reports? Because I really haven't seen any in the county's data, analysis or reports. So at this point I'm willing to abide by the recommendations contained in the staff report submitted to this commission for the October 19th, 2009 meeting. For under these circumstances, I'd rather walk or drive just a little bit further like I'm doing right now east or west on lnlmokaIee Road or to points even further away from my home than live with a constant reminder of another developer's unsubstantiated dream. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And just before the next speaker I want to make a note to the Planning Commission. We're going to be up for a break or for lunch in about five or 10 minutes. I'll ask you all when we get to that point if we want to continue through and fmish this, because I thinlc we can, rather than take a lunch break today, but at least we'll have to gave Cherie' a break at about II -- well, that clock says 10:45, but -- so until then we'll continue with the public. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Walter Cary, followed by Sally Kirk. MR. CARY: Good morrting, almost to be good afternoon. I'm Walt Cary. I live in Satumia Lakes on Painted Palm Drive. I have talked to several of my neighbors in the last few days about this planned project, and most of Page 49 16 11 ~:\ 3 c&er29,2009 them have stated exactly what the prior speakers have stated, that they feel that there's enough commercial endeavors within our ability to drive in a short time that another commercial site is not really needed. And I go along with that. A commercial site would add a considerable amount of more nighttime lighting in the area that's reflected up. It would damage our quality of life. We all like to sit out around our nice beautiful lake we have, watch the stars and just enjoy the nighttime. So I would ask this commission to not approve the rezoning of this area to allow another commercial site. I believe we have enough in the area, and I don't mind driving a little extra distance. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Sally Kirk. And I guess it would be after the break Janet Vasey. MS. KIRK: Good morning. I'm Sally Kirk. I'm the president of Longshore Lake Foundation. I live at 11180 Phoenix Way, Naples, 34119. I can't say much more than alreadys been said much more eloquently than I probably could. And I only ask that you do not recommend approval of this change to the Growth Management Plan. We talk about the commercial areas that are currently vacant along our corridor, and I thinlc that speaks for itself. And we too are concerned about the additional traffic in the area, particularly the U-turns. I personally have been aInlOst hit right there at Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road when maIcing a U-turn, as is the case at Valewood and Immokalee Road where you have to make a U-turn in order to go west onto Inunokalee Road. So that's always a concern to myself and my neighbors. That's pretty much all I have to say. Because as I said, it's already been said in a much better manner. So I thank you for your time and have a good day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, could the speaker clarifY whether or not she was speaking on behalf of herself or her organization. MS. KIRK: No, I'm speaIcing on behalf of Longshore Lake Foundation. I'm the president of that organization. MR. COHEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next speaker? I thinlc Ms. Vasey's up, and then probably go for a break after that. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey for the record, 4398 Longshore Way North. And the zip code is 34119. I'm an 18-year resident of Longshore Lake, and I'm really frustrated at having to try and comment on a plan that has changed for us today. We were unaware of some of the earlier meetings and so didn't even know that it was dropping from 41 acres to 18. But some of my concerns are still valid, I thinlc. I agree that this -- what is happening here as a commercial area is being dropped into a place where we've got residential all around, and I don't thinlc that that reflects good planning. I think you should leave that area residential and not put any commercial in there. The issue of population. The staff had I thought a very excellent point when they were looking at over-commercialization. And they said, and I'm quoting, that we don't need more than two times the commercial space necessary to serve the estimated population in 2030. And even with the downsized commercial property that they're talking about now, I would think that that statement may be not to the same degree, but it would still apply, we don't need more commercial than we need and the population can support. And as to traffic, I was very concerned about the traffic analysis based on the 41 acres, because when that section of road from the interstate -- on Immokalee from the interstate to Logan was only Page 50 1 6 I 1 OtAJ20091 four-laned, it was a nightmare, just a nightmare with all the population coming from the east going west. And then when it was -- it's now six-laned. If you put in more traffic than the road can handle, it -- that's not a place you ever want to live. You can't even get out of your development. And it's frustrating for all the other people east of us trying to get through backed up. So I would say that if you're going to wait and get a new traffic analysis based on the new redesign, please don't approve anything that transportation says that can't be supported by Immokalee Road. One thing that Wayne mentioned that I'd just like to address, he said that the interchange activity center is for regional uses. I'd just like to say that we don't know it as regional uses, we know it as that's our local store. And there's lots of stores. That interchange intersection has Wal-Mart, Publix, Target and all the other associated stores that go with it. And that's our local. And we're fine with it. It works fme, it's not far away, and I can't see that we have any need for anything more now or it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't needed well into the future, we wouldn't need anything more. So thanlc you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And with that, I'd like to ask the Plamting Commission, I thinlc it's best if we just skip lunch, work through this. Because we can probably fmish up before 1:00. And then we'll just take a IS-minute break. By our time we'll come back at noon, by that clock we'll come back at 11:00. (Recess?) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on record, everyone, just to let you know. We're talking. Planning Commission is not going to break for lunch, we're going to continue through. And do we have anymore registered speakers, Randy? MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Gene Mayberry, followed by I believe it's Tim Witherite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Mayberry, if you'll come up and use one of the mics. Or Mr., I'm sorry. MR. MAYBERRY: Good afternoon, gentlemen -- good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to say and ladies. MR. MAYBERRY: And ladies. I apologize. My name is Gene Mayberry. I live at 7424 Treeline Drive, in Olde Cypress, Naples. Zip code, 34119. I abut that vacant area that you see there that you gentlemen, ladies, previously recognized as Vita T oscana. And as you recall, you addressed that subject about a year ago. The developer abandoned that, left it in very deplorable condition. And thanks to your support, that property was leveled and has been seeded. And we extend a special thank you for your support in that regard. In respect to today's petition, we do not need another prospective abandoned site. And as has been remarked this morrting, you go about a mile west and there's a commercial site that is probably about 50 percent developed. The 50 percent that is developed is probably about 50 percent empty. And you go down towards 75 that's been remarked to, the Target Store, that property is somewhere probably between 30 and 40 percent developed, if that. The 30 or 40 percent that's developed, there's about five empty buildings in that project. The land around it is barren with weeds and dirt. That also brings me back to the other commercial site that I alluded to a little bit earlier. There are vacant lots in there with pipes sticking out of the ground where developers have abandoned the project for lack of demand. You go east about another mile, and adjacent from the high school is another 20-acre commercial site. Again, it's probably about the same condition as the other sites, only about 30 or 50 percent developed. Vacant stores, vacant windows, signage with lots available to be developed. Page 5 1 16 I ]pc!beAJoo91. You go down to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and lnlmokaIee and there's an area down there that's probably about 40 acres, 30 to 40 acres; rocks, sand and there's one loan CVS that's spawning from the ground. Gentlemen, North Naples is almost starting to look like a modem Detroit. We have a lot of abandoned lots and, as you can see, space that is not being marketed. All these abandoned empty commercial projects are a blight to our communities. And it does not project well for prospective buyers coming into the community; that is, there does not appear to be growth, there appears to be abandonment. We do not need another developer to, pardon me, you know, take abuse of the earth, leave it abandoned and further poke another stick into our eye. It is not sound policy to continue this unabated commercial stripping of land without adequate justification for merits of the project. And r thinlc we all -- well, not all, there's some certainly -- but the majority of us today do not feel that this project has adequate justification to proceed forward. r thinlc at the point in time that the developer could demonstrate that there was a need for the project, perhaps we'd be agreeable to hearing that product plan. But as of today, we do not see a product that warrants consideration of this petition moving forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Tim Witherite, followed by Diane Ebert. MR. WITHERITE: Good morrting, Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the time to talk. I'm Tim Witherite, 6060 Shady Oaks Lane, in the Oakes Boulevard neighborhood to the west of this project. I'm the president of the Oakes Estates Advisory Board. We're a voluntary neighborhood orgartization, we represent the interests of the neighborhood there on Oakes Boulevard. We're a long-established neighborhood. We've been there since I believe the late Sixties. We were platted a long time ago, along with Golden Gate. So we've been there long before anybody else was around us. Our stance on this right now is going to remain neutral, okay, and it's for a couple of reasons. Originally we were very concerned with the original design and shape of this property or proposed development. As it stands right now, we're going to remain neutral because of the down-sizing. rfit stays as proposed right now, the downsized version of it, we will remain as neutral on it, because it does not have any direct effect on our neighborhood. We have the property separating us from our neighborhood there. So there would be no profound direct effect on us at this time. We do share the concerns of our neighbors and the other developments, though, for, you know, traffic and abundance of commercial up in that area. There's, you know, some obvious problems there. But officially we will remain neutral at this time. Now, I say that at this time. However, there's a couple of things we want brought forward on the record. rfthe property to the south, the Colin Walker property, the nursery, the landscaping area, if that should for any reason come back into this proposed project, or should it be proposed into another development in the future, which is all very likely, we do have a couple of grave concerns for our neighborhood. And one would be the protection of east end of Hidden Oaks Lane, there you can see on the map. When Logan Boulevard was extended through there, our neighborhood was pretty well protected by the -- because if you know our neighborhood, it's pretty heavily forested, so we have a lot oflandscaping between us and the road. The one exception was Hidden Oaks. For some reason, just the way it worked out, it was very well cleared out and those homes are sitting right there exposed to Logan Boulevard. Page 52 16 J 1 1Ati\29,19 Should the property on the other side become developed, that's where our concern was, is that we would want to see some sort of barrier put across through there to protect those homes so they aren't sitting in their houses looking across the street at who knows, shops, centers, office building, we don't know, okay. The other concern we would have in the future too is -- and this is an ongoing concern we've had for many years, I think some of you are probably aware of it, is that we absolutely are steadfast against any of our streets being ever connected to Logan Boulevard. We have a gentleman's agreement with the county on that that won't happen but it's just that, gentleman's agreement. So we just want to make sure, we want that on the record. Should the southern end of this come back into this proposal or any future proposals, then we will object to that, unless we have some, you know, considerations given to our neighborhood. All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, appreciate it. Next speaker? MR. COHEN: It's Diane Ebert, followed by either any unregistered speakers or Corby Schmidt reading into the record a couple e-mails. MS. EBERT: Good morrting, Commissioners. For the record, Diane Ebert, 2898 Lone Pine Lane, in Olde Cypress, 34119. I have been to both meetings that Rich Yovanovich and Mr. Wayne Arnold have given. Originally it is correct, it was 41 acres. I have maybe different concerns because all of a sudden they pulled out the other acreage. But to be honest, there is 50 acres there, and once you get the zoning, the other two owners can hook on because the zoning is there. And you cannot come out of Olde Cypress right now and turn left or right going east or west without passing commercial. The area that you do see that is vacant right now has been seeded, but that is 446 acres, which was Vita Tuscana. And that was designed for single-family homes also. We already have two activity centers there. And just because there is a new stoplight on Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard does not mean we have to have commercial. According to the owner's agents, Logan Boulevard lacks commercial development. We say that's ruce. This is nothing more than a strip type mall spot zoning into our area. And this county pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for this Growth Management Plan, and then to have someone come along and just want to change everything and do this spot development I thinlc is not justice to the rest of us that live there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there any other -- is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak who has not already spoken? Okay, well -- sir? Come on up and use the microphone, provide your identity, we'll be in good shape. MR. RIZZO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Name is Ben Rizzo. Spell it? R-I-Z-Z-O. 2158 Khasia Point, in Saturrtia Lakes, 34119. K-H-A-S-I-A. I appreciate you hearing what we have to say, and I don't want to take your time up, so I'm just going to say that I agree with all the objections which were made to this project of more commercial space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else from the public that would like to speak? (No response.) Page 53 1A3 II 16 I. lctober 29, 2009 . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby, you want to get something on for the record, I understand? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. There were two correspondences that staff received during the last few days. For one of them, that person already spoke to you previously during this hearing so I'll skip that e-mail. The other one from a Mr. Barry Tulin of Butterfly Palm Drive. As a resident of Saturnia Lakes and Naples, Florida, I am against the subject petition mentioned above. I do not understand the proposal is f<lr is work to be done in the future to accommodate future growth -- I'm sorry. He reads, I do understand tbe proposal is for work to be done in the future to accommodate future growth. However, I think that think ing is premature. No one knows how long it will take to fill any of the empty homes, offices and retail space that is now available in Naples and our specific area. I also don't feel that any additional office or retail space is needed or wanted in the area designated by the petition, and I certainly don't want any more traffic in the area, already having to cope with the ln1mokalee Road construction for some four years now. I also believe that the proposed drawings that were shown were not representative of the final outcome. And I believe he's referring to the preliminary site plans or concept plans. The retail portion of the plan showed the stores set back and partially covered by trees. No one would want their stores shielded from traffic, they would want their stores or signage proudly displayed. At the meeting which I attended at the Saturnia Lakes social hall on Monday evening, October 26th, it was clear to me that the majority of concerned people there were also very much against the above petition. Please take these comments into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, at break David said you may want to put something on for record, some analysis of your own? David? He's looking at me with this puzzled look. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. Given the idea that you may act on this today and not lay it over, I want to make sure that on the record we reiterated some of the findings that still might be valid, even with the reduction in square footage: The fewer owners; the lack or the different access onto Logan Boulevard; the restricted mix of uses, or whatever the final presentation to you might be or to staff forthcoming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you previously -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Excuse me, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Corby, could you repeat that slowly so we could jot that down what those items were? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got an idea along those lines. You previously supplied a list of bullet items on Page 15 and 16. And if you really have concerns of this new one that you're familiar enough with to respond in regards to which one of those would still be valid or invalid based on the reductions to the extent you heard without a full analysis, that might be the best way to approach it in an organized manner so we can understand where you're coming from. MR. SCHMIDT: Simply stating that many of those points still stand. For instance, the staff analysis of the market study shows that there is no need for additional commercial space through the year 2030. Reducing the amount of square footage or the acreage would not change that. So that's why we're interested in seeing those materials in the future. For those that would still stand and certainly we mentioned earlier, there are viable uses on the property, and there still would be even in the reduction in size. One that was newly introduced because ofthe change as we've heard it here today, the reduction in size really reduces or elinlinates any merits the petition would have had as a mixed use sub-district that Page 54 . 16 I 1 "t~:\29,"9 could have met some of the criteria for the community character plan for the county. Your FLUE Objective 7, it's under policies. Now we have a single use being introduced at the intersection of a smaller size and an inability to meet those criteria. With the reduction in size or acreage it would no longer serve as a community center or community sized shopping facility but now another neighborhood center. And I believe that the petitioners themselves or the agent touched on this, that the adjacent properties' change here might lead to advanced or additional requests similar to this on adjacent properties. Well, when it was one large piece there was some merit to that contention, and we present that many times and you hear it because there's a basis for it. Here now that I've removed some of the properties, leaving them vacant for future development, introducing commercial to part of it even makes that a stronger argument. Now those adjacent pieces more certainly will come in for the same kinds of requests. And finally, we've already seen in the staff report materials that there's an over-allocation of commercial space, both existing and potential for the future, enough to serve the market areas shown and even a greater area. An over-allocation of commercial space is one of the primary indicators of urban sprawl. And that's one of the things the DCA has told us recently they're looking stronger at. And here's a situation where not only do I remove the residential potential over the property where I would have avoided sprawl by providing the residents close to the existing shopping opportunities, I'm taking that opportunity away with this amendment to the FLUE and instead I'm replacing it with additional commercial opportunities to fewer residents, just the opposite of where we're supposed to be going. Someone said it wasn't good planning -- MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, correct me ifI'm wrong, but I believe what you want, in addition to what Corby just went through, was going to the findings and conclusions on Page 15 and expressly articulating whether or not each one of those bullet points apply, based on what was introduced today as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifhe wasn't going to do it, I was going to ask him, so one way or another. That's what I'm trying to get to. I understand your presentation, Corby, but like the first one, you believe it was spot zoning as originally presented. Do you still believe it's spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: Even more so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the kind ofresponse I wanted to your bullets, because that's -- I guess the meat of your conclusions are right there. So if you could proceed down that -- I don't want to read it to you, I thinlc you -- MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. We've already shown a number of times or in different ways there's no additional need for commercial. Reducing that amount of square footage doesn't change that threshold. It doesn't meet any new numbers, doesn't meet any new demands or different. The magnitude and scale of the project, it simply provides -- would provide, if it was approved, another typical neighborhood center. There are only significant impacts to transportation facilities. And you've already heard some testimony this mOrrllng that although you may not have the constraints imposed, once the construction project is completed on Immokalee Road, you still have a problem at that intersection, and some of those other situations would not be eliminated by this change. You still have the situation with existing neighborhood generators being just a half a mile or more away in one direction, less than two-thirds of a mile away in another direction, and community center shopping areas a little over one mile away to the west and a little less than two miles away to the east along Immokalee Road. Page 55 16 I 1 ~d\toir29,_9 We talked also earlier about the viability of the project. That bullet point does not change. The residential viability of this project had a higher density than exampled by the agent earlier. It's not just a three or four-acre item, but here we saw that if rezoned to its potential as a residential neighborhood, likely up to 12 units per acre could be the density we would see there. We still have a situation where there's a problem with access onto lnlmokalee Road. We haven't heard anything to reverse or change the idea that there might be some there now with the smaller property or the narrower frontage. And the others I've covered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you want a short rebuttal opportunity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like a long one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've had a lot of time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I haven't had a chance to respond to the public or some of what staff just said. I was being facetious about long, I would appreciate -- I've never taken a long time on rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I've never cut you off either. But if you thinlc you're going to take an hour or two, that's not going to work. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't have the stamina for an hour or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ijust find some of what was just said to lack any credibility. I would like to know how staff can base their decision that there are other viable uses on this site. I didn't see a single analysis of viability of other sites. And to my knowledge, I don't think any of your staff that testified today have any experience on the private side on viability of projects. Nor did we ever say there were not other uses that can be made on that site. What we said was low density residential at this corner was not a viable use. And we stand by that statement. Low density residential use on this corner is not a viable use of the corner. The standard that we have to meet is not are there other uses on the property. Is there data and analysis so support what we're requesting is the standard we have to meet. There are two reports you have in your packet. You have our report prepared by Chuck Mohlke who knows what he's doing and has concluded that there is a demand for what we're requesting, and that this location can meet the demand. He factored in all of the sites your staffs talking about. He factored in the two small retail sites that are on lnlmokalee Road, on the north side oflnlmokalee Road. He factored in Quail II that's predominantly office. He factored in the small retail that's in Olde Cypress. He factored that in and he concluded that yes, there still is demand to be met on this corridor. We put up a transportation consultant who did analyze the reduced request and he testified that there are no transportation related questions. That's been uncontroverted because your staffhas not been given an opportunity to review that. To conclude that there are still transportation related problems related to our reduced request is not fair. It's not accurate. We put a credential consultant up to show you that there's not. Staff can't conclude that there still are problems. I almost got up here and said, tongue in cheek, we'll accept Corby's offer of 12 units per acre density. But you know and I know that's never going to happen on this site. We're never going to get 12 units an acre approved on this site. To get to 12 units per acre we'd have to come in with an eight unit per acre bonus. And how do you Page 56 16 1 1 tcAe~, 20:1 get to an eight unit per acre bonus on this site? I only know of one way, and that's through the affordable housing density bonus program. And I don't thinlc that 12 units per acre is going to get approved today under the affordable housing density bonus program. Now, one thing I do thinlc we qualify for is the -- we're less than 20 acres so we would be -- we would qualify for residential infill that would allow us to get to two seven units per acre, and that's a possibly for this site. Now, of course we'd have to -- I call it six for free, you buy one under the TDR program, so it costs you something to get to the residential infill. But I do thinlc that that site, you know, you might be able to get to seven as a residential density but certainly not 12 the way you would have to get there. I'm not surprised by the people who spoke today. I mean, they were the same people at our NIM and they basically said there's enough commercial out there. I told you from the outset I didn't thinlc I persuaded them any differently at the neighborhood information meeting. That's okay. We do believe that the project that we have put in front ofthem and the conceptual plans will work for a retail and office use. What it comes down to is do you want to continue to accept the activity center generated retail and office concept as the only place in Collier County that you can have retail and office development? If that's the answer, that will be the only place that under no other circumstances can you justify other retail and office opportunities, you know, I guess I lose. But that's not how it's been historically done. When you can show at intersections of major roads __ and you've got Inunokalee Road in a four-lane intersection with Logan -- appropriately scaled retail and office can occur in predominantly residential areas. That's happened. And I thinlc a good example of planning on a roadway, and I go to the King's Lake Shopping Center. That's a neighborhood scale retail project. Publix anchored shopping center. It's not a big shopping center, but it certainly does serve a lot of homes in the area. I could envision the same scale of development at this intersection. There are a lot of homes in this area that that type of center can serve. We're asking for the opportunity to have our reduced request analyzed by your staff and come back to you with an analysis. Not an off-the-cuff analysis, because I honestly don't thinlc that they've given it much thought on what we're proposing and what those changes are. I don't thinlc that the activity center concept has been a good one. I mean, most people cited as where you don't like it. Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road is what every time we come in with a commercial change to the compo plan is thrown in our face. But that's an activity center. What we're suggesting is a smaller scale I8-acre project, not 160 acres of activity center development. We thinlc there's data and analysis to support our request. We thinlc the conceptual plans work. And with that, if you want to continue it, fine, if you don't want to continue it, we understand and we'll -- I don't know, I'm confused, do I give the data and analysis to staff or do I not on my 120,000 square foot proposal? Because we would still like to go forward with that and have the Planning Commission consider that, because we're responding to neighborhood information meetings well as well the staff report. And I couldn't do it ahead of time, I have to do it after the fact. So we're requesting that we be given consideration on our request and our data and analysis, but we'll see what comes from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any fmal questions of the applicant? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Rich, I would say that with your ability of persuasion, if you could get ingress and egress at the Saturnia Lakes entrance and then also at the southern point of that landscaping, you know, the southern end toward down Logan -- sorry, I got my tongue tied up -- that that may be viable. Highly improbable, but I thinlc that you could take care of some transportation problems that way and -- Page 57 16 , 1 ~ octo~ ~20ol MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Wolfley, I thinlc I have a shot at the one on Logan. I'm fairly certain I could be shot on the other one. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You would be shot, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, okay. So-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That would be a way to solve -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if you thinlc about what you're saying, and you have thought about it, obviously, is that if we had access onto Logan far enough from the intersection, full movements would be allowed to be made, because it's going to be a four-lane road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When it's four-Ianed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now I already have full movements. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, you know, that may -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It'll take it through the four-lane. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It may be a reasonable condition to impose is that I need to get access far enough south through my neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Well, that is -- and I take Logan quite often. And that lady that was pulling out ofOlde Cypress, it may have been me. Was it a pickup truck that almost hit you? It could have been me, because it can get pretty crazy there and you're uncertain where people are coming from and going there. So that is a tough intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, one thing I wanted to kind of -- you had said something to the effect that you didn't thinlc it was fair for staff to object without a new data and analysis. I thinlc that's about as equitable as you presenting all this stuff as late as it was presented. So I don't thinlc -- if you want to weigh fairness in this, that's not an issue. They did the best they could to respond to a question from the panel in regards to their objections or their positions on this, based on what little they've heard today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, Mr. Strain, I had asked for permission to submit it much earlier. So I will not accept the responsibility that we have spnrng it on staff, because I was not I couldn't give it to him sooner. And we can disagree on that, but we were not allowed to provide the data sooner for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have a 2007 dated GMP A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've been in the process a long time. And to do anything in the last 30 or 60 days is difficult to respond to in a manner that warrants a real good analysis. So they did the best they could and I thinlc they did it in response to us, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where I'11leave it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. And I will say again, I do have a 2007 date, and I got my first substantive review as to what they thought of the results of my analysis on October 1st, 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've heard all the public speakers. StaiIis finished, I assume. And with that in mind, we'll have discussion prior to motion. I just want to layout to the Planning Commission, we have three choices that I can see. One is we recommend to staff they review this and we continue it to the 19th. The second is that we recommend denial. And the third is that we recommend approval. Now, I don't know which way it's going to go, but before we even consider the first one, what is the agenda like on the 19th? Have you gotten input on that, David? Page 58 1 6 I 1 ~ctAe~, 20' MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. It's available. There are presently four petitions on that agenda: One PUD, one variance, one conditional use and the previously continued comprehensive plan amendment at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: Could I clarifY the record that with respect to approval or denial, would that be based on the petition as presented by the applicant today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into that motion, we'll be very specific. Okay, so before we go to motion, is there any further discussion or any discussion the Planning Commission would like to have before a motion? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Yeah, I mean, once they reduce the site, that made it totally -- I would never approve something that would be this spot zoning. Had Rich come in and said, guess what, I got the additional sites, so now we can totally plan that area, we can put in proper buffers, we can discuss the aesthetics of the corner. But I would never support an application of this size in that condition. It makes the other properties totally uncontrollable. And it would be probably the worst sprawl move we could make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other points of discussion, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, then I need to ask for a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: I'll make the motion that we deny as presented today transmittal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Or that we recommend denial for transmittal. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made to recommend denial for transmittal, made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Kolflat. Mr. Schiffer, your motion is made pursuant to the revised changes that were presented in the public meeting here today; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Kolflat, you concur with that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion of the motion. I am going to support the motion because it coincides with my agreement with staff that basically this is spot zoning, it does not show sufficient need, there are unresolved transportation issues, and there is ample enough commercial available in the surrounding neighborhood, or actually surrounding roadway. And so that's why I will support the motion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll support the motion. My basic reason is need. There is just not a need. And the custom area that they developed to try to create need was certainly creative, but I don't thinlc valid. Page 59 16 l 1 4CJ(rj'20ol I also have concerns about the traffic situation. I thinlc for a project of the original size or even this size, I thinlc we're going to run into a lot of traffic issues, so for those reasons I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to support the motion, obviously, I seconded it, because number one, it's all residential there, and we've seen that without question. And this is a hearing for growth management plamting, not for a PUD and dividing based on making the decision based on some of the details involved. And I thinlc the staffhas indicated that they are capable of making a satisfactory judgment and motion on the information they've got and that any new information in the areas they designated would have no bearing on the conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion to recommend denial, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all for your time and attendance today. That will go forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial, so -- Okay, I want to thank our records department again for the coffee. It kept us going today, and was especially helpful. I appreciate it. And Cherie' for her time and Kady for the attempted fix on our clock. With that in mind, I would like to ask the Planning Commission for a motion to continue to the November 19th meeting to hear CP-2008-3. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 60 1 A~ I 1 6 I ltober 29, ~0'If' (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. We are continued until the 18th. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~ These minutes approved by the Board on ['7"{I1! 0; ,as presented ~ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 61 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida Novelllberl9,2009 16 11"1\:;'0. / RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 (\, ' .. . . Fiala _~\Si-.--_.__.. Jtlalas :. c.~ ~ Henning:- '"l~_"... Coyle -... . ~-\cr\ Colettf\",- X",\.I;;\l Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Mise, Carres: Dale: ItIlm II: Page 1 Copies to: 16 , 1 ~v3btr ;009 >i CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morrting, everyone. Welcome to the November 19th Meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLLCALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If okay, will the secretary please make the roll calL COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. First item is addenda to the agenda. We have a request to continue the very fust item on today's agenda. It's Petition CP-2008-3. It's for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Element map series for a project at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The applicant has requested that we continue this. And I don't know how long, how far, but I think we'll hear more, then we'll need staffs -- both legal and staffs comment on it afterwards. Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Good morrting. Good morrting, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Patrick White, the law firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, representing the petitioners this mOrrllng on the request for a continuance. We're here seeking your indulgence. We've had a dialogue with the staff about what some of our options may be in terms of a point to continue to a date/time certain. As you know from the e-mail communication provided by staff yesterday regarding the civic association's letter, that we've been in a dialogue with them, and believe that by continuing to do so we can ~, Page 2 'oJl ~';.;' 16 1 ~0~1It~~,2:1 further the productive conversations we've had thus far. Given the upcoming holidays and other factors, it seems that we won't be able to complete those activities prior to the BCC's January 20 transmittal hearing, so we believe a time frame beyond that will be necessary to do the things that we've prelinlinarily discussed with the association and amongst ourselves about how we should proceed. And therefore, recognizing in the dialogue with staff that there is a separate track ongoing for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, we had a preliminary dialogue, Mr. Schrrtitt and Mr. Weeks, about those possibilities and what the various factors would be. Obviously for us this comes down to a desire to take advantage of the things we would have conversations and work with the association on, and not let them get stale. So we'd like to be able to do those things as quickly and be as productive about them as possible and get back before you as soon as we can. We feel that that time frame, which is presently mid February for your consideration of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, is about probably the minimum. We know that you have a rollover date to March 4. That's probably a bit more realistic for us. But in thinking about this logistically and in terms of advertising, which we can see because we're certainly talking about a time frame that's more than five weeks from now, that there would be additional advertising cost for, that there would be a way to continue to the February 16th, and at that point we would knowingly have a request before you to be continued to the rollover date of March 4. I thinlc that that helps to keep the two of the considerations you have, this Golden Gate Area Master Plan amendment and that and Immokalee Area Master Plan series of overall amendments kind of distinct in time and could give you some flexibility as to your deliberations. Part of our further conversation with staff of course has to do with some of the more I guess I'd say logistical aspects of moving forward in this manner. Prime among them of course from the two non-profits that are the petitioners here is the idea of being thrust into a position where a whole new filing fee might be necessary. We anticipate certainly that based upon our dialogue with the civic association and other neighbors that there may be modifications to the plan and certainly there's some need potentially for the staff to have to reevaluate what those changes might be. But we don't see those as being so vast or drastic that would make sense that we would essentially have to start over. So timing wise I think we have a point we can look to land as a date/time certain, with an understanding that we would then make a subsequent request for the March 4 date. That all leading up to the May 4th BCC consideration for transmittal, what's presently on the schedule for the lAMP and what would be for our proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan. I'm certain that staffhas other input they'd like to share with you. And as far as the legal considerations go, I thinlc the one thing that's out there that we're aware of, based on our dialogue with staff, is with regards to the number of cycles per year that the BCC, by resolution typically allows. Although the state statute allows too, and there's other exceptions and exemptions that I believe arguably may be sought by the lAMP process. We're amenable to, if we need to, going to the Board of County Commissioners and asking if need be for an exception to allow essentially what would be a limited -- I don't know if you could call it a second cycle, since it would be the fIrst one in 2010. But suffice it to say, knowing there's already one pending '09 cycle private petition, we recognize that that doesn't have any hearing date set yet. So I'm not exactly sure how that factors in. But I'm certain that what we're trying to do is the best thing for not only our petitioners, but for the staff in its process, as well as your consideration to get this thing before you as soon as we possibly can. And I'd be happy to answer any questions now or at the end of the dialogue between staff and legal. Page 3 16 I tveVtr3:201 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make some clarifications fIrst. Ray, on the schedules that were recently given to the Planning Commission as part of our packet for this week's agenda, on the January 29th, it shows the lnlmokalee Area Master Plan transmittal review by us. Is that date no longer good? MR. SCHMITT: Let me have David come up. David's got all the dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason that's important is I think if the dates are offwe need to make Mr. White aware of that quickly. Because ifhe's counting on combining his efforts with the lnlmokaIee Area Master Plan, we need to know what those dates are. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department. That January 29th date is no longer valid. On your December 3rd agenda, at the time we bring back the consent review for this 07-08 cycle of GMP amendments, staff is also going to be discussing a revision to the schedule for the lnlmokalee Area Master Plan, as well as a revision to the adoption portion of the 07-08 cycle. Short answer, January 29th is out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And David, you heard the presentation made by Mr. White, and I'm going to start with you and we'll ask the County Attorney afterwards what's your position on this. I do want to stress to you that the effort here is to respond better to what the community's desires may be. I think the community realizes that the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway is going to be something some day. Now, what that something is is where the I guess discrepancy is right now. So any effort to make that better for the community, I thinlc we should try to work with if we can. So with that in mind, what is staff's options in regards to the request by Mr. White? MR. WEEKS: Let me start with -- I don't know if worst case is the right term, but I'll start with the more extreme term, which I do not believe is being contemplated by the agent. And that would be if they were to request a lengthy continuance. And I would throw out perhaps six months or so as defined as lengthy. Possibly less. At that point staffs position is the application would need to be significantly revised. We would have new population data, we would have new commercial inventory data, we would have new AUIR adopted, approved and in effect which would in our opinion necessitate significant changes to their supporting information in their application. That would be where staff would say this is not a continuance, it's a withdrawal, you need to start all over. New petition, new petition fee. And then whatever hearing cycle you can fall within, so be it. Now, more to what is specifically I believe being asked for and that is to merge this with the Immokalee Master Plan cycle. The staff position is that because that is close enough to the present schedule for this 07-08 cycle that this petition is presently a part of, from that timing standpoint of is the application stale, to use Mr. White's words from last night, staff would say no, it's not. You can make revisions to it and we could review those under your current petition number, current fee, et cetera. But we believe we need to go before the Board of County Commissioners to get their authorization to add this or any other amendment petition to the Immokalee cycle. Because it presently is standing on its own. He alluded to exemptions to the twice a year adoption of plan amendments allowed by state law. The lnlmokalee Master Plan petition is -- may be an exception, one of those exceptions to the twice per year. That is certainly the position of the agent for that petition. Staff so far disagrees. But if it ultimately is determined to be an exception to the twice a year adoption allowed by state law, the addition of this petition to that cycle throws that out. Because this petition does not -- clearly does not qualifY for that or any other exemption under state law. But -- I said a lot, but to narrow that down, we believe that it could be accommodated in the Page 4 1 6 1 10velA ~ 200:' Innnokalee Master Plan schedule timing-wise from our perspective, but we need board authorization to add that. A third scenario, and it's not been asked for here, but a third scenario, if there were time for the applicant to resolve their issues with the community, to at least attempt to do so, would be for them to stay part of the 07-08 cycle, have another advertisement for their hearing, because we're almost at the five-week period from the November 19th hearing that you began with for this 07-08 cycle. If they were to re-advertise and, for example, hold their hearing in early January before the Planning Commission and then have your consent review later and then still be part of the BCC hearing, though it would not be in January, they would be advertised for January but continued within five weeks to a later hearing. Ifthat were to work for them, that's just a possibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So to sum it all up, we have -- there's two options. We can continue this to the Innnokalee -- I mean, this is pending legal review comments yet, but from your perspective we could continue this to the Innnokalee Area Master Plan transmittal, which would be on whatever date you tell us, subject to the BCC approval, for a combination with that master -- with the Immokalee Area Master Plan cycle. Or we -- or the option -- in addition to that, it could be alternatively, they could re-advertise in time to include it within this cycle at one of our future meetings. And both options could be made as a possible continuance, and then either one that comes up to the benefit of the applicant and the community may be the one that works. Is that reasonable? MR. WEEKS: That's accurate. I would just caution you, if you should make a motion similar to what you mentioned, not to tie your hands -- I mean, this is a continuance in the sense that it's not going to be heard today. Because it goes beyond the five-week time period for which your hearing was advertised on October 19th, it does require a new advertisement. I draw a distinction there between a continuance and simply a newly advertised hearing. A continuance in a more generic term than what I'm thinking of as a technical term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they would have to re-advertise within a time frame of the current cycle to get back on agenda. MR. WEEKS: Re-advertise to be part of the current cycle or to be re-advertised potentially as part of the Immokalee Master Plan cycle. That's the way I would phrase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is the date of the transmittal hearing that we're expected to be involved with as far as lnlmokalee? What's the new date for the Innnokalee Area Master Plan; do we know? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: 16 February, David? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For BCC? MR. SCHMITT: No, for Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: February 16th for Planning Commission. I believe that in the earlier schedule, I believe that was your carryover date, yes. And now it is scheduled as your first advertised date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's two potential options, both of which require re-advertisement, one of which requires an acknowledgment from the Board of County Commissioners. So with that in mind, before we get questions from the panel, Mr. Schmitt, let's finish with staff comments, I'll get Mr. Klatzkow's and then Planning Commission comments. MR. SCHMITT: The only other option that is of possibility would be the yet to be scheduled Page 5 1 6 I 1 N1Jl~, 20a RLSA amendments, which we've not scheduled yet. Those are being looked at by an outside COUflSel to determine what needs to be done to package that for a GMP submittal. But those dates have yet to be scheduled. It would be certainly much later in FY '10. And that would be a possibility if when we're looking at a future GMP amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that gets past the -- that gets into the longer time frame -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- David was trying to avoid, so let's try not to go there if we can fit in an earlier one. Mr. Klatzkow, you want to have any -- do you have any legal position here? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, once again, we've got the tail wagging the dog here, all right? I mean, we have a schedule set up, it's ready to be heard by the Planning Commission, you folks are prepared to hear it. The petitioner is requesting that it not be heard today. That's fine, you don't have to hear it today. Petitioner can get with staff. However, staIDpetitioner reschedule this thing down the road, whether it's new application or not a new application, whether there's a new fee, not a fee, I don't care. That's between the petitioner and staff at this point in time. All we're doing here is we're not hearing it today. That's all we're doing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just one point, if! may inquire of Mr. Klatzkow. David had alluded to the situation regarding the lAMP and its status as potentially being exemption. The sooner that that determination obviously can be made, the clearer it becomes as to whether the request before the BCC would be one that would be ours alone in the one scenario we're discussing or would be for both of those. So to me I thinlc that that has some legal consideration and I would just ask if Jeff could say -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're ready here today. If you don't want to hear it today, then get with staff and work it out with staff, then we'll review it for legal sufficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinlc those kind of analyses need to be done either before or after the meeting, not during the meeting. It's more complicated than can be analyzed right here today for the legal staff's consideration. So with that in mind, before we go -- I'm certainly going to open discussion up to the public, but I wanted to fmd out from the Planning Commission frrst, does anybody have any comments on what we've heard so far? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to presume, but it certainly seems like Mr. White's petitioner needs a lot of time. And I'm not sure where we're going to go. And I happen to agree with Mr. Klatzkow, this matter really shouldn't go on any further for us, it needs to be dealt with by petitioner and staff. We really don't -- that's my view anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the Planning Commission wish to make a comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there anybody in the public who wanted to speak on this item or have any information they'd like to provide to us here now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the recommendation is to -- for continuance. We were notified a day or two ago that -- I thinlc maybe yesterday -- that this was going to be potentially continued. I know Page 6 16 1 10vetAao09;1 we're not prepared to discuss it today as a result of that. So a continuance is almost a given in some manner or form. We have options. We can continue it till just our next meeting. I don't believe that will work for the benefit of anybody. We can continue it under two frameworks that the applicant and staff have suggested. One is to continue it to 2/16/10, subject to the BCC approval for accommodation with the Innnokalee Area Master Plan cycle. Or we could continue it to be included in this cycle. But in either case, whether it's with the lAMP or within this cycle at a later date, it has to be re-advertised at that time for whatever meeting it comes at. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question then. If it's contingent upon the BCC approval and they were to move in that direction, avoiding other directions, do they not then lose their opportunity to seek some other means of doing it? In other words, you have three options, potential. I go with the middle one. Do I not lose the other two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I read my suggestion to everybody, it was for two, a double stipulation: A continuance either to the lAMP on 2/16/10, or leave the option open for the applicant to re- advertise and include themselves within this cycle as well. That was something David suggested could be done in January at one of our meetings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I heard all that, but what I did hear, and that's what struck me, was the question of contingent upon the BCC approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be only for the application regarding to Immokalee Area Master Plan. That's the only one that's needed for. So the other one -- if they were to lose that one, he would have to then re-advertise and come back in with this cycle sometime in one of our meetings, either December or January. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that he could, he could-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, the way I asked that question, you might want to thinlc about that. MR. WEEKS: That's a good point, Mr. Murray. Because I thinlc the way we framed it sounds like they only have two choices. What if they opt for the Innnokalee Master Plan cycle and the board says no, are they then locked in there only twice? I would that they're not. It's their petition, they've been -- they can decide if they want choice C, which might be, well, we want to come in four months from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then wait a minute, ifthey want to come back four months from now, you already said that a lengthy continuance -- if they got a time specific continuance to the Innnokalee Area Master Plan and they didn't get that from the BCC and they didn't get the time frames worked out to come back within this cycle, then that means they would need what you had previously referred to as a lengthy continuance and that you weren't in favor of that and they would be more or less deemed withdrawn and then have to go into a new cycle. So I don't see that as an option to continue, that's an option to withdraw. I mean, is it or is it not? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Again, it goes back to the technical what is a continuance. We have nothing in writing, we have no policy, no specific procedure that deals with continuance, other -- that I'm aware of other than the provision of you can continue for up to five weeks from the advertised date of a hearing without having to advertise. As long as each time a continuance is granted it's to a date/time/place certain, you can go up to five weeks. Once you get beyond five weeks, there is no continuance, you are re- advertising the hearing. Page 7 16 I lve~A 3 200J The unusual circumstance here is that we don't have regular -- these are under different statutory provisions than the usual zoning petitions you deal with, re-zonings and conditional uses and whatnot in that we have a limited number of cycles that we're allowed under state law to adopt. I threw out six months. There's nothing in writing. We have nothing that says if you go beyond this time period you're a new petition and must submit all new data. I threw out six months as a suggestion. But it may be less. Maybe four months would be a point where staff would say, you know what, we've got new population, we've got new -- you know, what has changed in the background that would affect your submittal that we might be in a dialogue with the agent saying no, we thinlc you are withdrawn, there's a new petition here. Because that's not black-and-white, there's nothing in stone, there's nothing specific, I don't -- I'm leery of making a decision right here, right now to say here's their two options: Stay within the cycle or go to the lnlmokalee Master Plan cycle. If you don't do either of those two, you must be viewed as a brand new petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they have to come back and ask for another continuance at the latest date of either one of those that they would have open to their opportunity. MR. WHITE: Exactly. MR. WEEKS: And the continuance is only based upon the hearing being advertised for their petition. After today, you know, and a handful of days after today, they'll be beyond the five-week time period. And of course you're taking your action today. So after today, calling it a continuance again is in a generic sense, yes, it's a continuance because it's not heard today, it's going to some future date. But from a regulatory standpoint, it's simply are-advertised hearing. It's a brand new hearing. That's what I was talking about a while ago, kind of the technical continuance versus the generic continuance. And I believe you're discussing today the generic continuance as in we're not going to hear this today, maybe it will be heard on one of these other two dates here. Let me restate something I said earlier. Let me backtrack, erase it and start over. I thinlc the cleanest way would be to simply say we grant a continuance to indefinitely and leave it to the applicant and staff as to when they get advertised, and the board, as might be required, to when they're going to come back before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you started out telling us that's the wrong thing to do, because you didn't like the idea of indefinite. You said if it was indefmite that's not where you wanted to go because it would have to go into a different cycle. So now we're changing that position, and that's fine. Because what we've got are two non-profits trying to do something better in regards to their relationship with the community, and I don't see that as a bad thing. So we ought to try to accommodate if we can. Mr. Vigliotti, you've been patiently waiting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to oversimplify this, but why can't we just grant the continuance and let staff and the petitioner work it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he just said. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Simply over and done. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. WHITE: If I could just briefly comment, Mr. Chairman. We would have originally proffered to do that, but based on the dialogue we had with staff and a desire to try to find a date/time certain and give a comfort level to this commission, we I guess have gone the long way around. And as Mr. Klatzkow says, maybe the tail is wagging the dog at this point, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I suggest that we're looking for a motion to continue this indefinitely, subject to the staff and the applicant working out the details as to what timing that will evolve Page 8 1611 ~A3 I November 19, 2009 to. Is that a fair way to state it, David? And is it effective stated that way? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. You are indefinitely continued until such time that you and staff work things out. MR. WHITE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: Yeah, I was trying to get a discussion. Could we guarantee that this is re-advertised? Because if we're having difficulty, I'm sure the public is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thinlc the law requires it to be advertised after a certain period, and they automatically lose the original advertising period within five weeks of the first meeting, which is coming up pretty close I thinlc, isn't it, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: We recognize that requirement and acknowledge it. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not continued to a date certain here, he's going to have to re-advertise it. MR. WHITE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, did you have a comment you wanted to make? MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you were raising your hand. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: Are we still on the addenda to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: I'd like to add something for new business. It's a presentation from the health department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would be under new business. Is that -- someone going to be here to present that? COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: No, I'm going to request the ability for them to present it at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well they can just get scheduled with staff, but that's fme. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, that's the confusion part, is because they want to do that and staff said that somebody had to bring it up at the meeting. Ray was the one that advised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I saw the paperwork. I thought that whenever they were ready, they'd come in with it. Page 9 1 6 r ~ovlber 1~ a9 1 The paperwork I read interestingly, because it certainly counters what transportation is trying to do to this county, so it will be a lively discussion, I'm sure. Maybe we'll get somewhere and cut our cost for roads throughout the county, because they're not needed if we can do healthy things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. So can we just make it on the -- I guess they want to come on the 17th, or whenever staff can schedule it, that's fine. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From direction of this board then, does any -- as long as no one objects -- does anybody here rnind a presentation on trying to make people healthier in this county? No, I'm sure they don't. Ray, would you just try to coordinate that and pick a date that's best for us to add it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have been working on that, and I thinlc the December 17th meeting would be the best. I tentatively have it on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And don't bother telling transportation that it's coming up. MR. KLATZKOW: Too late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Mr. Eastman is here. I skipped him this morning. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morning, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us past addenda to the agenda. And again, for everybody who may have been here, the GMP petition for Golden Gate, CP-2008-3, has been continued. We don't have a date yet, but it will be re-advertised. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is December 3rd. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will have a quorum. The other thing I'd like to bring up at this time because it has to do with scheduling, we all just heard about the lnlmokalee Area Master Plan. The master plan started two or three years ago and has gone through many, many versions. I can't even count the number of versions that I personally have read over the years. But it's fmally to a point where they believe the version that they're working on now is a fmal stage and it's going to come before public hearings. We have a budget problem at the county and it gets very costly with this commission to meet where they have to reset up cameras and reset up a lot of photography and audio and all that other good stuff. As a solution to that -- and that's another reason why we haven't scheduled any meetings for this commission in lnlmokalee on issues like the airport that is corning up today. In regards to the lnlmokalee Area Master Plan, Mr. Mulhere called me and asked if we would mind holding a workshop in lnlmokalee. And the workshop doesn't necessarily need to be televised. It can be done very informally through staffs attendance. And the workshop would be managed, I would assume, by the team that is working for the Page 10 . 16 IlemtA~009'1 Innnokalee Area Master Plan, which would be Mr. Mulliere's group and the CRA. And they would orientate us to the community's concerns and needs of that master plan. And that would be in lieu of actually holding the meeting out there in February. It would actually be a primer for us to have a better understanding of where the community's trying to go and all the facets. And it would be a workshop, not a place where we make motions. We would basically have a lot of interaction. So at Mr. Mulliere's request -- and Bob, if you want to come up and give us your ideas of this -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll then consider it. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, for the record, representing the -- with RW A, representing the CRA, the Innnokalee CRA. Yeah, I thinlc that there are a lot of issues. It's a substantial complete rewrite ofthe Innnokalee Area Master Plan. There are still some outstanding issues with staff that I think probably we will agree to disagree on until we go before the Planning Commission. It made a lot of sense to me maybe to have sort ofa less formal environment to have some -- to make a presentation and then get some feedback from the Planning Commission. Also allows the Immokalee community to be involved in Innnokalee in a less formal setting. And I hope and I thinlc that that will also make the subsequent more formal hearings, advertised public hearings, less contentious and more focused on the issues, once we have feedback from you. I mean, we can actually probably address some issues that you raise between that workshop and the first hearing. Because the first hearing is February 16th, as we just heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And part of the process that I saw coming up for the Innnokalee Area Master Plan in reviews, my intention originally was to always hold those out in Immokalee. But as we got the date fixed, which now hopefully that date is fairly fixed, I certainly would like to request from staff that they approach the Board of County Commissioners on an agenda item, whether it's summary, consent or whatever, withjust a cost to hold our meetings for that Innnokalee Area Master Plan in Innnokalee. And subject to their approval, we may still be able to have those meetings out there. But because of the budget crisis, I would rather not arbitrarily do that. That would incur a higher cost for the county without the Board of County Commissioners saying it's okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire community, but I had a conversation with Penny Phillippi, who's the CRA executive director, and Fred Thomas, who's chair of the CRA advisory board, and I thinlc they felt that the workshop was a very good idea. And I thinlc they also felt that if that could be in Innnokalee, that would go a long way towards I thinlc making the folks in Immokalee feel like you're reaching out and doing the right thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've held meetings -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been there before, and our premise was to try to be there more often until we started funding shortfalls -- or having our budget shortfalls that we currently have. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So you might not have to hold those subsequent. There's probably at least two public hearings for the Planning Commission for the actual transmittal. I assume there'll be two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: You might not then have to hold those out there if I thinlc in a workshop we can get a lot done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time, as we go forward with this discussion, Ray, if the staff were to create a cost to hold two transmittal hearings in Immokalee on a daily basis so that the board could say yeah, we like this idea, we thinlc it's worth it and we could still do it, or that they want us to Page 11 16 I 1 JoveA39, 2e1 meet here, that's just a side bar to Mr. Mulhere's request. But it would resolve that issue early enough so we know what we're meeting for the February meeting, okay? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we can work that out with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. BELLOWS: -- planning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to be very much in favor of doing this. Given the magnitude of change, you envision a full eight-hour day, I would presume. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I guess -- I didn't. I was thinlcing probably something more like four or five hours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can cover it all you believe? MR. MULHERE: I thinlc so, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. MR. MULHERE: I think, you know, we're not going to focus on every issue. We're going to focus on the issues that are substantive and that there are, we believe, differences of opinion on, based on staff review and the community's desires and what we put into the plan. There may be some issues that you all raise. And thinking about that and once we have a date, obviously I have to get the product to you so you can be prepared as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thinlc it's a wonderful idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah,just a question, Bob. Were you talking about doing that workshop as a daytime workshop or an evening workshop? MR. MULHERE: I was thinking daytime. COMMISSIONER CARON: Daytime, okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't know if you have a preference. I was thinking daytime. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's just the community, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have thought maybe like start -- if it's going to be four or five hours, which I think is reasonable, and I've read it a number of times to know what's there, in an informal setting we could probably accomplish that. But if we were to start late afternoon, that way we go into the evening and people who wanted -- are able to get off work and come-- MR. MULHERE: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- could contribute as well. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my point of view is a little bit different. I don't thinlc that there's been a CRA meeting in the evening for more than a year, and I thinlc that's a serious shortcoming. Because the people who can come are people who own businesses or government workers, but people like myself can't go to a daytime meeting. And we've been shut out of the process. The working people of Immokalee -- MR. MULHERE: Well, let me ask-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- have been shut out for all this time. You need to have -- I don't know if it needs to be this workshop that we're talking about, but there need to be evening meetings. MR. MULHERE: Let me just ask this: If -- I can go back and talk to the CRA, I don't thinlc they would object to doing that. I just wanted to not overly inconvenience you all. So if you don't object to something that's late in the afternoon, going into the evening, I don't thinlc that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, and I wasn't -- that's what -- I thought if we start at around 4:00 -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we could end up -- because it's going to be four or five hours, we'd Page 12 16 1 1 \m3: 19,'9 be done around 8:00 or 9:00, and that would give anybody that wanted to come in after they work plenty of time to be there for the bulk of it. And then usually the first hour of anything is a long introduction anyway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Whose fault is that, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be -- Bob will be talking. He gets paid by the hour, so -- MR. MULHERE: Get paid by the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I mean, is that more along the lines that you might-- COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you were thinking? MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I will make a commitment to get the draft in its most final version out to you ASAP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And all the backup, you know, all the data and analysis and everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then is there a consensus from this panel that the workshop idea is a good idea? And that's the next phase. Bob, we would need to have distributed to us well in advance of the meeting drafts of, to be fair, both your position, your current -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll give you the staff's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fmdings and that of staffs. MR. MULHERE: -- staff's sufficiency comments. I can distribute all that stuff at the very latest Monday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got my copy already, so-- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's actually changing since what you've got, because we're changing in response to this last sufficiency round. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we're resubmitting to staff on Friday. So that will all be done by Friday. I'm just saying we've got to worry about getting it to staff fIrst. And then by Monday I can have it out to all of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what I would like you to consider is between now and December 3rd, which is our next meeting, get with staff, get with the CRA, figure out a series of dates. Try not to interfere with the holidays or our regular meetings. Because usually when we have a special meeting like this in between a regular meeting, that's the best thing to do. MR. MULHERE: Okay, so we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then midweek, whether it's the odd week, look at that through staff. And if there's a way to fit that in, come back on the 3rd of December with suggestions for dates, locations and times. And then we'll just go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm thinlcing that at this point it's going to have to be early January. That's what I'm thinlcing, right? I mean, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you, yes. MR. MULHERE: Because we still want to be able to have enough time to address your issues in advance of the 16th. Or maybe we won't have time, but at least we'll know what they are and we can deal with them better at that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think David's got something to say. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the EAC is scheduled to hear this Immokalee petition on January 6th. And then your new date that we'll be I guess officially discussing at your next December 3rd meeting, is February 16th is your advertised transmittal date. Couple concerns come to mind. First of all, we don't object at all to a workshop. As Bob has Page 13 16 I 1"~ A 3 ':I . November] 9, 2009 mentioned to you, there are outstanding issues so far between staff and the applicant and if a worksb.op helps to resolve those, good. Because ultimately when we come to you for public he aring and then to the board, as with any petition, the fewer outstanding issues there are, the better. Wheth!r we walk hand-in-hand or at least close to each other, that's the best scenario as opposed to waking in with, Y'JU know, a 50-page staff report filled with issues. The timing is the concern. Are we talking about holding a workshop after th! EAC has all-eady held their hearing, are we talking about holding it before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it makes a difference, David. We're nc t -- we're kind 0)[ independent. The EAC does their thing and we still do ours, whether they -- we 1001 at the envirownental concerns just like they do. So I'm not sure why we need to worry about their timing. Their timing i; their own board's issue. MR. WEEKS: The other would be what is the expected outcome from the ~(,rkshop in th,~ ,ense that might you give certain direction or voice certain opinions that the applicant wou d then want t,) respond to by going back and revising their submittal? Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I thinlc it's a good thing. The bad till ng is what doe~: it do to our schedule? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't thinlc it does anything. Because what I woulc anticipate is frey would get input to be prepared to address at the transmittal, which would expedite th,: transmittal process, and you would already have a heads up as to what some of those issues are so if you Ilad concerns about them, instead of being on the fly here at a meeting, you'd be able to more factually discuss them with us and react to them. And I see that as -- that's what I would see coming out of it. Certainly no decisions, Mr. Murray, then -- MR. MULHERE: I thinlc it's germane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to ask a question of the Chair. Do we intend to ha"e transcriptions? And that would impact on what David Weeks is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, only if it's required by law for a workshop. If it's not, I WOlll<! rather keep the cost down and let someone take minutes is all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Well, that answers the issue anyway In that sense. MR. KLATZKOW: Minutes are sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: Minutes are sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Here's what I -- I thinlc David raises a good point. I was obviously thinliIg the same thing when I was discussing, you know, the 16th. We don't want to lose that d"te. And to me we're going to get input from you, the staff's going to hear it, we're- going to hear it. That can certainly allow us enough time to work with the CRA and the community to adju st, if we need to, any positions. While we may not actually resubmit, at the transmittal hearing we can be prepared to have ttose discussions with you with that workshop. Without that workshop we're going to do tile same thing but at the transmittal hearing. So I don't want anything to hold -- to change that date. But I agree with DaviJ, you know, the workshop should give us enough time. We just probably are not -- there's not enough time for us to respond to whatever comes up at that workshop, revise the submittal and resubmit it and expect staff to review it. It's not going to happen that way. It's got to be just we understand, we've heard you, \Iou'll know VI hat you said, we'll know what you said and staff will know what you've said, and then we'll h~ more prepared at the Page 14 16111A3 ~ NoveQer 19,2009 transmittal hearing to address those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that-- MR. MULHERE: I thinlc it's going to make for a better process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy? MR. COHEN: Yeah, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. As Bob mentioned, the third submittal, based off of the second sufficiency review letter, is this Friday. And obviously timing is very important. Based off of that submittal, my staff will inrmediately begin to review that and also draft not only the EAC staff report but your staff report as well too, because of the tinling that's required. Undoubtedly we will be very close if not finished with your staff report in that first or second week of January. That's where the workshop becomes a little bit of an overlap there. And that's when, when Mr. Mulhere says, you know, we may not have time to address things, from my staff's standpoint, it does become problematic because we could be put into a position of possibly having to readdress issues with respect to what transpires at that workshop. It would be a lot easier on my staff if that workshop were to take place in December, okay, based off the submittal that comes on November the 20th. And I would feel a lot more comfortable if it would transpire in that manner. So that's just food for thought and I would like you to consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and there are dates in December that may work. And I think staff -- you all ought to work that out. I think our desire, from what I can see, is that we're in agreement that a workshop would work for us, we have no objection to it, and we would attend it. It's a matter of staff coordinating it, both getting us out there and having the cost involved, which I thinlc will be minimal on staffs part. Because this is going to be a CRA driven workshop, if I'm -- and you guys will handle the presentation. So we're looking at a minute taker from staff and minimal people to attend. So with that in mind, is that okay with everybody on the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the way, Ray, I would like, by December 3rd to have a consensus from staff and the applicant as to where this will go, dates and all that good stuff. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 2009, OCTOBER 19,2009 GMP AND OCTOBER 20, 2009 GMP MEETING Okay, next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. We have three. October 15th, 2009. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 15 16 I 1!e?ber1~069 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. October 19th. Is there a motion-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded, same people. All in favor, signiJy by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Is there a motion for approval for October 20th? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 50, the first line that starts with Ms. Homiak, it says, doing a restudy of the area bothers me. It should say -- I believe it should say not doing a restudy of the area. Just one word added. And then I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker accept the changes-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll change my motion to accept that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker and second have agreed. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiJy by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 16 . 16 ~velbJA:3 :1 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, all of them 9-0 again. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOVEMBER 10, 2009 That takes us to the BCC report. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on November 10th the Board of County Commissioners heard three petitions. The first one was a conditional use for the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church. That was approved on the summary agenda. They also heard the conditional use for the Collier County Solid Waste Utilities Recycling Park. That was approved by the board 5-0 on the regular agenda. It's my understanding that they approved it subject to the staffs recommendation or conditions of approval that was presented on the consent agenda to the Planning Commission. I'm not sure -- Kay's here, she can go into a little more detail the little twist that was changed on one of the conditions I thinlc that came out of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the machinery. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The board also heard the PUD amendment for Winding Cypress that had to deal with setbacks. The board approved it 5-1 (sic), Commissioner Coyle was opposed. And his main issue had dealt with no AC's on the side yard, or if there was, there would be a notch in the building to accommodate that unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We apparently-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- added one commissioner there. You said five to one. MR. BELLOWS: Oh,4-1. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. I have just- one follow-up comment. We have in 20 lOa series I thinlc of meetings coming up that will involve primarily Immokalee. One of those is the lnlmokalee Area Master Plan, both transmittal and adoption. And the other is the RLSA, which will be transmittal and adoption. It would be nice if staff worked up a standard cost per day for any meeting that we would hold in Immokalee, and that would include any transportation, staff support, video, everything else that has to go on, and let us know that and get -- so that we can get the BCC -- and I know this isn't required of us to do but I thinlc the budget the way it is, we ought to, to certainly make the BCC aware of these costs and let them tell us whether or not they want us to meet out in Immokalee each time or not. Page 17 16 I lve:bl\~oo91 That would require at least four meetings for just those two issues, or more. I'm not sure the adoption is necessary if we have transmittal, because transmittal is really the meat of the issues. But at least we'd have a daily cost. And if the board says they have no objections to those daily costs or they want a separate approval every time one of these comes up, then we would at least know ahead of time how to proceed. MR. BELLOWS: That makes sense, and I'll coordinate with David Weeks and we'll make sure that we get that direction. Item #9B PETITION: V A-PL2009-1162. 2454 KING'S LAKE BOULEVARD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's no consent agenda items today, so we'll move into our first advertised public hearing. The first one is Petition V A-PL2009-1162. The -- I don't -- I'm not even going to try the name. It's at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard, and it's a variance. With that in mind, anybody wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this morning I was shown the plan for the original construction of the pool deck by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, nobody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a letter-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we received. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I also observed the drawing that staffhad made showing the setbacks on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that in mind, Ms. Bishop, it's yours. MS. BISHOP: Good moming. My name is Karen Bishop. I represent the owner, which is Remmlinger-Behnke. That's the name that you can't pronounce, Remmlinger-Behnke. This is kind of a complicated matter. The original owner, Mrs. Pitman, built this house in 1983 and then later in 1991 applied for a pool and screen cage. The actual pool got started in '91 and wasn't C.O.'d until '93. So my application originally said '91 and there was a mistake in there now that it says it was permitted in '93. And it was actually permitted in '91 but wasn't C.O.'d till '93. Unaware that this pool was not built correctly, because apparently in 1992 is when spot surveys were required by Collier County for buildings. So this, since it was already in construction, wasn't required to have that spot surveyed. My client bought this property in 1994, and in 2005 the hurricanes came and took down the cage. These owners live in Germany and of course don't come here very often, they're here just a couple of Page 18 161 4 A"% ~ ],NoJemoer ~2009 ' months out of the year, bring their family. They're retired. They tried to get a contractor to come and fix this immediately. That of course, if any of you had issues at that time with your cage, you know that it took a very long time to fmd any qualified people to do this. They hired a contractor in 2007, without knowing that this contractor was unlicensed. They asked the question ifhe was licensed, but he said yes and it turns out he wasn't. So this all came to light over a code compliance issue, which was the contractor started building without a permit and was caught. And so during the process of trying to then apply for a permit, the -- it was found out that the house itself -- or the pool cage and the deck was over the setback lines. So I tried to go through staff and see if perhaps, you know, this could be a nonconforming use and be approved, because it had been there for 18 years, essentially. And they suggested that we really have to go through this process. So essentially what we're here today is to ask for this variance to allow for the encroachments that were there prior to this owner. And I do have -- I understand from staff that there was a request to see what evidence that we have that this has not been added to. Because this is a repair, not an addition. And the only thing that I have to offer is some photographs back in the Nineties when they were having fun with their children and grandchildren. And I have some aerials from 19 -- or 200 I, which still shows the same exact structure. Of course, they're very small aerials because they're from our website. Now, there is one letter of objection from the HOA. I spoke to the management company and sent them a letter explaining, you know, what had happened. And apparently my client didn't know that Mrs. Pitman originally never went through architectural review for this back in the Nineties. Repair work in King's Lake does not require architectural review, but since she didn't do the original -- Mrs. Pitman didn't do the original, that's why we got this letter of objection from the HOA. If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was there architectural review back in the time of the request? MS. BISHOP: I believe there was, sir. And I asked the gentleman, you know, how could this be missed for all those years? And he said of course, you know, that there wasn't -- unless somebody complained, that no one knew that things were being built without going through this architectural review committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Yeah, in the packet it described that they had -- a contractor applied for a permit. He wasn't given one because of the setback issues, and then they went and hired another contractor, unlicensed, to build the thing; is that correct? MS. BISHOP: I don't thinlc that is correct. Actually I thinlc I misunderstood. I thought that's what happened, that they had one contractor. Because I came in at code compliance when it became a compliance issue. I'm a friend of the daughter. And so she had me come in then. And I was understanding that from the code compliance guy that they had one guy apply and then this guy built. But it was the same contractor. So I guess the same contractor applied and there was setback issues and he just went ahead and built it without the permits. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: But is he an unlicensed contractor? MS. BISHOP: As it turns out, he's an unlicensed contractor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, describe repair, though. I mean, was the cage taken down? Page 19 16 , 1~ ~3,er 11009 Was the physical structure of the cage removed and replaced? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Because it was damaged beyond being able to save it. There wasn't just screen damage, the cage was in fact damaged at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not sure the word repair describes that kind of work, but -- MS. BISHOP: According to the -- well, according to the criteria for King's Lake, any -- that damage, since it was an existing structure, existing cage, that repairing it. And as it turns out, part of it was damaged, but you can't just ftx part of it based on I guess the structural issues with it, so it had to be tom -- I guess they took it all out and put a new one in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that brings up, since it was -- was there a permit ever showing the structural? Was that ever approved and processed? MS. BISHOP: Originally there was. 1991 there was a permit submitted by Mrs. Pitman. It was approved. And there was a drawing submitted by Mrs. Pitman, a hand drawing that I've seen. I saw I think the same one you did just recently. Because when I went to the records room, somehow I didn't get that drawing. But I think what happened was it was mistakenly built incorrectly. It's the same configuration. I just believe it was a mistake. They drew it by hand and I don't believe that they used a surveyor, and they didn't have the proper survey information and they just built it accidentally in the wrong place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does show the proper setback, the seven and a halffeet. MS. BISHOP: It did. Well, it does on the hand drawing. But for some reason because there was no spot surveys it was never checked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I'm not sure a spot survey would check the pool slab. Essentially that's for the structure. You're checking the walls of the building before you put the tie beam on. The pool slab probably wouldn't be included in a spot survey ever. And it's not the survey's fault, it's -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, no. And there was no surveyor. But I believe that -- I mean, when I do spot surveys now, the surveyor, he locates all concrete -- you know, anything that's got a slab on it is located on a survey. They're required by law to put that in there. They can't just say, oh, you know, let's skip the pool. They actually have to put all that in there. And there could be another -- since this was drawn by hand and it wasn't -- I can only just guess. This was done back in 1991. I can only guess what happens. And my guess is that it was a mistake. The pool guy laid it out and maybe the drawing didn't really reflect the setbacks appropriately and -- you know, or the lot configuration appropriately and it was just built incorrectly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say it was drawn by hand, I mean, the drawing I saw was a drafted drawing. Obviously back in those days we used pencils and drafting tools. MS. BISHOP: I was a draftsman for many, many years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that what you mean by hand? Because the impression I'm getting is somebody just sketched it. But it was actually a drafted scaled drawing that I saw this moming. MS. BISHOP: This drawing. The same drawing I'm assunling that you looked at today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That looks like it, yeah. MS. BISHOP: Right. And not suggesting that -- I was a very good draftsman, but it doesn't mean that I didn't make mistakes sometimes. But the difference between now when you do it on the computer, you have the ability to check the closing and the geometry. And usually a surveyor provides -- when I do work now, they provide the work directly. So I just can only surmise. I didn't go back and check this work. And I didn't -- the people who built this are no longer around so I can't ask how did this happen. Page 20 16 I 1 ' Av3ber 1:1009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is that there's nothing in the packet that shows that the pool was put back exactly where the other pool was. Do you have anything that would show us that? MS. BISHOP: I can only show you the aerials. And it is -- there was no construction, nothing new added in. I have some pictures from 1996 showing the structure literally in the same place, but that's -- there's no real I guess other evidence than what I've seen myself. And I went out there and looked at it and there was nothing added. The contractor added nothing. All he did was replace the cage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Did -- and let's go back. Since it hasn't been permitted, we don't know if it's structurally sound. We did learn a lot with cages through the years. So when you say he replaced it, did he replace it with physically the same structural components that it prior had? MS. BISHOP: I'm understanding that he did. And actually the code compliance guy -- I asked the same question. And from what I'm understanding, it was built to code, he just didn't have a license. And he put it back in exactly the same place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the structural plans review was completely done signed offby the building department? MS. BISHOP: Well, no, because they haven't -- they're going to have to do an after-the-fact inspections with the building department. But the building department wouldn't move forward until we get the approval on the location of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it never had a structural review from the building department. MS. BISHOP: Uh-uIl. Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, you have a I O-foot PUE? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's it dedicated to? MS. BISHOP: It's dedicated to the master association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, has there b.een any release from the intrusion into that PUE? MS. BISHOP: Well, the PUE we're not encroaching into. We're only encroaching into setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUE is five feet each side of the line. MS. BISHOP: Oh, you're talking about on the right-hand side. Those are for utilities, and they -- there has not been any release. There's not been one requested, until we get permission that we can have it in its location. But those were for utilities specifically. There are no utilities in any of those. That was pretty typical back in those days to put those in on either side, but there was no utilities ever put in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Usually, though. But the party that they're dedicated to, you would need a release from -- MS. BISHOP: Right. And we still will have to go through that if we get this permission to have it in its location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You said that you had written a letter-- MS. BISHOP: Yes. Page 21 1611 A 3 Nollber 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to the homeowners association. MS. BISHOP: I have. COMMISSIONER CARON: But have you actually met with them? Have you had any discussions with them? You just followed up with a letter after -- MS. BISHOP: Right, right. There was -- because it was a repair, that wasn't required. We discussed with our neighbors on either side, we met with them -- or the owner's daughter met with them, let them know what was going on. They had no objections. The -- according to the manager, when the sign went out in front of the lot, that's when the HOA saw that there was this variance request. And so he wrote that letter a couple of days ago. But the HOA doesn't require anything for repair, and that's what this was. And so I responded to him, spoke to him, gave him a copy of the package, hoping that he could review the package and get back a letter saying okay, it's all right. But that didn't happen because it was only two days ago. But I have a copy of the letter that -- in the package that I sent to him, if you would like to see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since you did say on the record you have photographs, both old aerials and current, and some kind of family photographs showing that location, would you mind showing those to us? MS. BISHOP: I would not mind. This is the 2007 aerial. I have aerials that go all the way back. I even -- from 200 I all the way back up. But this shows the earliest one I could get. The 1995 aerial for Collier County is really furry and you can't really see anything. So this is the best one that shows that cage in place, in the exact same place that it is today with the cage on top of it. This is pre-hurricane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you take that one off, could you take today's and fold it so that the new -- today's picture is alongside that one? MS. BISHOP: This is the 2007 aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You may have to just fold the edge over on one of those so we can see them both. Oh, there we go. MS. BISHOP: So you can see the 2007 aerial is exactly the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception of the linage from the assessor's office. Looks like it's moved and shifted. That has nothing to do with the house, though. MS. BISHOP: Right, it's just their angle of view. I've got the 2006, 2002, 2005, if you'd like to see those too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one more compared to the newest one would be helpful, if you've got one of the older ones. MS. BISHOP: All right. Let me do 2006. That's the 2006. That's right after the hurricane. You can see the cage is gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps a lot. Well, what's the one on the left? That's today's without the cage. The cage is gone in 2006, so we're showing the pool slab. MS. BISHOP: Right. And actually that's a 2007 aerial. That's when the cage went up is in 2007. It really doesn't show very well on this aerial that -- and this aerial may have been taken right before the cage went back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the cage in any way break the side plain of the residents? MS. BISHOP: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had those other pictures you said you may have? Page 22 16 I lo~m~r ~ 200~ MS. BISHOP: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you volunteered those, I just thinlc it's better we get them all on record. At least to see them the best we can. MS. BISHOP: This is the corner that is the encroachment comer. So this shows -- this picture showing that cage, showing the deck at that comer, that is in fact encroaching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is about what year? MS. BISHOP: 1996. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: And the other pictures I have are some cute little kids in the pool, if you want to see the date on the pictures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if it shows the side of the site in question. If it doesn't, then-- MS. BISHOP: It really doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public -- oh, staff. Let's do staffbefore public. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this variance petition. It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And also I have copies of documents that I had shown to some of the commissioners prior to our meeting starting this morning, if anybody's interested in seeing them. You've already -- Karen has already shown you the site plan from 1991 building permit file. And I also have a copy of the current boundary survey that shows in color the area of encroachment, if you're interested in seeing that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to see that one showing the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Now, the yellow and red both represent the setbacks? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Yellow represents the IS-foot setback and pinlc represents the seven and a half foot setback. And then I -- you can see where I patched in the area of encroachment. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that's -- that cover, that screen closure could have been built farther south or down below and still been in compliance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't thinlc so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If you eliminated that encroachment by designing the screen a little different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a question, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Of? I'm not -- could you rephrase that, that one -- I can't understand your -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is it possible that that screen enclosure could have been built in accordance with the setbacks and not have an encroachment there? A different designed screen. MS. GUNDLACH: It could have been designed and built in accordance with the setbacks, yes. Page 23 1 6 I 1 , Aviber 11009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the concept, this is not really just a repair, the total cage was taken down so it has to be built up. Repairs, you put the screens back in it. So the building department has not done a structural review of this project yet? MS. GUNDLACH: I do have a copy of the building permit file, if you would like to look at it. I looked at it briefly yesterday. And I did notice that there were some -- it appeared to be some structural drawings. And we do have one set of review notes from the building permit reviewers. And there was a structural review on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- but was it signed off for structure, or did it-- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, you can look at it. I mean, they really can't sign off on it because, you know, the setbacks weren't correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they could sign off for their division, the structural, without the setbacks. MS. GUNDLACH: We could take a look at that and see if they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While she's looking at that, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is anybody in the public wanting to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe while she's doing that I can ask Ray. Ray, do we have letters from the neighbors on this at all? MR. BELLOWS: None that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, positive or negative. Other than the association itself. MS. GUNDLACH: Regarding letters of objection, there was only the one from the homeowners association. Okay, I have a residential plan review comments prepared on April 5th, 2007. Okay, we have one from a residential plan review and it says not a failure, but please be aware that any changes to the structure due to the setbacks will require a new construction layout for the review process. That sounds like it was structurally sufficient but he couldn't sign off on it because of the structural -- I mean the setback issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah. That's good, thanks, Nancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Anybody -- oh, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I just have a quick one here. On all these diagrams, the ones that I looked at and obviously that are in here, it never shows the setback. It shows the utility easements, but I haven't been able to find other than what was written in the front of the setback and I didn't see any PUD in there that shows that. I mean, it obviously is, if you wrote it, but how come none of the diagrams, none ofthe draftings, if you will, or architectural does not show setbacks? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, probably the best place to look, and sometimes it's hard to see. Let's refer to my colored in -- that's actually a boundary survey that shows the encroachment. And there's a lot of lettering so sometimes it's hard to see. Okay, you can see obviously I wrote in that it's seven and a half and IS-foot setback. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But that's also -- that's what the five-foot utility easement goes to, or the total! 0- foot utility easement. You point to that, you point to the dotted line, and this is where my confusion was, is I'm thinking that whoever designed the pool cage and the deck thought that those dotted lines were the setback. I would Page 24 16 I 1 1 A3 I November 19, 2009 have ifI were there doing a layout for a pool and didn't see anything else, that's what I would have assumed. I mean, that's what it looked like. When I first looked at this whole thing, whenever it was ago, that's what I thought. I said, well, I would have done it the same way, hit right on that dotted line. I didn't see any other setbacks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, one thing I did notice, the pool cage actually is set back 5.09 feet. The slab is a few inches past that. And the slab's the only thing that protrudes into the utility easement, at least according to the blowup of the detail of that corner. I mean, that makes a difference from the aspects of the easement. I don't know if-- MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, we're here today for the setbacks, which is seven and a half feet, the encroachment into the seven and a half foot area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's just about two and a half foot difference is what they're looking at. MS. GUNDLACH: Urn-hum, correct. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Nancy, I know we have a code enforcement case that's bringing this to us, but what -- is there any kind of -- anything happening to the contractor who's building in the county without a license, and obviously causing these kind of problems? MS. GUNDLACH: I would have to inquire about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't your reference to the reason for the variance instead of a setback of 4.84-foot, they need a 5.00, since it's the cage that's in question, not a slab? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the variance they're asking for is not 4.84 feet, it's to 5.09 feet. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. That's my error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Wait a minute, Mark, that's the existing setback. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: They've got to go to seven and a halffeet, so subtract from seven and a half, 5.09 is what they really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'm saying is the cage is at -- isn't the current, this detail, this plan here, the large 9/29/09 survey -- COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: No, you're right, I see it. You're right. Instead of 4.85 it should be 5.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be 5.09 is all, so-- MS. GUNDLACH: It shows up in the enlargement. Or the detail, rather. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So really they're looking at a 5.09 setback in lieu of the previously stated 4. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I would have to change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody else have any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No question, just a comment when we come to that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll seek a motion first and then we'll go to comments. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 25 16 , 1 JA3r1919 , COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve changing it to 5.09 feet from what you had requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the rear setback of 12.5 foot? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was two of them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Now discussion. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm going to vote against the motion for the following reasons: I don't believe that they meet the requirements of the LDC. Number one, a pie-shaped lot is not a special existing condition peculiar to land and structures, as required, while owner expectations of construction approval is not a special condition either. A literal interpretation does not result in urmecessary and undue hardships. This variance confers a special provision on the petitioner, and I will vote against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well I'll be making-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to be voting against it. Although the hardship and everything I'm not so much against, but the fact is that they knew that this was a setback issue during the permitting process, so the information was in hand and they just bullied ahead and found themselves here today. So I can't reward that because I can't punish the people who do it right by rewarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll be voting against the motion as well. I don't thinlc that it-- of the criteria that we have to judge by, I do not thinlc that there are special conditions or circumstances. They bought the property, it's a pie-shaped lot. It can be built on appropriately. C, the literal interpretation, if they could afford to rebuild, they could afford to rebuild correctly. I think the variance will not be the minimum, we just heard that, which is D. E, we would be granting a special privilege. Apparently there have been no other variances, according to the staff report, in King's Lake. F, I thinlc granting a variance will not be in harmony with the purpose of the Land Development Code. It's not a legally permitted enclosure as it stands now. I think that they probably would have been better off to spend some more time working with the homeowner association. These homeowner associations have the authority and they should have worked with them before they even did the repairs. Most PUDs are that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ijust -- I don't see a problem with this. I thinlc this happens. It happened in our homeowner's association, and you don't -- things get -- they just go by the wayside somehow. There was a pool cage -- and you don't realize it until the hurricane came and it took a pool cage down. And it's not the fault of the homeowners that own the property now. And it's a huge expense, it's not a little expense. The pool cages, when they came down, ours cost over $17,000 just for the pool cage. And generally when you have -- in a homeowner's association, if you're replacing something that's already in existence or if you're repainting the same color or putting on the same roof, you do not have to get permission from the homeowner's assoc -- it might be in the documents, but you generally do not. And this is -- it's unfortunate, but it still does not go into the public utility easement. It's 10 feet in the back and 10 feet on the side. And it's really not encroaching on that, so I don't think it's a big issue. Page 26 16 1 1 ~o~m219,1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- for the record, I'll make a comment. I will support the motion for approval. This particular house and pool in that location's been there since I thinlc we heard testify since '93. The neighbors have not complained. I can't see how it's hanming anybody. And we shouldn't be penalizing people because the damage is caused by an act of God that they couldn't control. So at this point I'm in favor of it. And with that we'll ask for a vote. And please signify by both raising your hand and saying aye. All in favor of the motion for approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-3. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thanlc you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up, and we will take a break in about 15 minutes, Cherie', does that work for you? THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is Petition CU-PL2009170, the First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc. at 14600 Tarniarni Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a discussion with Mr. Hancock. I suggested some refinements that I'm sure we'll be discussing today. So other than that, we'll move forward. Tim, it's all yours. Well, he was up there. Oh, there he is. MR. HANCOCK: Good morrting, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I made the mistake of trying something new this morning. I found it interesting when I bring in PowerPoint presentations that one of the few people in the county that knows how to load them is Joe Schmitt. And so it gets a little bit of a bind up here sometimes, it's not easy to do. So I'm trying to use my laptop here. If you'll give me just one second to see if I can fix it. If I cannot, I'll use slides on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: To avoid holding this body and everybody up further, while I'm a fan of technology, never underestimate the power of a paper backup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could take a break right now, we're pretty close enough to it. Why don't we just try that and maybe that will make it easier. Page 27 16 I 1 ~Am~rl9'!9 MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a break till five after 10:00, we'll continue at that time. (Recess.) Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go into the next item, during the break through conversation with the County Attorney's Office for the last item today, which is PUDZ-2007-AR-1229~, which is the Immokalee Airport Master Plan or PUD, the -- there's some issues involving the circumstaJIces of that plan, and some details that were missing. And in discussions with the County Attorney and Mr. Arnold and Ms. Cook, it was best recommended that we continue that. They've requested a continuance to the 17th meeting in December. I thinlc that's a good thing, because there is a lot of outstanding questions that could get resolved by then. So anybody have any comment on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Wayne, do you want to come up to the microphone and officially make the request to continue? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, representing the Airport Authority on this matter. And given the questions that have arisen and after conversations with County Attorney, we beli,:ve it is in the best interest of the project to request a continuance to probably December 17th. That gives w; essentially a month. I understand in talking to Ms. Deselem with the county that the packets are already in process for your meeting in two weeks, so it probably makes more sense to put that out two more weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay for staff? Is there any concern on staff's part? MR. BELLOWS: Only -- for the record, Ray Bellows. Only -- I just want to get some assurance that if there are information that cannot make the packets for the 17th meeting, the petitioner will be prepared to present that to you verbally during that hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure they will. I mean, we're going to have -- any questions that they miss I'm sure we'll pick it, so with that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do we need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with that in mind, I'm going to ask for a motion. First of all, are there any members of the public here for that item that wish to speak today that cannot be here on December 17th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made for petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12294 for a continuance to December 17th. Motion was made by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? Page 28 1 6 I 1 ~ A~3ber 1;1009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCIDFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, Wayne. Appreciate your cooperation. I thinlc it will be a better product when it comes back. So that will work out a lot better for everybody. And I would recommend to the Planning Commission to save the information packets they have that we've already got, because there will most likely be a supplement that will be issued to that, so set that stuff aside. Okay, Tim, it looks -- did you get your computer working -- did you correct that computer? Item #9C PETITION: CU-PL2009-170. FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST MISSION. INC. MR. HANCOCK: We have done our best and I thinlc we're up and running. So thank you again for the break and the time, I do appreciate it. I hope that it makes things go a little smoother. Again, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. Mr. Hood was going to present this item but is home sick watching it on television. So I'll be pinch hitting for him today, and of course I will give him some very terrible tasks to take care of next week for making me be here. But I'm here representing the applicant, First Haitian Baptist Mission, a church ministering to the Naples Community at 14600 Tarniarni Trail East. I'd like to take a few minutes to talk to you about the history of the existing conditional use, an existing and absolute conservation easement and the proposed conditional use application for expansion on the subject property that's before you today. The subject property is located three miles east of the intersection of Tamiarni Trail East and Collier Boulevard. It is zoned rural agricultural with a conditional use for the existing church facility. The subject property lies within the urban coastal fringe sub-district future land use designation. It has approximately 500 feet of frontage along Tamiami Trail, and it bordered on three sides: The east, south and west by Charlee Estates, Habitat for Humanity single-family residential development. The zoning of Charlee Estates is in fact the Charlee Estates PUD. To the north across Tamiami Trail right-of-way is undeveloped C-2 commercial zoned property. The eastern boundary of the subject property shares a border with a water management retention area that is part of Charlee Estates PUD. In May of 1993, the applicant was granted a conditional use to provide for the establishment of a Page 29 16 I 1 tAe~er 19~09 church and accessory uses to a church in the rural agricultural zoning district on the parcel which is 4.5" acres. Subsequently a site development plan application was approved in July of 1995, that's SDP 94-(,1,. for the construction of the existing church and parking areas shown in this aerial photograph. Under that SDP approval the applicant was granted the operation of a church and church related uses, associated parking and water management areas for a 9,360 square foot square sanctuary. The sanctuary currently seats a 345-person congregation, and that translates into an existing 148 parking spac es provided on-site at the required ratio of three spaces per seven seats. The church currently is on well and septic on this site. Under the prior SDP approval, the applicant identified and preserved a 2.15-acre area under conservation easement to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, formerly the DI :R. You can see that area here on the existing plan of development. This area was set aside per a settlement agreement with Deltona Corporation for the Rookery Ba:l National Estuarine Research Reserve in December of 1992 to preserve an enllanced wetlands and other areas of environmental concern in perpetuity at the time of the easement's granting. A portion of the subject property -- and you can see the property here in yellow. A portion oftlh' subject's property, along with a number of others, were selected by DEP for preservation, assumedly dm to their proximity to extraordinary waters to the south. The areas here highlighted in pink are areas however that were approved for development. The subject property is within that area. After looking at and analyzing the 1973 aerial shown here we've confirmed, along with environmental staff's agreement, that there were no wetlands existing on the site then nor are there wetla nds and vegetation on the site now. The intent of the applicant going forward is to vacate the conservation easement that we believe lVas placed in error at the time of the SDP approval by the applicant, and to request that conservation easeme:'lt through DEP be lifted. We believe that the modification of the surrounding properties in the years obviously have made this not some kind of environmentally significant two-acre parcel. There's no vegetation on it, it's not a wetland and it's surrounded on three sides by a residential development. We have contacted DEP and are awaiting their determination to lift the conservation easement. . \ny granting of the conditional use today obviously would be subject to that conservation easement being lifted or amended. Now that we've gone over a little bit of the history, let me share with you what the church is intending for the property. The congregation has grown out of their current administrative and activity areas. Fairly commc>1l for a church to build the sanctuary first and some additional administrative areas, and as funding comes available, then expand as their programs expand, such as the case here. Though the sanctuary is still of sufficient size for Sunday services, the areas to hold Bible study, Sunday school classes, administrative functions and receptions for the congregation is now inadequate t< meet the needs of the church. The church is not seeking to expand the seating in the sanctuary. The maximum permitted congregation size will remain at 345 seats. If in the future the church's congregation should grow to a pc:int where more space is needed, an amendment to the conditional use application would be required at that time. To adequately accommodate the congregation's fellowship programs and to provide more area f< r the church's administrative offices, this conditional use proposes to expand the existing church sanctuary and reception hall by 1,550 square feet. In addition, they would like to add a separate 19,281 square feet Page 30 1 6 I 1'" AJber :+009 general purpose building. As you can see on the site plan before you, if you'll look on the bottom of the plan, that's the existing sanctuary. That's going to have again the 1,550 square feet added to it primarily for administrative space. The building just to your left as you look at that would be the new general purpose building for the church. The general purpose building will house a fellowship hall with an associated kitchen, administrative offices, a reception area, restroom facilities, a conference area and additional classrooms. The new structure will allow members of the congregation to gather and hold events and functions such as receptions for weddings, Sunday school classes, Bible study and other church related events for its members. The intended use is compatible with the single-family residential development and vacant land surrounding a near proximity to the subject property. The proposed expansion will be buffered from those uses via landscaping as required by the Land Development Code and shall conform to the dimensional standards in accordance with the rural agricultural zoning designation. Planned access will remain via the existing driveway connecting the property to Tamiami Trail East. There are a few issues that may have come up in your review of this petition. I'd like to try and address some of those at this point, as well as some comments that I received from Mr. Strain. The fust of those really is that we discovered as we were going through this conditional use that the boundary survey and survey provided to us, that the existing structures are actually encroaching into a required 50-foot setback. What it is our intent to do and the church's intent to do is the expansion and remodel of the sanctuary will remedy this existing condition and avoid the need for coming back before you for another fun-seeking variance. The second issue is that the -- and don't get me wrong, I really enjoy being here. The second issue is the additional 98 parking spaces -- I thought I could pull that out without laughing myself. There's an additional 98 parking spaces on the master plan. It's in excess of what the church seating currently requires. And I'm sure that drew some of your attention. When designing the site for circulation and potential water management areas, we maximized the parking areas trying to thinlc of the future. The church's congregation size does not exceed the 345 seats now, but it may at some point in the future. We've decided to allow for that now instead oflater, showing you what the site would look like and what its development extents would be at its maximum development potential. Also, there is a misprint on the provided master concept plan that is our responsibility. There are 246 parking spaces, not 245. So for those of you that counted them, I'm going to intercept you right there. We do have amended master concept plans we'll provide for the record, but at consent you will see that change, should we get to that point. The design before you also allows us to design and install the stormwater management system to accommodate the build-out of the full site. Future growth may result in designating what are shown here in parking areas and converting them to an additional building, for example. Or more than likely what would probably be the case is the larger building may at some point be converted to more of a church use allowing for increased seating. Nonetheless, any increase in seating over the 345 would have to come back before you as an amendment to the conditional use. But we thought it wise to at least project out what may be the needs of the church in attempt to master plan those at this time. The way we've done that in essence is to install placeholder parking. Page 3 1 1 6 1 1 ~ ~~mbel, 2009 At the tinle of development of the additional building we mayor may not construct all of those spaces, but the stormwater management system will be designed to accommodate them so that future runoff and future development envelopes are designed and adhered to in the future. As it stands today, the church's congregation cannot expand on this site, cannot add one single seat. Because the trips on this link ofTarniarni Trail East are not available. We've agreed through our traffic impact statement filed with the application and reviewed by transportation planning staff to lin1it the number of seats that govern our trip generation because of that road failure. The section is defined as being from Collier Boulevard to the west and Greenway Road to the east along this section ofTarniarni Trail. When the roadway's been improved at some point in the future and trips become available, the opportunity to expand the seating of the congregation would be present. At this time it is not. The third issue we would like to address is the proposed ADA accessible off-site pedestrian walkway. We have a lot of members that live in Charlee Estates surrounding the church. This is in fact a community church serving its inmlediate community. As a matter of fact, a review of the membership roles showed approximately 15 percent of the members living in Charlee Estates currently. The walkway was provided basically to keep cars from traveling out Charlee Estates onto U.S. 41 to access the church. Candidly, folks are walking to the church now. They're just not doing it across an approved pathway. And we felt that by addressing this both internally to our site and working with Charlee Estates in the construction of a sidewalk through what is a common area adjacent to the church, that we could maybe make that a little more of a smooth transition. As someone who enjoys getting up Sunday mOrrllng and walking to my own church, it's something we'd like to promote, obviously. And as a result, we think that there may be some trips that normally are going on on the Trail that people are accessing it by car that would certainly use this pathway, if it were present. So we're trying to promote the pedestrian connection as in essence a good neighbor act and also as a way of mitigating any potential traffic impacts that even the additional building may create. And Mike Green is here with transportation staff. And we can go into that a little bit furtb.er, if you'd like, but the reality is that when you look at the actual traffic impacts of the church, there's two ways that we evaluate traffic. For churches, for weekend services it's based on the number of seats. But when you look at the weekday effect, you look at the square footage ofthe facilities. So you really are doing two TISs within one use, because the uses are distinctly different. During the week I believe we exceed the p.m. peak hour by something in the area of eight trips. Eight trips is not a lot. Eight trips represents -- if we had five percent of our congregation that actually walked to church, that would be about three families, then that would address that five percent. So it's a fairly minimal number, but it is in fact in excess of the p.m. peak hour in the way we review our TISs. So this pedestrian pathway is designed specifically to address that deficiency, and we believe it recognizes an existing pattern that is already going on. But by doing so, addresses the mitigation requirements of the application. Another issue that came up that was posed at the neighborhood information meeting was who would be responsible for constructing and maintaining the walkway. What we will do is we will obtain-- do everything we can to obtain a cross access easement through the community area. The church, though, will be responsible for construction and maintenance of any sidewalk in that area. That will be the church's responsibility. Page 32 16 I 1 1 A3ber 1Ro09 And last, of course the DEP conservation easement that currently is active on the property, I mentioned earlier, any proposed change in the site within the area of conservation will be subject to the vacation or modification of that easement. I'd like to go into a couple of items that Mr. Strain raised in a conversation I had with him yesterday. One of them is contained in your staff report with respect to hours of operation. And those hours of operation were listed specifically, and I want to clarifY this, not just for the church operation but also for the general purpose building too. So those hours of operation we listed. We tried to accommodate all of the operations on the site, not just the church sanctuary itself. But that does include the general purpose building. Secondly, we say in our application that events are limited to church members. And let me clarifY that. This is not a rental facility, this is not an Elks Lodge where you're going to have outside groups come in and have events. When we talk about weddings, we're talking about weddings of church members. When we talk about baptismal celebrations, we're talking about baptisms of church members. And I do want to be very clear about that. This is not a facility that's going to be rented to outside parties. It is indeed for church members. Third, outside music and celebrations. Well, one of the reasons for building this nice new facility is to be able to have more general purpose events. And we are anticipating no outside events as a part of the normal worship function of the church. If there were to be any type of an outside event with outside music, it would be subject to the special permit requirements of the county and we would have to apply for such permit. Those permits carry with them lin1itations as to hours of operation and time throughout the year. And again, one example that I offered is that my particular church, we have one event that's outside every year that specifically has one of the local high school jazz bands play, but we have to get a special events permit in order to do that. That same thing would apply here. Weare not including in our application outside music or amplified music. And last is you'll see a reference to a fence that is six to eight feet. Now I've never met a six to eight-foot fence. It's usually either six-foot or an eight-foot. And so that was our mistake. We somehow plugged six to eight feet in for some reason, and it just kept going right through the process. So let me be clear, any fence requirement -- and I believe the LDC requirement is at six feet when you have a use like this that is adjacent to residential, so it is a six-foot fence requirement. The church may opt, should they wish to at the time of SDP, to request an administrative fence waiver where you take the fence -- instead of the fence you do a landscape buffer and whatnot. But we would only do that if we had the agreement of the adjacent property owners and follow the LDC requirements for buffering. So we're not asking for any exceptions to the LDC requirements for buffering. Any fence as required by the LDC I believe would be six feet in this location, so please allow me to correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only difference to that statement, Tim, the recommendation of staff is not to give you the option to require a wall six to eight feet. So you had just I thought alluded that the LDC has an option that it can be more landscaping and we can elin1inate the fence or the wall. That's not what would happen if the recommendation here was included. And that's what I was suggesting is that I believe a wall is called for, especially that close to residential. My question to you was, well, let's just make it six or eight feet, not leave the -- so everybody knows what's happening, so -- MR. HANCOCK: The one area that I would ask for some potential relief of that is where the church property does not immediately border the residential homes. And I'm not asking you for the variance here today. I've been down that road with other churches and I know where it ends up when it gets before the board. In the past the board has directed that we go through whatever administrative procedures may be available to us. Page 33 16 1 1'1 A 3vembl 9, 2009 And for example, we had New Hope went through a process. And what the staff actually did is they bifurcated our request and said well, over here we thinlc you need a wall and over here we can understand you may not. And so we got a partial relief, if you will. My specific concern for the church is the cost of constructing a six-foot wall along a water management area or along a common area where it's a playground may not be appropriate. If staff deteIDlines that it is, it shall be constructed. But where we are inmlediately adjacent to single-family homes, we will not be seeking relief in those areas. So I wanted to leave that option open only with respect to where we are not inmlediately adjacent to single-family homes. If it is your desire to follow staff recommendation, we're not going to fuss with that a lot, but we would like to have the opportunity to make that request to staff and allow them to make a planning based decision on whether it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it does say along the residential land uses, so I don't know what -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, because the entire PUD is a residential PUD -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I got it. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, it can be construed that -- and probably has been construed more consistently than not in the past. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly don't expect you to put one along the street. I don't thinlc that's the issue. The issue is when -- because you've got parking on where most of the homes are. And heading up into there, people walk away, lock their car, beep, beep, you know, that's not going to work. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Charlee Estates was what, is that a Habitat community? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And as we know, those people are, quote, forced to keep a very tight neighborhood. Very clean, tight neighborhood. And it would just be terrible to make sure that that's not kept (sic). Which brings up my point about the buffer. In your NIM meeting, in your neighborhood information meeting, was that buffer acceptable? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. There were no objections in the neighborhood information meeting with respect to the buffer that's proposed. And we propose the same buffer there that we did (sic) now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And they understood what that is, that type of buffer is? MR. HANCOCK: It was explained. And Nancy, I've reviewed the minutes of it, but I was not in attendance. But the buffer was explained what a Type D is and that it mayor may not include a wall. And I believe that exact verbiage was used. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Now, along the residential area there will be a wall, you said eight foot? MR. HANCOCK: Six foot is the LDC requirement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. You didn't feel like going eight foot in the residential since you're getting relief? I'm not here to negotiate, I was leading into something. MR. HANCOCK: What I'm heading to is our plan is a six-foot wall. If the Planning Commission feels that eight-foot is more appropriate inmlediately adjacent to residential, that's something I would understand. When we get away where we're not immediately adjacent to residential, we would prefer to have the option of requesting a waiver from the wall requirement to install a heavily opaque landscape buffer in lieu of the wall. Page 34 16 1 1 ~ A3 ;J NovembeNl2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to -- that's where I was going with it, was with that buffer. And that's going to be on the residential side or on the church side property? MR. HANCOCK: It would be planted on the church's property and maintained by the church. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Correct. And then the wall or -- which is facing the residential? MR. HANCOCK: Well, when you have a wall requirement, a Type D buffer, the vegetation is on the residential side and the wall is on the church side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, had you fmished with your presentation? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out that the process that we're going through is a conditional use. It's not a PUD where there's an ordinance adopted and you have deviations. There is no deviations from the landscape requirements that the Planning Commission can recommend on. However, there is an adntinistrative fence process the applicant can go through to address either the height or portions where it doesn't abut actual residential units, that they can ask for elimination of the fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the stipulation that staffhas included in here says there shall be a wall. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Presentations done from the applicant. Questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, I want to focus in on the existing building. The original PUD showed a 30-foot setback, and it looks like this building has that. But it also looks like you're intending to trim off five feet of that southeast setback. Is that true? Or is that necessary? MR. HANCOCK: It is my understanding, based on the survey, that there's a six and a half foot encroachment into the required setback. So yes, the renovation of the building would attempt to correct that. We'd be required to correct that encroachment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your new building shows 35 feet. And like I said, the original PUD allowed that to be a 30. So I guess you'll argue that out with staff at the time. But -- because these setbacks -- I mean, trimming off little slivers of building seems to be a very difficult thing to do. Is there no adrrtinistrative way to allow you to have those small encroachments? MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe that degree of encroachment qualifies for any administrative waiver. So if we cannot do it economically, we'd be forced to come back through a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Anyway, check that, because it was 30 feet, and it looks like they built that right. The existing building has a porte-cochere in the front. You're not going to build that back? Or this level of drawing not going to get into stuff like that? MR. HANCOCK: We have not. That's going to be a budgetary issue for the church. Since the porte-cochere would not increase the seating requirements, we've just simply not gotten into the architectural issue of showing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. And then the only other comment, and this would probably be worked out in SDP, is putting the trash containers in somebody's backyard versus all the other locations. It doesn't seem fair. But anyway, thank you. Page 35 1611 ~~embl, 2009 MR. HANCOCK: We can do a better job at that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tim, looking at the hours of operation, the statement in the staff report says days and hours of operation of the church are as follows. I'm wondering if that's used in the more generic sense, inclusive of those two buildings. When we talk about half -- almost a half an acre of a building, the general purpose building, you've mentioned classrooms, and I was just trying to visualize what that configuration may be. I almost saw a gymnasium. I don't know. How many people would we be bringing in for a prayer meeting? Now, the prayer meeting, according to the statement here, prayer meeting would probably happen in the sanctuary. I'm guessing, of course. Do you have a feel for where I'm going with this to try to understand what a half an acre of building would really be used for and how many people will it draw? MR. HANCOCK: I do have an idea. And I actually have a very real word example of my own church. And we have a general purpose building that is roughly the same size. And as you walk in the entryway, there are different size meeting rooms to handle different functions. One is maybe a Christian library and the other is a parlor for receptions, and then on the second floor there are Sunday School rooms. And then there's a kitchen area that can serve both front and back side of the building that is more central. The back side of the building is created as a general purpose area. And the floor plan, the preliminary floor plans for this were similar to this, along the same lines, that that open area can be used for a variety of activities. You could have a youth basketball league. For example, my church runs a youth basketball league, a Christian basketball league in there. We also have Wednesday night dinners for our church members where we'll have fellowship and dinners and Bible study that breaks out following that. So the number of people that it can hold depends on the type of function you have there. One of the reasons I thinlc the additional parking is being put in there is to ensure that that does not create a problem, because this is a site where you can't exactly park out on the street if there's an overflow. So those are the -- that's the mindset of the building. And one of the big problems they've had is that -- and this portion of Collier County, if you have a wedding and are looking to have a reception, there are not a lot of facilities that are available for church members to use, and I'll say at a reasonable or acceptable cost. And they've had a lot of requests for special events by church members on the property. And so that's one of the functions the building's intended to serve. I hope I've answered your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thinlc you have. And I certainly am not against it. My -- the route of my question in that sense, and you hit it right on the head, is -- I'm going to use an absurd example here. The cousin from Des Moines having their wedding there because they're a cousin of one of the members. I'm making that kind of a ludicrous example because I really don't believe that has happened very much. But there is a question that I thinlc should be asked about what real control do we have over whether or not that's going to turn into something that will be a promotion for the benefit of the church but to the detriment of the neighbors. Try to help us with that, if you would. MR. HANCOCK: You've hit on something that we run up against with every single church. And we seem to appear before you on an inordinate number of churches, and we're actually very proud of that. But the range of events that occur with churches are so incredibly varied you almost have to -- and I hate to use these words, but you almost have to trust in the institution that most churches do not provide weddings for non-members. Therefore, a reception on site following the wedding, ergo it would be a Page 36 16 lIt ~o~berI2009 member. The only enforcement that really exists is, and I thinlc this would come aoout, if there were a high degree of events or events that were creating noise and somebody looked into, there was a complaint filed, hey, you know, these aren't church members, they leased it out to, you know, "X" organization to have a fundraiser, and that were confirmed, it would in fact be a violation of their zoning. That's the only enforcement I can offer to you that I can thinlc of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. What I'm guessing -- I'm not guessing. What I'm relating to here is when one looks at the statement of what all is going on there: women's ministry, I'm thinlcing sanctuary; youth and adult Bible study, okay, maybe classrooms in the room; choir rehearsal, I assume would be in the sanctuary; prayer meeting, not sure. Most of the activities from this statement here suggest that it would be held in the sanctuary. So a 19,321 square foot building or 281 square foot building seems an extraordinary enterprise for something that doesn't seem to have any clear apparent use other than probabilities for limited use. MR. HANCOCK: We probably got caught a little bit in the trap of talking about what the church currently does in determining of hours of operation and applying it to the larger building. I'm not entirely sure that they think they're going to use all 19,000 square feet right out of the chute. But if you're going to build 10,000 in this market, it makes a lot more sense to build the other nine, even though you may not have an inmlediate need for it. I can tell you that, for example, our general purpose area, we have a production called Night in Bethlehem every Christmas, and it's a walk-through production. And it doesn't allow any more folks to be there and use that facility for that purpose than our sanctuary does. But it takes a lot more space. And we have the ability to do it because we have the space to do it. I thinlc that's part of the planning that the church is trying to implement here. I don't see a 20,000 square foot wide-open facility with rock concerts going on here. I know that's a fear, it's a concern, it's a worry. But from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure how to preclude that from ever happening, but that certainly is not the intent of the church and I'm not sure how to further limit it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm satisfied with your statements. And I understand it's either a problematic issue based on history, or if there's no history it's likely not to become a problem. MR. HANCOCK: One of the benefits of this site, because its only point of access is on Tamiami Trail, is it doesn't use residential streets to get to and from the church. So people parking, you know, overflow parking, if they were to have a large event, occurring on residential streets, which can be problematic, is far, far less likely here. And I thinlc that's at least a degree of mitigation for those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is that the church will not be hiring Mr. Vigliotti's son to put in a sound system so that the actual -- while your seats in the sanctuary are limited, you essentially have 19,000 square feet of additional sanctuary space. MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am. The sanctuary is the sanctuary, and services will be held in the sanctuary. And overflow seating -- we can only have 345 seats period for any service to occur. And that even includes, for example, you could have a wedding in the general purpose area, I guess, but I don't see that happening. I don't recall it happening in other facilities of similar design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My question is to the County Attorney. Jeff, where do we get to a point with over-restricting hours and uses in the church? Don't we start to cross a line and wind up in a possible problem? MR. KLATZKOW: I thinlc you have to be reasonable in your conditional uses. How's that? And if Page 37 1 6 I 1 ~ 30ve) 19,2009 I'm hearing something here I think is unreasonable, I'll pipe up. But I think that's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm just concerned because we're getting into hours and usage. I don't want to be too specific. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but these -- a lot of these churches are in residential neighborhoods and that's why we have these reasonable times and hours. I mean, there's a difference between a church and more of a commercial setting with nobody around them and a church surrounded by homes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, let's go back and start right from the beginning. You said that you would limit hours of operation. And I'm recalling the Covenant Church on 41, if everybody remembers what happened in regards to the Pelican -- or Pine Ridge community there. There was a lot of concern about the hours of operation. And we did restrict that church, and they agreed to the restrictions, for certain hours of operations to not disrupt the neighborhood. The neighborhood there was equally close as the one you're dealing with here. I thinlc you said you were comfortable with that all buildings will be limited to the hours of operation that was in the staff report. Is that the Page 4 that you're referring to where it says the hours of operation of the church are as follows? MR. HANCOCK: It is with -- and the notable exception, and I should have mentioned this. For example, there's nothing in here for Tuesdays or Saturdays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that and as well the hours that the church itself operates. You may want it to have different hours for the multi-use building; otherwise what good is it? If it's multi-use, you're probably going to need it for more hours than you're operating the church. So I think that your hours of operation need to be considered in regards to the way you previously defined it. I thinlc you really want a little more flexible hours, and I thinlc that would be reasonable. So I would suggest that you suggest something more reasonable, and we get that in. Because we have to come back on a consent and I want this as carefully stipulated as possible. So are you prepared to have that now, or -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before this conversation is done today? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., Sunday through Thursday. And 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m? MR. HANCOCK: To 9:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. MR. HANCOCK: I said 10:30. I can be negotiated downward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 10:00 would be better than 10:30. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're against a neighborhood that's probably got children living in those houses right up against this building. And that's where my concern is. There's a lot offamilies living there and they're going to have to sleep. 10:00 is more reasonable than 10:30. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. And we will agree to that linlitation, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the outside music goes, you agreed to have no outside music, either amplified or otherwise, until -- but only through special permit application. Is that -- Page 38 16 1 1 ~AN3~mbl, 2009 MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fair to say? Okay, the members of the congregation will be those who -- the only people using this multipurpose facility will be members of the congregation; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. The only problem I run into is if you're having a wedding for a member of the congregation, there's folks from outside the congregation that are invited, I don't want to preclude that. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. And that's why I brought the question up, because I want to make sure we defme it. Should we be better off saying members of the congregation and their guests? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's who will be limited to using that multipurpose building. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I thank you for that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dumpsters. I heard Mr. Schiffer correctly indicate there's a concern with the dumpsters. I had also written the same concern. My suggestion was that you not just say you're going to fix it, that you tell us today you're going to move it to the line that's bordering the water management area in Charlee Estates to the southeast. Is that a fair statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that should have been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And lastly, where is your water management on this plan? MR. HANCOCK: The water management area is located between -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a lot of impervious, from what I can see. So that's why I was wondering where you're going to have your 12 to 15 percent of your site for water management. MR. HANCOCK: The water management is located between the parking area and U.S. 41. There's a linear area there that will accommodate the dry retention. This plan shows approximately 31 percent of the parking spaces is grassed parking spaces. And we are willing to agree to a minimum of 30 percent of the constructed parking spaces will be grassed. That does help us to some degree with the water management. But we believe the water management as designed is acceptable for the church uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your water management is all designed on this property? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because when we talked about when you -- during your presentation, I thought you mentioned you had a -- you were sharing the water management with Charlee Estates, but that's not the case. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fence -- the wall that needs to be put around it, I didn't see the wall as a barrier or as a security issue, I saw it as a sound preventative issue. And I understand your argument that you could potentially stop it where there is a playground or stop it where there's water management. But if you stop it there, the houses are right behind both those areas. And as we learned in the Lely application with commercial in Lely and we were concerned about the travel of noise across the water, the same thing would occur here. So those people on the triangular side -- that little triangular water management area are still going to have noise issues from the church property. And I saw that as the concern for the wall over any other issue. And I heard you make a -- you're willing -- you don't want the staff recommendation I believe to stand as it's written, you want some flexibility in dropping that wall. I really thinlc that would be detrimental when you're in a neighborhood as close as you are. And I Page 39 -,> , 16 1 l:~A 3' 1 , November 19,2009 don't mind stipulating it be six feet instead of eight, but I thinlc a wall of any kind there is more bene 11cial to noise transmission than a hedge that -- or a landscape buffer that we know especially when you're dealing with non-profits, there's a potential there for it to not be maintained or fertilized in a manner that ke(:ps it as lush as it might be to be the effective hedge it could be for its life, whereas a wall, it doesn't change, ';0 -- MR. HANCOCK: I can't necessarily obviously disagree with that thinlcing, with one except: on. The areas where the church buildings, and there are no activities between the church building and th:: property line, the buildings themselves act as a sound barrier for noise occurring on the far side. In other words, the entrance to the church is facing U.S. 41. The rear of the church, there's no activity back there. And it does seem costly and maybe urmecessary to construct a six-foot wall 30 feet away from a 25-foot building that does not have activity or access to that site other than emergency access only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem I have is that as we heard on the Pine Ridge subdivision's concerns about the church that they had there, when the people were inside the building tb.e noise and the vibration from inside the building could be heard across the street. And that's what I'm concerned about. Maybe as a consideration the point that a wall could be administratively requested to be dropped is where the building ends and you just have parking lot. And where there isn't residential alongside it. And that would really apply only to that southeast corner from 41 down to about two-thirds of the way where that triangular water management area is. And that would be more practical not to have a wall there. But I thinlc for the rest of it, especially around the buildings, I'm more concerned about the activities that go on inside. And religions tend to be a lot noisier nowadays, all of them do, with singing and entertainment than they did in the past. That's what I thinlc we're going to run into any time we have compatibility issues. So just that's my consideration. And David, I've still got more. Let me fm -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Before we lose track of it, I thinlc I scaled, I thinlc it was about 180 to 200 feet from that corner up to where, you know, that entrance to the building would be. So that's the distance -- that's the only distance we're talking about is about 200 feet. MR. HANCOCK: I'll be candid, I'll take what I can get. I'm trying to save the church money in areas where it may not be necessary. But as you mentioned, Mr. Strain, it's tough to make that one size fits all. It's very difficult to do. So I'm -- I understand your point and I'm not going to belabor it any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last question I have, and I thinlc it's more of a staff and you combination, you have an existing conditional use. I believe it's the existing conditional use that limits your number of patrons to the church. Does this conditional use wipe out the first one? And if so, do we ,;,tiU have -- I want to make sure we don't lose any of the restrictions that we had in the fust one that we're: counting on here today. MR. HANCOCK: You make a good point in that the new resolution -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't have the-- MR. HANCOCK: -- does not have the number of seats contained in it. We have no objection in putting the number of seats into the resolution, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was 345? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And I apologize, I should have picked up on that and did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for the sake of being redundant, I want to walk through 1bis Page 40 16 I 1 ,Aler 1109 agam. The hourly limitations of the multipurpose building will be Saturday through -- or Sunday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There'll be no outside music or amplified music outside unless with special permit application. The members of the congregation and their guests will be the limited users of the multi-use building. The dumpsters will be moved to the southeast side of the property. We will add a limitation of345 seats to the resolution for the quantity of church members that are allowed at this time, which is consistent with the original conditional use. There will be a wall that will be six feet high around two and a half sides of this project, basically ending, as Mr. Wolfley described, about 180 feet back from 41 on the southeast property line. And I believe -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, from the corner where (sic) the residential up towards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, up, okay. But I thinlc the point is where the parking lot is on the southeast property line, that's where staff -- we could stipulate that staff could administratively drop the wall, okay? I thinlc everybody -- those are the stipulations that I've gotten out of our conversation. We haven't -- we're not at a point yet to make a motion, but that's -- I just wanted to summarize where I believe we're at. Mr -- Ms. Caron? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good '01 what's her name. I have a couple of others I thinlc that were brought out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, let's go. COMMISSIONER CARON: And one is the conservation easement. We need a letter that says that that's been lifted. You need to address the 50-foot setback issue. And you committed to 30 percent of the parking to be grass. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, with that we've still got to hear staff report. Or does anybody else -- COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: One thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: And Tim, is there any midnight services that this church might have, Christmas Eve or something that we're out of compliance here? Is there any need for that. MR. HANCOCK: To date they've not had any. Let's see. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: I mean, there are some special services that might be outside your hours. If there's not, there's not. MR. HANCOCK: I was trying to craft something that may be acceptable. Under stipulation number two, which I know these are going to be renumbered as things are coming back to you on consent, where it indicates the maximum number of special events per year, if we were to add including no more than two services extending up to but not beyond midnight during high holidays, I think that would allow that, if it were to happen in the future. And I appreciate you bringing that up. It just -- not every church does those, but -- COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: And then the other might be Easter moming at sunrise. MR. HANCOCK: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't those be some of the special -- you're asking for 20 special Page 41 16 11 A3 - November 19,2009 events per year. Wouldn't those be considered special events? MR. HANCOCK: I kind of thought they fit under that, but then when we did the hours of operation, I see the potential for an internal conflict between those two, and I thinlc that's what Mr. Schiffer's rmsmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't the special events on the application be able to deviate on the hours of operation? Or does this lock it in 365 days a year? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the special events are in where you're defining the days that you can have services. And one of those days obviously is religious holidays. But I thinlc if it's not in the sentence or paragraph with the hours it wouldn't be obvious that that's what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then maybe where the hours are written, we just put except for the 20 special events as approved per year. MR. HANCOCK: That would more than accommodate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you could have a Christian rock concert in the parking lot at midnight, so that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Fifteen times a year. MR. HANCOCK: Let me ask, is the term high holidays a generally accepted term? Because whether -- it's based on the individual faith. I mean, the high holidays for the Jewish faith is a little different than Christian, but it does have a limitation. Is that clearly defined enough that events may occur earlier or later than the prescribed hours, but only during high holidays? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if they sell it to the Rastafarians. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer, you both are talking at the same time. I thinlc Mr. Schiffer, you have the floor at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, mine was a bit of a wise-crack. If they sell it to the Rastafarian church, you'd lose your defmition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just making a facetious comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you both were. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the truth is is that I'm not sure that anything anymore in the next five years to 10 years, whether that will roll away as being meaningful. And I know you're struggling to find a way of putting it. I thought the way it was couched here just a little while ago was fine, quite frankly. It needn't be -- I thinlc if you referenced them as exceptions, I don't thinlc they're going to hold a 2:00 a.m. rock service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they may not get approval for it if they do. So -- and the other concern I thinlc we have is not all religions we're finding out are the same. And what we're looking at are holidays known to most of what, Christian religions, and we now know there are holidays for other religions that have to be honored as well. So I'm not sure we want to limit or even get into a discussion on which holidays we pick for every religion. So we might be safer just leaving it with the 20 special events and let staff handle the logistics of that. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: To address the potential conflict, I may have one more quick shot at some language. It would say no more than two events per year may exceed the prescribed hours of operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No more than two events? MR. HANCOCK: Two events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fair. Page 42 16 I 1 No:eA3, 20;; COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're really limiting yourself. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fair. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no, no, no. MR. HANCOCK: Well, and the reason is that a special events pemllt doesn't allow you to have music typically, you know. And we're not going to have 2:00 a.m. events. And so while I agree that I am limiting my client, I don't thinlc I'm doing so unduly or in a burdensome manner. I thinlc if we had two that went -- I thinlc the special events permit, there's limitations that go until either 10:00 or II :00 and then there's an additional condition till midnight, if I remember correctly. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, the special events pemllt would define that. And ifhe were to exceed any of the linlits defined in the noise ordinance, it would identify it as such. For instance, if they were going to do an outdoor concert, it would list the times. We would still most likely specify that it would be completed at 10:00. For instance, they just had the film festival at the Mercato, and I thinlc there was a time limit when the outdoor music stopped, that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to say, and there's no possibility that the other language restricting it to the time frames that we're intending here would negate that? MR. SCHMITT: The 20 events a year, to be frank with you, if there's a sunrise service, we're going to recognize that as such. Likewise, a midnight mass. I don't thinlc we as a county are going to attempt in any way, shape or form to try and litigate or issue a citation. My goodness, Jeff and I would be trying to deal with the -- let alone the media, but any other legal -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, that would be you dealing with it. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, thank you. I deal with the media, you deal with the legal challenge. No, we're not going down that road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I do thinlc-- MR. SCHMITT: So we would clearly recognize -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as many as you want. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I didn't-- MR. SCHMITT: If they want to do a sunrise service, they do a sunrise service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now everybody, please, we can't talk out of turn. Cherie's having a hard time taking the minutes and these need to be accurate, so -- MR. HANCOCK: On top of trying to keep up with me. With Mr. Schmitt's clarification, I thinlc the verbiage that's contained in the staff report gets us where we need to go. But Mr. Schiffer, I do appreciate you raising the point. I thinlc we're addressed with that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did you have something else you wanted to add? MR. BELLOWS: Just make a quick point that if the church wanted to exceed the 20, that they could do that through a temporary use permit process also. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy? It will probably be short, I imagine. We've already covered most all the ground. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Page 43 16 I NIemi j!oo'~ Yes, the staff report will be short. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And we are recommending approval of this conditional use, subject to staff conditions, as well as the conditions that you have proposed today. And I'm happy to go through staff's conditions on Page II of 12, if you would like me to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thinlc we all have it in our packet. Unless there's specific questions, I'd prefer we didn't. With that in mind, we have related to you during this discussion, besides the staff conditions, we talked about nine, one of which was a redo of condition number five of staff's. Are you -- did you take good enough notes to know what those nine are? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staff on this particular application? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah,just one. Is the indication on the master plan of the sidewalk good enough? We don't need any -- you don't need a letter or anything saying that they have an easement through Charlee? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, one of staff's conditions of approval is that that sidewalk must be shown on the site plan that will be presented at a future date when they submit their site development plan. And it will have to be in -- constructed prior to their certificate of occupancy. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, they're going to have a wall there, but they want to allow access. Will that be a gated wall or will it just be open; do we know? MS. GUNDLACH: I thinlc that is at the petitioner's discretion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we might find out, if that access is going to be open, maybe Tim could just quickly nod. Will that access be open all of the time, or will that be subject to closing of the church property at a certain time? MR. HANCOCK: Because Charlee Estates are public roadways, open and accessible to the public, we have no intention of gating the access. If it is their request that we do so, we certainly will honor that request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I was just thinking about sound penetration through an open portal. Which tends to negate what you're trying to achieve with the wall. MR. HANCOCK: Fortunately that location is to the rear of the buildings, and so I thinlc between the wall and the fact that the opening is only going to be about five feet wide, I thinlc we'll accomplish most of that with those in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a thought. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, before you sit back down, I meant to ask earlier, what's that dark gray triangle between the two buildings? It's on all your plans but it's not defmed that I can fmd. Yeah, that's it. MR. HANCOCK: That would be a dark gray triangle. I thinlc the intent there was that -- and you'd mentioned a porte-cochere earlier, Mr. Schiffer -- is that it may be an expanded connector between the two buildings to give a single point of entry, but it had not been designed, so we showed it as -- if you were to look at this from plan view, maybe it would be an elevated or higher section that would connect the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop-off point. Page 44 , 16 , 10velbA~009 ~ MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But actually, if you look at the large plan, it's a pochette of a patio, a lot of pavers, so it's just a graphics. I don't thinlc there's any function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it doesn't seem to be problematic, I was just curious. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, we have no public speakers, because I don't see anybody left, is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. Please remember, we already have staff recommendations and nine stipulations that have been reiterated for the record when you make your motion, if you are so inclined. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would move for a recommendation of approval of CU-PL2009-170, known as the First Haitian Baptist Mission Church, subject to the recommendations/stipulations made here in the foregoing testimony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. And this will be coming back for consent in two weeks. Tim, thank you for your -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you very much. Page 45 16 I IV~~ber 19,~~ '!04 &>'1 Item # 11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- efforts today. We appreciate it. With that we'll go into old business, and I don't have anything on the agenda. But we do have a new business item. Presentation for the health department. Did we resolve that enough in the previous discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ok~. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just for point of information, if somebody does want to come to us, can't they just be put on the agenda? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- this is a republic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's why I didn't know why you asked. I assumed it was just going to be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because Ray was the one that said I had to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to -- basically Ray would have to contact me as chairman, and I would just acknowledge it can be added to the agenda. If there's an issue with it, I'd --like I have 90 percent of the time, I request things come back for general discussion with the board to give everybody an opportunity to weigh in, rather than I make a decision on that. But that's how it's worked in the past, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the time and date for this be heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is this like an eight-hour presentation? MR. BELLOWS: No, it wouldn't be more than 15,20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So yeah, it shouldn't be a problem. Anybody have any other comments? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Signature sheets for the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, signature sheets for the conditional use. Mr. Vigliotti pointed out there's none in our packet about. MR. BELLOWS: Remember, we've changed the format to be -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good. One less thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Help some of us that can't remember these things. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One less thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nothing else, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 46 16 11ve+erl9,A~ tr.:.-":1 .', COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :03 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION r}v GulVJ MA STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on corrected \ - ~-to as presented v' or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 47 Fialh~' ~:..,~_ Hales ~~___ Henning ~~ ___. Coyle ~?n- Coletta \~ ~=- 16 11cler3,A93 - / TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 3, 2009 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager 1110mas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Page 1 0Ile: IIIIm II: Copies 10: 16blrt ^'7 ~ e ~~3,~O~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That customary pause before we start the Pledge of Allegiance is so we're not pledging the back of Brad Schiffer's head. Gives him time to get off to the side, he's in the line offrre. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. We have our consent item agendas, which are extensive, and I want to ask the County Attorney if we can go through and discuss them all at once and make one motion to approve them all or if they all have to be read individually and approved individually. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's whatever your preference is. I'm okay with either -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do them all at once then, as long as no one objects once we get into discussion. Then we have three regularly advertised hearings. And I don't believe there are any exceptions to those. And we have a new business item, which is a GMP amendment scheduling. Page 2 1 rbelbel, 2;A 3 ~ Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll talk about Planning Commission absences. We have a couple nice things going on. We are going to be going to ln1mokalee for a workshop on the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan on December 16th. Now, that's the night before our December 17th meeting, so we're going to be kind ofjanrrned up with meetings. But the -- it seemed to be the only time it could be fit in with the locations in ln1mokalee. This is a workshop. It will not be broadcast. There will not be a court reporter there. Minutes will be taken. And we're there I would assume to hear the CRA's position and the Immokalee residents' position on their master plan. I don't expect that that meeting, for the benefit of the Planning Commission, to go through line-by-line, word-for-word, page-by-page, anything at all. I think it's more of a general informational meeting and informal back and forth so we can get a gut feel on what everybody is expecting out oftheir master plan and help us review it when we go back in I think it's January or February. But that is on the 16th. And I believe it's at 4:00 in the afternoon. Is that right, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. It is at 4:00. And if you don't mind me jumping on in, we've made the assumption that, as happened with a petition a year or two ago, that the Planning Commission might be interested in vanpooling over. So we have a reservation on the van for those that would be interested in traveling over as one group. We could meet at our offices at 2:30 on the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By "your offices", that's a big building. Which one? MR. WEEKS: The west end ofthe building. Right where -- right across from the credit union. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And where is it going to be? MR. WEEKS: We'll have the van parked right there at that end of the building. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, the meeting. MR. WEEKS: Oh, the career and services center. Same place as the hearing a couple years ago that you held on Silver Strand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Paul won't have to drive out there. Save you some gas for the first time in many -- a couple years. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm just now bringing it up. I won't ask for a poll of hands now, but I would ask that each Planning Commissioner that has an interest in attending, please send an e-mail or a phone call to myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to know how many -- we're not going to vote on the meeting, we can't take action at the meeting because it's a workshop. But just for the benefit, how many people believe they cannot attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may be out of the state, so we'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So looks like there'll be seven or eight of us, at least. Well, that's good. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I mean, David, do you need to know how many of us are going to go in the van? I'm not sure anybody wants to drive, so __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: I do, if you're comfortable deciding right at this moment. I didn't know if people would need to think about it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got -- I'm not sure how I'm going to get out there yet but I'll let you know. Page 3 \' i\ f61ert'3' ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, did you say 2:30? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might be out that way anyway, so there's no sense driving all the way back in to here just to get a ride in a van. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, guys, you all know the tendency of certain groups to criticize when they see more of us sitting together than just one, so when you're in the van, we can't talk about anything to do with the Planning Commission at all. So I guess we'll talk about Tiger Woods or something. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sing Christmas carols. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, we'll move on to the -- next meeting is the 17th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 17th? That's our regular meeting in this room at 8:30. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Once again, I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- still be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then one other item I'd like to mention conceming agenda Planning Commission meetings, the transmittal meeting for the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan is -- David, is that I believe in January or first part of February? Do you recall? MR. WEEKS: I do, because that's on your agenda today to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's get it on the table and discuss it so we -- is that the item that you added for new business? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we finish that right now then and try to let you go. MR. WEEKS: Sure. Well, turns out I will be here for another matter. The memo was -- should have been provided to you in advance. There's two items to discuss. And we're already on Immokalee Master Plan. We're asking for your transmittal hearing to be on February the 16th. That would be in this room at 8:30. And carryover dates to be regular Planning Commission meeting dates on February 18th and March 4th, if those are needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The adoption hearing has not changed your schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I wanted to note to you, unless there's a majority objection from this board, I would like to hold the transmittal hearing in ln1mokalee. Because this board has the option of holding meetings here or there. Now, that is more of a costly meeting because it has to have the media and has to be broadcast. I think regardless we should do it. I have spoke with Penny Phillippi with the CRA. She's very concerned that we not -- if we didn't have it there, and I agree with her. So under any circumstance -- and she said that the CRA, if need be, would find a way to help pay for the -- offset the costs. So regardless, we need to schedule that meeting in ln1mokalee. So whatever staffhas to do. And I have a feeling, based on my reading of the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan, we could be there a long time. So it may be wise, and I don't know what -- if you could coordinate with Penny on the time frame to start that meeting. I would prefer we try to start during the day. Because I don't know if we'll get through it if we start late in the afternoon or evening without being there to unreasonable hours and everybody falling asleep, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's scheduled for 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. Yeah, so we would have to have it -- but if we go out there, is 8:30 doing anything? I mean, if we go out there and schedule the meeting for 8:30 in ln1mokalee so the people can participate, since that is more of a working community in some ways than our coastal area, will enough Page 4 16J 1 ,,~ f1 ece er ~~ people be able to attend to have it effective? And I think we need to kind of -- if you could coordinate with the CRA to talk about the time, that would be a good thing. Now, this is pending any objection by the Board of County Commissioners. If they feel this is a restrictive budget issue, then obviously we can't do it. But I don't see that being that much of a problem, especially with the CRA's cooperation in the cost. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would the Planning Commission want to give any type of direction as to preference for time to begin? Or at least a range: After lunch, in the moming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, since you're a key element in this whole process, this is a Tuesday and it's the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan. And I know you have a conflict on different parts of the week with your job. Is there some way that this can be arranged to coordinate better for you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it has to be a Tuesday; it has to be this day, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- no, it could be different days. Especially if it's in Immokalee. We have a lot more freedom to move the days because we have open rooms out there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, my best day schedule-wise would be Thursdays. All my Thursdays are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would need a Thursday in between our regular meetings. Could we try to look at that, David, see if we can fmd a better time? Because Paul's involvement's going to be critical. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to come regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but I hate to see you -- it's good if everybody can keep ajob right now. The more you can keep at your job I think the better, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The diabetics will appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the 11th or the 25th. MR. WEEKS: Please don't move it forward. Don't bring it closer. We're under such a tight time frame as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the 25th is another Thursday that would be open. And if a Thursday is -- does that work for most of the people on this board and the general -- Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: We have a meeting on the 26th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, could we do it on a Saturday, open it really up for the community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that takes a lot of changes in staff time and overtime. l11at would completely -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let them take a Wednesday off and -- I don't know, just if you really wanted the community, that's probably -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the intent is to have the community involved. The workshop's going to hopefully accomplish a lot of community input. David? MR. WEEKS: I should mention to the Commission that there's one and possibly two other comprehensive plan amendments that may be added to your ln1mokalee Master Plan schedule. You recall at your last meeting we discussed the Petition CP-2008-3 Patrick White was here to discuss. That's the one located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. He will appear on the December 15th County Commission agenda under public petition to ask that they approve its addition to the Immokalee Master Plan schedule. If the board approves that, of course that means in addition to the ln1mokalee Master Plan, you will have that petition as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what that means, David, is that we have to hear that petition within the time frame that the lAMP is being processed, not necessarily the same day; is that correct? Page 5 1 QeLbel,1oA 3 Ii,'" ,...... ,,"', . .~ MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And in fact we anticipate, I cannot say for certain, but anticipate that the petitioner would not be ready for your advertised date at the time we -- assuming it was going to be the 16th, but within your five-week continuance window. So that it might be either advertised separately two or three or four weeks later than the 16th or whatever date we agree upon or advertise on that date but continue within the five-week window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that when you schedule the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan in ln1mokalee we don't bring anything in there with it. Because then it would be unfair to the coastal area to have to drive to ln1mokalee to attend something that they rarely would know about. So we'll just re -- we can always slip that one element in a regular meeting, either in the afternoon or morning of a regular meeting scheduled Thursday. Because our meetings aren't that booked anymore. The economy has cut that down quite a bit as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been thinking about the issues here, that we -- and I fully agree, we should go for a workshop out there because of the -- and we're going in the evening because we anticipate that as many people who would like to go would be able to go. But to go out there and go for the day, are we really going to benefit those people? Will they come? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- I mean, I'll go. I'm not reluctant to go if! think that there's some true advantage to them. But having done the workshop and having them in attendance, would they not feel secure and then have their leaders come? CIWRMAN STRAIN: My comment to David was to check with the CRA, who is sponsoring this workshop, to see if they feel that a daytime meeting on the actual transmittal would be effective. And I think based on David's response back to us on that we could probably respond better, Bob, on whether that would be workable or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm fully in support of the idea of as many people can benefit from it, so that's not my issue. It would be a shame, especially if we have a carryover day, given the expense associated with going out there for the county, that if it didn't fulfill its purpose, that would be a sad thing. That's all. That's what was going through my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then -- Donna, you had something you wanted to -- and Paul and Bob. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, if we are talking about moving the meeting on the 16th to a later time frame, late afternoon, into the evening, then that shouldn't be a problem for Paul, who can arrange his schedule for the daytime. So I don't think we need to move the 16th, I think we just need to determine a start time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fme, too. My point was that if we start late in the evening, the amount of work we have to do in the ln1mokalee Area Master Plan may take us numbers of evenings. And that begins to be a real problem on a transmittal and a cost to reset up every single time out there. So I was trying to figure out how we could do a transmittal hearing and be done in one day. So we need to start early enough to get that point done. l11at's what my goal was. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For me, my preference would be the first meeting the 11 th and the second on the 25th. I don't know if that's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what David will have to check. The 25th, David, is a little bit of a problem because the 26th we have an all day meeting, our first one, on the LDC amendments. And I already know they're going to be very contentious in some regards. So I have a feeling that we're going to be studying quite a bit for the 26th. So the 25th may be the most problematic. Page 6 -- 1: 1611 A3 , December 3, 2009 And for you guys the 11 th is problematic. MR. WEEKS: It is. It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we look at a Friday or Saturday or something like that. Anything later -- later in the week I guess is better for you, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, Fridays I have another support group meeting. But don't worry about me, I'll be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's let David figure it out with CRA. But I think we need to have that in ln1mokalee, so do the best we can to make sure it's effective, if we do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. And Mr. Vigliotti had-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Enough confusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, is it reasonable to even have an expecta -- not an expectation, a possibility of doing it Friday? You folks are off. You're on a four-day week, are you? MR. WEEKS: Our department was not affected by that, but the entire building's back on a five-day workweek, so that would not be an issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe Friday makes more sense in some respects. Because we could -- because if you work into the night and the following day you've got to deal with the regular meeting, you have that issue for older people who might be a little tired. But the next day, Friday __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You saying I'm old? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think he was talking about himself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I wouldn't talk about me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, why don't you just work with the CRA, come back with whatever options you can, and at our next meeting we'll try to -- and maybe we can discuss it on the 16th. That way the public that is there can -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would be good too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. -- can understand what we're trying to do. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that we've beat that to death, let's move on to the approval of the minutes. There are none, but there is an announcement. I guess this is as good a time as any. The legal ads for today's hearings have been given to the court reporter from the County Attorney's Office. And I guess that will be the process we'll have at every meeting. And I'll try to remember to acknowledge it at each meeting. Item #6 BCC REPORT -RECAPS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on December 1 st, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the Naples Continuing Care Retirement Community, CFPUD. Board of County Commissioners approved that 5-0, subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. Page 7 't.'" iI' \. .. 1 Qelml \\oA 3 II And the companion items, the amendments to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the Oak Grove PUD, was also approved 5-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I understand the project was substantially modified from what we saw. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, it wasn't substantially modified. There was a clarification dealing with sidewalks. And Mr. Moss is here to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's something to do with heights and a few other things I heard in the MR. MOSS: It was. It wasn't substantially modified at the hearing. Prior to the hearing the applicants met with some of the commissioners and heard their concerns. They lowered the building heights adjacent to Orange Blossom significantly, and so that's no longer -- no longer became an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And had they done that at this meeting, they may have had a different result of their outcome, so -- thank you. Item #8A through #81 (Consent Agenda Items) PETITIONS: CP-2008-1, CP-2008-2, CP-2007-1, CP-2007-2, CP-2007-3, CP-2008-4, CPSP-2008-7, CP- 2009-1 AND CP-2007-5 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I don't have anything that we haven't already talked about. And the consent agenda. There are items A through K. And I would like to just ask the Planning Commission -- I'll run down the letters one at a time, and any comments from -- and I will just get into them. I do know that when we get to Item E, staff is looking for some direction there. So does anybody have any comments on petition CP-2008-1? l11at's Item A. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item B is 2008-2. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item C is CP-2007-1. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item D has been withdrawn by the applicant, CP-2007-2. For reference, that's the ln1mokalee Road and 33rd Avenue Northeast. That's the one opposite Oil Well Road. Item E is Petition CP-2007-3. That's the one staffhas a question about in regards to the Mission subdistrict that was off of Oil Well Road. If you recall, there was a church coming in with a series of uses, many of which would fit under a conditional use application. We had a lot of discussion on that. It was approved 8-0. Staff's question is conceming whether or not soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this subdistrict. I went tlrrough my notes that I took very carefully of each item. And on that item, 2007-3 I made a note, okay, 8-0. There were four issues: One was no soup kitchens or homeless shelters. So I believe that's probably the way the motion went. And whenever the tape is available and minutes, if you wanted to verifY it. But I have no reason -- it's not crossed out as others are that were changed during discussion, so I would think that stays.mCOMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. My recollection is the same. That question was actually asked, I think by Brad. But in any event, I know it was asked. And they said no, they Page 8 ~jll'" didn't want soup kitchens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the applicant had indicated it was one of the things that they didn't want, which did help them then not -- maybe they needed a GMP amendment in lieu of a conditional use or whatever option the staff was going to discuss with them. Anybody have any other comments on that one? (No response.) MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, there's a second -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a second question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whether the property adjacent to this sub -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- subdistrict is allowed transitional conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, it said that -- my item -- the second part of our motion, according to my notes, was add language to retain no additional conditional uses alongside. Meaning there could be no -- that would not happen. They could not have conditional uses alongside it. So that's what the notes say. I don't know of any reason why we would want to change them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my recollection as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. These are adjoining properties not owned by the applicant? Cannot have conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way Golden Gate is set up is if you have a use that's considered nonresidential basically or a commercial use, next to it you have a right to what's called a transitional conditional use. And we're making an exception here because it's not in an activity center, so there's no need to put in a transitional conditional use. And that's what we -- I believe we voted on. Is that __ MR. WEEKS: Right. The staff perspective is that as we discussed, you might recall a lot of discussion about is this really a commercial subdistrict or is it something that falls under the umbrella of church. Ultimately staff decided that we should keep it as a separate subdistrict. But because there is some I'll say quasi commercial or arguably commercial component to this, to play it safe we would agree that it's appropriate to have this condition. To make it clear to everybody, every reader of the plan that no, the site is not viewed as commercial, at least from the perspective of is an adjacent property eligible for a CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other comments, I'll move on. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have Item F, Petition CP-2008-4. Any comments on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's Item G, Petition CPSP-2008-7. Any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item H, CP-2009-1, any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item I, CP-2007-5, any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item J, it's -- well, that's the end of the Growth Management Plan amendments on the consent agenda. We have two other items on the consent agenda, but let's handle those GMP amendments first. Is there a motion -- with the discussion that we had involving Petition CP-2007-3, for clarification, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda for the GMP amendments as clarified? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. 16 rlillber J\2j _ Page 9 ^" 6' jL"';tl. ~ . "i:;IA~ ..1 01 "., ~~. Deceml'er , 009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- Mr. Schiffer made the second, Ms. Caron made the motion. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I abstain. I wasn't voting, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries. Tor, were you -- I'm assuming you were in favor. Okay, so that would be 8-0, with Mr. Midney abstaining. Item #8J (Consent Agenda Item) PETITION: V A-PL2009-1l62. ELKE REMMLINGER-BEHNKE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is the -- for consent is V A-PL2009-l 62. This is the variance at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard. Anybody have any comments or concerns aboUl: the variance language? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval ,)n the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Page 10 -- 1611 ^3 ~ December 3, 2D Item #8K (Consent Agenda Item) PETITION: CU-PL2009-170, FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST MISSION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is Petition CU-PL2009-l70, the First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc. on Tamiarni Trail East. It's on the consent agenda. Is there any comment, questions. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay, anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of all our consent items. Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I believe we have one more item to discuss. Mr. Weeks wanted to __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On consent? MR. WEEKS: No, back to the schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry, I thought we finished it all up. Go right ahead. MR. WEEKS: We discussed Immokalee, but there's also a change to the '07-'08 cycle of amendments for adoption. We're asking for Tuesday, June 1st to be your scheduled date. And alternative dates -- or if you accept June 1 st as the date, then these others could be carryover dates. That would be Tuesday, June 15 and Monday, June 21. Again, if and as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, David, seven months in advance with this economy and this world, I think that you are very optimistic. But that's fine. I don't schedule that far anymore. I used to before things went to -- but anyway, that's -- anybody have any problems with those dates? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David Wolfley's global warming issues, who knows where it will be Page 11 16Je~'A~\ a by June. We might be under water. Okay, I think we're fine, David, thank you. Item #9A PETITION: SV-PL2009-1165, BENDERS ON PROPERTIES. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings us to our regular agenda items, the advertised public hearings. The first one is Petition SV-PL2009-1165. It's Benderson Properties, Inc., for a variance for signage at Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a -- not a meeting but just a brief discussion with Mr. Anderson. And we'll probably be talking about the same points here today. Okay, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good moming, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. And with me today is Derek Watts from Benderson Development, one of their design directors. And this is for a sign variance, very simple and straightforward. My clients have two buildings at the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41. Where the store fronts are oriented toward the interior of the project rather than the typical orientation facing the abutting streets. Benderson's intent in doing this was to try to implement the concepts of new urbanism by placing buildings closer to the road and avoiding a sea of asphalt parking spaces adjacent to the roadways. The variance request is for buildings four and five. There's a decorative fountain in the middle of the two buildings. That fountain is not yet operable because of contractor problems. Building five has -- which fronts on U.S. 41, has two tenants, one at each end. Panera Bread is on the north side of the building, and AT&T are on the south side. Because they are located at the corner of that building, each is clearly entitled under the code to have two wall signs. In building -- there are no other tenants in building five. And in building four, which fronts on Wiggins Pass Road, there are no tenants at all. In the past few months my client has been contacted by several prospective tenants who do see the light at the end of the economic tunnel, and they want to open a new business at this location. That's a good thing. It means employment, it means sales tax revenue, it means increased property values and therefore increased property tax revenues. These tenants rightfully believe that their businesses need identification that is visible from the abutting roadways and which clearly identifies their names and depicts their specific location in the complex. These tenants have not yet signed a lease unless they are able to have the sign that is visible from the abutting roadway as well as from the interior parking lot. I might add that Benderson thought they had the right, under the sign code as it's written today, to have those two signs. But rather than get an interpretation and get into an adversarial appeal, they chose to Page 12 1 ~tLbl, 2~ 3. := go the route of a variance and try to cooperate with the county like they always do. In conclusion, I would say that my client and its perspective tenants ought not be penalized for designing a project that is arguably more attractive than a traditional strip mall. And I think the comprehensive plan also encourages projects to use these new urbanism concepts. I'll be happy to try to answer any question, Mr. Watts or I, and I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, I mean, the new urbanism is nice to say, but the problem here is you put the rear of the building on the main intersection, and now you want a sign on the back of the building which is facing the intersection, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to pull your mic a little closer. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you hear the question? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did. The backs of the buildings have been, for lack of a better word, dressed up to more closely resemble store fronts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's no entrance from the back of the building into the stores. MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The dumpsters are on the comerof4l and U.S. I. So essentially the design you've done is you put the back of the building up at the prime corner. I mean, I've been watching this thing being built, and it was kind of interesting to watch. So now you're coming back saying you need an additional sign. I mean, what's the reason you would put a sign on the back of a building? I guess if it faces a major intersection. MR. ANDERSON: I mean, that's why. I mean, people driving by don't know what's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon the design of the building. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the hardship that you're claiming and the staffs actually supporting, but I'll wait for them, is that the design of the building is causing the hardship. MR. ANDERSON: But again it's not a self-imposed hardship, really, because they thought, and I believe they're correct, have the right under the existing code to do that (sic). So when they built these buildings and oriented them the way they were, they thought they could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- and tell me how through the code you think that's true then. Because I do know that section of the code and -- MR. ANDERSON: I've highlighted the portion that I believe would allow them to do this under the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to back out of that a little bit, Ray. Thank you. I can't read everything. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We are dealing with a multiple occupancy parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: And it says I think clearly there shall be allowed two signs. So clearly the code contemplates that. They just don't want them to be on the same side of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I would kind of agree with that if you had a tenant and a store front there. But the sad thing about this, and again, watching it be built, is this really was the back of the building. You have doors that are normally put on the back side of a building, you have the utilities, you have the fire department controls, you have everything on the back -- on this building which is facing this Page 13 ., 16Jceler ~~3 - major intersection. So for you to assume that it's the front of the building is confusing. And could this not cause confusing (sic) to people who are going there to shop, they'll park their car and they can't get in? Well, there's no windows or doors anyway into this space, so that probably won't confuse them. But anyway, I just think this design, it always startled me what you're doing. I think putting the dumpsters out there on the corner just never made any sense. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Question as to the dumpsters. It was my understanding, based on a meeting with Mr. Benderson that I attended, that those dumpsters would not be on any corner and that they are not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put that site plan back up? I'm equally surprised. I know this isn't what you're asking about. But you've got six dumpsters along 41. That's an interesting phenomena. MR. WATTS: If! could, my name's Derek Watts, I'm with Benderson Development and I'm the director of design. The plan that's being shown was the original plan, But we did relocate the dumpsters. Those are not there. We -- you know, hindsight's 20/20. We -- once we decided that we were going to do a great job with the fountain at the corner, it really didn't make sense, if you trying to make that a focal point, to have a dumpster right next to it. So those were moved. Those were relocated interior to the property. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I can tell you that that's happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here we have exhibits that -- I mean, what happens down the road when they pull these exhibits out that don't -- I mean, why would you not present us a drawing that shows where you are locating the dumpsters? I mean, if you're locating them, you must have a drawing by now. MR. W ATIS: We do. And, you know, that's our bad, I guess, if that's where you're heading. To your question earlier about the orientation of the buildings, it goes back to the point made earlier that we were trying to do the right thing in terms of the new urbanism principle, which basically means you're trying to push the buildings -- if! could fmish -- trying to push the buildings out to the end, you know, closer to the edge of the property. What that does is it minimizes the amount of parking that you have between the building and the road. As a retailer, what they are concerned about is having enough parking close to their entrance to their building. So that's where we came up with the idea of putting the actual entrances on that other side where there's more parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The new urb -- I mean, it kind of makes me a little bit angry you're using that as your reason. There's nothing in new urbanism that will put the rear of the building closer to the road. I mean, yes, that's a principle, but it's the front of the building that the people should be seeing, not the rear. MR. WATTS: Correct. The-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The blank walls. MR. W A TIS: No, you're absolutely right. The other thing that we were trying to do, though, is have the buildings relate to the main center. And we thought the best way that those faces of those buildings would relate to the rest of the center is if they're facing each other. We're trying to promote cross-shopping. If you're in Bed, Bath and Beyond you get out of your car and you look, oh, there's Panera Bread, you can see there's store front. That was part of the rationale as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with that and I think that's fine. And the signs on the Page 14 16~cererA39 ; side of the building into the parking lot where the entrance of the buildings are will do that. This sign is just an additional sign for advertising. It's not a wall sign to show people the entrance of MR. WATTS: Yeah. And if I could, I know we all know this. But right now is not the best time to be trying to lease space. We don't want to be at a disadvantage to be able to attract good quality tenants to fill these buildings. That's our job, we're trying to fill the building. If you are a perspective tenant and you're looking at this building, right now if you are between the end caps, if you're not an end cap space, you can only have one sign. Basically that means you have to make a decision. Do you want to put a sign where people can see it and know that you're there on a heavily trafficked road, or do you want to put it where it naturally normally would be on your store front? And that's a difficult decision and not one that tenants want to have to make. You will not see both signs at the same time, obviously. So we don't think it has a negative impact from an aesthetics standpoint. The second sign would be per your code. But I think it's very important to try to fill these buildings. If we have this going against us, I think it's going to be an even tougher road to hoe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you designed it this way. In other words, the back of these buildings, and the disappointment I've always had looking at them, is they could have store fronts in the back. The reason they don't is I'm sure you have a storeroom in the back. But I mean, these buildings could have been designed with a storeroom in the center. This could have been a beautiful glass facade looking into stores, people could have parked there walked in and you would have had the advertising and everything you need in those show windows. But instead you put a blank wall with one steel frame door probably coming out the back to take the trash out to the dumpsters. MR. WATTS: Well, basically there's a few points I'd like to make. Again, the buildings were pushed out as close to the road, which means we have -- you see there one row of parking against the building. Retailers need to have the parking in close proximity to the entrance ofthe space. The entrances are in towards the plaza. So therefore it wouldn't make sense to have the store fronts facing out, okay? As far as the layout of the spaces, in an ideal world these tenants could be through and through. In other words, you could have two entrances. The reality from a retailer standpoint is most of them don't operate that way. It's a security issue -- there's a number of reasons and rationale why they don't have two entrances. But it's very rare to have a front and a back. It just doesn't work. It's not the real world in terms of retail. So in my opinion I think we did a great job of making it four-sided architecture. We went beyond just having a metal door, as you referred to it. There's actually glass there, there's awnings. You know, we did a number of upgrades. We tried to make these buildings look like four-sided architecture. So I think we tried to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, I think you had started this, so we'll let you continue. COMMISSIONER CARON: The centers of those buildings where essentially it's the meter rooms and the fire and whatever are the largest mass along the sides of both of those buildings. There are no awnings there. There are awnings to the units off to either side. MR. WATTS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why is it not possible to put awnings in the center, thus softening the entire effect? MR. WATTS: No, it certainly is possible. We actually did it as a conscious decision to break up the facade. We like to have awnings in some areas and then break it up a little bit with a different architectural look. But to your point, we could certainly add awnings. That's not out of the question, certainly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I certainly think it would go a long way to softening the look. Page 15 1 ~Jel~~9 1 Because at the present time where you do -- you did not design a front facade as you were required to do by code on those buildings. We then had to go back and include something. So you put up this fake glass and all of that is fine, except now in the center of those buildings we have this mass of whatever -- it obviously is just fake glass with meter room and fire room and whatever written on the doors. MR. WATTS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not a good view from 41 or Wiggins Pass. MR. WATTS: Wecould-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I would think that awnings would at least help in that respect. As to the signs themselves, I guess my question will be to staff why the corner units are allowed two signs and the center units are not. I'm not quite sure I understand the premise. I will tell you that living up in this neighborhood, if you put signs on the outside on the facades facing Wiggins Pass or U.S. 41, you will see them only from Wiggins Pass or 41. If you put the sign internal, you see them internally. You never see the two signs at once, no matter where you go. So I think it's less of a visual -- it has less visual impact than some other areas where obviously we're trying to stop sign proliferation in this county. But in this case I'm not sure that that actually happens. But I am concerned about the overall look that these buildings still have. MR. WATTS: We could certainly commit to adding awnings to those center sections. Like I said, it was a chosen design, in our opinion. But obviously we could add those awnings, it's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you do me a favor and put on an aerial or something that shows? This plan I don't think shows what's built. It doesn't show the cornering the way it is on the building. MR. ANDERSON: We're going to bring you up a photograph. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Donna, one thing in your discussion, it sounds like they've been adding architectural elements to this facade. In other words, what's drawn there, is that what the original permit showed? I mean, and the reason I'm asking is from the architectural standards, that building always -- I mean, you know, it was kind of annoying, because it totally missed it. And then pieces keep adding on. So you're trying to obtain the architectural standards on that facade that would be for a, you know, public right-of-way? MR. WATTS: Yes, we did have extensive conversations with staff and with other members of the commission, as a matter of fact, about upgrading or enl1ancing the rear treatment of the facades of the building. And we did do that. We did meet, spent a lot of time on it, detennined which certain types of embellishments meet the criteria, meet the letter of the intent in terms of adding additional glazing. We added, you know, the additional awnings. There was some other decorative items, embellishments that were made to bring this standard up even higher. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, by additional, do you mean in addition to the -- because this is a primary facade. For a while there it didn't look like one. But now it's growing towards it. Have (sic) you actually think you've surpassed the architectural standards for primary facade? MR. WATTS: No, we definitely do believe. And like I said, we had numerous conversations, and the result of those conversations, you know, are what you see out there today. We do believe we meet the intent. We believe we exceed the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, thanks. That's -- staff and I will discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before we go to staff? Page 16 le~4~ 100~ A 3 K-') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolutely certain I understand clearly, kindly show me the various entrances to the buildings where persons can park and then go into the buildings, whether they be in the front or the back. Can you point to them on that photograph? MR. ANDERSON: In here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they are only in the back, there's no access from the front. MR. ANDERSON: Well-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the microphone, Bruce, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The front is the back, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that of course is the hinge on all ofthis. So the back, which is the front, is accessible to all the persons who want to go in there, and you would not have any signage unless you had this variance. Whereas the front, which is the back, that which is on 41 and Wiggins Pass, has no means that a person can get into the property. That's not available. So they can just see a sign as they're passing by. No stores there. Or would that be for one store, these buildings, or for multiple stores? MR. ANDERSON: Multiple. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what kind of a sign are we really looking for, Joe's multiple stores? What are we actually looking for? MR. ANDERSON: It would be like the AT&T sign. I mean, it's going to be what you have on the front you would also have on the back, or vice versa. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand now, as clearly as I want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions -- don't sit down. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few. The -- there's two barren out-parcels on this property that I can see by this aerial. Are you expecting to do the same thing with those in -- regarding signage that you're trying to do in which this variance is now limited to just those two buildings? MR. WATTS: Plans unfortunately for the out-parcels are pretty much stagnant right now. We did have originally some discussions with a few banks, but unfortunately due to the times that we're in right now, we're not in active negotiations on those pads. But I think ultimately they would be of a bank nature, and we'll do our best to orientate the building, similar to what we did with the existing bank on-site where the drive-throughs are to the rear and shouldn't have those same types of issues with signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but if you decide because you have multiple uses on this commercial property not to put a bank, and you've already got one bank on-site, I can't -- I don't expect you to have two more banks. I think that would be -- I think they may not all want to lease in the same shopping center. So now let's assume that one of those two out-parcels won't be a bank, that it will be another building similar to the ones that are here. Are you going to design that building so that it doesn't need two signs, or are you going to design it like you have these so that you want two signs? MR. WATTS: That's a tough question to answer. Because like I said, we've only contemplated out-parcels, we haven't really thought about a multi tenant building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it was a single tenant? Page 17 16nlJer k~ ~ MR. WATTS: It wouldn't -- I don't believe it would be an issue, because it wouldn't be an in-line space. I think the problem we're having here is these spaces between the end caps. That's where we're getting into the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you move -- can you move to the north on this sign, or this aerial? MR. WATTS: I've got a -- there's actually a larger overall, if you'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fme, just slide it down so we can see more to the north, that might be all we need. I need, at least. To the -- there you go. Well, the entrance way up on the top is what I was trying to get to. I had asked Bruce if there was permission or use of, say, whatever business is in these two buildings you're asking for a variance on. Do they have a marquee sign at the entrance in which they also have additional space for more signage? MR. WATTS: Basically our intent with these pylon signs that you're referring to, is that they're primarily there for the benefit of the main retail center. Our thinking going into this was that the out-parcels should have pretty good visibility by the nature of their placement next to 41. But that all hinges on what we decide here today. But certainly we -- space is limited. Retailers are craving for exposure on 41. We're trying to basically hold the pylons for the main retail center because of the disadvantage that they have in terms of visibility from 41. Not to say that there might be an occasional deal made. If it's a great national retailer that the only way they'll go here is if we can give them a half of a panel, we may do that at some point for those out-parcels. But that's not the intent. The intent is to use that for the main plaza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll hear the staff report. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good moming, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance petition before you today, with a condition of approval. And the condition of approval is that these additional wall signs are limited to buildings four and five and to the unit facades that face towards Wiggins Pass Road and Tamiami Trail North. And with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, you're saying limited to four and five. By that you're suggesting, to me, at least, that's what I'm hearing, that they should never come back in for any other variances; am I correct in that? MS. GUNDLACH: They have a right to come back for other variances, but this variance we are only considering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For building four and five. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I kind of -- okay, Ray's pointing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now I have it better in my mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was going along the same line. Why -- I mean, those are two separate -- or two additional parcels. I don't know why we just don't allow -- I mean, something's got to show who's there, unless it's a bank, you can tell it's a bank. I don't know why we just don't allow instead of having them come back in, other than collecting fees, to just say it's acceptable for those two as well, because they're in the same situation. Page 1 8 lc2J 3~009 A 3 ... , t MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know what they are, because I don't have the design of the out-parcel buildings. It could be a building just for one business, as opposed to a multi tenant building that we're looking at for buildings four and five. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. MS. GUNDLACH: And the request before us and presented to us by the applicant was for only buildings four and five. So that's what we have considered in this staff report. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I just think we ought to add those other two in, it wouldn't take but a couple of words. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one thing that still perplexes me is we're using the design of the building as the hardship. So as a designer I can design myself into this corner and seek relief. I mean, how come that doesn't make sense to me? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, perhaps, I should maybe try to change our paradigm a little bit. But these signs are in keeping with the intent of the sign code. And the intent of the sign code is that these signs are compatible with their surroundings. They are designed and constructed -- well, will be constructed and installed in such a way that they're not going to be a distraction to motorists and consumers who are passing by these I want to call them store fronts. And just keep in mind that our urban design standards do require that those facades facing towards the right-of-way are treated as front facades. So they have the look of a front facade. They are appropriate to the design -- to the activity that will be within the tenant units. And they are going to be, you know, large enough signs to convey what's happening in the units, but small enough that they satisfY our standards for regulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but let's take a shopping center someplace else. Does that mean people can go into the back alley and put signs in the back of their building? Are they allowed to do that? MS. GUNDLACH: Our code prohibits that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And isn't that the same condition here? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I'm not sure that that's an alley. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I reviewed this application too. And I think the difference is we're dealing with a major arterial on U.S. 41 and also a major east-west road in Wiggins Pass. And the visual impact of buildings, what would be perceived as the rear of a building facing those roads, I don't think anyone wants to have -- our architectural review for those buildings require them to look like fronts on those buildings, even though they're technically the rear. But to help make them look like a front, the signage comes into play. And as long as they meet the intent of the square footage limitations, then I think that adds to the design of the -- to make those rears look like fronts of buildings. So that was one of the criteria that we looked at in the variance criteria of the buildings. It really is, I would think, more in lines of making the building facades look like front facades. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that if you're designing the rear of the building on the main right-of-way, which to me is the, you know, primal sin, but -- and then what you're saying is let's keep it going. Let's start to dress it up to make it look like a front facade. Because over time they did. And then you're saying to really fake it out, let's put signs on it to make it really look like a front facade. But, you know, our sign code doesn't encourage multiple signs. People are then going to park, walk up to a door they can't go in. I mean, you're going to give the illusion of a front facade so good if you keep it up that people are actually going to be tricked to thinking it is a front facade. Page 19 .\, 1 h I 1 "'1^ 3 ~cemblo.J, 2;Q ~ f,t' I mean -- anyway, that's -- the question was is that yes, I guess you can design yourself into this corner and seek relief through the variance process, because we are here, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think that's a good precedent, but -- okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, I essentially agree with Mr. Schiffer, I don't think you should be allowed to design yourself into a variance. That's not what it's about. We have what we have here on this corner. It has been a source of major contention in the neighborhood for a long time. We've done the best we can to try to make the front facades facing Wiggins Pass and U.S. 41 look like the front facades they're supposed to. Do they? Not hardly. But after the fact, once again, when staff approves something, after the fact trying to correct it is a very difficult process. When you drive into this plaza, either from Wiggins Pass or from U.S. 41, you will hardly aim toward the 41 or Wiggins Pass Road to park unless there's no place else to park, because the majority of the parking for these units is to the internal side. So I don't think people are going to mistake it and come in and try to weave their way around to the front to enter the buildings. Nancy, why does our code allow two signs for those on the comers and only one for those in the center? MS. GUNDLACH: I can attempt an educated guess. Probably because there are two different walls facing two different directions. COMMISSIONER CARON: In this case do we have two different walls? MS. GUNDLACH: We have two different walls facing two different directions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Which you do on your corners, two -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- different walls facing two different directions. MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can let Mr. Murray go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mine's real quick anyway. With regard to the sign code and it speaks about distraction, I think I could make a case that there would be a greater distraction with the absence of a sign on the back of the buildings which front the main roads as opposed to the opposite. And this is all very interesting. I had done a little thing too, and I'm certainly not in Mr. Brad Schiffer's category of knowledge architectural, but it would have been nice, and we cannot redesign the building, but it would have been perhaps simpler had that building been right on lot line instead of having that road around there. But I know that people looking for something in the absence of a sign, they're going to be far more distracted. So I think that's probably fait accompli here. It's there and to deal with it. I suppose that's why you agreed to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I'll pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the staff? (No response.) Page 20 1611A3' December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, and I guess Ray. Ray, you said something that puzzled me, and I would like you to put the language that Bruce had higWighted up on the screen, please, so we can talk from that. Ray, you seem to justifY the request by saying that in order to make the front facade on the rear appear as a true front facade, then the signs would be logical basically to be added to that. And then I remember Bruce putting this up there, and this is a multi occupancy parcel, and it says, shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. Now I'm wondering why do we have -- if you believe what you said, Ray, why do we have an interpretation of that yellowed highlighted area, which I'm assuming is the focus of what got us here today, contrary to what you seem now to believe? MR. BELLOWS: If! understand the question correctly, you're asking why are they in for a variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you indicated this would -- putting this -- I mean, yeah, I'm asking that question based on what you said in addition to the question that was raised about the interpretation of this yellowed area. I'd like to know who on staff interpreted it, how strong or what the basis was for their interpretation. Because that is really an understanding of why we're here today and I'm trying to find that out. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the petitioner has three options. They can apply for -- if there's a disagreement with staffs interpretation of a code, they can apply for a zoning verification letter, asking if signs could be placed as they're proposed. Or ifthe language is vague enough, the zoning director can make an official interpretation of that language. There's processes for that. Now, the buildings, there are two buildings, separate buildings. Each have a comer. Each of those buildings have comer signs pursuant to the code, in staffs opinion. Doesn't mean the building in the middle of those end units qualifY as corner parcel. And that was the interpretation of my understanding, but I don't know all the background. And maybe Nancy can fill in some of the other parts. But they could have applied for an interpretation. Instead of applying for a variance, they could have applied for a zoning verification. My understanding is they applied for the variance because they agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know some of my other commissioners would like questions. Let me finish what I started, though, here for a minute. MR. BELLOWS: One other question -- or response to the question was if we looked at the -- the reason I was supporting it is there are going to be additional buildings along the roads that face the front that will have signs there. This would keep signage consistent with that down the line of those other out-parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I want to go back to your statement that because they're required to have a front facade on the rear because of the road that they're facing, that the signage of the nature they're asking for helps produce that front facade look that staff apparently believes is a requirement. MR. BELLOWS: It's not a requirement, it's ajustification to help support the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is, the front facade look or the -- MR. BELLOWS: The front facade look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they didn't have to put a front facade on the back of this building. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's what I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is a requirement then. You just said it wasn't a requirement. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the facade architecturally, not from a signage standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wow, maybe I'm missing the entire boat here. But I'm getting more confused. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something -- Page 21 16c~Di3:..0A 3 !II. " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, Brad, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- about that? Ray, put that clause back up. Because I think the problem with that clause is it says parcels with double frontage on public right-of-ways. This has a single frontage on the public right-of-way. In other words, that is written for something that where streets were on the front and back side of a building, that would be available. That's not the condition here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a private parking lot in a single public right-of-way. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I believe you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: May I speak to that? This is more of a legal issue. If you'll look the way the sentence is structured, the double frontage requirement is only applicable to a single occupancy parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So take out the words after or to the word right-of-way and then read the sentence without that. And then we're saying, end units within shopping centers and multi occupancy parcels shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. And that would read -- now, is that -- starting the sentence with the word end unit. So would that then apply to only the end units of these buildings? And I think -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where staffs interpretation-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was versus Bruce's that it's not just the end units of those shopping centers, because it's a multi occupancy parcel, it's all the units. But then that would negate the purpose of saying end units in the beginning of the sentence. Okay, I see where -- MR. ANDERSON: I never claimed that the code made sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but you're interpretation does, right? We know better. MR. BELLOWS: And that's where my point was, if they disagreed with staffs interpretation, they could have filed for a zoning verification letter or an official interpretation of the language. However, they chose to submit the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you know, Ray, I was understanding all that until you had said that as part of the front facade, the fake front -- the pseudo front facade in the back, the signs would make that more of a real front looking facade. And if staff really thought that, I wonder why we're even here today. That's kind of where I was trying to go in my original-- MR. BELLOWS: That's because of the code interpretation was that those middle units interior to the building would not qualifY for signs facing the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you could have used the interpretation you just said, that because they are supposed to have a front facade -- MR. BELLOWS: But like I said-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they need the signs. MR. BELLOWS: -- they didn't choose to file for an interpretation of the language. My hands are constrained. They were not qualified for signage under the interpretation -- or staffs interpretation of the code. They could have gone to the zoning director, filed an official interpretation and had her clarifY the language. I think it would have come out the same way, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you couldn't walk into Susan's office and say Susan, what do you think? I mean, why couldn't you have done that? And we could have saved everybody the trip here today. MR. ANDERSON: We did that. Page 22 Dle'e~3, 109 A 3 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what did Susan say? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why we're here. MR. ANDERSON: You can't-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then an OJ. wouldn't have worked is what you're telling me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I wasn't aware that they-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to get to the bottom of this one way or another. Does anybody else want to follow up? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I've been pretty familiar with this number four for a while. I -- there used to be a Billy Bob's small engine repair in Golden Gate, and it was behind everything, you couldn't see it. I don't know if some of you may have been here when they were still here. They're gone now. But they were not allowed a double sign, they were allowed a sign on the front, which the front was a driveway between just a bunch of, I don't want to call it a ghetto, but it just didn't look good. So he wanted a sign that faced 951, similar to a41, which was the back of his building, so people would actually know he was there. And he was not allowed. It was a single building, single occupancy building, and he was not allowed. I want to know who's interpreting these things. Because this says right here he can have it. Now why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Dave, wasn't Billy Bob's -- if] remember, it was that tire place and it was behind Bobby Mass -- near Bobby Mass strip mall there. And wasn't he on an alleyway that he was looking for the sign? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: By the restaurant. What do you call it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Nana Vetta's I think it is now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, not -- no, it was down further. It's Saw Grass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway, wasn't the sign facing a private alleyway or something like that, or access way? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right, it's not public. So the point is I don't understand why this is any different. I mean, I don't understand why he was denied -- I want to know who's interpreting these things, that's all. And I just don't -- I don't agree with the interpretation of this here today and I didn't agree with the Billy Bob thing either, but -- according to what this says. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, Ray, and again it's the concept of let's put a sign out to make it look more like a street facade. I mean, we're not building a H.O. train set here. So the thing is, what this is saying, that we can -- they're allowed to have a sign stretching over 80 percent of the width of those units. So, I mean, isn't the potential here that they could essentially put 80 percent of the back of that facade, other than the comers ones which have two already. I mean, they're going to just be able to put strip signs all the way across the back of that thing. So why does that make it -- you know, increase the aesthetic appeal of that corner? MR. BELLOWS: The --let me put the illustration back up. There are going to be other out-buildings facing the road with signage facing the road. They would be restricted in size pursuant to the Land Development Code. What the applicant is asking is for the same ability to have signage facing the road, just like these buildings. That is where I was trying to make my point. There's -- the criteria contained in the staff report also Page 23 ii. " /.~ ie~btr 31d~ A 3 I .'-" is what staff used to support our recommendation of approval of the proposed variance. My contention was if the buildings are designed to look like fronts, the back of these buildings are designed to look like fronts, signage is part of that look. Unfortunately my hands are tied. I cannot just grant them that signage without having them go through the variance. And it appears they've already gone to the zoning director and she concurs with staffs fmdings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know who's kind of missing in this conversation is Diane, Diane Campanello, Because she's the sign -- MR. BELLOWS: She's been involved -- every request for a sign goes tlrrough her. And if there's issues, they go through zoning to get it resolved. And if it's deteIDlined through the zoning director or whoever that a variance is required, then the applicant can choose to go that route. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, isn't the signage on an out-parcel different than this, or is this the same goveming code? Don't out-parcels have their own little -- MR. BELLOWS: Out-parcel is different. They have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have their own little category. So these additional pads would definitely be considered out-parcels. MR. BELLOWS: These are not out-parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the additional, the empty ones would be out-parcels, would they not? MR. BELLOWS: Depends if they're platted. I don't know the history of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't they have to be sold? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, platted and sold. That's what I think -- that's why -- yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing, Ray, is since the documents in here don't reflect what's built, is that a problem? Could somebody ever take advantage of that? In other words, I know they want to do signs, but they're showing a straight flat facade in the drawings, and they're showing a rather large area. I'm not sure what it means. It looks like it would be better off landscaping, but they're calling that sign area. Is that a problem, the documents, or -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. Because they're not getting a variance from the size requirements. For units, individual units they're -- it would be treated like any other multi-tenant building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then again, I guess, how come we're looking at building elevations? If you look at the way the document they're giving us, which is obviously outdated because it still has dumpsters in the front, but they're claiming they're not -- I don't know where the dumpsters are now. But if you look at the document provided, our Exhibit A, it essentially shows the landscape area and calls that as signage for shaded areas shown. Wouldn't it be better if we're looking at elevations to see what it is they're actually, you know, dotting in saying I'd like to put a sign here, here and here rather than on the ground in a landscape area? I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: Attachment B and C of the staff report shows some elevations of some photographs of the site. But yeah, I think bigger and clearer ones would have been helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think attachment A is not showing anything that is applied to this application, other -- I mean, it should show where the wall's going to be that the signs are beyond, not the ground area. And-- MR. BELLOWS: You make a good point and we'll make sure that when similar variances come in, Page 24 r r ". 1611 \\ 3\ December 3, 2009 j we provide the elevations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Because that's where we left off. COMMISSIONER CARON: Should we be correcting that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- yeah, any corrections we need to get on the record before we finish with this today, that's for sure. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Schiffer? This is in the agenda packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it's a small little thing. I mean, it's got trees in the area where the signs should be. I'm concerned about the other document. This one kind of shows some area. So essentially if we totally go by this, you're only requesting two signs on each building, so -- MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it says proposed wall signs points to two locations on one building, two locations on the other building. So is that the document you want in there? MR. ANDERSON: We're identifYing the buildings where the sign's variance are applicable to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at the thing you just showed me. It shows me four signs you want. MR. ANDERSON: That's if we have four tenants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you'll have more than two on the left side, you'll have more than two on the right. MR. ANDERSON: We're limited to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, that document is not clear where the sign should go. I think you should have an elevation of what you've built out there, not the old thing. It's showing us what areas you want approval for signs. But enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the concept is you want -- if you have a tenant, interior tenant and he has a sign on the parking lot side, you want a sign on the back side. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, I'm not sure you can show that until you know how many tenants you've got in between your corner units. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd just also like to point out the applicant, when they applied for their signs on what they deemed to be the front side, they could have come in and put the signs on this side in the first place, so it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Six one, half dozen the other. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, is that your rebuttal? Ray, do we have any public speakers? First. MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that is your rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: Well, my -- I hate to characterize it as a rebuttal. That sounds adversarial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your grand finale? MR. ANDERSON: But response is -- oh, I want to comment on some of Mr. Schiffer's questions. One of the things you talked about, sir, was the possibility of having two entrances: One on the Page 25 /'; 161ecelberA 239' a front and one on the back. But I would point out that even if we had that, we'd still have to be here under staff's interpretation of the code. Secondly, with regard to designing ourself into the need for a variance, again, they thought, and I frankly still agree with them, that under the code they could have two signs anyway. So they weren't trying to design themselves into the need for a variance, they thought they could do that anyway. And lastly, the hardship is only one of the factors. And you're entitled to weigh them all, put what weight you want on anyone, but that in and of itself is not determinative, And I think this is just a very reasonable request that's of commercial necessity, really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, when Mr. Schiffer's done-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I'm ready to make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, if you do go through the total list, the A through H, you don't come out very well. I mean, this isn't -- you are granted a special privilege, you -- this isn't -- you know, if you go to a strict interpretation of the code, this isn't denying you reasonable access use of your property. So in other words, if we really do run the score on all of the analyses, not just the hardship one, it's not coming out that good either. MR. ANDERSON: Well, you're entitled to place weight of whatever you choose on any or all of those factors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that had any other questions of the applicant or anybody before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and we either can entertain a motion or have discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: For Petition SV-PL2009-ll65, Lametka (phonetic) Plaza Variance, I would forward to the BCC approval with a recommendation that -- staff's recommendation, with the additional recommendation that awnings be placed on the center section. And you can see it clearly here, where the largest part of that facade is just -- you know, if you actually drove by, it's fake glass. So awning that will soften that area and make it look more like the front of the facade it was supposed to be to begin with. I am voting for this variance because I do think that it actually serves the public benefit. When you drive down 41, you will know what is there for you in those buildings. When you drive down Wiggins Pass, the same thing. As you drive in from either end and come toward those buildings, you again will know where and what you're going to shop for. The -- you can never see, driving either way, more than one sign at a time. I've done the drive-through. So if you put a sign out here, you can only see it from 41. If you put a sign on the Wiggins Pass side, you see it from Wiggins Pass. If you're coming west to east on Wiggins Pass, you will see the signs on Wiggins Pass and the internal signs to this second building. If you come down 41, you'll see the signs on 41 and potentially, because there's no building here, the signs on the other building internal to it. So I think from a directional situation it helps the shopping public. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not-- Page 26 1611A3:1 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. That was a really long motion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's boil it down. The motion part of it was to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Was to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommend approval with staff stipulations and the conditions that the awnings be added to the center high sections of the building facade on the back side, both buildings. ~ COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. ..... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was that generally the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then Mr. Wolfley seconded the motion. Now let's have discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be sure I understand. And this facade here, which is the rear, on all of that glass you want multiple awuings or one awning, or-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, multi -- they've done a series of multiple awnings over each door. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see the little awnings, I think. But you're talking about the area where the glass is? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't get that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't know how they would do that, but-- COMMISSIONER CARON: There are separate doors there, Bob -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and they can do it easily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's difficult to see that. Oh, those blue things are doors? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I can understand it and appreciate it. And I agree. I would just make one comment. This board recently approved signage variance for a hotel that was -- or is located not far from 1-75 and needed additional signage so it would draw patrons, make it clear for the patrons where they were heading. So I don't see this as dissimilar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to say, I -- now I forgot what I was going to say. But I'm not too -- the awnings didn't make much of a difference to me, but I certainly think that we ought to let this thing go, on my second. And again, I totally forgot, paying attention to Bob here, what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have something you wanted to add. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm going to be voting for the petition. I have a hard time even understanding why this got so far. It should have been just approved from the get-go by -- and given a permit. But let's not go there and I will vote for the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something you said enlightened Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, it was. When this sign ordinance comes around again to us again, could we please clean this language up so we don't have -- we keep coming back to this sign thing. And if we could just clean this up, please, on the next round, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, they put the buildings up backwards, which I think is interesting. And it's different. I like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthere's anything different, you like. Okay. Page 27 1 ~lelr 3~ 2~93 rn F. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I really want to vote against this but, you know, this is Donna's corner, she lives down the street, she goes by it every day. If she feels that it's an asset, the -- the concerns I have over being able to design yourself into a variance I'll bow to Donna's wishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My -- frrst of all, I disagree with the applicant's position that this is a hardship. It was self created. It is not a hardship from my perspective when you self create it. I also disagree, that this does not prohibit the reasonable use of the property, as one of the recommendations. You can have plenty of reasonable use of the property without the signs on that back side. However, outweighing that is the interest of public safety. And as one of the commissioners pointed out easily from the intersection and from that roadway, it's much better to have signage that's clear to the public. And the improvements that the developer has offered in regards to the awnings will actually make this better, not worse. So with that, I'll support the motion as well. And with that in mind, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all very much. And we will take a break until I 0 after 10:00 and we'll come back and resume. (Recess.) Item #9B PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody wouldn't mind taking their seats, we'll move forward with the second item on today's agenda. That item is Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951. It's the Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. It's basically a clarification of a previous meeting that we had. With that in mind, will 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: Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Wolfley? Page 28 ~ "". 1611 A3 December 3, 2009 ." , I ' -, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I spoke with John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I had a conversation with John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: We got an e-mail from Mr. Passidomo. I was away so I didn't get a chance to speak to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had meetings and discussions and e-mailswithMr.Passidomo.as well as Ms. Perry at a time or two, and we'll probably be discussing all that here today. So with that in mind, whoever wants to make the presentation on the part of the applicant -- oh, Mr. Kolftat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I also had discussion with Mr. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, John. MR. PASSIDOMO: Good moming, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. P ASSIDOMO: My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, in the City of Naples. Our fIrm represents Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. in agenda Item 9.B before you for consideration this moming. Our consultants are Wilson-Miller. Margaret Perry from the fIrm will make a brief presentation at the close of my introductory remarks. Our petition requests rehearing of a matter considered by the Planning Commission on April 2nd, 2009, seeking a rezone of the subject property from golf course to rural fringe mixed use overlay neutral lands. We request that the record of the April 2nd, 2009 proceedings be incorporated by reference and included in the record of these proceedings. Our original petition was approved by the Planning Commission by a vote of 8-0, subject to four stipulations. As I indicated in a letter we circulated to the Planning Commission earlier this week, we realized upon receipt of the proposed ordinance that the language for two of those four proposed stipulations just didn't work under the LDC to achieve what we assumed to be the intended objective of the Planning Commission in adopting them. We expressed those concerns to planning staff, the department director and the division administrator. They agreed without conclusion, and ultimately Mr. Schmitt recommended that I speak with Chairman Strain to see if we could find a better way to do what we thought the Planning Commission wanted to do in adopting the stipulations. A map of future development envelope was thereafter prepared to located uses on the land and describe the development standards in the rural fringe mixed use overlay district for neutral lands, which would ultimately regulate development on the property. The map is included within the materials. And Mrs. Perry will take you through them at the conclusion of my remarks. The map is not a site plan, and we acknowledge on the notes, on the face of the map and reiterate here that the design location and configuration ofland improvements shall be defmed at site plan or subdivision plat approval in strict compliance with the LDC requirements, as with any other property in the Page 29 . ,.;~ lr6elbelA~:3 ~ rural fringe mixed use overlay district for neutral lands. The petition before you today simply requests that the map be substituted for stipulations two and three contained in the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on April 2nd. We agree with staff recommendations and agree to abide by the two remaining stipulations contained in the staff report. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to ask Mrs. Perry to take the Planning Commission through the proposed map of future development envelope and then she and I will be happy to respond to any questions the commissioners may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. MS. PERRY: Good moming, Commissioners. Margaret Perry from Wilson-Miller. As John indicated after the April Planning Commission meeting, and in coordinating with county staff, Mr. Strain and others, we prepared what we refer to as the conceptual rezone master plan for the 553-acre site. This plan depicts the existing Olde Florida Golf Club, including maintenance facility and the driving range. This is generally located on the eastern portion of the property and as is noted is indicated to remam. The future development envelope is generally located on the western side of the site. This future development envelope area is conceptual in nature, and the exact boundaries of the development will have to take into account native vegetation, potential conservation easements, et cetera. The development standards outlined on Page 3 of3 of the plan, which is included in your agenda packet, come directly from the LDC relative to the rural fringe mixed use district neutral areas. No deviation from these requirements is being requested. You'll notice that as recommended by the Planning Commission the western boundary of the site calls for 100-foot setback to allow for potential county acquirement of easements for a potential roadway. But again, this roadway is not in any long-range plan. The plan also depicts approximately 200-foot golf course buffer between the existing golf course and the potential development area. It also culls out the required buffers and the existing county well sites. This plan was not created to be used as a PUD-like master plan, but to hopefully address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission so that the Planning Commission could visualize the existing conditions and the potential development area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I'd like to start by making a comment. When I was approached by the applicant and by county staff on this issue, it was as a result of our last meeting on this in which we stipulated a couple of very stringent items, based on the fact we weren't told much. We weren't told where the future development area could possibly be. We weren't told what the limitations were. We -- they just simply said they wanted to revert to rural fringe. And with that lack of information, it was hard to understand what impacts they may have on the surrounding area. And my suggestion to them was that if they wanted to have those removed, the best approach would be to show us what they intended to do. And that's how we got here today. And I had reviewed this earlier before the meeting was scheduled. This does show their intended future development areas, subject to any environmental conditions, EIS review and all that. And it's my understanding that that future development area can never get larger or greater in area to where the surrounding property lines are, but it could actually get less, based on any environmental review that comes along and subsequent SDP's or plats. So this is what I would consider then the worst case scenario, which tells us the extent that they intend to development. And they actually attach the LDC section, so all the standards are very clear. With some notes on Page 30 ", 16 rtcete~'309 ~ one of the pages. Some of those need to be cleaned up a little bit. And I know there's recommendations from the County Attorney's Office in regards to those. But that's the introduction I wanted to make to the Planning Commission is how and why we got here today with this. Obviously at the last meeting when they left, they didn't leave with very much. And it didn't surprise me that they realized that afterwards and decided that the best thing to do, maybe to try to show us what they're really planning to do out there instead of the lack of information we received at the time. So with that in mind, are there -- let's entertain questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to pose a question. One of the things that was said the last time was that the golf course, they had no plans to take the golf course away. If we remove the recommendation stipulations that we had previously, which are perceived to be not enforceable or illogical or whatever, just returning to the rural fringe in neutral, if they ever were to take the golf course away, they could in fact extend that envelope, am I correct, the envelope for development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a question of staff or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a question of the petitioner. Shall I repeat the question? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, I understand the question, thank you, Commissioner. The fact is, all the property would be rezoned to rural fringe mixed use overlay for neutral lands. That land would have those permitted uses on it. It would be inconsistent with this development envelope that you're seeing here and would raise a question as to whether or not our proposal for residential development in that area was consistent with this map. And I think that would be a legitimate question to be raised at that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be absolutely clear that what we're agreeing to by approving, or recommending approval, was that the golf course could at one point in time go away because of it's not -- it's going to also have the same zoning as the envelope area, the future development envelope area, correct? MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's true. But the golf course next door could go away too. At Golf Course of the Everglades, it's zoned exactly the way this zone (sic) is proposed to be zoned. There's a golf course on it. It could go away. But in order to develop the property, you have to go through the site planning or subdivision plat process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not in -- my purpose was not to do anything more than put on the record the fact that what we are knowingly going to agree to would be that potentially all of the property could be developed. It isn't likely, it isn't probable, I understand, but that's something I think needs to be understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, before you say anything, I strongly disagree. Because if your intention is to change the future development envelope, then what you show on this plan and potentially develop all of the existing golf course, we've got a problem. Because that's not what I've been led to believe in all the discussions we've had. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you could possibly glean that as my intention. I was just simply responding to the Commissioner's question. It clearly is not our intention. It was a hypothetical question. It was really -- my response was in the context is there an absolute commitment to keep that golf course where it is, as it is in perpetuity. No, of course there's not. But if we came in to develop that property inconsistent with this map, then we have an issue to deal with, because this map would be approved as part of this rezone. Page 31 1 ~lelr Ac3 ' I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. That's the whole premise under which we approached this. That's the whole premise under which you had to come back, because we didn't have this to begin with. I just want to make sure that we're not opening any other doors than what are opened by what you're showing here. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are there -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for the layout of the future development area, even though there's a l5-foot buffer shown on the northern property line, that couldn't be interpreted that you could raise that development area up to it, could it? Or -- I mean, this is obviously showing us that you're going to be quite a distance away from that. MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, I think the way the chairman characterized this map is the appropriate characterization. This is the worst case scenario. We cannot exceed this. The reason we didn't show you anything before is because we don't know what a site plan or subdivision plat might ultimately show. But this is a worst case scenario. We cannot develop under this map in the area outside of the future development envelope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though that development is approximately, looks like 500 feet away from that boundary, the l5-foot buffer, I'm not sure what that would do. The -- and also in one of these exhibits you quote the section ofthe LDC as it is today. Would it be a problem just to quote it as it would be in effect at the time you're doing the development? I mean, there may be requirements in here that we may change in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of the conditions this county attorney is going to introduce when we get to her. She's got a series of -- that stuff you e-mailed me, I'm assuming you got that in print somewhere here we can put it on screen so everybody understands, or we can verbalize it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The answer is going to be yes ultimately, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's it, thank you. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if! could respond to Mr. Schiffer. I think there's an elaboration that could be helpful to the Commission. The reason that we reiterated those standards is we wanted to eliminate any question as to the development standards that would control ultimate development on the land. And to the extent there was an impression created that this would be a standard ago zoning and there was a misperception that the rural fringe mixed use overlay wouldn't control, we wanted that to be absolutely evident, right on the face of the map that we submitted to you, that there are precise standards, they were adopted through an extensive public planning process, they were intended to provide balance, there was active public participation. And whether or not -- I've talked to the County Attorney's Office, we're very comfortable ultimately to basically say what the code is at the time that we make application is the code that will control development on the land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Passidomo, on Page 2 of3 of your -- under notes. Number one says single-family residential dwelling units and other uses in the particular LDC section. What are those other uses? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There's a long list. You may want to refer to staff. But they are -- there are permitted uses, there are ancillary uses and there are conditional uses. And obviously the conditional uses have to go through a conditional use process prescribed under the LDC. Page 32 r"" \, ..A 1 ~ecLJ3,2A3 :t COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you're saying here that you want all of them permitted as of right. MR. PASSIDOMO: I think if you go on from that, Ms. Caron, you'll see as of right pursuant to standards prescribed in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is the same question I had posed to you, John. Because the way it's written, it does appear that way. And I'd offer, the county attorney I think has language to clear that up too. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to address that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just make sure Ms. Caron's finished. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to ask for right now. And certainly if we have clarifications on everything, I'd like to hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go -- Heidi, then let's go forward with it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I had checked the sites that Mr. Passidomo has in the note one that you find on Page 2 of 3 of their conceptual plan, and it does refer to the conditional use procedure. It makes a reference to Section 10.08.00. But I agree with the issues that have been raised today, and I'd prefer to delete that section and put in its place something like, you know, development will be in accordance with the LDC at the time of development. And then on your third page, just remove that 2.03.08.A that he has there. As the ordinance is drafted, we don't have this conceptual plan attached to it. I do understand that it may be your desire to attach that to the ordinance. If you do that, my recommendation is to label the plan a map offuture development envelope. And the reason for this is that it seems that what you really want to restrict is the area of development. That seems to be your main concern. And environmental has raised some issues relating to submittal of an EIS. So I think if we label it map of development envelope, we take care of that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You also probably don't need to reference item two either, because those are the setbacks that are in the LDC. So my recommendation would be to delete one and two and in its place, place the language that I've mentioned, that all development shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code at the time of development. Attach those to the ordinance and remove just that section of the LDC reference on the third page of the conceptual plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've made notes to all that effect. Ms, Caron, does that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, it both helps and doesn't. I guess I will wait for staff. But I'm a little concerned about the other uses that we are granting within this envelope, and whether those are actually things you want or not. Is the intent single-family homes? MR. PASSIDOMO: There is no intent. The contemplation is-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So it could be oil and gas exploration. MR. PASSIDOMO: That is one of the -- that is one of the conditional uses which would have to come back through a process, would have to have an EIS submitted in conjunction with it. There's no anticipation now or at any time in the future that that's a reasonable possibility, let alone likelihood. But that is listed in the overlay district. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was trying to remember the list. But it is a long and very detailed list. MR. PASSIDOMO: It is. COMMISSIONER CARON: And some ofthe uses are extremely impactfuL And I think we Page 33 /. 16>eJm~ 3,tA 3 ~ probably should cover those here today and make sure that that's really what we want to be approving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you pull up the uses that would apply from Muni. Code so we can discuss those. COMMISSIONER CARON: It may be fine, but -- MR. BELLOWS: The agricultural uses or the rural fringe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The uses this applicant is asking for, which is 2.03.08.A.3.A.l. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have my Land Development Code. MR. PASSIDOMO: We've got some notes on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put them on the screen so we can review them. If there's something objectionable there, we can make a note of it. MR. BELLOWS: I can't put it on this screen. Mine's not hooked up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were just handed hard copies. Wasn't that what Ms. Perry handed you? MR. PASSIDOMO: We've got notes all over that one. MS. DESELEM: Is this what you need? Here's neutral, here's ago COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that what they're asking for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're asking to go to what Ray is putting on the screen right now; is that correct, Mr. Passidomo? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted that clarified, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's doing that, Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the last approval, we didn't eliminate any uses from the agricultural before, correct? I mean, we just focused on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we didn't give them any uses either. We just said that -- we agreed that they could rezone but no density or uses would be allowed until they came back to us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did we actually say uses, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll read it. I got it somewhere inhere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It should say no density shall be awarded by virtue of approval of the rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And look at number three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And any changes have to be brought back. So this essentially leaves them wide open to conventional A zoning, and they would not have to come back here for any use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- permitted. So we're turning this into a PUD hearing, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, he's still asking for a conventional rezone. Although I think what Ms. Caron is saying, we ought to review the uses under the conventional rezone, and if there are some there that are not good for the area and possibly the applicant doesn't need them to have them there, we might solve -- kill two birds with one stone, more or less. So with that in rnind, Ray, if you'd take us through the allowable uses that would be on here, or if Mr. Passidomo wants. I guess the first one is I-A, agricultural activities. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What page is it? MR. BELLOWS: Ijust wanted to make a point of clarification. What's on the visualizer now is from the rural fringe mixed use overlay, which when this property was rezoned agriculture, most of those uses in the overlay is designed to apply to agricultural zoning. Page 34 16 I D{emA ~009 , We also have the separate uses listed in the agricultural zoning district. So do you want me to read from the agricultural zoning district or from the rural fringe? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both. COMMISSIONER CARON: --look at both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, which one would be subject to today's approval? MR. BELLOWS: The agricultural-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The agricultural. MR. BELLOWS: -- uses. But in retrospect both, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we need to go through them, ifthat -- and Mr. Passidomo, if you can shorten this by simply telling us the uses that you're looking for and we write those in, that might just save a lot of work. But if you don't know that and you want a blanket series of uses, we need to walk through them to understand what they are. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I might be able to focus that discussion a little bit. We are not looking for anything of a commercial or intensive or industrial nature on the property. And even though we're talking about property that could be developed five, 10 or 20 years from now, we can clearly exclude those. And there are some in the conditional use category that could fit within that characterization. I don't think that there are any within the permitted use category or in the excessive use category. Those are really of a residential nature, more of an agricultural nature. And of course we've got to go through the EIS, we've got to come back through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way it looks, John, we're halfway to where the problem was last time. We now have your development envelope area, which was what we didn't get last time. We have your development standards, but now we need to get the uses resolved. And I think if you could define that, we don't have to walk through them all. But if you just say that the permitted uses in the district, we need to see the permitted uses then in the ago and in the rural fringe to see then what it is you're asking for. MR. PASSIDOMO: I agree, Mr. Chairman. So it is the permitted uses, it is the accessory uses. And if] could go through the conditional uses in the overlay district that we think are appropriate and that are not in any way a commercial in nature. The zoo, aquarium, botanical garden or other similar uses, that would be fme to remove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just tell us the ones you want to keep. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Okay. The community facilities. The multi-family residential structures. Essential services, under both E and I. Those four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. P ASSIDOMO: And there's a clear line of demarcation, we believe, with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So community facilities, multi-family, residential structures and essential services of the conditional uses. You'd still go through the conditional use process, but those are the ones that would only be allowable to you without a rezone. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, now that he says basically they're looking for all the permitted and accessory uses, so now let's see what those are. And this is the rural fringe? Page 35 ..;~. ; "il 1611 A3 December 3, 2009 a MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we still have to look at the ago as well, because it's the base, or not? 1 saw you talking to David, so I'm wondering what -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Mr. Weeks has indicated that the overlay's designed to -- and please correct me if I'm making a mistake here, that the overlay supersedes the base zoning. So the uses in the overlay would apply, not the base ago wning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the rural fringe uses that we're look at here are the ones we have to focus on because they don't have the opportunity to go to the agricultural, which is one of the other options you had originally brought up. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the purpose and intent of the overlay is to supersede the uses in the ago district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The purpose and intent. But does it? Everything has a purpose and intent. I want to make sure it does. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, in Comprehensive Planning. Commissioners, this is a -- I don't know if muddy is the right word. But the plain reading of the zoning overlay would suggest that it doesn't matter what the underlying zoning is, the overlay is what is applicable. And I would suggest to you that that can result in a ludicrous outcome. Because we do have properties within the rural fringe mixed use district neutral lands, such as the subject site, that are not zoned agriculture today. It is zoned golf course. And it was never the intent when the Future Land Use Element was amended to establish the rural fringe mixed use district and then Land Development Code amended to implement that, that it would apply and supersede the non-agricultural zoning of property. I mentioned a ludicrous outcome. There are properties within the neutral designation and neutral zoning overlay today that are zoned commercial. And some are zoned mobile home and some are zoned village residential. And of course the subject site here is zoned golf course. For the overlay to supersede that underlying zoning results in a ludicrous and I suspect arguably illegal outcome. If someone were to come to the county and say here's my piece of property with the neutral overlay but it's wned commercial, I want my site plan approved for this commercial use and the county staff says no because the overlay supersedes, I think we'd be going down a path to leading up in court if that ultimately was the position of the county that remained. And I think we have to take the position that that overlay, whether it supersedes or doesn't on non-agricultural zoning has to be a decision made across the board. We can't say that overlay supersedes the golf course zoning but it does not supersede the commercial zoning or the village residential or some other non-agricultural zoning. So it was -- to try to sUlllffiarize, it was defInitely the intent that the neutral overlay, as well as the receiving and the sending, is applicable to underlying agricultural zoning. And if you don't have agricultural zoning underlying that overlay, that underlying zoning is what is applicable. So saying -- because if the overlay were to supersede, there'd be no reason for them to be here in front of you asking for the agricultural rezoning. It could simply come in and implement the overlay through the necessary administrative process, SDP or file their plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, if the applicant here today acknowledges that they're looking for the uses that are in the rural fringe neutral category that are in front of us and they accept that and that's what we conditionally approve, does that fix it then? Does that make it not subject to any further debate, it's basically those uses? MR. WEEKS: If! understood the question correctly, ifthis property is rezoned to agriculture as they're requesting, it will then be eligible for all of the uses listed in the neutral overlay. Page 36 1f J'"'' 1.. lb I 1 A3 ~ December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, but only those uses as agreed to here today with the applicant and this board. Subject of course to the BCC. MR. WEEKS: It's my understanding that you have the legal authority to do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I want to-- MR. WEEKS: So if there's 50 uses under neutral and you limit them to 10, then that's the 10 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we have the opportunity to clean it up and avoid the absurd interpretation or conclusion that could result as you had previously described. MR. WEEKS: Well, I don't think the outcome is ludicrous. If -- rephrase that. If the property is rezoned agriculture, then the overlay makes sense. That's what it was intended to apply, how it was intended to apply. Now we have underlined zoning of agricultural. Here's the neutral land uses that would apply to -- and standards that would apply to that piece of property. But because this property is not today zoned agriculture, I do believe you have the legal authority to make a recommendation and for the board to endorse a limitation on what uses would be eligible or allowed on the property, just as you would with any other rezoning of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I see a way to get there, depending on how the responses come back from the applicant. MR. WEEKS: Maybe just say it one more time a little bit different way. When someone walks in the door today and there's a property zoned agriculture and they want to rezone to C-3, the county has the authority to say no, we will not approve all C-3 uses, only certain ones. As long as there's good sound reason for doing so. I think the same case here. Their rezoning to agriculture results in the neutral overlay being applicable to the property and if for good reason the county says no, some of those uses are not appropriate, we won't allow them, I believe you have the right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, would you just then recommend we stipulate that only the allowable neutral uses, and that way we just lock into what's allowed on that and they can't read any further into the code? MR. WEEKS: I don't think that's -- I think it's only necessary to place limiting information in the ordinance if you wish to limit their uses to less than what is allowed in the neutral overlay. If that list of however many uses are in the LDC for the neutral overlay, if you are comfortable with those, if you have no reason to not want to see them there, you don't need to say you're limited to neutral lands, because I'm saying that as a matter of application, that is what will be allowed. But if you determine, for example, that the oil or gas drilling or some of these other uses permitted by right are not appropriate on the property, you know, have some sound basis for prohibiting that use, you have the right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I'm okay with that procedure, if you're both in agreement as to the-- you know, the overlay for neutral lands that would apply. It might be more simple to just eliminate, you know, prohibited uses, have them all be allowed, unless you specifically prohibit them in your ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I mean, I've already started some notations and I think we can get tlrrough this pretty easily. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, actually, my question, and I think it's simple, Heidi, what-- are we going to -- the result of this process will be an amended resolution -- not resolution, ordinance? Will Page 37 IL.Ll '^3 II ~c b 3, 200f'\ we be amending the ordinance or initiating a new one? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I see what you're saying. Well, you had approved an ordinance, but it never went through on the consent agenda, so it never went to the board. So we probably have to maybe let the Board of County Commissioners know that there were two hearings but that you, you know, are essentially withdrawing the first recommendation and going with whatever you decide today and subsequent consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's still a proposed ordinance. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, nothing's been formally adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because earlier you said something about adding the land and other information, and I wasn't sure what that represented. You've clarified it for me, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, or I guess it's John's show. I'm sorry to bother you. John, let's just walk through the uses that are in front of us right now. And in the permitted uses as of right, that's this first page, we have agriculture, single-family residential, dormitories, duplex and other types of staff housing in support of conservation uses. And if we move down, Ray, on that, it's group housing uses, subject to the following -- he walked away. Ray, you're a media guy today. Could you slide up that -- family care facilities on the unit one to five per acre group care facilities with an FAR of .45. Staff housing and farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location. Let's go on down further. Single-family duplex, mobile home. Well, that one's going to be a problem. Multi-family dormitory, 22 dwelling units bed per acre. I'm not sure why you need that, John. Sporting and recreational camps, essential services, and then golf courses with a series of reservations. Let's just run through the whole list real quick and go back and see the ones that are problematic. Ray, can you run down -- those are all the golf course restrictions. Go on, let's go down to the next set of uses. Stormwater management ponds, site preservation. Okay, let's go down to the next one. Public -- yeah, schools, oil and gas exploration, and park open space and private schools. I'll start off. John, there's three things there I think the -- first of all, the -- I don't know why you would want private schools or that you need those. Because they do create a traffic concern and intensity. I'm not sure we even want to get into that, since you're in areas where there's other housing not too far along. And when you went up on the first part, we had dormitories. And Ray, if you can go to that, I think the top of the second page. Number i and ii there, do you need either of those? MR. P ASSIDOMO: The camps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I want to reserve a response on all these and have an opportunity briefly to confer with Mr. Barton on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So i and ii are the sub-notes to what, Ray? Not the camps, the one above it, John, is what I'm talking about. MR. PASSIDOMO: All right, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Looks to be farm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Farm labor housing. So I don't think that you're going to need farm labor housing in that area since you don't have a farm. So it may not hurt to strike that one. And then as we move down, the other one -- MR. PASSIDOMO: The land is zoned ago Page 38 ,~! ""4 --..... 16 I rce~~ 200' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to put farm labor housing there, John, that's a little different use than what's in that neighborhood. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we've really got us in a Catch-22. We're trying to plan in perpetuity, and it's being characterized as what we're going to be putting in there. All of our responses are really -- should be couched in the most cautious context of -- we're trying to just basically say we want to eliminate the noxious uses, the commercial uses, the industrial uses, but we don't want to be able to tie our hands urmecessarily if the county really doesn't care what happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Farm labor housing is a deal breaker to you? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir, it's not. I just wanted to frame the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I'm a little surprised you're pushing so hard, only because when you came to us last time, it was always you wanted single-family residential, you wanted residential. And when we got into this deeper and deeper, we seem to be not heading in the direction you originally told us. And I'm kind of glad we didn't follow along that pattern originally, we're back to where we are today, because it's fleshing out more issues that I think needed to be fleshed out we didn't understand before. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I hope nothing we're doing is perceived as anything but cooperative and just simply trying to protect our reasonable interest. And to put us on a level playing field, everybody else within the overlay district has all of these uses. We think it is appropriate to go through them and to carve out what is under no reasonable foreseeable conception could be used. We want to be cooperative. I think we've indicated and we've proven that we are being cooperative and we're not trying to push back or be aggressive in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the other item that was further down, just after -- and I'm sorry to keep you having to shovel pages around. Would you mind going back another page or two? One more. Private schools. Do you have a need for private schools on that site? MR. PASSIDOMO: I'll talk to Mr. Barton. I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now let's look at the accessory -- well, I seem to be the only one discussing. Anybody else have any concerns with the uses other than what I've articulated so far? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You seem to be doing pretty good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have a concern with some of the uses you've articulated, so -- in other words, the private school, that might be an excellent location for a private schoo\. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you need to say so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We won't know -- I mean, fast forward 50 years from now, that might be the perfect location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that's fme, I'm not -- I'm just trying to point out. I do -- that one didn't bother me too much, but I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting ourselves into a high intensity use as you had said you did want any high -- no intensive uses. MR. P ASSIDOMO: No commercially intensive uses. And I think that was a clear line of demarcation. But clearly, if we come back in, we're going to have to go through a traffic impact analysis, we're going to go through an environmental impact analysis, we're going to go through that whole process. And that's what the LDC is all about and that's why it is difficult to stand here right today and say what could conceivably possible (sic) at any time in the future. Mr. Schiffer's indicated it's pretty hard to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you run down the accessory uses, Ray? Well, that's it, there's only a couple of them. Okay. Then the conditional uses, you've already told us you're going to limit your conditional uses to community facilities, multi-family and essential service. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Barton asked me, Mr. Chairman, if] could, there is one that clearly we had no contemplation of ever using, but there could be a misconstruction. Page 39 ~ t; 16 I lcemA 0009 :t G, earth mining and extraction and related processes. Clearly that would not -- we agreed to have that removed. But if that's ancillary to an otherwise permitted development, if we were building a lake we don't want the elimination of that conditional use to be perceived in any way to prohibit us from building a lake, extracting materials and removing them from the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're suggesting and I'm just thinking of the Jones Mining pit that's 10 miles or 15 miles further out east and all the trouble it had in a sparsely populated. You're thinking of putting a commercial excavation pit in this location? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, that's not what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need it. MR. PASSIDOMO: No. What I said is I wouldn't want the elimination of this to be misconstrued as prohibiting us from building -- constructing a lake on the property and part of a residential development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a big difference between a lake in which you need the fill for the property as well versus an earth mining operation which is dug intentionally deeper to much greater intensity so you can make a profit off the exportation of fill. You know, you've done enough development -- you've been around enough developments and so have I, you can dig the lakes you need adequately for the amenities that they provide, plus the fill for the property. There is no excuse to take it off-site. And to think you want a commercial excavation in this location is a concern. But anyway, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, aren't these conditional uses, though? Wouldn't they come before a future board and they would have to plead that case with them? I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might. But there's also, there's been several attempts of putting excavation facilities through at the state level as a necessity for our need for fill for the county. And there was at one point. If that had gone through, it would have eliminated the county from stepping in and trying to prohibit them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, isn't earth mining G anyway, it's not 17 So that's not the big Issue. But I just think that if these are conditional uses normally in ago and they can come before a future board and a future Board of Commissioners and make a case and it's acceptable, that's the protection I think we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the danger I find. Anyway, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, to that point, essentially today we are being asked to approve an up-zone of one -- in one respect or another. So I think it's perfectly appropriate to limit the extent and the intensity of that up-zone. Because we're going from golf course to a whole section of additional uses. MR. PASSIDOMO: But I think, Ms. Caron, in fairness, that whole section applies to all of the overlay district. All we're asking for is to be treated the same as everybody else. There's a golf course next door. These are the standards, the regulations that govern development on that golf course next door. We think this is a helpful exercise to go through and extract things that are inconceivable as future permitted uses. But the fact is, we're not looking for an up-zone to distinguish ourselves, we're looking to level the playing field and to have the same rights and regulations that everyone else in the overlay district has to comply with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- support one little thing. Page 40 , . 16 I lcemA3009 1 Mr. -- you had stated that you want to leave the option open to build some lakes. Well, as I recall, wasn't the last time we met here was that you were supposed to dig ponds or lakes for the water management -- the storm management? I'm sorry. As I recall, that was one major issue that must have taken 45 minutes or an hour to discuss the storm management of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that what you were talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Item G that he's asking about is a commercial operation. It basically allows earth mining and extraction from the property and he's selling the fill. The excavation of stormwater lakes has never been a problem and wouldn't be qualified under G. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I know. I had misunderstood, that he just wanted to make sure that he was able to put a pond or lake without being considered to be a commercial operation, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, does number G only apply if they want to remove material from the site and sell it commercially? MR. BELLOWS: There's a section in the code that allows a project to excavate and haul off-site 20,000 square feet of fill without having to get that conditional use for earth mining excavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a standard clause in -- MR. BELLOWS: That's a standard for all residential developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But ifhe wants to dig his water management lakes -- MR. BELLOWS: That falls under that 20,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifhe wants to dig lakes more than what he needs for his water management capabilities because he wants to use fill on-site for house pads and roads, that's okay too. Well, I mean, everybody's doing it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I don't -- as long as they comply with that limitation, I believe that that's fine. There's a -- and I need to do some checking what constitutes a commercial excavation. I'm not that familiar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood it to be if you take off in excess of the allowable yardage and you're selling it, it becomes commercial. If you use it on-site, every project in this community -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- digs their lakes for use on-site. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that part, you can move it on-site, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did we resolve gas and oil? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one brought it up as a question. Did you have a-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Minimum of 100 holes. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if you can just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to hear staff report, so if you want to talk -- MR. PASSIDOMO: But if you can give me direction from the consensus of the commission as to which of the permitted uses you'd want excluded, I can consult with Mr. Barton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From my perspective, I made the following notes: The rezone to ago with the following uses, permitted uses, not acceptable; that is no farm labor housing. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, would you mind referring to them by letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I can't, because I don't have it in front of me. That will be cleaned up before we get done. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was H. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: H. Page 41 ~ . 1~le1r~~9 I .,..... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just giving you the information. And the only conditional uses would be community facilities, multi-faruily residential and essential services. Those are the notes that I made. MR. PASSIDOMO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now, if anybody else wants to yea or nay it, go right ahead. Because he's asking for our consensus and I'm not giving him a consensus, I'm giving him my notes. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, this is difficult, not being able to flip through this paperwork. I mean, I wonder if we could take a quick break and Ray make us copies. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if we take say a five-minute break, can you make copies of those pages for us? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's take a break until 11:01. (Recess. ) MR. BELLOWS: Kay Deselem is making the copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't send her back to developmental services to make the copies, did you? Is there a staff report on this particular application? COMMISSIONER CARON: Kay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Kay's got that too. You sent the only person that could talk to us off. MR. BELLOWS: We're running out of people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to hold off till Kay shows up. So unplug us, thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay has returned. And because she has, we are allowed to go forward here today. With that in mind, she's passed out the neutral lands uses. And Mr. Schiffer, what questions do you have, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just to run through this, what are the ones that we're thinking of not allowing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only one that I had suggested at this point is H. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you get to conditional uses, the applicant originally said they wanted B, D and E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B, D and E? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, my only comment is since they are conditional uses, these uses might be fine, but in the future there's no way we could tell now. I don't see the harm in some day there could be a sports camp built out there. Could be a golf school for the citizens. I see no reason to eliminate honestly any of these. I don't want to touch the gas and oil, because I think that's a complicated issue. And ifthey -- the county's ever to the point where they need earth mining in the future and the people who govern the county believe that that through a public hearing is acceptable, then I trust them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so Mr. Passidomo was looking for a consensus. I offered some suggestions. Mr. Schiffer, basically you don't believe we need to have any restrictions on the permitted or conditional or accessory uses? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm okay with H. I don't think that's a good place for farm houses. Page 42 , rq 16 I lcemA3009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you believe that all the conditional uses ought to be opened? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I still don't. We need a consensus from the panel on this board. Does anybody else have an opinion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I tend to agree with Brad at this time, why tie their hands, let it be dealt with some time in the future if it becomes an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, as I said, you know, I think that it's appropriate for us to deal with this now. We're being asked to up-zone this property and I think, you know, we should take a look at these things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And-- VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I happen to agree with you in this regard. I think it's time to look at it, see if we can make sure that we don't have future issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would be more inclined to let future people look at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it mean Brad's position or mine? I don't know what you meant by that. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was to not let the future people -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Brad's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's. Okay, anybody else want to weigh in? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, you don't care one way or the other? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't have anything to add right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm trying to get a consensus. So far it's 3-3. So let's look at it this way: We need to give some direction. I will not vote for this and I will work against it if they're going to include all the conditional uses. That's flat out. So whatever the consensus is, it may end up being voted that way, you will not get my support, Mr. Passidomo. So you can judge it any way you want. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking for it. Let me see -- as a matter of expediency, let me remove that issue from consideration. We'll abide by the conditional uses that you articulated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which were the ones you originally articulated. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was asking. MR. PASSIDOMO: I think you may have misstated, Mr. Chairman, though. We asked for I as well as E, in the list of essential services. B, D, E and 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask the question. One of the ones we're not doing is a botanical garden. To me harmless. But in the future if somebody wanted to do a botauical garden, we removed it from the conditional uses today. What process would they go through to get their botanical garden on the site? Would they not just have a public hearing anyway to get it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A rezone. Page 43 1611-' A3 =- .Iu~cember 3,2009 . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would come in to overrule what we made here, using the excuse that everybody else around us is allowed a botanical garden, why can't we. So is that something 1 guess you're not worried about? I mean, I see no need to take it out, but -- MR. P ASSIDOMO: But Mr. Chair, I think that's really why we come to the conclusion we come to. We have to come back through a public hearing. If it's a conditional use or it's a rezone, this is so speculative that as a matter of expediency we say we'll come back in through a rezone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want it to be a deal breaker, so I'll bow out. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever you want, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I'm trying to follow what the applicant said. And what I want to remind everybody, this is way beyond what we originally talked about on the original application. It was for single-family residential housing. They want to do a project. So all of a sudden through the processes that we put in -- I guess I should say the roadblocks that we put in, we're now coming back to where the more or less real nature of this project may go. And I think that we have every right to question it now versus what we were told originally. So that's all I'm sticking to. If they hadn't come in originally and said what they said, I wouldn't be so concerned with it today. But if you're going to stand to the plate and say something, then somebody's got to hold your feet to the fire and that's where it's at. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'm very comfortable with that, but I object to the suggestion that we're being disingenuous in any way. We're telling you exactly what we told you. There is no project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not saying you're disingenuous, I'm just saying that what we were told originally is -- we're getting now more than what we were told originally. l11at's why you're back here today is to tell us more. And I'm glad that we forced your hand, or if you voluntarily came back in, fme. But I'm glad it came out this way. Because now we're looking at the various uses that could be there instead of just what we assumed would be the primary use, which was single-family residential. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, and that's what I was waiting for you all to try to ferret out from John. What do you want? I mean, what is it? I mean, you keep saying what we'll accept, what we'll not accept. I know you want to keep it open as much as you can for your client because you don't know what is going to happen a year to five years from now. But on the other hand, we need to know what's going to go on. MR. PASSIDOMO: And Mr. Wolfley, it's-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, we've been burned before here by not being told the whole story that oh, it's just boilerplate and just leave that in there, and the next thing you know, something gets built that we got burned, so -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, it's the permitted uses except for H. And it's the accessory uses. And it's the four conditional uses described in 3.B, D, E and I. All the other conditional uses would be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what we're down to. Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? If not, let's hear the staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the supplemental staff report prepared for this date's hearing. It is revised 10/30/09 in the footnote. And I won't belabor the issue. You've had a lengthy discussion about it. Staff is in agreement with what's being proposed. We believe that the project remains consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And I -- along with what the County Attorney's Office is recommending and what you have so far come to an agreement on as far as discussion wise, staff is in -- Page 44 ............- - December1691 1 A 3 you know, would recommend approval of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, were you at the neighborhood information meeting? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think there's anything that was said at that meeting that this would contradict? In other words, did the applicant say anything to the neighbors that now we're doing something different? MS. DESELEM: I'd want to take a moment and go back and look at the synopsis of that. But overall, I don't believe so. Because the whole idea was it was rezoning to ago with a rural fringe neutral designation. So I can't see where if you're limiting to even less than what would be allowed by right in that or by conditioual use that it would be anything less than what the neighbor's would have understood to be proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the prior staff report said that the neighbors had asked that -- Mrs. Perry to paraphrase said that it would go to agricultural that would allow the property owner more uses such as single family, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read it to you. It says right -- we have it in our package. The petitioner re -- let's see, one resident wanted to know where the access to the property would be. The petitioner responded that it would be in the same place as it is today. No changes proposed. The same resident wanted clarification that no commercial uses could be built with this rezone. And the petitioner assured him that commercial use is not an approved use under agriculture or in the rural fringe neutral area and that in order to allow commercial uses, a Growth Management Plan amendment would be required. Several residents asked if there were any plans to remove the golf course. The property owner stated that he intends to keep the current golf course intact. That's the synopsis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I read that. I was worried more about the paragraph above. It does point out that they're aware of the fact that there's more uses, the agricultural uses, such as -- MS. DESELEM: I think the such as doesn't say only. And so the implication is that they just culled out one that at that time they had looked at, but it didn't preclude them from having anything else that might be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they had no objection? MS. DESELEM: That's my recollection, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But, and you know this for a fact, Kay, that when you go to those neighborhood information meetings, when you say there are uses such as and the rest of the discussion has to do with single-family homes, what do the neighbors walk away thinking they're going to get? MS. DESELEM: There is that possibility, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Nebulous other uses that they don't even know and never were detailed for them? No, they expect single-family homes. And what we're learning here is that mayor may not be the case. And that's why I think we need to go through these things. The neighbors need to know that there are all these other uses. And they may be fine with those other uses. But did you detail all these other uses to the neighborhood? MS. DESELEM: No, I did not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's-- Page 45 16111'" A3 ~ December 3, 2009 MS. DESELEM: -- but I'm not the one that does the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: But did Mr. Passidomo or whoever respected him at the time? MS. DESELEM: When the neighbors, you know, understand, I assume, thaT it's an agricultural zoning district, they're going to, I think they would have some assumption from that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- that there are other uses that would be perruitted. But you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Kay, the word-- MS. DESELEM: -- what they say about assumption, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word agricultural connotates row crops and citms and cows. I C1ill tell you, you've given this board eight pages of uses that is now going to be applied to this property, that even members of this board knowing that this was going to be up here today did not download and print themselves. So how -- I would expect that nobody in the public at that meeting woul.d have these eight pages with them and would have known that every -- like group care facilities and care housing facilities and FAR of .45, the public doesn't -- when you say agricultural uses such as single-fmnily residential, the public doesn't expect that to be one of them. And I'm not saying that's bad or good. But I'm saying we cannot rely on the fact that because the public didn't ask the question about is it only going to be residential and that they were told it was agricultural zoning that meant they conceded to all these uses. That is not something I think the public: is generally aware of. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Plus you've got the issue of the neutral lands, which is what that list is taken from. It's not so much the ago rezoning, it's the neutral lands, which was in effect at the time anyway. And that really never came up, to my knowledge, in the neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So had the public gone to look for something, had they looked at the agricultural zoning, which they saw this going to, they still wouldn't probably have known that an overlay applies from the rural fringe that has another series of uses that they would have had to look at. MS. DESELEM: I can't say what they knew, but I can tell you that in the advertisement it does mention that rural fringe. And obviously they have the opportunity if they have questions to contact staff or the applicant, and it's kind of hard to be all things to all people. You can't make peopl.e ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to follow up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, those people are mostly in agricultural zoning in the neutral fringe themselves, so essentially the rights they would be given would be essentially the rights that they themselves have. MS. DESELEM: That could be. But the one property adjacent to this one does have a conditional use for a golf course so it's reasonable to assume perhaps that if they have a conditional use others could get conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is adjacent to the Estates, Brad, and some of the people that attended, at least one of them I know, is an Estates resident. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at the information, it's agricultural around it. Some with -- you know, I think it has a lot of trailers and stuff, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes, I believe to the north. But like I said, I can't assume to know what anybody leaves a meeting with is an understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not a big point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, are there any public speakers, Ray? Page 46 ,.'. lJ~b13109. A 3 .. ~ c' ,., MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Tim Pratt. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PRATT: Well, I'm -- my name is Tim Pratt. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I live on 25th Street Northwest, so I've got a concern about this. I'm really happy to see that you guys are taking so much time to really ferret out what's going on here. I've got a -- I would request that you don't allow this. And the reason beilil.g is ~ I was -- when this was rezoned to a golf course I believe many years ago, I didn't get involved in that. I thought well, a golf course, that's no big deal, that won't hurt me. And since then they've decided to build the Vanderbilt Beach Road. They didn't want to destroy the golf course, they moved over and they're going to take dwellings. So my contention of this is they have really not been a good neighbor. They've made no concessions. No attempt to try and save people from losing their homes. And Ijust -- I guess I'm thinking that this can't be good for us either. I'm wondering if this is -- they admitted that they don't know what they're going to do. This is for some five, 10, 15 years down the road. So they're just -- I'm wondering why they even need this. Is it just so they can, you know, run cattle and save some tax money? I'm just not sure. I'm a little apprehensive about this, and I would just ask that you don't let them do this. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pratt, your issue about the road is one that I personally have tried to follow myself And I certainly agree with you in that regard, that road didn't need to be moved, it had to be moved now because of properties that are in their way that are more expensive apparently and more important than homes in Golden Gate Estates. I still disagree with that. Although unfortunately this -- that is not an issue we can weigh into this factor -- MR. PRATT: Oh, I understand that, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- here today. But I -- I live out in the Estates too and I'm disgusted with the road situation. MR. PRATT: Well, Ijust --like I say, everybody here -- I feel much better. You know, I -- and it's my fault, I haven't been very involved in -- actually, this is the first meeting I've attended. And I feel much better knowing that you guys really -- you seem to be really looking out for us, and I appreciate that. But I'm a little suspicious of the Ole Florida Golf Course. And that's why I would -- there's something in this for them, obviously. And they want to make money and I can understand that. But at what expense? Are we going to lose -- are they going to run cattle and try and, you know, save tax money or -- I'm just -- I'm a little suspicious of them. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, he's got one more question from Brad. MR. PRATT: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I obviously -- you followed the road conversations closely back then? MR. PRATT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was the point made that they weren't able to move the holes on their golf course? Was that the reason why the road -- MR. PRATT: Yeah, it would be very expensive to move the holes on the golf course. You know, Page 47 I le6n+r 3:t~ 3 . ~ I'm not a golfer so, you know, I can't say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But essentially then we have this land for housing that could have contained the holes that they had to move. MR. PRATT: That's what I'm thinking. There was -- I mean, there was other land there that -- and, you know, I'm not a golf course designer, I'm not a golfer, but there was a lot of other land there that it seems to me they could have moved to. And I'm sure it would have been very expensive. And I think it was -- what they did is they went, you know, by the dollar amount. It would be cheaper to force these people to leave their homes than it would be to move the holes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, thanks for that. MR. PRATT: I'm just speculating. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any more speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, do you want a rebuttal? MR. PASSIDOMO: Very briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I shouldn't say -- I guess corrected by Bruce, we don't call those rebuttals. Do you want to counterpoint? Whatever you want to call it. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Just some conclusionary remarks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Obviously the Commission recognizes the issue of the relocation of a road that occurred years and years ago that was made with the -- in the best judgment of the Board of County Commissioners. It is not an issue in front of you today. But you would be interested to know that although you could have relocated some of the holes from this golf course, you couldn't have relocated some of the holes from the golf course next door. The Golf Course of the Everglades is 18 holes -- it's only 18 holes. And that would have constituted a taking of an entire golf course. If! remember correctly, the testimony in front of the Board of County Commissioners was that the differential in cost was $45 million. So whether they were right or wrong, the Board of County Commissioners had information in front of them to justifY what they did. There won't be a reduction in taxes. We're increasing the amount of uses, not decreasing the amount of uses. So presumably the property appraiser may want to look at that, but there's certainly no contemplation that we're going to run cattle here. What you see is really what you get. We want to be treated the same as all of our other neighbors, to have the same overlay district uses on ours, as revised by the Commission. Not to have any special privileges, just to have a level playing field. We appreciate your consideration, in particular appreciate the Chairman's leadership in getting the map in front of you today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing. And I think we might want to start with discussion, if that's -- nobody objects. There's a list of items I've written down in regards to this issue. And by the way, I think we ought to also consider, if we weren't looking at rezoning this to standard zoning like's being requested with the limitations we may impose on it today, they certainly could come in at any time with a PUD request. And the likelihood of that getting approved is probably the same. I mean, it would -- I don't see them being denied the more use on this property because of its size. So whatever we do, we should be doing something that tries to make it the best we possibly can out Page 48 16Jemlr 3,1Ao' , of a situation that's going to have a modification to it sooner or later anyway. And so that's where I've been coming from in trying to understand what to do here today. First of all, I think we ought to make the approval subject to a stipulation that includes the map of the future development envelope that's been presented to us today as a limitation to the property. That we delete on Page 2 of their -- of those map pages, items number one and two, and we substitute in language as recommended by the County Attorney's Office concerning consistency with the then current Land Development Code language for the rural fringe area that they're asking to be part of, or the agricultural -- with your rural fringe overlay. That we delete the Page 3 reference to Section 2.03.08.A, because it is in the LDC and it will be part of what their requirements will be. There's something I didn't bring up, but I see it just as a correction. Number five on the notes on Page 2 it says, the area depicted as future development envelope is the area within which future development on the property will occur. I think the word "will" needs to be substituted with the word "may". It just -- because we don't know until the environmental is done. So I would suggest that correction be added. And that lastly we add the condition that the rezone to ago with a rural fringe overlay is acceptable. But Item H is not eligible under the permitted uses for a use. And under the conditional uses, only Items B, D, E and I are eligible for application for conditional use and through the regular process. And I believe that's all the notes I have. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just have a question, because I don't want there to be any questions down the line. Mr. Passidomo said that they would take out any commercial or industrial uses. And if we make that as one of your stipulations, then are we leaving some question when you get to permitted uses as of right under D, which the greater category is group housing, which gets into family care facilities, group care, which are commercial type uses. And I just don't want in the future somebody to say well, I think this is allowed and somebody else to say no, it's not allowed. Either we're taking out commercial and industrial uses or we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I worded my stipulation referencing specific uses was to avoid that concern. If we just left it no industrial commercial uses, that would be harder to interpret than saying of the non -- the uses that are permitted by right, the only one that shouldn't be used is H. I understand your position -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're fine with some commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're all limited to the height and density restrictions in the regular zoning overlay, so they're not going to be as harmful as multi-family could be, for example. They're all so limited in their intensity. And by those standard regulations that no matter what they are, they're going to come out the same in regards to intensity. That's where I was coming from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm good. I'm just asking the question. I don't want there to be any confusion later. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, in the area where you wanted to change it from will to may, I think it's moot. Will is the intention to do and if they're restricted because of any number of limitations associated with either environmental or other factors, they simply won't be able to build on there. I don't know that changing it to may makes it as restrictive as perhaps we intend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton, I had mentioned this one to you the other day. Do you see a -- what is the better word to use there, will or may? Page 49 160LIJ\J " MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me ask for clarification. Do you want the "may" to attach to the first sentence or the second sentence where you're dealing with the preserve area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fIrst sentence. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that you won't be able to hold them to it if you put may. Will you'll be able to hold them to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine. I appreciate the correction then. And that will be -- we'll leave number five as is, so we won't stipulate a change to that. Okay, are there any other comments, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there amotion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If Bob wants it, he can have it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move that we forward with a recommendation of approval RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Course, Inc., with the requirements we put on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we go -- before you finish, though, we also had four stipulations originally. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two of those I believe still apply, number one and four. Would those be included in your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. We would eliminate two, we eliminate three and add the additional requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one and four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, we appreciate everybody's time and help in getting through this today. And we have a decision to make. We have one more case. It's in Golden Gate Estates. It's -- Mr. Hancock is handling it, which means it's pretty well laid out. We can either proceed with it or we can take a Page 50 lc6ubLt09!A 3 - break and come back. I'd rather we just work and get this done, if that's okay with everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi -- or Cherie', what do you need for a break? We just had a break for five minutes. You want to take a l5-minute break right now? THE COURT REPORTER: Ten minutes is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten-minute break? Okay. Tim, we're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll resume at 11:40 and we'll work through lunch. (Recess.) Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ-2007-l1398, SHOESOP PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break. We're going to try to work through our lunch to finish up here today. And now we're approaching Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11398, Shoesop Properties, LLC for the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Mr. Hancock I think yesterday, and went over some concerns that he's going to be addressing today. So with that in rnind, Tim, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Commissioners. For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, on behalf of Shoe sop Properties, LLC. Mr. Michael Schoeller, owner of Shoesop is here in case you have any questions for him. He's also a pretty good bat in the lineup on my softball team, so we're happy to be here representing Mike. The arrow before you shows you the project location. What's before you today is a CPUD rezone, a 5.46 gross acres of land located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. The property is designated in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as neighborhood center subdistrict, and as such has provided the opportunity to seek land use entitlements consistent with that master plan. As shown on the aerial, the adjacent properties to the north and to the west are currently developed with single-faruily homes. As you're aware, the granting of this rezone would allow for adjacent parcels totaling up to five acres to request a rezone for a limited number of conditional uses. At this time neither property owner to our knowledge is contemplating that, but that opportunity does remain available to them. Thank you, Ray. Consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan requirements, the buffering on the proposed project is significant. The west and north property lines which are adjacent to residential retain a 50-foot native vegetation buffer. The vegetation in these areas will be left in place as it is today. Additionally, the entire site is then subject to a 25-foot landscape buffer on all sides, creating in effect a 75-foot buffer adjacent to residential neighbors and 25 feet along both roadway frontages. The required buffering and landscape areas will comprise 23 percent of the usable site area. This site is already encumbered by 1.12 acres of roadway easement, resulting in a net property of 4.34 acres before we get into the development standards that we'll be outlining today. Page 51 1611~3 December 3, 2009 The intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard is currently in design for widening. The plan is to widen the intersection to accommodate the ultimate build-out condition of both Everglades and Golden Gate in advance of the two roadways being widened. In other words, the intersection's going to get done first before the roadways get done, mainly because the restriction at the intersection is turning movements as it stands today. These plans are at a 60 percent design stage, but like many road projects in the county it is on hold due to budgetary constraints. Mr. Schoeller has agreed to convey to Collier County an area totaling almost four-tenths of an acre, again some nine percent of the current useable site. Since this donation exceeds what could be construed as reasonable mitigation for project-related impacts to the roadway network, transportation staff has agreed to compensate the property owner for the difference, as spelled out in the PUD. Areas required to compensate for site-related turn lanes have been removed from that calculation. In other words, if we would have to give 12 feet for a right turn lane into the property as compensating right-of-way, we have not included that in the calculation with respect to the donation, if you will, to the county. The result ofthese requirements is actually a development envelope totaling approximately 2.1 acres out of that original 5.46. Access is fairly limited, as shown on the PUD master plan, mainly because of the proposed widening of the intersection. It will result in fairly restrictive access to the site. Once hopefully at some point down the road if conditional uses are approved on adjacent propertie" that access may improve, but for now we have what we have. As you can see from the plan really with the 2. I-acre envelope and the access as shown, the access is adequate but really serves as a restriction of the degree of small-scale retail services that could be constructed on the site. I'm aware of a couple issues raised by the Chairman, and we may need some clarification, so let me try and put before you some of those at this time. The first is within the PUD, in addition to listing the uses that are permitted, we also listed the use that are prohibited. During the NIMs I stated that there were two uses that would not be permitted on the property, but I did fail to include them in the PUD and I'd like to correct that now. Those two uses are one, a gas station. The reason being, we are in the WS-1 well-field protection area. Believe me, gas stations would love to be on this corner, they simply can't go there because of the well-field protection area. And I think there would be other use limitations that this board may be interested in. So we will be adding under number 15 gas stations as a prohibited use. The second one is fast food restaurants with a drive-through. Again, we'll be listing these as prohibited uses because primarily a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, the drive-through becomes fairly substantial in the operation of it and I believe does qualifY as a drive-through establishment under county regulations and as such would be prohibited. We want to go ahead and make sure those two are specifically listed under prohibited uses in the PUD. Secondly, a resident, Ms. Susan Mason, requested that we include some development constraints in accordance with the Dark Skies initiative. Some of you may receive that e-mail. And that seeks to protect rural areas from urmecessary ambient light intrusion. Since this project is surrounded on four sides by Estates residential lots, the request seemed reasonable. I inquired of a lighting engineer, and while the language before you today may result in some higher development costs, they do not appear to be extensive or impossible to meet. It's also likely by the time this site develops, more fixtures will be designed to address this issue. A, it stands right now, those fixtures are somewhat limited in meeting Dark Skies initiative, but that list is growing every day. Page 52 r' 16erler120~A :3 !I ~:.:,\t So while I don't purport to have done exhaustive research on the item, I feel we can address this issue in our PUD. And I encourage the county, actually ask this board to maybe make a recommendation to the board that they form a small committee to actually look into this further and help develop some standards. And in can assist in achieving that, I'd be happy to serve. But I think we can do a little bit more to tailor the ambient light issues in the rural Estates. And this is a shot at doing that. The first criteria really is to limit the wattage of the lights to 250 watts HID. And HID is high intensity. What HID does is it -- to give you the best example I can, instead of seeing kind of the yellow glow of a typical bulb, it would be more of a white xenon or a daylight type of light. And that's what high intensity discharge is intended to do, to mimic daylight more when the light's in usage, as opposed to some ofthe less attractive light fixtures. So the 250-Watt HID. And we're excluding anything that's required for life safety issues, whether it be exit signs or stairwell lighting or those types of things. And I thought by limiting it to life safety, that would be a successful limitation. But any exterior lights, whether they be pole mounted or whether they be on the building, would have to comply with this 250-Watt HID limitation or lumen equivalent, and to be fully shielded. The other things we're doing in this language is we are elirninating any landscape up-lighting, and any signage lighting would have to be fully shielded. Again, if you're living adjacent to the property, to see lights shining up makes absolutely no sense in a rural setting. So we hope we've been able to achieve that with this language. There also was brought to my attention the potential for a lack of clarity regarding the right-of-way to be conveyed to the county in accordance with the PUD. The PUD master plan that is included in your packet was really -- it became more of a transportation document in dealing with this right-of-way issue. And so all of the detail was intended to show well, what's not included in our reservation and what is. And in that we probably lost something along the way. So what I'd like to do is propose that we add a note to the master concept plan that states -- as you look at this plan you see the crosshatched areas, and there's tlrree different types of crosshatching. What we want to be clear about is that entire area is included in the right-of-way that is to be conveyed to the county within 30 days ofPUD approval. The areas that are hatched differently in there are those areas that are part of the compensating right-of-way. So rather than distinguish between the two in the PUD, which doesn't make any sense, I think a simple statement on the master concept plan could read as follows: All compensating and reserved right-of-way is subject to Item 3.A of Exhibit E in the PUD document. That is the part of the PUD document that says the right-of-way as shown on the master concept plan will be conveyed within 30 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tim, the point that -- and I brought this up to staff, is that the annotation here that there's a right-of-way reservation then is no longer really true. This is right-of-way that's been bought and paid for, is that -- MR. HANCOCK: Partial donation, partial paid for, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was the whole basis. I'm trying to understand what a reservation was and we had no legal mechanism for such. MR. HANCOCK: It was a -- yeah, it was a reservation because we weren't sure how to figure out the balance. Because, you know, how are we going to -- what's the level of compensation. We fmally realized that and figured it out. I put it in the document, but I failed to amend the master Page 53 !c~J 3,t009~ A 3 , concept plan to reflect that. I believe this language will achieve that, if it's acceptable to this board. The last item I'd like to mention, and the reason I motioned, we have one of the residents who lives next to the project here in attendance, and discussed with them what their concerns may be. And the master concept plan as you see it, if you look at the upper left-hand corner, the access drive on Golden Gate, the county transportation department asked us to move that as far away from the intersection as possible. Which we did. One of the concerns then is it lies pretty much on the property line, and as a result could be a problem for the adjacent property owner. So what we're going to ask is that the access drive be at least 10 feet from the property line to allow for a Type A 10-foot buffer and a six-foot fence or wall along the length of entry drive. That's so that cars coming in and out of the project do not become a burden to the adjacent property owner. The second item that the neighbors have asked that we consider and that we are more than willing to commit to, is that within the 25-foot landscape buffer along the western side of the property, which is adjacent to their home, that we provide a six-foot fence or wall to be included in that buffer. I will tell you that at our fIrst and second NIM, the property owner to the north was present, made no such request. We still have the option of doing a fence or wall or vegetation on the north side. But again, being a small project, and I've already -- I've designed and we've actually gone through the construction of one of these, the building tends to focus more on the corner itself and the space, if you will, tends to be to the rear, but at this point we think addressing the concerns of the neighbor to the west is sufficient, and we'd like to add that language to the PUD. With those points aside, I at this time will turn it over to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want to operate the site from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And you relate to Big Bear CPUD as the base. 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00, you're not going to have a gas station-- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- so what would you be selling at 6:00 a.m., groceries? MR. HANCOCK: I believe those are the same time limits that were applied to the Snowy Egret PUD where we have a Walgreen's drugstore at this time. They usually like to operate 24 hours a day. But as someone who's had to run out in the morning and get cold medicine for a child before going to work, that's why the 6:00 a.m. limitation is in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you anticipate the possibility of a Walgreen's? MR. HANCOCK: I do. I anticipate the possibility. We have no one in the wings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what you're focusing on, more or less. MR. HANCOCK: As I've told the neighbors, I've done a couple of these, and they tend to go one of two ways. It tends to be a single end user, such as a Walgreen's or CVS which operates more than just a drugstore these days. It's almost -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kind oflike a grocery store. MR. HANCOCK: -- like a mini grocery and essential needs -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I need a qualification. Recommendations, the second recommendation of the hours of operation on the site for all non-essential services, what was the intent there? That -- it's creative language, non-essential services. MR. HANCOCK: That's carried over from the Land Development Code. In essential service, we anticipate under that definition to mean a fire station or police substation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that part of it. Page 54 \ 1bnJer LoA 3 I So I'm just -- well, do you intend to have a fIre station? MR. HANCOCK: Well, within the PUD essential services would be permitted. It's not on our radar screen, but those are included in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as permitted uses within the neighborhood center subdistrict, so we just rolled them in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting to me. Normally I don't get into too much detail on these matters, but it seems to me if you wanted to have a neighborhood center where you could go get cough medicine or milk, you're going to leave yourself open to other things. I don't know, that throws up a curve to me. Maybe I -- I'd like to hear more. I'm not saying no, but I'm just wondering, if the hours of operations for all non-essential services and of course the LDC says it's for essential services 24 hours a day -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- how do -- I mean, suppose we put -- I don't know that we can, but suppose we put an essential service -- does a well-head represent an essential service? I don't know. That was -- MR. HANCOCK: It's a good question. I've-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm getting at is if you had one that was essential services and you had next to it another, and I don't know that there's room so I'm not trying to go -- but that's my quandary, okay. And I'm visualizing with such a limited space, especially with 25K, that you're essentially looking essentially for a store and a half. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Or a small, you know, if you will, a mini-mall or strip type facility. Those are really the two directions these go once you have your limited development envelope. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to balk at it. It's just that I just wondered, it seems we talk about restricting -- the last go-around we had here, we talked about restricting in anticipation ofleaving people in the future with something that they weren't happy with. To my way of thinking, the people who were there who have bought out in the Estates want the peace and quiet. Now, if you have some arrangement with our county government that they might be interested in an EMS station or something of that nature, I think we should know about it and I think the community should know about it. If not, I'm disinclined to want to grant such a thing as that. I'm thinking grocery stores, et cetera. MR. HANCOCK: Well, we will certainly follow the direction of this body on that. We don't have any type of an arrangement or anticipation of a fire station or police substation. I will say that, for example, a police substation is a far less of an operating concern than would be a fire station. But again, we were just rolling the uses in that are contained in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. If it's this body's desire to withdraw that or exclude that, we'll certainly make that consideration. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we'll see what the commission says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Ray, could you put up the aerial photo? And Tim, my concern is, is again protecting that neighbor to the west. So moving the road was one of the issues. I think that's fine, you're going to put a 10- foot buffer. Could that buffer follow the curve in the road? Because the other concern I have is you're going to have water management in that 50-foot retained area. From the drawings you're showing, that could be pretty devoid of trees and vegetation. So it would be nice if these people sitting on the front porch weren't able to see cars or lights from cars anywhere in that curve. MR. HANCOCK: And I'll have a hard time wording this on the fly, but the intent here was whether we follow the curve or whether we extend in a straight line that when that fence line stops it would be picked up in the 25-foot buffer so that we don't have a window there. That was my intent was that the two Page 55 1611.~~' rJece",",e~ !6'09 would in combination create a visual buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I do have is that, you know, do you call this native vegetation and water management? If there's a lot of water management in that area, it's going to be pretty devoid of vegetation, so -- MR. HANCOCK: We're not allowed to remove any of the native vegetation to allow for water management. As a matter of fact, the water management, we have to demonstrate that it will not adversely impact the native vegetation. So there won't be the removal of any area -- any trees in that 50-foot native area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: But if] can -- I think I can address that by just indicating that the wall and buffer will continue along the entry road until it creates a visual buffer along the entire western side of the property. l11at was our intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you are putting a wall in the 20-foot landscape buffer, correct? MR. HANCOCK: In the 25-foot, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-five foot. So that wall would connect with that wall. So essentially if you did it right, you could run that wall all the way past the preserve area, correct? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. When you say you're not going to remove any trees, but the section you have shows natural grade, and you're going to berm and then kind of fill for the development pads on top of that; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where would the water be? It would be around the trunks of those trees that are in there, or -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. This is -- and this is something we're going through in the EACILDC sub-committee right now. These are pine flatwoods. There are limitations on how much water you can put into a pine flatwoods without adversely affecting it. We've used those limitations successfully on a handful of projects. So the water management system basically would be designed to pretreat before it discharges into any of the preserve area. You'd only be using a limited part of the preserve as a contaimnent area. But it's just to let the water sit and percolate to the greatest degree you can, which I think is preferable to running off to adjacent sites or the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's good. So you really are concerned that those neighbors will not be able to look over and see vehicles moving or at least six feet down see vehicles moving? MR. HANCOCK: That is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lights. MR. HANCOCK: That is the concern they've expressed, and I think with the modification you've made, we've -- in addition to 50 feet of existing vegetation, the wall will achieve that as a visual buffer and also provide a little more sound attenuation being closer to the development than if it were on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The next thing you had is the lighting. You kind of said it has to be this 250- W att HID lighting. I mean, is -- MR. HANCOCK: Or equivalent. Or lumen equivalent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that could be -- that's still a pretty bright light. MR. HANCOCK: It is. We -- that came directly from the Dark Skies website. It does -- there are lighting plans out there that exceed that currently. And it does require a few more fixtures than otherwise Page 56 rL~J 3,1~ 3 I!IIl l~ allowable. I think it is a limitation and I think it's a starting point in absence of us having any regulation to go by at this point. I'm kind of relying on the expert and the resident who made the request to help guide us on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fixture will be such that it won't -- obviously no light will be spread. Really, the way you worded it, it will be shielded so that it does not pass the property line. But could we not word that so it does not go into the 50-foot buffer and give ourselves that extra protect -- the way it's worded now, they could have bright trees right alongside their property line. So would you have a problem wording that? It's on Page 17. It is A, and it's shielded so the light rays do not pass property lines. MR. HANCOCK: If you want to change from property lines to development area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, that would -- or the 50-foot buffer. You're going to need some spillage to maybe light the back of these buildings. You're not going to come in here and want to put signs on the back ofthese buildings, are you? Just kidding. MR. HANCOCK: And we -- we promise not to appear before you asking for signs on the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Anyway, I think that if you just -- in that 50-foot, if you really started to pretend that was something serious, then it would defmitely not bleed into the neighbor and they won't be looking at bright landscaping. Thank you, I'm -- MR. HANCOCK: I think we can accomplish that, because the light fixtures will be on the development side of the 25-foot buffer, and with full shielding we shouldn't see spill into the native vegetation buffer to any degree. The full shielding is actually something that has -- right now they're having to modifY most fixtures manually to achieve that because there aren't enough of them commercially available. I'm hoping by the time we see development on this parcel, there will be a list of commercially available fully shielded lights that meet hurricane code standards. Which right now it takes a lot of work to do that. But I understand the effect is not to light the property up to its perimeter adjacent to the residential. And so I think by wording it that no light will spill into the native preserve areas, we can word that effectively, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Hancock, I had a question on Page 8 of your PUD under the conditional uses. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm asking this because I honestly don't know. What is the ancillary plants that you're -- MR. HANCOCK: Typically that is for larger projects that require things such -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. HANCOCK: -- as chillers and whatnot. I think we can strike that. I don't -- let me back up, because I may need Ray's assistance on this. The Walgreen's that was constructed at Golden Gate and Wilson, there is a pump that is required to maintain pressure for the fire system. That pump needs to be covered. That becomes a structure. Whether that would constitute an ancillary plant or not, I don't know. It's a gray area. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. HANCOCK: So that's my concern is I don't want to preclude that, because we do have to do well and septic out here and that material does need to be covered in some fashion. Page 57 16e!ml'~3 1 So if that's an accessory structure and if! can get something on the record that says that would not qualifY or be required to be an ancillary plant, that that's a part and parcel of the development, then I'd be comfortable removing that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it may -- they may qualifY it as a structure, I don't know. That's why I asked. I just wasn't sure what -- MR. HANCOCK: I think it's only fair we make Ray do stuff on the fly too -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MR. HANCOCK: -- since we have to. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- I suggest striking ancillary plants from the conditional use. That appears to me to be a reference to things like school boards that have ancillary bussed facilities. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I was thinking. MR. BELLOWS: The things that Mr. Hancock's referring to I think we typically treat as accessory type of things to the use. MR. HANCOCK: Cherie', you got all that, right? Okay. Thank you. We're comfortable with that, we can strike ancillary plants. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. And on Page 10 under your development standards table? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question -- well, let me start I guess by asking about your minimum floor area, which is 700 square feet. And then there's a note, it says that that 700 square feet is for the principal structure on the first finished floor. Are you -- aren't you only allowed one floor here, one story? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. Weare entirely guilty of a careless carryover. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: So we can strike the footnote there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then let me just ask you one final question here, and that's on the maximum height, which is 35 feet. And you have an actual of 47 feet. That's a l2-foot difference. I mean, can you just tell me what you need 12 feet for? MR. HANCOCK: We have routinely done that, added 12 feet for purposes of -- and the example's always been an elevator shaft that extends onto the roof. Well, obviously we're one story, we probably aren't going to have elevator equipment on the roof. It's just a -- it's something we consistently do. We add 12 feet just to handle anything that may be up there. We may find that it's better to put AC units on the roof and do a parapet wall for noise attenuation than putting them on the ground or something like that. So, you know, that shouldn't take more than five or six feet. I'm just -- not sure what that number really needs to be. But the intent obviously is just to handle mechanical equipment on the roof, which then of course has to be shielded based on the architectural standards. That's the sole intent. If there's a lesser number that -- Mr. Schiffer may be of greater help than anyone on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One problem is that the actual -- let's take a sloped roof. The actual height's to the middle of the slope -- I mean, I'm sorry, the zoned height's to the middle of the slope. The actual would be to the peak, or could be a lightning rod or anything else. So lowering that number just lowers the slope of the roof, which doesn't really help the neighborhood, I don't think. MR. HANCOCK: I was thinking clearly of flat roofs, but you're absolutely right, if we were to do a pitched roof on this, it would limit the pitch. Page 58 " 1 ~llr 3~0~ , COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- well, Mr. Schiffer always has a reason for additional height. That wasn't really the reason for my question. And actually, in asking my fIrst question it was solved. What I was trying to avoid was the fact that perhaps you were building this building over parking. And, I mean, you have a very small envelope and I didn't think that that was allowed and I wanted to make sure that that wasn't the case. But you've struck the on -- over the fIrst fInished floor, so we're fine. MR. HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This will be for two parties, actually. Ray's involved in this too. In your PUD where you show your permitted uses, under your alpha, I don't see essential services as being in here. And perhaps it isn't even required to be in a listing. But inasmuch as that statement was made in the stipulation about non-essential services issues. So my question really is to either party who can answer it. MR. MOSS: Yes, for the record, Commissioner, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. That language was taken directly from the Big Bear PUD right across the street, and so that's why those hours of operation were incorporated into this one, because they were the hours of operation that were decided for that PUD. And the reason I left that in about essential services is because use number 155 says any other uses considered comparable in nature by the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's the hook. MR. MOSS: So that was the hook, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wish we were more clear, but okay, that's fine. MR. MOSS: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You've got forgive me, board, but I seem to forget why we had issues. Why did you add 14 of your prohibited uses, which was fast food drive-through? I came up here and I'm sorry, my mind, it's age. MR. HANCOCK: In the Golden Gate Area Master Plan under prohibited uses they have the phrase drive-through establishments. And there's been the discussion with this board and the board in the past what that means, And the general definition that we have arrived at is banks are not drive-through establishments because they're specifically allowed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Money's good, food is bad, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Money's good -- well, fast food is bad, and we all agree with that. But the one other allowance we've had so far is pharmacy and drug stores with a single drive-through lane. This body has in the past said that that's not a drive-through establishment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, drugs are good, food is bad. MR. HANCOCK: Well, legal drugs are good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we might have a discussion about that too, but-- MR. HANCOCK: But the point being fast food drive-throughs, the drive-through becomes a very dominant part of the operation. And we've had requests from folks, certainly not the neighbors, but folks in the area say, well, we need more drive-through -- I think you even had it on the Golden GatelWilson, you had a woman pleading -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There was a lady, yeah-- MR. HANCOCK: -- for a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: n that begged for a McDonald's. MR. HANCOCK: So I think that's why we're eliminating it is because I think in fairness to the Page 59 " ID~jbe120' 3 n neighbors, no matter where we oriented that drive-through, it would be a noxious presence -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You mean lights going, flashing by their homes? MR HANCOCK: The lights, and quite frankly the speaker box that goes up until the last minute you're operating. And with the hours limited on this, a fast food restaurant, I have yet to have a fast food restaurant agree and go into any site where they have to close by 11:00 p,m. So to us it's a moot point. We're not going to get fast food restaurants on the site with a drive-through. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, money, drugs is good, that works, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, got you. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, since we're on the issue of drive-throughs, on your Page II of your PUD you talk about the drive-through pharmacy. Do you have any problem restricting the drive-through portion of the pharmacy internal to the site? Meaning the drive-throughs always have, in especially in a Walgreen's or any other similar prescription area, they're going to have people conversing with someone behind a window in a loud speaker. And, you know, if you have that internal to the site so that your drive-through is between another building or facing a road if you can meet the architectural criteria -- but I hate to see that drive-through opening up and facing the neighbors next door, because they'll hear every prescription discussion and all the problems of someone's ailments trying to go through their pharmacy. So do you have any problems with limiting the drive-through to an internal exposure to the site? MR. HANCOCK: I -- only from a practical standpoint, and if you'll permit me a brief discussion on it, I may be able to get very comfortable with that. When I look at how, for example, the Walgreen's is oriented on the Snowy Egret CPUD, the drive-through is actually on the side that is next to -- there's residential next to it. l11at ultimately became a commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's why that happened, yes. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We knew that was going to be -- anyway. MR. HANCOCK: Typically you're not going to get them in the back, because that's the loading area, So that leaves the two sides that front the roadway. I'm comfortable with it being on those two sides as long as it's not precluded in the architectural design guidelines. As a matter of fact, I think Walgreen's would rather have the kiosk on the side visible to the roadway, because it ends up marketing that service a little bit more. It just has to be shielded with landscaping is my understanding. And if] am incorrect on that, John-David -- MR. MOSS: You are incorrect MR. HANCOCK: I'm incorrect? MR. MOSS: The architectural code does discourage drive-throughs between a building facade and a roadway. But it does allow them, if you enl1ance the landscaping, by providing a Type B buffer. And if you also provide a porte-cochere over the drive-through window, it does allow it in that circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the other point I would make is that if you were to put a Walgreen's on the north or south end and then put another building alongside it, you'd still be internal to the site and you'd have that other second building as a buffer internally. So that's kind of why I was asking if you would mind stipulating that. MR. HANCOCK: With what John-David has clarified, we're comfortable stipulating with it. Because it just means -- I mean, we've got a 25-foot buffer out there anyway. Beefing up that buffer and a Page 60 \.,'" ". , '~, \. 16~tl A3 1""'1 porte-cochere is going to be required anyway because of where we live and the elements. The one thing I will say, Mr. Strain, is typically if you put a Walgreen's or CVS, I know for a fact there's not enough room for anything else, particularly on this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my question, how many square feet is the Walgreen's. MR. HANCOCK: Well, the maximum that we're allowing is 25,000. And I will tell you, that's a bit of a pipe dream, because that assumes you do 100 percent office. Because the parking demand is lower. And that's how we arrived at the 25,000. You cannot physically fit any more than that. If it goes to retail, the number will be below 20,000, because you simply can't fit it in parking. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So the typical Walgreen's is? MR. HANCOCK: Fourteen to 16,000, depending on the exact footprint. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's just what the Chairman was talking about, another building. I was thinking, how are you going to fit another building. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, I know on the Snowy Egret Plaza we've got the Walgreen's, we've got this little tiny postage stamp of green space behind it that you might be able to put a 1,500 square foot building on. That's about it. This site is smaller because of the right -of-way issues. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, on Page 11 of your PUD, Item F, do you mind striking that? I can't understand what it's doing here in a PUD. MR. HANCOCK: I believe that was -- that's a bit antiquated. I have no problem striking that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How you get your approvals and you move forward through your process with the neighborhood is something you're more than capable of and more knowledgeable of. I'm not -- I don't see why we should be referencing in a PUD private entities for approval, so, or for review. MR. HANCOCK: We agree, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have anything else of the applicant before we go COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, below that you reference a five-foot fence wall. What would it be, are you changing that to six? Look in G. MR. HANCOCK: Come to think of it, that's actually in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that the fence shall not exceed five feet, if I'm not mistaken. I would like to put at six-foot fence up next to the neighbors instead of a five-foot fence. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's a new one on me. MR. HANCOCK: And I did not bring my copy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I would like to say that between here and this coming back on your consent, if we can look at that. If we can do a six-foot fence there, I would like to specifY a six-foot fence in that location. If the Golden Gate Area Master Plan does not provide for that, then I think we need to add some language that the landscape buffer within one year of planting shall reach a height of six feet so that between the fence and the buffer we get that elevation reached. That's -- again, I'm trying to create that six-foot visual buffer, because, you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll check on that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I just need to make sure we're not in violation of the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? Page 61 le~jer too~ 3 I COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to ask, looking at what's on the screen right now, behind the house is an open area. I mean, it looks like a parking lot, but I can't imagine that that's what it is. Right there. Do you know what that is? MR. HANCOCK: I don't. The homeowner is here. But I'm not sure what that is. I do know this area, there was a fIre that went through this area not too long ago. But beyond that -- it's obviously not -- I honestly don't know. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the homeowner who lives there is here? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: And whether he speaks or not is entirely up to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, depending on the use, it may be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Be moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the wall idea may be silly. But anyway, okay, any other questions of the applicant before we go to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, thank you. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Mr. Hancock was very thorough in his presentation. I don't have anything to add, but I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I like the thoroughness of your presentation. Are there any questions of county staff on any of the issues that we have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience wishing to speak? (No response.) MR. MOSS: Mr. Chairman, if] may put something on the record. I know it's been very well pointed out in the staff report, but I just want to make sure it is clear that normally drive-through pharmacies are not permitted by the subdistrict. But because there has been a precedence for one in the Snowy Egret PUD, the applicant is requesting it. But it is not consistent with the compo plan. I just want to make sure you are aware of that. But of course you're entitled to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And just because we allowed it at Snowy Egret entitles them-- MR. MOSS: That's true, it's not an entitlement. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not an entitlement. Should we make that change? I mean, is there any talk about making a change -- that particular change to the master plan? MR. MOSS: Not that I'm aware. Maybe Ray knows of something. MR. BELLOWS: That is part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, so it would have to go through comprehensive planning to make that change. But we'd have to double check with David. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so there's no reason-- MR. BELLOWS: Not that I know of. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- overwhelming reason? All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this petition? If you do want to speak, please come up to one of the microphones. Page 62 lQecL13,~3 M Sir, come on up and identifY yourself to the microphone and then say your piece. DR. MANDELKER: MR. VIXAMER: Good morning. My name is Y onel Vixamer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that for the court reporter, please. MR. VIXAMER: Y-O-N-E-L. V-I-X-A-M-E-R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VIXAMER: Yes, I'm okay with everything that was said, except that my wife is not too comfortable. She's not a -- she doesn't like speaking in public. But she's not too comfortable with the hour of II :00 p.m. That's the only concern that we have now. Because we have four small children that we are raising right next to the development. That's the only concern that we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll certainly bring that up to the applicant. Sir, before you leave, do you own the house directly next door? MR. VIXAMER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way in the back of your home, that apparently is a cleared area. What is that? MR. VIXAMER: I think it's -- that's another house that's all the way in the back. It's the parking of that house in the back. You may not see the house but of course there's a house there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that's on his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another house behind your house? MR. VIXAMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your property? MR. VIXAMER: Not on my property but right next -- at the end of my property there is another house there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He's on your property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we all can't be talking on the record, so-- Okay. Well, we'll have to -- that's odd. Thank you. MR. VIXAMER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock? There he is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you calling him back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim? Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I would have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're bringing him back up. Hours of operation. Your reaction, Tim? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Speaking to Mr. Schoeller, I think we can pull that back to 10:00 p.m. without precluding something like a drug store. Because ifI'm not mistaken, Snowy Egret closes at 10:00 p.m., the Walgreen's there. So I just mentioned it to the applicant's wife, and we'd happy to put 10:00 p.m. as our hours of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what time in the morning was that, 6:00? MR. HANCOCK: Well, she's got young kids and if they're anything like mine, you know, 6:00 a.m. is -- we'd like to leave it at 6:00 a.m. but limit the evening hours to 10:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Tim, do you happen to know whether there are any Walgreen's that will build ifthey don't have an outside drive-through? Someone testified once before here about that and I just wondered. MR. HANCOCK: Let me let Mr. Schoeller, since he's the one that's had discussions directly with Walgreen's on a previous project. Page 63 .). 1611 A3 December 3, 2009 -'\I COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do remember something about it. MR. HANCOCK: And Mr. Schoeller was sworn in. MR. SCHOELLER: Mike Schoeller. I did develop that property for Walgreen's, and they will not put a Walgreen's in without a drive-through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I remember that with-- MR. SCHOLLER: That was our big issue and that was even going to be a deal maker or breaker, because they had to have the drive-through for people that couldn't get out that would just drive through and didn't want to. But to set their rninds at ease, the way these pieces of property are designed and the way that the master plan has designed them, there's so much of a buffer and so much property between the house and the building, if you go to the Walgreen's and look at it and you stand behind that property, you can hardly even know there's a Walgreen's there. You can hardly even see it. From the road you can't see it very well because of the buffers and everything. And when you go from 5.46 acres down to two net acres, we're losing a lot ofland on the sides for development, but it's to preserve the Estates and to preserve the aesthetic value of where we live. I live out there, I've lived out there for 23 years. And I want everybody to be happy around me, I don't want to cause a problem. So when I do these projects, I try to talk to the people and Tim talks to them and we try to make everybody as happy as we can, you know. But yes, Walgreen's or CVS will not build without a drive-through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anyone? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Ijust noticed that there was another house north of this. I didn't see it from before. And now it makes me wonder where the gentleman lives. Right there, yeah. And I didn't know whether this gentleman lived off of Everglades or off of Golden Gate Boulevard. Not that it makes any difference. MR. HANCOCK: l11at property is accessed off of Everglades. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The one to the north? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at his driveway. MR. HANCOCK: There's a driveway connection -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I meant off of Golden Gate. Yeah, he's off of Everglades, correct. So I -- because I had a question, I was going to bring it on the very end, were there intentions of buying the properties to the north. Now it looks like not, so -- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Mr. Schoeller's bleeding enough as is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one thing you -- in dropping back the hours, does the pharmacy stay open with the drive-through past 10:00 across the street, or -- because a pharmacy drive-through is really a good service to the community. It is no real -- other gain than that. MR. HANCOCK: That was the question I asked of Mr. Schoeller. The one up at Snowy Egret, I believe it is limited to 10:00 p.m. And the building and the pharmacy, they all close down at 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: So I don't think we're precluding a CVS or Walgreen's by having a 10:00 p.m. limitation, particularly if we can leave the operating hours starting at 6:00 a.m. Page 64 . . . ..A 3 1 QJm13,~9 "..~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you wouldn't want to push to maybe keep the pharmacy open till 11 :00, or just forget it? MR. HANCOCK: In deference to our neighbors, I think it's not the right thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you have anything? You're complete, you're done? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. If there are questions on all the background we supplied for the pharmacy drive-through during the Snowy Egret, I'll be happy to go into that. But I would prefer not to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't open any more doors than you have to at this point. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Then I will quietly step aside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may be asked to put a 10-story high-rise in there or something, so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. So long as there's parking underneath. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we willn is there anybody else that wishes to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a list of things I'll read for discussion, then we can go from there. If there is a recommendation to approve, the following 11 stipulations I've made a list of. They would add gas stations and fast food drive-throughs as prohibited uses. The Dark Sky language as presented and modified in our discussions would be incorporated in the PUD. They'd clarifY the master plan concerning the right-of-way issue. They would move the driveway 10 feet in from the property line and buffer it with a wall. The 25-foot buffer on the west side would have a wall presumably of six feet, but that will be something that Tim will research and come back to us with on consent. But whatever the allowed height will be will be the maximum allowed height, not to exceed six feet. The reference to ancillary plants will be struck from the criteria for conditional uses. The footnote number one -- or the only footnote on Exhibit B will be deleted. The drive -- if there's a drive-through, it will be set up so it's internal to the site. Ifnot, it will be-- meet the other architectural standards in whatever format it will. But the issue here is not to have it exposed to the residential neighborhood. We'll strike Item F on Page 11. VerifY that the fence height is five or six feet, I already said that. And the hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Those are the issues that I made notes of while we were discussing it, should someone want to make a motion. Is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have -- has any beside myself a question or concern regarding the essential services issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's just as we presented it. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve subject to the stipulations? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to approve subject to the stipulations n Page 65 16111A3 1 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and staff conditions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As you stated and as staffhas stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded it. All those -- discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. And I wish to compliment Mr. Hancock on the way he has handled himself in this affair. It's typical to your style. And Tim, did a good job and you worked very hard with everybody. We appreciate the effort you put forth, so thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you very much. Thank you all for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made the meeting much more pleasant. Okay, we're on to old business. Are (sic) there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we have new business. David -- I think we took care of David's issue in the beginning of the meeting so that has gone away. There is one thing I'd like to mention to staff as something that would be a very good policy for you to institute in the future. When you have neighborhood informational meetings and you have a PUD or a rezone being presented, if you could have handouts or at least in your discussion with the people in the audience, you explain to them the actual uses as stated in our code for the areas that are being modified, I think that would go a long way to help people understand that when someone says it's agricultural, such as residential, they mean it's agricultural with all these myriad of other uses that could possibly be there. And I think we would have a better reaction from the public if the staff went -- took the effort to do that. MR. MOSS: I think you're right. And we've started, as Commissioner Homiak recommended a while ago, listing all of the uses in the PUD, rather than just the general SIC Code. We've listed them individually. So now people can request the PUD and see what they are, for that very same reason. So I think that's an excellent idea. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? And not only for the neighborhood attendees but also for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I agree with you there. Although we have the opportunity ahead of time to do our research and bring that matter -- bring those -- download that material and bring it with us, but that's not -- certainly we could include it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It would be helpful if the staff could do a little of it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, we will also do the same, if someone's rezoning to a standard Page 66 16,IDJ1e 200~ , rezone, such as C-5, we can provide -- make sure that the copies of the C-5 uses are provided at the NIMs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be much more helpful to the public as well, thank you. Any there any other comments, any public comments, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We're unanimous. ***** There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION /\ These minutes approved by the board on I - '7 -{ 0 as presented L or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 67 RECEIVED JAN 1 5 2010 80ara of County Commi..."..... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16 I I A4 a I December 2, 2009 Naples, Florida, December 2, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian James Boughton Clay Brooker (Excused) Laura Spurgeon Dejohn (Excused) Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar (Excused) Blair Foley George Hermanson (Excused) Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES - Staff Liaison Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning & Land Development Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager, Zoning & Land Development Gary Mullee, CDES Operations Support Manager Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Misc. Corres: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Stan Crzanowski, Sr. Engineer Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Item#: . C''"~1i0S to: 16 , 1 Dec~ir 2, 291 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:06 PM by Chairman William Varian who read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. Chairman Varian noted a quorum had not been attained since only seven members were present and stated the Committee will hear matters not requiring a vote until the eighth member arrives and a quorum is achieved. Catherine Fabacher suggested the members review the Amendment authored by Mark White, Esq., concerning "Nonconformities." Suggested changes: (1) On Page 2, under the definition of Destruction, remove the words "intentional" and "ofthe owner or agent" from the second sentence. (2) It was suggested to remove the 50% figure and substitute "pursuant to the Florida Building Code for Existing Buildings at Level 3 in effect at the time the damage occurred" Catherine Fabacher stated she will research the issue and return with an answer. She stated there will be a reference to the "Build-Back Policy" and the Code of Laws, possibly as "Exceptions." (3) On Page 19, under "D. Destruction," remove the words "not" and "except" from the first sentence. (4) On Page 3, under "Nonconforming site improvement," remove "Chapter Four" and "of" from the sentence. (5) On Page 4, under "Redevelopment," replace the word "replacement" with the word "expansion." (Robert Mulhere arrived at 1:56 PM) (6) On Page 4, under "9.01.01 - Previously Issued Building Permits," revise the language to reflect that the "effective date" is the date when the application for the permit has been accepted. Catherine Fabacher suggested the following language: "When a sufficient application for a Building Permit has been accepted by the County." (7) On Page 5, under #3, remove the phrase "without interruption" from the sentence and add the phrase "or the permit is extended" to the end of the sentence. A conflict was noted in 5.05.08 and it was suggested the figure should be 50%. By consensus, further discussion concerning the Amendment was tabled until the January 2010 meeting when a revised Amendment will be presented to the Committee. 2 16 iekbAAo09; , , Chairman Varian stated a quorum had been achieved. II. Approval of Agenda Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Ill. Approval of Minutes - November 4, 2009 Meeting Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes of the November 4,2009 Meeting as submitted. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Chairman Varian noted the Board of County Commissioner approved the re-appointment of Clay Brooker and Reed Jarvi to the Development Services Advisory Committee. IV. Public Speakers (None) V. LDC A. LDC Amendment 2009 Cycle 1 (A copy of the Minutes of the LDR Subcommittee meeting of November 18, 2009 was included in the information packet distributed to the Committee.) Section 10.02.02 - Submittal Requirements for All Applications Changes: (1) On Page 11, under Item "a. Wetlands - ii," remove both the comma before the word "biochemical" and the phrase "biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, lead, zinc and copper" from the last sentence which will read as follows: "The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrient loadings in the post development scenario, " It was noted language should be added that all changes will conform to the Growth Management Plan ("GMP"). Stephen Lenberger reviewed the Exceptions section which began on Page 14. There was a discussion concerning water quality analysis and the Harbor method. Reed Jarvi moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners). Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 8-0, Section 1.08.02 - Definitions (specifically: "corner," "through," "interior lots," and "corner lot measurements") Changes: (1) On Page 2, the definition of "Lot, corner" will read as follows (inserted language is in italics): 3 161,1 'All December 2, 2009 ~:,"":; -r. q., r 1 "Any lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two or more intersecting streets. If the angle of intersection ofthe Right ()fWay centerline of two streets forming a corner is greater than 135 degrees, then the lot fronting on the intersection is not a corner lot." (2) On Page 3 (below illustrations), change Centerline of "Street" to "Right of Way " Robert M ulhere moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners). Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Section 1.08.02 - Definitions (specifically: "chord method" and "arc method") Changes: (1) Label the dimensions as "minimum" (2) Remove numbered dimensions (3) An island is not necessary at a cul-de-sac Reed Jarvi moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners). Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Section 4.02.01 - Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts Section 4.02.03 - Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Section 1.08.02 - Definitions Susan Istenes stated the Definitions Section of the Amendment was withdrawn as it was confusing and unnecessary. Reed Jarvi moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and toforward it to the Board of County Commissioners). Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Section 4.03.03 - Exemptions Section 4.03.04 - Lot Line Adjustments Section 10.02.02 - Submittal Requirements for All Applications Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners). Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 8-0. 4 16 I 1 A4 December 2, 2009 ~~ .1 Section 5.03.03 - Fences and Walls Changes: (1) On Page II, under "I. Sound Walls," change: . "government" to "governmental" . order: from "interstate, collector or arterial" to "interstate, arterial or collector" . roadways to roadway Reed Jarvi moved to recommend approving the revised Amendment as noted above (and to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for approval). Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Section 10.03.05 - Notice Requirements for Public Hearings before the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Historic Preservation Board There was discussion concerning the requirement to advertise "Notice to Obtain an Extension of a Conditional Use." The objection was to require additional notification for a second public hearing when, in order to obtain a Conditional Use initially, a public hearing was required and had been held. Robert Mulhere moved to deny approval and not forward the Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners based on the fact that the extension is issued on a one-time basis for a matter that was previously vetted. Second by Dalas Disney. Discussion continued and it was suggested that posting a sign announcing a public hearing should be sufficient notice without requiring mailing notification to surrounding homes. Staff supported the additional notification and will present the Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, but will note DSAC's objection. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Section 2.03.08 - Rural Fringe Zoning Districts (limits aquaculture in Sending Lands to above-ground facilities only). Reed Jarvi moved to deny approval and notforward the Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners because the Fiscal and Operational Impacts have not been identified. Second by James Boughton. Motion carried, 5-"Yes"/3-"No," with Robert Mulhere, Blair Foley and Marco Valle opposed. Catherine Fabacher stated a final LDR Subcommittee meeting may be necessary in January 2010, and two additional Amendments will be presented by Stephen Lenberger at DSAC's January meeting. 5 1611 All ,.,,"'1 '1 December 2, 2009 BREAK: 3:35 PM RECONVENED: 3:45 PM VI. Staff AnnouncementslUpdates A. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges, Interim Director . The CIE List has been completed for presentation to the Planning Commission . The next phase of the lower West Coast Water Supply Plan is being devised in conjunction with the South Florida Water Management District B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley . Monthly report was submitted . Have obtained approval to start building a 9,300 square-foot facility on property located near the Credit Union C. Transportation Division Update - Claudine AuClaire for Nick Casalanguida . No report . It was mentioned the DOT's official projected date for completion of the Vanderbilt Beach Bridge remains as December 19, 2009 . The date for submission of the Oil Well Road bids to the Board of County Commissioners will be forwarded to Judy Puig for distribution to the Committee There was a discussion concerning the location of the "red light" cameras. D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt . No report VII. Old Business (None) VIII. New Business B. Review of Applications received for vacancies Chairman Varian stated the application from Ray Allain could not be considered due to a discrepancy with his voting registration address and his home address. He noted James Boughton had submitted his application and suggested filling three spots during the meeting but holding one open for a General Contractor. Dalas Disney moved to approve re-appointing James Boughton to DSAC and submit the nomination to the BCC for approval. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 7-"Yes"/J-Abstention. Mr. Boughton abstained. David Dunnavant moved to approve appointing David Hurst to DSAC and submit the nomination to the BCC for approval. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 8-0. 6 1611 A4 1 December 2, 2009 Robert Mulhere moved to approve appointing Henry Reagan to DSAC and submit the nomination to the BCC/or approval. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 8-0. A. DSAC to Review and Evaluate the Performance Levels of CDES Staff and submit a monthly Report to the Board of County Commissioners (Incorporated into Item "e") The BCC directed DSAC to become involved in performance reviews of CDES. C. Building Department Fee Proposal- Continuing Work Items - Gary Mullee (Added Topic) A copy of a Status Report entitled "Building Department Fee Proposal Continuing Work Items" was distributed to the members. Gary Mullee outlined the "work in progress" for each item with corresponding deadlines. He stated a commitment was made to the BCC to submit ajoint monthly performance report with DSAC beginning in February 2010. Also discussed were document storage, retrieval, and electronic submittal as well as the scope of the report and the type of analysis to be made to the Board. Public Speaker: Thomas Lykos, President, CBIA ("Collier Building Industry Association"), stated a missing component from the list of work items was the establishment of benchmarks to achieve the self-imposed deadlines created by CDES and an estimate of how long will it take to obtain compliance with the standard (5 days for residential permits and 15 days for commercial permits). He suggested the following: . Re: information gathering - the type/quantity of permits and days in review will be critical in developing a system to expedite permit review process . Track the most common reasons for rejection of permits . Create numbering systems to identify the different permit applications to streamline the process - for example, a kitchen renovation for a condo will not require a FEMA or an Impact Fee review . Compile a list ofBCC requirements that slow down the plan review process . Institute the ability to pay fees over the phone or via Internet to enable the County to mail out documents, such as a Certificate of Completion Gary Mullee stated the tracking process will be significantly easier when CityView goes online on February 23, 2010. Joe Schmitt stated it was confirmed that Ray Allain is a registered voter and the conflict regarding his address was resolved. Robert Mulhere moved to approve appointing Ray Allain to DSAC and submit the nomination to the BCC/or approval. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 8-0. 7 161 1 A4 :l December 2, 2009 IX. Committee Member Comments David Dunnavant proposed continuing the LDR Subcommittee to review Amendments that impact the Building Industry. Chairman Varian stated the topic will be added to the January 2010 Agenda. Next Meetinl! Dates: January 6, 2010 @ 3:00 PM February 3, 2010 @ 3:00 PM March 3, 2010 @ 3:00 PM April 7, 2010 @ 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:36 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE w~~~ The Minutes were a as presented oved by the Board/Committee on , or as amended I ~(!O 8 I:\mlld 01 County Commjsslo~ers C~er County ~-::~ Fiala l>rrL' Halas _J:i+~ Henning ~ Coyle *t-rrr- Coletta r(.l:.,\-LdL- 1611~A5' J " ,,., .'.- ro - '\ (-tD '< r::\....c. v JAN 1 4 2010 ~ - Community Development & Environmental Services DMsion Engineering & Environmental Services Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 8-3-09 Regular Meeting Start: 9:16 a.m. End: 10:30 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 Meeting Attendance: Rick Zyvo10ski (substitute for Dan Summers), Brandy Ortero (substitute for Jerry Kurtz), Jinl Turner, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Brooke Hollander, Clarence Tears, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt and Robert Wiley, Absent: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Travis Gossard (Excused), Adoni Kokkinos, Christine Sutherland (Excused), Duke Vasey (Excused), Herb Luntz (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by John Torre, Vice cb.~an. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 6-1-09 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by Joe Gagnier; motion passed unanimously. 2, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance follow-up discussion - Robert Wiley provided a brief discussion on the review status of the Ordinance. Phil Brougham presented his observations of the special evening meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) on 7-28- 09. There then followed an open discussion among the Committee members on how to address the issues raised by the CCPC. Phil recommended a regrouping meeting with staff, Mark Strain and the County Attorney. NEW BUSINESS Page 1 of2 Misc. CoIres: Dale: Dd.- 0 10 Item#: 1 LollI 4~ C'-.nic,s to: 1611A5 ~ 1. Approval status of the Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report - Robert Wiley reported that it was approved and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the consent agenda for 7-28-09. 2. Review of Floodplain Management Plan evaluation and scoring process with the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and FEMA - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the review process steps through ISO. The Plan was submitted to ISO regional office, and it is now in the ISO state office where sufficiency comments have been raised, Those comments were received on 7- 31-09. The issues raised deal with meeting the requirements of Planning Steps 7 through 9 in the CRS Coordinator's Manual. Staff needs to address those issues and possibly bring information back to the Committee in a mid-September FMPC meeting. 3. Presentation on the FY 09/10 beach vegetation planting program and dune repair program- Gary McAlpin discussed the history of the beach and dune management program over the past three years. He expressed there were some concerns on the success of the Marco Island dune vegetation planting efforts. He identified approximately three more years remain in the current dune revegetation program, and this is funded by the Tourist Development Council. The goal is for the dune vegetation to be self-sustaining on the front side of the dunes. The program has had some limited success in obtaining Federal grants. Gary also discussed the ongoing eight to ten year cycle for beach renourishment and the pass maintenance program, He described a couple of locations where the beach width and height need to be increased. He does not anticipate the current funding downturn to be a major long term obstacle to continuing the overall program. 4. Discussion of the 2009 public meetings for the Floodplain Management Plan and requesting flooding information input from local residents - Robert Wiley discussed the outcome and attendance of the five evening meetings. Overall attendance was low, with the two highest attended meetings being Immokalee and North Naples. During the Committee's discussion several members suggested using e-mail contact lists to help get out notifications for next year's meetings. 5. Discussion on proposed web page changes - Mac Hatcher distributed a single page DRAFT that he has started for a single point of focus to report flooding. More work will follow and be presented to the Committee. 6. Public Comments - None Next Meeting (Monday, October 5, 2009 starting at 9:00 a.m, in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 unless there is a need to have a September 14,2009 meeting. Committee members were asked to keep their calendars open for that possible meeting date and Robert Wiley will notifY Committee if needed.) Lew Schmidt passed unanimously 10:30 a.m. J ;tP.,.kr ~ Robert Wiley, S Coordmator Page 2 of2 RECENEO JAN 1 ~I 20\0 c~~.,. County -- - ~_..-. ~ Community Development & Environmental Services Division Engineering & Environmental Services Floo<iplain Management Planning Committee ';:1ala -l?f (~ Hala~ _2;~~ b?<- Henrling~ _ ~ (~()yle __.!::: G:Jletta _1~~ 1611A5 ~ J .. , _._,_, 'v.;"l"ii"....'''';'....i;; RoaW 0; l"..H.II-J Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terrv Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 9-14-09 Regular Meeting Start: 9:03 a.m. End: 11 :02 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Duke Vasey, Phillip Brougham, and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre (Excused), Adoni Kokkinos, Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland (Excused), Clarence Tears (Excused), Herb Luntz (Excused), Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bruno (Excused), Lew Schmidt (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. There were four members of the public and one additional staff person in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of revised minutes for the 6-1-09 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by Phil Brougham; motion passed unanimously. 2. Approval of minutes for the 8-3-09 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by Phil Brougham; motion passed unanimously. 3. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance follow-up discussion - Joe Schmitt was unable to attend the meeting and discuss the status of the ordinance following the review by the Collier County Planning Commission. Robert Wiley provided a brief discussion on the review status of the Ordinance and staff's thoughts about revising the Ordinance to the basic form of the State's model ordinance. This would remove all of the higher regulatory criteria. A discussion then followed regarding the direction that needs to be taken with the ordinance. Duke Vasey motioned for the Office of the County Attorney to provide permission Wisos€oftes: 2005 State of Florida Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as the basis for a new County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The motion passed 6-4. 0atI:_ Page 1 of2 Item .: C,...r','s. to: " , 16 11 AS I Phil BroughaJ11 then motioned for staff (Robert Wiley) to be tasked to identifY (provide the compete CRS listing information) the potential CRS items of credit that we are currently implementing (or could implement), send this listing to the Division Administrators, get their confIrmation on those for which we are not currently receiving CRS credit, identifY the prograJ11 costs for those CRS credit points that we could seek, and get input from the specific Department Directors. The motion passed 9-1. Robert Wiley is to report back to the Committee in October on how to implement this. NEW BUSINESS 1. ISO's scoring of the 2008 Floodplain Management Plan - Robert Wiley provided a brief discussion on the status of the ISO's scoring of the 2008 FMP. The FMP was found to be deficient in Steps 7, 8, and 9. These issues need to be addressed and the plan resubmitted to ISO for re-scoring. Until that occurs, the ISO will continue to use the current scoring the County attains under the Local Mitigation Strategy prograJ11 coordinated through the Emergency Management Department, Ray Smith recommended that the Committee meet every other week to address the FMP's deficiencies. Travis Gossard asked that the ISO correspondence be provided to the Committee so they could better understand the issues. Following discussion on how difficult it is for Robert to answer questions and taking accurate minutes at the SaJ11e tinle, Ray Smith directed for someone be assigned to take minutes. Brandy Ortero (visiting staff from Stormwater Management) requested the use of sub- committees to address the issues and bring them back to the full Committee. Ray Smith established a special 9-28-09 meeting of the whole Committee with the FMP Update as the sole agenda item. Duke Vasey asked Robert to see if John Torre can get an MP3 recording of the Committee meetings and post it on the web site. 2. Review of CRS Coordinator's Manual- This was discussed during Old Business Item 3 and New Business Item 1. 3. Public Comments - Gina Downs talked about the Collier County Planning Commission's request for the Productivity Committee to review the cost implications of the Draft Flood DaJ11age Prevention Ordinance, Peter Gaddy expressed his appreciation for the work of the FMPC. Tim Nance asked about FMPC membership and how it related to the various BCC districts. Brandy Ortero requested to be added to the FMPC's mailing distribution list. A similar request was expressed for Gina Downs, John Hickey, and Bill Wendle. Next Meeting: Monday, October 5,2009 starting at 9:00 a,m, in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. (There will be a Special Meeting on Monday, September 28,2009 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104.) Duke Vasey passed unanimously 11 :02 a.m. - 8'-/0 S' airman ~~ Robert Wiley, S Coordmator L I Page 2 of2 1611~ A6 IIIIl H 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4: 1 0 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Management Budget Analyst, Pamela Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager Others: Sue Flynn - Mancan, Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula; Andrew Eisele and David Cosslett - JRL Design III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI /JRL Design Change: VI. A. Hunter and Coronado from Landscape Update Add: VI B. West Entry Sign VI. C. Maintenance Consultant - JRL VlJI. B. Grant Application IX A. FPL Vertical Light Poles Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV, Approval of Minutes - August 11,2009 Pat Spencer moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Sims. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. ltem#: Copies to: 1611-t\6 ~ v. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula James Stephens, Maintenance Manager reported the following: . Working on the last trimming for this year. . Mainline issues on Golden Gate Parkway due to 3" PVC and not having thrust blockers installed." . Repairs including slip-fix on a mainline have been completed. Discussion ensued on "lane closures" versus "moving lane closures" and the County Warning Signage Requirements. Staff will provide a copy of those requirements to the Advisory Committee at the next meeting. VI. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates/ JRL Design C. Maintenance Consultant - JRL Design Andrew Eisele, ASLA reported doing a drive-by on main roads. . Sunshine Blvd - Some dead Juniper. . Tropicana & 30th - Some Juniper severely cut back are showing signs of distress. Some empty spots. . Golden Gate and 951 - Will begin trimming the 350 Sabal Palms on Golden Gate and the 200 plus Sabal Palms on 951. . Golden Gate - has exotic plants that should be removed if on County property. . Green and 45th Terrace and Sunset - some trees appear to need irrigation. A. Hunter & Coronado - Mike McGee reported Staff recommended replacing Sunflowers on 951 with Yellow Crown of Thorns because it is drought tolerant. B. West Entry Sign - Mike McGee reported He met with TECM a the Pre-Design meeting and reported the following - . S-Curbing will be installed. . 4-5' will need to be removed from median to install turn lanes. . Pavers will be used when there is not enough room for planting. . Installation of a u-turn at Coronado and 52nd Terrace is under consideration to allow u-turns prior to turning at Hunter Blvd. . Landscaping will begin South of Lucerne. · Eugene Calvert, Plan Review is in favor ofrestriping Hunter Blvd into 2-lanes like Coronado. Mike McGee recommended the Committee move to submit a formal request to restripe Hunter Blvd. Pat Spencer expressed concern for the safety of bikers if Hunter Blvd was changed to 2-lanes. Michael McElroy stated he was in favor of 2-lanes to keep traffic moving. 2 16 I 1 A6 =t Richard Sims stated he was in favor of keeping Hunter Blvd at I-lane for the safety of pedestrians and bikers. Barbara Segura voiced concern for the safety of school children walking and riding bikes to and from school if Hunter Blvd would be changed. Richard Sims suggested the Advisory Committee ask the Civic Association for their opinion. Mike McGee recommended a special meeting be held in November to keep the project on schedule. Barbara Segura moved to change the bi-monthly meetings (Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee) to every month until January 2010. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Discussion ensued that monthly meetings may be needed past January 2010. Barbara Segura moved to amend the motion to read "untilfurther notice." Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Mike McGee reviewed the landscape plans for medians; LD4. LD5, LD6 and LD9 as shown on Landscape Plan MSTU West Entry Sign for Golden Gate Parkway. (See attached) VII. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the September 2009 Budget Report. (See attached) {- Available Investment Interest - $35,613.31 {- Available Operating Expense - $58,402.53 {- Available Improvements General- $1,185,999.00 {- Purchase Orders to be Paid - $124,117.05 {- Purchase Orders Paid - $173,621.42 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported on Project Status. (See attached) · (G-29) BVO Process for LA Services - Notice to Proceed was sent to JRL Design for Annual Services. · (G-30) New Sign at Median #1 Golden Gate Parkway (at Santa Barbara) Richard Sims moved to have (SignCraft) make 1 sign for $4,630. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. · (G-31) Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape and Irrigation - Plans are 30% completed. · (G-26) Maintenance Contract - When Revised Master Plan is complete Staff will present to Committee prior to submitting to BCC for approval. 3 1611 A6 1\1,. ., VIII. Old Business A. Committee Member Term Expirations Staff submitted Margaret Harris and Patricia Spencer applications for approval to the Committee. Richard Sims moved to recommend both applications (Margaret Harris and Patricia Spencer) to fill vacancies and be submitted to BCC for approval. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Grant Application Richard Sims commended Pamela Lulich, Darryl Richard and Mike McGee and the Staff for the great job on the Grant Application. He expressed his gratitude for the time and efforts above the call of duty working on the Grant Applications for the Golden Gate MSTU and all other MSTUs. Discussion ensued on grant funds. They must be used on projects funds were awarded for and projects commenced before funds are awarded would no longer qualify. It was suggested the Committee create a sub-committee to compile a list of possible projects to have table ready for future Grant Funding. IX. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles Richard Sims stated he would invite FPL to attend and upcoming meeting. X. Public Comments _. None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Committee on / I - / () - () '1 as presented >< or amended The next meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2009 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 4 C ;,:::)',' ( :'rnm:S:;:cr:;::r:. 16 1 \ial~A~~ ~ Halas .. L ./6l/LL Henninn-=-n: / (' I ~ JOY e.... :-f'T-- Coletta . _~ G~ ,:~ 1:: ,(' c 1\'E 0 ~-"'" ~.,." ""~' [,-, ~-- JAN 1 1 2010 GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.Uw ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 2009 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. /JRL Design Change: VI. A. Hunter and Coronado from Landscape Update Add: VI. B. West Entry Sign VI. C. Maintenance Consultant - JRL VllI. B. Grant Application IX. A. FPL Vertical Light Poles Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - August 11,2009 Pat Spencer moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates! JRL Design B. West Entry Sign - Mike McGee reported Mike McGee recommended a special meeting be held in November to keep the project on schedule. Barbara Segura moved to change the bi-monthly meetings (Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee) to every month until January 2010. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Discussion ensued that monthly meetings may be needed t*Mllfllary 2010. Dat.: Item t: I ..., "'n~s to: , . 16 I 1 A6 , Barbara Segura moved to amend the motion to read "untilfurther notice." Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VII. Transportation Operations Report B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported on Project Status. (G-30) New Sign at Median #1 Golden Gate Parkway (at Santa Barbara) Richard Sims moved to have (SignCraft) make 1 sign for $4,630. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. Old Business A. Committee Member Term Expirations Staff submitted Margaret Harris and Patricia Spencer applications for approval to the Committee. Richard Sims moved to recommend both applications (Margaret Harris and Patricia Spencer) to fill vacancies and be submitted to BCC for approval. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2 16 I 1 A6 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Management Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery, MSTU Operations Coordinator Others: Sue Flynn - Mancan, Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Andrew Eisele and David Cosslett - JRL Design III. Approval of Agenda Move VII Landscape Architects Report - JRL Design to V (Hannula had an emergency and was unable to attend the meeting) Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Peggy Harris and Pat Spencer's applications were submitted to the BCC for approval in October so were ineligible to vote. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 13, 2009 Richard Sims moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. I 1611 A6 .......... V. Landscape Architects Report - JRL Design Andrew Eisele distributed and reviewed a Landscape Architect's Field Report as verbally presented at the GG MSTU Beautification Meeting held on October 13. (See attached) He reviewed the general conditions and identified problems at: . Golden Gate Parkway . Sunshine Boulevard . Collier Boulevard . Tropicana Boulevard Discussion ensued on the dead, brown spots in the juniper beds and alternative replacement ideas. StatT will contact A & L Labs to test for fungus. Andrew Eisele stated a Saw Palmetto tree is hanging into the left turn lane at 52nd Terrace creating a safety risk because cars have been swerving to avoid it. Darryl Richard reported Ray Leonard has inspected the water pump located at 43cd SW and Golden Gate Parkway and will provide both a wiring and pump repair quote. Barbara Segura expressed concern the Contractor was not providing weekly irrigation services contracted for stating the water pump issue could have been avoided. StatT reassured the Committee - . The Contractor is responsible for any loss of plants. . Staff will review all the details on Weekly Reports provided by the Contractor. . The zonc has a wiring problem. . A quote has been received from Hannula. Staff has requested three additional quotes. . The average cost of a replacement submersible water pump is $5,000. Richard Sims asked Staff to find a vendor that will also service the pump. VI. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee distributed a CD for Committee review and asked them to email Darryl Richard with their recommendations. (CD included) He reported the following: . Pavers increased costs and Project remains within Budget. . Fresh soil will be used to top medians. . Native plants will be used in landscaping medians. . Irrigation System will "water to establish plants" . Survey shows land has a pitch and overlay will not be necessary. . Curbing will meet County Standards. 2 16 11 A6 ..... . Stripping will remain the same on both Hunter Boulevard and Coronado Parkway. Discussion ensued on "Sleeving" for futurc lighting. "Sleeving" was a line item in the Budget but had not been included in the bid process. Barbara Segura moved to include "Sleeving" in the bidfor possible future lights. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. B. West Entry Sign Mike McGee distributed a Site Location Plan showing the placement of the "Welcome to Golden Gate" sign. Richard Sims reported the Golden Gate Civic Association was not in favor of the GG MSTU replacing plants the County was suppose to replace before they ran out of moncy. He apologized and took full blame for not being persistent in holding the County responsible when there was money available and vowed it would not happen again. Staff recommended the Committee approve the installation location and the elevation of the sign. It was recommended to elevate sign 16-18 inches. Mike McGee recommended laying berm before the installation of the sIgn. It was noted sod or Bahia grass would have to be planted with the berm. Richard Sims moved to re-install the (Welcome to Golden Gate) sign, the lighting and berm, with the berm' costs not to exceed $3,500. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried uninamiously 3-0. Discussion took place on insuring funds remain available for the completion of the Hunter & Coronado Project by not spending funds on landscaping the area at the reinstalled sign. The Committee decided the reinstalled sign and the surrounding area would look presentable upon completion and possibly by March 2010, the County may have the funds to replace plants as promised. VIII. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the September 2009 Budget Report. (See attached) She reported Ad Valorem Tax in the amount of $2,665.43 has been received and the "Direct Pays" were now shown per the Committees request. B. Project Manager Report - Discussed with VlJ Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report was distrihuted. (See attached) 3 1611 A6 ., Mike McElroy asked Staff if they had clarification on lane closures sign age. Staff stated the ROW Department has control of enforcing the County Warning Signage Requirements. IX. Old Business A. Committee Member Term Expirations Peggy Harris and Pat Spencer's applications were previously recommended by the Committee for BCC approval. The applications will be considered by the BCC at their December meeting. X. New Business - None A. FPL Vertical Light Poles - None Xl. Public Comments - None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Committee/Board on as presented j)( or amended 1::1. -3 '-~9 The next meeting is scheduled for December 8, 2009 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 4 R JAW Ii 16 I 1 A6 .t~~ ~ Fiala . Halas' j/ 1::W:z.. Henning;' / . Coyle 1 Coletta J~ \'.\2- \ - 1.-/ t ( '''''V l-'_\)"l-"-,W::,~~'or::~f~ ;~()8f[i \) ...(!."., - GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 2009 SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS III, Approval of Agenda Move VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL Design to V. Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Peggy Harris and Pat Spencer's applications were submitted to the BCC for approval in October so were ineligible to vote on any motions. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 13, 2009 Richard Sims moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. VI. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Discussion ensued on adding "Sleeving" for future lighting into Budget. "Sleeving" was a line item in the Budget without an estimated cost. Barbara Segura moved to include "Sleeving" in the bidfor possible future lights. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. B. West Entry Sign Richard Sims moved to reinstall the (Welcome to Golden Gate) sign, the lighting and berme, with the berm' costs not to exceed $3~00~nd by Mike McElroy. Motion carried uninamiously 3-0. IC. I s to: . . 16 11 A7 COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC SERVrCES 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 January 4, 2010 . ,. I. Call to Order r . Attendance - E:;tablish a Quorum II. .fI:,., III. Approval of A,genda ,~.. IV. Approvai'<iMinutes - December 7,2009 ... V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson B. Bang, Stand Lighting - Annie Alvarez C. Tree Project - Annie Alvarez D. Tech of Collier County - Annie Alvarez E. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan - Annie Alvarez VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget ~ Annie Alvarez VIII. Member Comments IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment ..... The next meeting will be on February 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida c .. l~~" , c ... .. 11 t ,'f Item #: Copies \0: - R'>- "'--Of", t-"'-'" \r .. ~t,!\ I 2'1';' r <~" lobeJbe1,\7 ~. Board u! r:.;IJ[ (:iJn"l ,-:; <..~,'3rs MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ( , GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTERFiala .pp ~ ~/J ADVISORY BOARD Hala~ a ,LY2Z.. Henning Coyle I W- Naples, Florida, December 7, 2009 Coletta '-;fc')\ 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" ofthe Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Jim Klug Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Mile. Corm: Date: ftern#: ALSO PRESENT: Cnpies \0: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager/Region III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor I l&+r 12fIA 7 ;:; I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug Ill. II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Kaydee Tuff. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. (Jim Klug arrived at 6:07 PM) IV. Approval of November 2, 2009 Meeting Minutes Kaydee Tuff moved to approve the November 2, 2009 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported y 19 Christmas Trees were ordered and received y 14 have been decorated. Y Sponsors were scheduled to decorate trees December 7'h. Y Sponsors need to provide the names of recipient of trees or notify Center to find a home for their tree. Y Staff will create nametags for the Christmas Trees displayed. She stated the "Rock the Park" Event is being co-sponsored by Parks and Recreation with Naples & Southwest Florida Rock. (See attached) y Scheduled for Saturday, December 12'h from 2 pm -10 pm. y 10 Columbia bands will perform. Y Naples & Southwest Florida Rock has been promoting event by advertising on radio stations. y Admission is free. Y Naples & Southwest Florida Rock will be paying for all expenses and CCGG Community Center will provide Staff and facilities. Vickie Wilson reported if "Rock the Park" is successful, CCGGCC will sponsor the event in the future but will charge an admission fee to cover some of the expense. She stated registration for programs are slow due to the economy. B. Advisory Board Vacancy - After VI. D. C. Selection of Vice Chairperson - After VI. D. 2 16 11 ~A7 December 7, 2009 ,.,to.", i, VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez - After VI. D. B. Band Stand Lighting - Annie Alvarez/Tony Ruberto Tony Ruberto reported meeting with Staff at the Center. He distributed and reviewed Delta Lighting Systems Specifications. (See attached) . Provided Staff with "Existing Drawings." . Placement of Light Poles and to have sets (poles) on different breakers when all lights are not required. . Triangular lights are required. . Poles are 35' high. . HSA Engineering will take 30 days to design. . Sign contract by end of December. . Request quotes and start project in March. Discussion continued on notifying neighboring areas for approval and it was decided to mail out notices by end of January 2010. A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez reported the "No Spend" freeze has been lifted. Staff is working on the Approved Budget Hire Justifications. It was noted the Contingency Account Report will be available at the next meeting. C. Tree Project - Annie Alvarez - After VI. D. D. Tech of Collier County - Annie Alvarez introduced Paul Starzyk, Executive Director for Sunrise Community of Collier County (SCCC) to the Advisory Board. He distributed a pamphlet with their Mission Statement, History and Services and "Typical Examples of Tech Work Crew Assignments at GGCc." (See attached) Paul Starzyk stated SCCC provides services to adults with developmental disabilities as follows - . Mental Retardation . Autism . Down Syndrome . Cerebral Palsy . Spinal bifida and Prader- Willi Adult Day Training, Supported Living and Supported Employment Services are provided to assist people with disabilities work and provide services to offer choices to help develop and maintain their independence. Paul Starzyk noted he received a letter confirming the County will continue contracting Tech of Collier County to assist in clean up of Golden Gate Community Park through November 30, 2009. 3 1611~7 it December 7, 2009 Annie Alvarez stated the funding for Tech of Collier County Services was not included in the Budget this year in error. Funding has been temporarily resolved. The Maintenance Account, Turf & Irrigation/Road Crew will pay for 6-months of service until the end of the term. She stated GGCC will miss the Supportive Employment Services workers because they removed all the trash builds up around the fence quickly. Discussion took place on the service not being included in the Budget and whether or not the GGCC would or should continue funding. Board Members were tom on making a decision and asked Staff to get clarification to when the service will be discontinued. Additional discussion on who would perform the work if Tech of Collier County is not used and it was determined the Staff would have to absorb the workload. Consensus was made not to make any decision until next month. V. B. Advisory Board Vacancy Vickie Wilson submitted 3 applications to fill vacancy on Advisory Board. (See attached) Y Kaydee Tuff Y Jim Klug Y Peggy Harris Bill Arthur moved to accept all 3-applicants to fill vacancies and serve on (Golden Gate Community Center) Advisory Board to be submitted to BCC for approvaL Second by Kaydee Tuff. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Jim Klug welcomed Peggy Harris to the Advisory Board. C. Selection of Vice Chairperson Kaydee Tuff nominated Bill Arthur to serve as Vice Chairman. Being no other nominations from the floor for Vice Chairman, Bill Arthur will serve as VP. VI. New Business C. Tree Project - Annie Alvarez reported as follows: . Received a quote from Davenport on 8' oak trees for $75.00 each. . Parks and Recreation will plant trees. . Trees will be planted behind lighting poles. Staff will measure the field for tree placement and make a recommendation on the number of trees to be planted. E. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan - Annie Alvarez reported Y 5 Year Plan has been completed. Y The report was required to get Collier County Parks and Recreation "Accredited" 4 le~J:J 20~ 7 I ~ Entire Department worked 2-years to accomplish. ~ Collier County was rated #5 out of 82 Agencies in the Country. ~ To be Accredited, Collier County had to pass 88 of 144 requirements. Collier County passed all 144. ~ The Accreditation will go before the NRA (National Recreation Association) Commission and become official in January 2010. Jim Klug moved to propose a "Resolution" the Advisory Board congratulate the Staff on the fine job they did in getting the Accreditation. Second by Kaydee Tuff. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. It was noted the "Accreditation" allows Collier County eligible to apply for: ~ Grant Funds ~ CAPRA (Commission on Accredited Parks and Recreation Association) Recognition for Best Communities and receive monetary awards. ~ Gold Medal Award, the highest honor ~ Dorothy Mullin Award Staff will apply for the Dorothy Mullin Award for the 25th Anniversary for the Snow Fest Program in 2011. VII. Member Comments Bill Arthur asked Staff if the lights were repaired in the marquee. - Staff responded a Work Order has been submitted for the repair. Darrin Brooks asked how much promotion is done to promote GGCC Programs in the Collier County Schools and if flyers are only distributed to children in the lower grades. _ Staff responded the CCGG does promote the programs. Flyers are not provided to all schools due to the expense and the flyers do not always make it home to the parents. Posters promoting the events are provided to the upper grades and flyers are distributed to the lower grades. Kaydee Tuff announced Monday, December 14th the Civic Club will be hosting the event. It was decided the trees would make the event more festive. Trees could be picked up on Tuesday December 15. Jim Klug expressed a "Thank you" to Sue Flynn for her volunteer work on the Walk of Trees event. He reported plans for the Senior Resource Center are being worked on by architect to incorporate 211 services, library services and a vision center. Plans also include several Campaigns to raise $5M for the facility to open in January 2012. 5 161 1': 7 December 7, 2A9 VIII. Public Comments - None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:24 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD ~~;tJ'~'1V W,. ames Klug III, Chair / These Minutes were approved by the CommitteelBoard on as presented X or as amended . 1-'-(-1-010 6 16 r 1 A7 Tvpical Examt1les of Tech Work Crew Assicmments at Golden Gate Community Center Through the present an in line-with the latest contract extension in effect 9/30/2009 through 10/31/2010 Collier County Parks and Rec have chosen to use 2 of the 5 days per week the contract ailows for the Community Center. Wednesdays 7a-10:30a Set up for tables & chairs Kiwanis breakfast in rooms A 8( B After Kiwanis leave set up room for wood carvers (Jan-May) Auditorium - sweep floor, wipe down garbage cans, set up & wash tables and chairs for senior lunch. Pre-school Room - Wash tabies, chairs, floor mats, sheives, builetin boards, mirrors, desks, toys (and annually wash blinds) Room C set up tables & chairs for church meetings (held in evening) Jan-Apr - set-up for MRP tax services Outdoors - clean down slides & swings, pick up dry ground debris Fill in - organize arts & crafts room on gym stage, equipment room and kitchen in gym. Fridavs 8a -11 :30a Auditorium - sweep floor, wipe down garbage cans, set up & wash tables and chairs for senior lunch. Set up room for wood carvers (Jan-May) Pre-school Room - Wash tables, chairs, floor mats, cubby holes (children's storage), organize & straighten books & puzzles. Clean shelves, desk, mirror, bulletin board, door handles. Recreation Room: wash table & chairs, set-up and brush down pool table, organize games & cards in closet, wipe ping pong tables down. Gym - wash water fountains, dust mop fioors, check smail kitchen & closet and clean-up if necessary. Wheels Building: Set-up & wash tables & chairs for bridge players and builetin board. During Summer Camp - clean up after children's breakfast program. When assigned take down chairs and tables from evening programs or set up for special events. Total Billed Hours Golden Gate Community Center Fiscal Year October 1 st 2008 16111~7 I!! >." " '" I >- ~ ~ .c_ 'm.!: Ul rn ::l "::;;,, >- '" 0 "''''I 0.. " " $ Q) '" S;1Cii "ca ' C) - Q) m ." " .(; I " '" .~ 0=1'-: o..I~ 3>- " ~ " " &5 ~ 0 0 ::J 1il .... .- CD ~u o ,., c:: '" 0.. 0 "'... IUl E.Q OATES DAY >- <;;>- <( 10/1/2008 Wed. 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 135.80 $ 6.79 $ 135.80 10/3/2008 Fri 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 135.80 $ 6.79 $ 135.80 10/8/2008 Wed. 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 135.80 $ 6.79 $ 135.80 10/10/2008 Fri 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 135.80 $ 6.79 $ 135.80 10/15/2008 Wed. 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 $ 108.64 $ 6.79 $ 108.64 10/17/2008 Fri 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 135.80 $ 6.79 $ 135.80 10/22/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 10/24/2008 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 10/29/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 10/31/2008 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 11/5/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 6.79 $ 95.06 11/7/2008 Fri 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 11/12/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 6.79 $ 95.06 11/14/2008 Fri 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 11/19/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 6.79 $ 71.30 11/21/2008 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 6.79 $ - 11/26/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 7.0 $ 47.53 $ 6.79 $ 47.53 11/28/2008 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 6.79 $ - 12/3/2008 Wed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 6.79 $ 71.30 12/5/2008 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 6.79 $ - 12/10/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 6.79 $ 95.06 12/12/2008 Fri 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 12/17/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 6.79 $ 95.06 12/19/2008 Fri 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 6.79 $ 118.83 12/24/2008 Wed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 6.79 $ - 12/26/2008 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 6.79 $ - 12/31/2008 Wed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 6.79 $ 71.30 1/2/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 6.79 $ 95.06 1/7/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 1/9/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 7.21 $ - 1/14/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 1/16/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 1/21/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 1/23/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 7.21 $ - 1/28/2008 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 1/30/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/4/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/6/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 12618 2/11/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/13/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 2/18/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/20/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/25/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 2/27/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 3/4/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 3/6/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 3/11/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 3/13/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 7.21 $ 75.71 3/18/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 3/20/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 7.21 $ 75.71 3/25/2009 Wed. 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 3/27/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 4/1/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 P 1 of2 . Total Billed Hours Golden Gate Community Center Fiscal Year October 1st 2008 1611 )\7 r! "'c '0 !D :r: f- - ~ .c ._ Om .c W rn f- " 'O::E.. '" 0 .....:r: 0.. (J '0 2 Q) -'0- ., 'c '" c .u :r: S ell ~ "C; I C2 - Q) '0 '" ." c..:r:;:: Cf- c ~ C C ~ 3 0- . " ,., 0 0 :.::i 1ii ~=co ~ 0 ~.c c:: !D 0.. 0 !D... :r:w DATES DAY f- ..,f- -0: 4/3/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 7.21 $ - 4/8/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 4/10/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 4/15/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 4/17/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 4/22/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 4/24/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 4/29/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 5/1/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 5/6/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 5/8/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 5/13/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 5/15/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 5/20/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 5/22/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 10.5 $ 71.30 $ 7.21 $ 75.71 5/27/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 5/29/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 6/3/2009 Wed. 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 6/5/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 6/10/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 6/12/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 6/17/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 6/19/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 6/24/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 6/26/2009 Fri 3.5 00 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.21 $ 126.18 7/1/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 7/8/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 7/10/2009 Wed. 3.5 00 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 7/15/2009 Fri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 7.21 $ - 7/17/2009 Wed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ - $ 7.21 $ - 7/22/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 7/24/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.21 $ 100.94 7/29/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 7/31/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/5/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/7/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/12/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/14/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/19/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 9506 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/21/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/26/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 8/28/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 9/2/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/4/2009 Wed 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/9/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/11/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 14.0 $ 95.06 $ 7.25 $ 101.50 9/16/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/18/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/23/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/25/2009 Wed. 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 9/30/2009 Fri 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 17.5 $ 118.83 $ 7.25 $ 126.88 TOTALS 286.5 14.0 233.5 307.5 328.5 311.0 1481.0 $ 10,055.99 $10,536.68 P 2 012 . SW FLORIDA ~8'.~'..~.[j""-,'K' ~.' .~ ;;oj ~:.. '.. "-o"!!" '.. , / ..j~Q~. "[.'k . ~-- ..~ '. 'II .." dln~ I ~ . . ~1,Ji " 1 ''';j>..:. ~. ...' '..,..'~' , 1611 A7 t-. , . . . SP~ClfICAIIONS LlIMINAlRE: DIE FOI1MED HEAW GAUGE CONSmUCTION, INlERNAlLYI'/tlDfD FOR STRENGTH. APPEAAANCE N1D I'IEATHERTIGHT PERFORMANCE DOOR: EXTRUDED ALUMINUM i'NGLE HINGED WITH TWO STAINLESS STEEL PINS AND lV/O SPRING LOADED POSITIVE SLIDE lATCHES. LENS: 3/16" THICK HIGH IMPACT. HEAT RESIST.~NT CLEAR TEMPERED GlASS. REFlECTOR: DIE FORMED SPECULAR AlZAK DESIGNED TO PRODUCE AN ANSI.IES ClASSIFICATION l'IPE III DISTRIBLJT10N. BAllAST: MAXIMUM 1000 WAIT METAl HALIDE. VOLTAGE AS REQUIRED. CONSTANT WAITAGE AUlO.TR,'NSFORMER HIGH POWER FACTOR.j:ORE,'NO COlll'lPE. RATED FOR -20 DEGREES F STARTING. MOUNTED ON A REMOVABLE TRAY MID Pr?F'vVIRFJ) Tn A QI H('X OIc:;r.nNNFr:T PlUG. FAr:H BALLASll::; IHOIHJUGHl'{ I!:SIED PWOf< TO SHiPMENl. LAMP: MAXIMUM 1000 WAIT METAl HAlllDE (BY OTHERS}. LAMPHOIDER: HEAVY DUlY 600 VOlT MOGUL BASE PORCElAIN SOCKET WITH A COPPER AllOY NICKEL PlATED SCREW SHEll, lAMP GRIPS, AND A SPRING lOADED CENTER CONTACT MOUNTING ARM: 2" X 5" X 6" EXTRUDED ALUMINUM \V1TH COf'.JCEAlED TH~U BOLTS. POlE: fi" SQU,r...fH: STEEL, cor,,/1plETE WITH GROUND LUG, HANDHOIE. HA.~DHOlE COVER. ,'NCHOR BASE. BASE covm, AND FOUR ANCHOR BOl IS. FINISH: ALL EXPOSED SURfi'.GES ARE ""NDED THOROUGHLY. CLEANED AND DEGREASED. A PRETREATMENT WASH PIlIMER IS i'FPlIED AND IS SprAYED WITH A TWO PART HIGH SOLID U,V. STABILIZED POlnJRETHi\NE COATING TO A MINIMUM Of 3.0 MILS AND OVEN CURED. THE fiNISH MEETS SALT,SPRAY RESISTANCE TEST ASTM B 117 95 DEGREE F., 5"/., SOLUTION OF 1000 HOURS EXPOSURE TEST. COLOR AS SPECIFIED. U.l.: liSTED SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATION * '~ ",.,..... .' ".'.." .' ~ ' -'1; II::>> -==:. ___-.-..-. LIGHTING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DESIGN DEPT. 161 l 25" IJe -------.. , 2"J T-- 25' L '_...- "'.' ,.,'.< .... - ... Top View Type R2 DJ-3135 4@90 3408601 08 T4 NOTE: DELTA LIGHTING MUST HAVE APPROVED DRAWINGS BEFORE START OF FABRICATION. C SIZE REV. OF J. .- """." ~ :~;~ !W;l ~Ijft r::n~ ,'>i- i.& ,::u~ ~ ~~ ~ 35'-0" TITLE: WEDGE LUMINAIRE POLE MOUNTED .". ~~ -~\ I m ~~~1 p:j ~):~ ,.,:;; ;r'i;~ l'i"i ~Jl !f+~ ~1~'11 r~t~l . -' :;,~ l~'~~-~ ;','." ~~;'-: -;. ~~~>~ ;;JI 111 I ,RAWN BY: P. WETZEL DATE: 7-18.03 APP'D: SIZE DRAWING NO.: 'I DJ-3135 SCALE: 1/2" ~ l' 0" SHEET, 1611 A7 I . Use this page for SIDE MOUNTED LUMINAIRES Use EP.A Calculations below for poles to be drilled for side mounting IUf!linaJres. RECOMMENDED WEIGHT AND SIZE OF LUMINAIRES DIMENSIONS OF STAND.~ROS Nominal Luminaires Effective Projected Area in Square Feet at: Mounting Typical 70 80 90 100 120 Pole Model Heighl Weight Ibs. MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH HI. Top Butt Wall Number 20' 100 6.7 4.4 2.9 1.9 .9 19'5" 3" 5" .125 1905.30504T4 20' 100 9.1 6.2 4.3 3.0 1.7 19'5" 3" 5" .156 1908~30505T 4 20' 100 11.5 8.0 5.7 4.2 2.5 19'5" 3" 5" .188 1905-30506T 4 20' 100 14.4 10.4 7.S 6.1 3.9 19'8" 4" 6" .156 1908-40605T 4 20' 100 17.9 13.1 9.9 7.8 5.2 19'5" 4" 6" .188 1908-40606T 4 20' 100 21.5 15.9 12.3 9.7 6.4 19'8" 4" 7" .156 1905.40705T 4 23' 100 10.9 7.5 5.4 4.1 2.5 22'S" 4" 6" .156 220S.40605T4 23' 100 13.9 9.8 7.2 5.6 3.5 22'S" 4" 6" .188 2208~40606T 4 23' 100 16.8 12.2 9.2 7.2 4.7 22'S" 4" 7" .lS6 220S-40705T4 23' 100 23.8 17.7 13.6 10.8 7.1 22'S" 4.5" 8" .156 2208-45805T4 23' 100 29.3 21,9 17.1 13.5 9.0 22'8" 4.5" 8" .188 220S-45S06T4 25' 100 8.9 5.9 4.1 3.1 1.S 24'8" 4" 6" .156 2408-40505T4 25' 100 11.6 8.0 5.8 4.4 2.7 24'8" 4" 6" .188 240S.40606T4 25' 100 14.3 10.2 7.6 5.9 3.7 24'S" 4" T' .156 2408-4070ST4 25' 100 20.6 15.2 11.7 9.2 5.9 24'S" 4.5" . 8" .156 2408-4S80ST 4 25' 100 25.6 19.0 14.7 11.6 7.6 24'8" 4.5" 8" .188 2408-45806T4 28' 100 11.1 7.6 5.5 4.1 2.4 27'S" 4" T' .156 270S-40705T 4 2S' 100 16.5 11.9 9.1 7.0 4.4 2T8" 4.5" 8" .156 270S.45B05T 4 20' 100 20.9 15.3 11.7 9.2 5.9 2TS" 4,S" 0" .188 2708-45806T 4 2S' 100 29.1 21.6 16.7 13.2 87 27'8" 4.5" 8" .250 2708-4S808T4 28' 200 36.9 27.8 21.5 17.0 10.8 27'8" 6" 10" .188 270S.60106T4 . 28' 300 49.8 37.7 29.3 23.3 15.2 27'S" 6" 10" .250 2708-60108T4 30' 100 9.J 6.2 4.3 3.1 1.1 29'8" 4' i .156 2908-40705T 4 30' 100 14.2 '10.2 7.6 5.9 3.5 29'S" 4.5" S" .156 290S-45S0ST 4 30' .- 100 lS.2 13.2 10.0 7.S 4.9 29'8" 4.5" 8" ,laB 290B-45806T 4 30' 100 25.S 19.i 14.7 11.6 7.5 29'S" 4.5" S" _250 290S.45808T4 30' 200 33.0 24.S 19.1 15.0 9.3 29'S" 5" 10" .16B 290B-60106T4 3D' 300 44.9 33.9 26.3 20.8 13.4 29'S" 6" 10" .250 290S-S0 lOST 4 33' 100 11.2 7.S 5.8 4.3 2.3 32'S" 4.5" 8" .156 3208A5B05T4 33' 100 14.8 10.6 7.9 S.1 3.6 32'8" 4.5" 8" .188 3208-45806T4 33' 100 21.6 1S.S 12.0 9.4 5.9 32'S" 4.5" S" .250 3208~45808T4 33' 200 28.1 21.0 16.0 12.4 7.4 32'S" 6" 10" .1S8 320S-60106T4 33' 300 38.6 29.0 22.4 17.5 11.0 32'8" S" 10" .250 3208~60108T4 35' 100 9.5 6.5 4.5 3.4 1.6 34'8" 4.5" S" .156 340S-4580ST 4 35' 100 12.9 9.0 6.7 5.0 2.8 34'8" 4.5" e" .188 3408.4580ST 4 35' 100 19.1 13.S 10.5 8.1 4.9 34'8" 4.5" s" .250 340S.45S0aT4 35' 200 25.2 18.7 14.2 10.9 6.3 34'S" 6" 10" .188 3408.60106T4 35' 300 35.0 26.2 20.1 15.7 9.6 34'S" 6" 10" .250 3408-60108T4 37' 100 11.1 7.6 5.6 4.1 2.0 36'S" 4.5" S" .18B . 360B-45806T 4 37' 100 17.0 12.1 9.1 6.9 4.0 36'8" 4.5" S" .250 360B-45608T4 37' 200 22.7 16.7 12.6 9.5 5.2 3S'S" 6" 10" .188 360S-6010ST 4 37' 300 31.8 . 23.7 18.1 13.9 8.3 36'8" 6" 10" .250 3608-6010BT4 39' 100 9.4- 6.3 4.5 3.2 1.4 3S'8" 4.5" S" .188 380S.45S06T4 39' 100 14.9 10.5 7.S 5.9 3.2 38'8" 4.5" s" .250 3S08.45S08T 4 39' 200 20.3 14.9 11.1 S.2 4.2 38'S" S" 10" .188 3808.6010ST4 39' 300 26.9 21.4 16.2 12.4 7.1 38'S" 6" 10" .250 3808.60106T4 4S' 300 17.7 12.6 9.4 6.9 3.3 47'6" 6" 10" .250 4706.S010ST4 50' 300 15.8 11.3 8.2 5.9 2.5 49'S" 6" 10" .250 490S.6010ST4 I Variations from standard sizes listed above, available upon inquiry at factory. E.P.A. Calculations allow for 1.3 Gust Factor ~ REV. 3.86 Satisfactory performance of lightIng standards is dependent upon the standard being properly attached to a suppcrting foundation of adequa~e design. LeXIngton does not design or oHer recommendations for raundatians. 4 - 16,1117 ~ . ~4A~....... ..__.~ ATi.~l7l\I'i\)J. ~a~~~~ '.PI' Rossi Electric Company 1430 Rail-Head Blvd Suite 117 Naples, FL 34110 Mr. B. Gibbs August 21,2003 Re: Site lighting for Golden Gate Community Center . In response to the comments made by Anchor Engineering Consultants on August 6, 2003 I offer you the following information from the manufacturer. Type P The submitted light fixture from Delta Lighting Systems is die formed constructed from .080 commercial grade aluminum. The EPA of the single mount fixture is 1.3. Type Pl The submitted light fixture from Delta Lighting Systems is die formed constructed from .080 commercial grade aluminum. The EPA of the single mount fixture is 1.3. Type Rl The submitted light fixture Ii'om Delta Lighting Systems is die formed constructed from .080 commercial grade aluminum. The EPA of the single mount fixture is 1.6. . Twc~ _ The submitted light fixture from Delta Lighting Systems is die formed constructed from .080 commercial grade aluminum. The extension arm length shall be 6" x 2.5" x 8" and will be made from .125 extruded aluminum. The bracket will secure to the pole and fixture using concealed internal hardware and brackets. The EPA of the double at 180 degrees is 4.9 the EPA of the quad at 90 degrees is 7.68. The type R2 is available in a variety of IES distributions including type 4 - front throw. Photometrics are available on these fixtures for your rcview. A point-by-point analysis 933 E. Second SL P.O. Box 4S0 So. Boston, MA 02127 617.269.8275 Fax 617.268.7495 . . . 1611'A7 := ..,4AI~... I"--.~ ATi~~lI'jjll11jJ. .a~tQ,~. ,...., ~~ can be performed by the factory given that you can email a site plan to my office as well as a copy directly to the engineering staff at Delta. My emaij is !TIikes(@,liteworld.net The factories email isdeltaltg(@.aol.com Delta Lighting Systems quality and performance of their fixtures is excellent. We are looking forward to satisfying all the requests from the specifier and supplying an outstanding lighting project. Thank you. Best regards, ~. Michael Smith Salcs enginecr 933 E. Second St. p.o. Box 450 So. Bo,ton, MA 02127 617.269.8275 Fax 617.268.7495 MEMORANDUM 16 I,IA 7 q DATE: October 30, 2009 FROM: Bany Williams, Parks and Recrea~'on irector Sue Filson, Executive Manager . Board of County Commissioners . TO: RE: Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Margaret (peggy) Harris 2309 Hunter Boulevard Naples, FL 34116 W. James Klug, ill 4257 32nd Avenue, S.W. Naples, FL 34116 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance ~ords of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252-8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments 1611 , A7 ,- ;;;, 1IIson s -rom: ~~t: Subject: scrapironlaw@yahoo.com Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:22 PM filson s 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: 10/28/2009 7:22:01 PM. Name: !Margaret (peggy) Harri~ Home Phone: 1239-732-73491 Home Address: 12309 Hunter B1v~ City: iNaple~ Zip Code: ~ Phone Numbers Fax: 1239-566-95611 Business: 1239-262-12021 ~ail Address: ~crapironlawlalvahoo.coml Board I Committee Applied for: \Golden Gate Community Center! Category: iNot indicated! Work Place: !David McElrath, P.A~ How long have you lived in Collier County: Ptore than 151 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? ~ !My sister used my name on several charges and a DUlj Do you or your employer do business with the County? ~ !Not Indicatedj NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. . Would you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1 16' 1 A7 R recommendations made by this advisory board? ~ . cular communi center serves uite a bit of or an;7"tions and events. The vohmteer advisors for the whole of the communi and all the center offers. Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ~ Do you currently hold public office? ~ Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? ~ !Golden Gate Beautification Commiueq Education: ~ee Resum~ ~ . 2 16 I 1 'A7 " """ MARGARET (pEGGY) HARRIS 2309 Hunter Blvd Naples, FL 34116 239-465-7349 Phone scrapironlawlalvahoo.com OBJECfIVE Seeking full-time position to enhance my educational and professional background EDUCATION Baccalaureate in Science of Legal Studies, International College, June 2003 SKILLS Legal: Criminal, Tort, Business, Health, Personal Injury, PIP, Workers Compensation & Wrongful Death, Liens, Contracts, Family, Clemency, Wills Medical: Physical Therapy, Medical Terminology, Ward Secretary Administrative: Office Management, Accounting-AlP & AIR, Payroll, Taxes, Project Analysis, Purchasing, Receiving, Extensive Computer Hardware & Software ~ WORK HISTORY Legal Assistant. David 1. McElrath. Naples, FL, 200S-Present Senior Paralegal. Breiden & Associates, Naples, FL, 2001-2004 Office Manager, Forbis Electrical Contractors, Naples, FL, 1996-2001 PERSONAL & PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS & ACfIVITES Frontier Days President, 2006 to Present Golden Gate Beautification Committee (MSTU), 2006 to Present Golden Gate Area Civic Association, Member, 2004 - Present Teaching Assistant in Legal Studies, International College, 2003 - 2006 Criminal Trial Volunteer, Sparkman & Quinn, 2004 - 2004 President of Legal StudiesIParalegal Club of International College, 2000- 2003 CLSP (Collier Legal Support Professionals) Member, 2001 - 2006 American Red Cross Volunteer, 1995-Present Sac (School Advisory Council) Head Start Program, Collier County, 1997-1998 Sac (School Advisory Council) Shadowlawn Elementary, 1997-2003 REFERENCES Available upon request . 4.J. / ," -J ~ . 16 I rt.~ A 7 h'~ Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8606 Fax: (239) 252-6406 ~pplication for Advisory CommitteeslBoards Name: hi UM.f5 K[{x~; T1l HomeAddressdl.2.4'7~:z.J/JJ j}t-'E sV Home Pboueb WJt#"'~ --7/{ffJ . Zip Code: :34'//t' .~ Fax No. Business Pbone: e-maU address: Plaee of Employment: .{].~~ ......,.--_...~ ~/7&"';ty~ Category (If applicable): Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentaUst, lay person, ete. How long bave you lived in Collier Connty: Years: 1.l::/:Montbs: _ Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes A No _ Do you currently bold publie ofliee? Yes _ No ~ so, wbatis that offiee? Have you ever been eonvided of any offense against the Law? Yes _ No X If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes _ No --:2S.. If yes, under wbat eireumstanees? Would you and/or any organizations with ~ yon are aftiliated benef"It from decisions or reeommendations made by this advisory board? Yes_No yes, please list the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Bo8rd of County Commissioners in the event that their relationsbip ebanges relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outeome of advisory board reeommendations or they enter into eontraets with the County. Do you now. serve, or ba~e you ever served, on a Collier Connty board or eommittee? Yes ;rc No ~ If y~;t~tthe~:.~aA . Ika#~ . e81n: ~/C.L Of"{ '~_ ~ . " 1611 A7 ~ ... ~Please list your community activities (civic clubs, DeigbboliJood usoeiatioDS, ek. and positiou held: - !JEfiPJf:iE7~5r::E~:;~://!1~:;:i~:f::: ~;:;;f;::$L ;;""I~ IIiIDdKt'CDJ:Jillt:.il:TJ ' - EdllC8t1oD: f)fiCHFJ:oll.. j)~O R 13): FADM /i?/J rr;..,c-.d. S ON/I/J:A'r:;;'YY- Experience: /IV' , ;1, .., . PleoselJt/ach I11tJ additionallnfonnation YOIl feel pertinl!1lt This application shollld be forwarded to Sill! Filson, ~tive Manager to the Board of COllmy Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naplea, FL 34111. Ifyoll wlsh,pluse fax YOllr applicaJkJn to (239):152-6406 or e--mail to mefibionfiiJeollieNlfJV.net. Thank you far volunteering to serv~ the citizens of Co1lier COllnty. J l! .!Ill lit If ~~~ t& ... _I ~ -e s:::;: ~ ~ ~ a ~ "'i~,\;; ~Q . a:H ~I ~ .. ~ ~ o GI ... .to o. .- .. .. 0 "v E E ... o .. '"' .~ - .== _..a .. .. ......0 .. ..- -.. .. .!=~ co'- .- ('11::; ...:at: '5< .. 0 .. G.I" te: OO~OGJ C"I >>0"" ... .. GI ~ f II 51: ~.IE~ ..0 Vl CD 0';: _c~ a ~9-~ !:!::I-=g- ora. a >0 G.I ""!I:..E-= GlO.- VI ..c 1ft a GI._ ..! '5.5 = La.a o ... -.: -... .. .. .. GI ~ ~ 0; ~ GI GI - .. .. ;; > ~ o - .. ~ GI .; 0 E GI .! 11'I a .. -= ... i! a C I- ::;"& _ 0 0... .. ... GI 1ic:-a ..a .-'- .. Vl .. -;o!!at:'; CD a 0 a._ :>>"'11II lit ; .. c c-a":::tO .- c g 0 \"I :I.e >",. o ... .. >ep.5f1: CD > C a CD .. a '0.1: a ca:...II:._ en _ III .. o '';: o .. o ICll - CD.... . - g = 0 ~.; vi ..a..a::..a::--:-~C a-:&:oGl.g >- 1ft... II: :I a i5 .5 tit .. c'" c o:!Cc-;' 0" ~e'::!'BD. = D..t"o.- ft 0'" C 1ft C.. .. wO::l enD __~a..> C:: 0= GlE",..",,-.e _ GI I: a.... G.I a= E c ~Do>:'CDa :::t_U_M..a:: ..a. CeD- E..a::.5gM~ ";;=.,.\J.!a "oS-.:> CD 0'- CD.__ '&~t=o-g .0 G) 0.._ '" -0 III '"' a. ." >- >.\; 111:> (Is ~8 ~ '0 a: .-: CD!!:! .....I ._ ...I 1:0 :J~ o ell .. ell .... :J: 'V .. o - .. o - .. o .. o - o .... := ,.. - .. .. o v ~ . = .Do'" - > .sc- ... o::!!!C"t ,..,0... ........ .-.. ... .. CC .. ..... GI Eooa. Eo-" o...Z V . .. '1: .. .. ... !;I\"";-'" .~ .... . li ~ ~~ '" ~ Q t: 0;;: .e\;i..Q" .."S"" .....~ ~ ;;:::::"'!oo. ti ~~~~ ::::...... """'" Q i. Q "!Oo .~ :s ~ ... t- !ll '" ~:t~~ oil "" I;!.e .. '" .. t.'1:: 1::: ~ '" '" '" Q :::s ti .S! ~- 'is ~ ~:::;: ~ ~ .... ~.~ ~ ~ Iii It ~.~ e t! ....'t: "'ii:: "'II Q \ii ell =>>.... "0 eIl_ >.... CC.., 'V... 0.... .. ~ .. III CC..!!! ....A- 000 0-2 .., ... ~ o ... .. ;:..... ! .. GlC"t at .2000-: '" M".- !Mc:, ;: .- "".. ::t -=ac:,..o.. ....-@ .t:..o:; ~ 1i-C'4 >- w:;_~ = C'4 .. a ... - >c 1; .. a CL ..... .. o ... ... 00 ... ... j "C5 .J:1 ~ ~ ;I- .c 161 ~ ~A 1 ..-~ =0; ~ ~~~ .""....l~ ;... ~.!5~~:::: ~~~~~ g,.... ~ =0; '" Q 'll .. II> ;; 'll-,!:: "" =0; '" q,.... t:i.... Q ~:l! 11>.... '" !:: .- '" Q 'll ~.~ i ':::-,!:: .~::::... ~.... =0; oC:l.!II .. !:: Q!:II;:: ;;;.... ~.l!! ~ ~ "'li"", ~ 00 ... ... "1 ... ... .... .,: ... ... ';; E . GI ~ ..- o GI .. .. .; o .. ..a. GI .. = s:: .. .. .. ..a :: I: ".:; 9 ; .. .. ....... 0....... "'; ii. .. I: E... ~ .2'& .. GI - u.;;; ~..a o GI :IE ~ ... .. .. ... .. ';: .. ... ... .. . .- ... ." .!! GI - ~ ... .. .. .- ... > .. GI .. ..a- .... .. ~ .. .. .. .. .": -= .. .. GI .. ... f ... ... '" ... !:: 2 :::t .... IIll:: o a. a. o ,.. . - ~ .. 0 .. ... o ... v 0 ~ GI .! ~ oo!! v - '0 .. ,..,to - .- .i ; ~ E . EE= O 0 GI V .. ;J: GI GI .. VI -! a ..:; = g ~ :-5 ... .. c :: .. 0_ .i f ' . - .. GI E =- a. E ... .. - >-0 u "0 i a 0.": E...... .. ... ..a I: >- =>> _ at ..:;.!a.>cit ._ a. at :'E~oo" at at::tM g .. OM _ .. ... -= .." at "D~..c:, fS:: ::t C'4 ..._ VI .". ..0 .": ..!! .;: ~1! .!! a. ;;._a->a I: it at 00 s:: .-O-=M>ou _.. !!..a;:: oat u VI .. .a..... ..:; .:.!! I: ~ 0 I: E a .- ;: VI ""'"D-........... ::t S VI.- 0........... 1:.--a-aM .. CDt:CD .!- i! = :g.:-. J: ... on _. < ~ .. .. ~ ::.... "Ill ... o "Ill - ... '" ... :III < ... ~ ... A. lit "a "D ... o;r~a:!.; ::::!. a "'a < < a..c:ro _.1:1 VI a=..a.c:c . ::;:.... CD... :::I !' O"~ ::I ;ii. ... 0 0 CD "'- -. a" .:.. a ::I 0 a 0 ... .. a ";' 0 VI CD VI " c: CD .... "a (I :;. lit a. iii' ... a = :=" !!.:::I < " _ ft' SO .. CD ... a 1ft UI ~ "'1:1I "D ""0 00 2.oa..CII CD en a CD Vt "a !!. ==-. a.. CD =- g 0 _.0 a lit _ ::::I~::::I' < a-CDS..,a ~ i=!.g fi' ca ::r a.. CD lit ..... .. .. ~ ~ ft. :: ;. _ n o~ o ;' < ~ .. ~ n o " 0" 0-<, o :IIi :-.. ='t:I :E i :;. a: :r.. a.. a :I =::r it :""'a III lit iii' Ui" CD < 0 _.0 CD c: c: Q 0 ::I :i" a 0" a l.=: !:a-~caCD;=CDOO a:!!.:I'"a!!!ll a.' a::... _. = CD " ~ _ lit _ =ca!!.:!'.g~_-< :. . c::;'~. Q III ::I -.0- VI -ca-'a.= ... CD a i'CD !L-. <_. D.::::IIII::I.a:5.-a era.. -=a.;:I;" ...c III :i" ~ ;: c: iii" lIIaft- !!...._ .. --" 0' 1ft 0 ::::I CD VI 3 ~'~;:~~r a '" ",CG ift"a ~ g a c: a CD _. i.::gaac='.c 00::1 CD .... .... =-::1iA.a ::Io::r OCD-<,..=:r:' CD ilia. oD.a..::r ::I CD-aa-.:rCD:'CD ::E C'D !!!II :a: _. -. ft -. -'::::1 ... ::; a.... CD ;F-::IaCCDCo=: ou:tca::la!!.::Ea.a s.;;;"-=--:-<::I'~ :IIi .. 0 CD a::: =" 0 o :r ~ ell ~ ;- ;; iii';'. ::; 0 ;' Z ::a en - 0 it" < .... " 0 !!.S . - o' " !!. ... ... ~ .. 0 o :5. ...... -.. .. .. a a..." "a 11ft." ..- -. CD a 0 ... o ~ u: a:.; :" a!:g CD- ~a:In=-;:CD"II :: CD':e 5: 0 a a In::r = -c cr'" 0 11I'0 !" -':IIi ~ A.:IIIl:""::r <,0 CD 0 a ::::I In a.. :;i: "a a 0 0 a < ::::I .. -< CD a ..a "" G. -:s 0= :s.:: a !!. !!.-<" a.;O'- a- 3 ;; ~ .. '" a a D a ftl!!.ac: o <0 ~ ~ n ~ ~Q ;n - m . ~ ~g , ~ ;- ~ .coc " 0 8' g ffi' ~ :r"llo:::l)o:lli'" -"CDca:rCD .aO<CDo: .::... ~ !. ~ ........ao"< ~~l a.. .. a a. ~~!!. 0" ~ D:- !:I ;r ft o :I )0 ....... "II _0:::1 o ~ a..:E ~ co s. a- iii. ~. - .. ... ~ o ;. ;. '" ... ~ o '" ~ o 11 ~s.e:a " .." .. n a CD i'!: ~ CD -. - ~ If s. !!" w o o 0 0 ::a "Q :i". "Q CD "Q a!!: :IIi ! z' 9- c: a 0 ell III :II "Q III !!5:=f!'" ;;::. ~ =... o-o--.a .. .. III . 0:::1 ;n' o ~ ::;: CD' .. :I o '< ... .. .. -a =-a .. CD 0 ;: a: D: 0Ci"a- ;: '< o ~ 0"" ~ - - :IIi::r::r ::;" 3 CD ::r" '" '" - a:ra -. .. .. o :E:: o _ c' CD C;;' ~!!' ...- o~ :::!.- a..::r a.. ~ .. .. '" ;r - .. "II D != ii: o " ... o ... .... CD CD fit '" CD ~ :i' IIlI fit ,,__ ;" ft ;;- CD .. -1"\ 000 .....e: 1ooI~ .. :;: i:r CD :::I fit '" ... ::! i=\ ... '" :Ego. ell a ft CD := a !!. a ... _. ft cr < = 0 CD !D I g ;; III~S. l~ 0 co" o ... ~ a :!:. !L _.. 0 ;.~ = "'..... -..... o 0 ~ ~ 0 .. - a. 0 ;-11I:11 "Q g a .g a.. i 5..=':I 0..... ::!'.= ell o -." ;cis. ~ ~. ifil ~. Q !Ooo. ~ &' ~!l.~ 1 ~.~ 9.", ~. ~ ~;r~ ....l>' .. ;;::: ~q;' ., .S' ; ~ ;-.~ .... .. .. i\ll ~i:l ~!oo\ .. ~ ,.. ;;;. .. 16 , 1 o=::r:lli)o ad"~CD- ft_CDa-'" o:r CD e: 3D;'=~ a - CD : Vi' e:::I :::!.CD CD ::::I :l.ca _ n ::;"c:: :r:ro "<:--aa ~ l~O''1:Ja ;a :::::'DDCD~ '" ii::r ..g::;.. ~ '1:J 0 ~ CD'''< 0 aa= 0 z O....CD D !.- ::::I _::I - n . D a..::r 0 ~.'" e- CD' _.. fit' "< 0 D .. ... a.. a- n c: =0 :e ft -. c:: ~ ~. i a :ilr"CDCII"< a -.. :IIi.a.. a.. _. a.. := :!:. =-: ~ ... 0 ::5. g i 1:iir= ~ -:.< " "':IIi o .. c: - :r o !.. ...... o " :r -" o " ~ ... oCil " ... o .. - .. 0 -- c: i.a S' ;- '" ~ n.. o .. "... " .. -:::::.crQ" -:c _. CD "Q :;. := cg 51 ell D:!a ::lI D - !L a..:III:"'!!. -s' a..:= g CD ;;;.: ca a a .. -~g!!. Q :-< ~. a;' Z o .. ~ '" 0 .. .."... o ..... - ~ .. .. .. 0 " " o' III ;; !. :r:i- o 0 < " .. - 0"'0 iii':: o .. ~ ~ .. ... " ;l' - o' " o " ~ .. .. ;.~ - ft. :r" ..!!' + + + a"QftellellCDftO :II .. 0 :II a a 0 C a.. 0 a ~"Q "a 51 .. =;a=Q"o~"'CI ::::I;.CD"eIa=.:!. .; III a..Ui''' CD ~ :I Cil:l acr=-a-!1 =~~.g 5.-=:~-< c: a i. CD CD :!.;!"g=:=rD..51 ~~ "g;;;'i5:a'!.. a.. 0 :!_.;- g i.~ CD5.IIIa.._ :I 51 ~z..cr;;;'-': OeD -<:r~- g ~o =i'~ CD CD C CD D.."!t :II "'.. D.. CD 0 :E::'C CD o~== !L!!:-.... .. - _. a" :II a :11I:"" =3~e:! ft 0 ='::5. VI Cil-!La-<a.. ::E:ra::llcrC:~ VI = = a..-< !!. CD A7 .., ~ Q ~ .....~ ~ ;;. ;;:::::Cb ~. ~ "" ~ ~::i ~ ~ .::to:! ..... ..... ~ :IE 1: Cil D.. =Cil;-: ~'cra.!!. a a 0 --'" "'CI o' ~ a ~ :::I - - .. 0 ~ - o ... ~ 5. ;;;. s.;;;. Q !!...51 ~ "': ;. .. ... Sa.. ...0.. o :IIi " - "ft :r o " 0 a.. -= III ==-i.! o ~ .. "'0" .. :I - ':' ftl !!. - a ;. ;. ;. !!' " C ... .. o. ... " o " " .. .. -.. -. " "... '!" .. ':' 1611 ~8 t IMMOKALEE BEAVTIFICA TION M.S. T.V. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECEIVED November 18, 2009 JAN 0 6 2010 Minutes ~ Fiala Halas He";"" '" ;p Coyle ~ Coletta Board ot County commissioners I. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. by Darryl Richard. No quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: William Deyo (Excused), Cherryle Thomas (Excused) Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (Excused), Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager Others: John Ribes-JRL, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Meeting was adjourned at 4:32 Lucy Ortiz arrived 4:40 p.m. . The next meeting is December 16,2009 One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Misc. Corres: I Date: '"',: ~. ":Iala Halas RECEIVED Henning Coyle ' JtL:::. 8oar~~~ou:~2c:~:~sionern Coletta 1611 \ A 9' = ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES DEe. 3, 2009 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION / ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. B. October 2009 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. I. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve October 2009 Minutes by Kirk Colvin. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. Update on "Shell Bill" relating to fire districts. I. Copy of 11/24/09 Naples Daily News article distributed. 2. Southwest Florida state legislators approve shell bill 3-2. 3. Shell bill will be taken to Tallahassee for approval. 4. Comm. Fiala has stated that the BCC is not in favor of the shell bill. Mise C ""Q:L[09/ ~ n lten,f UdLL lj1j:.7 (' 1611 A9 ., III. NEW BUSINESS A. Kirk Colvin and James Gault applied for the two vacant advisory board positions. 1. Ted Decker made a motion to recommend Kirk Colvin be approved. a. Jim Gault seconded the motion. b. Kirk Colvin was approved for recommendation unanimously. 2. Ted Decker made a motion to recommend James Gault be approved. a. Kirk Colvin seconded the motion. b. James Gault was approved for recommendation unanimously. B. Chief Rodriguez discussed a proposed FY2011lT increase of $200 per computer. 1. All board members expressed opposition to such an increase. 2. Chief Rodriguez will be sending a response to Dan Summers. C. The ICFD holiday party will be held 12/17/09 at the Capri Fish house at 6 p.m.. D. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held Jan. 7,2010. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 7:10 p.m. I. Motion seconded by Jim Gault. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Date: 01 10; ~ 0 RECEIVED if\N 1 1 2010 , ;.-,w!\v COfl1missi(ln;:rs December 14, 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, Deeember 14,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition 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 the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #6091610,2800 N. 1I0rseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the tc)llowing CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate Tony Pires (Excused) Jeffrey Curl Mimi Wolok (Excused) Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak BobDorlll Annisa Karim ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulccki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist ./ Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta I~ ltemt: December 14. 2009 I. RollCall Chairman Poteet called the meeting to ordt~r at 9:00 AM, Roll call was taken and a quorum WJS established. 11. Approval of Agenda M!l'. Karim moved f(} approve tlte Agenda. S(~cQnd by l"fr. Curl. Carried wranimou,\'/y 6MO. III. Approval ofOdobcr 12~ 2009 Minutes /Jlr. Curl /nOlled to approve the miJ"tte!j subject 10 rhe following change,,: . Page 2, item IV. Unit 53 Update line 1 """ from "40 letten,' sellt out. ." To "44 letters sent out... /I . Page 2, item lV. Unit 53 update - from "and $6,OOO/acre for parcels greater tha.n 2,0 acres." to "and $6,OOO/acrefor parcels greater than 2.5 at.:res. " Sel'Om[ by J1fr. Sterk. Curried unaJlimous~~' 6-0. IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management lJpdate - i\-list properties Cvcle () properties - appraisals expected shortly; 44 offer letters sent out for Red Maple Swamp Preserve, I offer accepted but scheduled for tax deed sale in January, \Villchester Head to date, 69 offer letters sent out, 3 "no" replies and 2 "yes" replies with llgreemcnts for approval to be presented ~t the next meeting. 1. Fisiorck. Cindy Erb, Real Property Management presented thc Executive Summary "rJpprol'e al1 Agreement }'Or Sale and Purchase/or 1> 14 acres within the Winchester Head l'vflllti~pm'cel Prr?!ed under the Conservatfon Coilier Land Acquisition Program, al a cost not to exceed $19,3000 (Fisiorek)"datcd December 14, 2009 and attached a!:,'feemcnt for sale and purchase, Mr. Sterk mewed to approve the agreememfor sale and purchase. Second by Afr. Curl. ~\JotiOIl carried 5 "yesn -1 "no." ll-fr.Dorta voted "no." Af/". Dorta stated he voted "no ,. as the C()mmirtee~'1 budget ha\'l1ot been so/id(fied and expressed concern the Program may over eJ:tend itse(f Chairman Potcet noted the funds for the purchase have been allocated from a prcvlous Cycle. Alex Sulecki noted thct!9_<:ltiU2f Cq,untv Commisskmers must still t~Yii;:,>>,.~nQ ,appr()vcan Contracts aftcr!heowncr signs it. Ms. Karim noted the Executive Summary contains discrepancIes on the total i.1crc(.lge ofthc 115 parcels as indicated on page 1 (.lnd 3 (167.74 aL'7CS and ] 58,67 aeres respectively). 2 16111Al01 Deleted: CQIlrm;t!t<: Deleted : December 14, 2009 Stllff will rcvic\\' and correct. It was nott~d the Prognml cannot bid on "tax sale deeds" as the purchase pnce of n parcel needs approval of the Board of County Commissioners and another bidder could easily outbid the Prof,'Tam at the auction. Mr. DelatC' arrived at 9:04 am, H. Pepper Ranch Event recap Alex Sulecki presented a SJideshow on "A Day at the Ranch" bighlighting the public eVC'l1t held at Pepper Ranch on November 20 and 2 J, 2009. November 20, was an event for the Collier County Home Schoolers. while approximately 3J 2 public individuals vlsitcd the site on November 21, 2009 for tours, lunch and public speakers. Ms. Karim represented the Committee. c. Budget Recommendutions - (Q) -Can management funds be transferred back to acquisition? Alex SlIlecki presented a memo to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee, dated December 14,2009 noting Section 6.1.d of the Conservation (.'ollier Ordinance, 2007-65, states funds from the Conservation Collier Management Trust Fund may supplement the Collier County Land Acquisition Fund subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. D. Gordon River Greenway update - Jeff Curl It was noted the zoning application is still in process, signagc is still being reviewed, and there is no update on the bridge alif:,'l1ment for the City of Naples. v. Ne"..' Business A. J\1eUvanc Marsh IMP Alex Sulecki presented the "Conservation Collier Mdlvane Marsh Property interim Alanogement Pian Final Drajill dated December 2009 for approval by the Committee. She noted the Plan is for milnagem<'''l1t of the Presc:r\!c for the next 2 years until a Fillal Managemerlt Plan is developed. Mr. Delate stated the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee rCliiewcd the document and provided comments which were incorporated by Staff. Ms. Karim noted: . 111c exhlbits as listed in the text should correspond to their prescntation in the document. . PJge 8, first paragraph, line 4 - revise Lygodium MycrophyHum to Lygodium Microphyllum StaffwiJ1 make the revisions. 3 Deleted: i;ll~] AI01 December 14, 2009 lvlt'. Delate moved to apprtJve the C01lservation Collier AIel/vaile ll,:farsh Property IlIIel'im Management Plan - FiJlal Draft" dated DeL'em.ber 20fJ9. ..,'ecoud It.V Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7~O. B. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki noted; . Members Mimi Walok, Mlcnad Delate and Robert Dorta's terms arc due to expire and Me Dorta and Mr. Delate indicated interest in continuing to SL'fVC. Tl1C remaining vacant position will be advertised to the pub he. . Ms. Wolok received her 5 yt:ar Advisory Board Service Award on December J. 2009. She 'Will check to see if any other Committee members arc eligible for tllC awurd. . The January meetings will include review of 3 applications from the previous Cycle ~md 4 new applications. . Staff will provide a budget update in January. VII, Sub~Commiuee Meeting Reports A. Outreach -. Tony I>>ires, Chair .'effeurl noted the Outreach Committee met at. the Freedom Park Interpret.ative Ccnter and discussed sif.,1J1age, fund raising and the evcnt at Pepper Ranch, They will meet immediatcly following this meeting. B. Lands Evaluation and J"fanagement - Mike Dclate. Chair The Subcommittee met at North Collier Regional Park and discussed hunting at Pcpp(~r Ranch, public access to Preserves and "geo-caching." C. Ordinance Policy and I)rocedures - Mimi ',",otok, Chair None VIII. Chair Committee Member Comments Ms. Karim commended Staff on the preparution and success 011 the "A Day at the Ranch" event. IX. Public General Comments Nom: x. Stan Comments The next meeting will be held on January 11, 2010 with Staff reviewing the status of the Committee's parking permits. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe chair at 9:37AM. 4 16 11 "A 101 December 14,2009 Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee I?t; These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presenled_.!:':'~_ or as amended }-//-/D Jtfj~ 5 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. 161INlf' GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 November 19, 2009 AGENDA Call Meeting to Order Attendance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: October 15, 2009 Budget Report - Caroline Soto landscape Maintenance Report - ClM landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations C. Reuse Mixing Chamber Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment ",-' The next meeting is December 17. 2009 at 4:00 P'"\l' C CC Transportation Building ISC. orres: 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Dale: OJ- 0 Naples. Fl 34104 I ~ I Item #: ~ Ll . ;':\,. \' "''\... , -.. Copies to: 16 Il.~tsl Henning' Coyle Coletta v RF.CEIVED IAN 0 6 2010 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMInEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 October 15, 2009 ~')()arrl of ro:;r;~ I c\-;r:-,mi::;::;lm~cn:, Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:042 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Robert Slebodnik County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto--Budget Analyst, Rhonda Cummings- Purchasing Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan, Jennifer Tanner-Applicant III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. Landscape Architectural Services Contract Change: Subsequent Agenda Items weffi ffinumbeffid Add: IX. C. Award of Doral Entrance Project Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2009 Tony Branco moved to approve the September 17, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Landscape Architectural Services Report Robert Slebodnik and Rhonda Cummings reviewed BVO (Best Value Offer) process of the Selection Committee, the following was noted: o Urban Green and Windham Studios responded to BVO (Best Value Offer) (See attached) o Urban Green was top BVO - Total bid-$17,388.00 _ Base Contract bid-$15, 576. 00 Misc. Corres: - Base Contract consists of meeting attendanwnd property inspections . Item II: 1 Copies to: 16illAl1- o Negotiations were privately held with Urban Green Studlos due to cost concerns o Urban Green submitted new Proposal - Total Bid $10,958.00 - Base Contract $9,198.00 Comparisons were made from previous year(s) approved Budget for Landscape Architect Consulting Services: o 2008 Total Contract Budget-$8.525.00 Base Contract-$6,300 .00 o 2009 Total Contract Budget-$9,499.00 Base Contact-$6,936.00 o Base Contract monies are spent 100% o Limited Refurbishment will require additional monies o Revised Urban Green Base Contract Proposal is $2.262 higher than approved 2009 Base Contract Budget amount Robert Slebodnik noted the following o McGee and Associates were able to provide all services in- house o High quotes were given due to Firms incorporating subcontractors as they were uncertain how to prepare bid o Expressed concern of additional cost for travel time as Urban Green is located in Lee County David Larson recommended a rebid using an identical Project Scope as the revised Urban Green quote was based on different requirements than originally provided. Rhonda Cummings replied if rebidding the Contract negotiations with Urban Green and Windham Studios must cease. David Larson moved to advise Urban Green of the rejected BVO offer and advise Windham Studios not to expect negotiations. {Additionally advise} a new bid process will go out with modified bidding requirements and ask for new offers. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. It was clarified bid will be open to the following (5) Firms: o Windham Studios o Urban Green o JRL Design o Goetz and Stropes VI. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reported the following: Seotember 30. 2009 Fiscal Year end Budaet o Revenue Structure shortage $6,140.39 o Remaining Open P.O. $21.297.02 o McGee & Associates P.O. rolled into new FY10 2 October 15. 2009 Budaet o Anticipated Ad Valorem Tax $240,600.00 o Available Operating Expense $110,780.66 o Reserves for Contingency $300,000.00 o Millage rate was adjusted to 2.0 from 1.7 1611Al1' VII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM Jim Fritchey reported: o Maintaining Weeds and Trimming o (Median 3) irrigation work has commenced Tony Branco requested trimming Palm fronds at the Solar Panel. Discussions ensued concerning the broken light bulb in the Solar Panel. It was determined the battery was tested and is charging. Darryl Richard will order necessary part(s) for the Solar Panel. Jim Fritchey continued: o Irrigation System is operational After much discussion it was agreed by the Committee to install variety of Impatients at the front entry. VIII. Landscape Architect Report- Mike McGee reported: A. Maintenance Report o Mulch is needed o (Median 7) requires Foxtail replacement o (Median 9) dead Juniper require removal o (Median 12) Forest Hills Blvd. tree branches are lower than 15 ft and require cutback o (Median 16) Pebble Beach is full of weeds o (Median 1) Liriope require cutback Staff will request a P.O. for mulch. B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations-Mike McGee The following was reported: o Hannula is replacing 10 Podocarpus o Waxy scale being monitored by Hannula. Suggested hand removal or spraying in Spring of 2010 Reuse MixinQ Chamber-Mike McGee reviewed: o Distributed Plans at 30% (See attached) o Chamber will be installed outside the fence o Will tie into existing main line o Water line is located on the opposite side of the road and will require installation of potable water meter o Modification is required inside the Plant and recommended using a Utility Contractor to install a tap 3 16 I 1" 11 .... IX. Transportation Operations Report A. Project Managers Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the Project Status Report. (See attached) (L-44) Doral Circle "North" - Entrance Landscape Proiect (See attached) o Hannula was the lowest qualified bidder $32,212.34 Robert S/ebodnik moved to award Contract to Hannula in the amount of $32,212.34 for the Doral Entrance Project Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) (Item 5) Subroaation Recovery Accident #770-Darryl Richard noted the accident report was located. (See attached) (Item 6) FPL damaae to irriaation on St. Andrews Mike McGee reported dead turf in the strip by the shopping center and retirement center. Robert Slebodnik reported: o Noted Accident (#770) damage to the sign was paid by the Civic Assoc. and requires reimbursement o Standing water at the Culvert pipe by light pole 101 may be collapsed or clogged Darryl Richard will advise Storm Water. It was noted the sidewalk (outbound entryway) is not ADA Compliant. C. Award of Doral Entrance Project-Previously discussed under IX. A. X. Housekeeping Items-None XI. Committee Reports-None XII. Old Business A. Applicant recommendation for Lely MSTU vacancy It was clarified Jennifer Tanner holds an accounting degree. David Larson moved to accept Jennifer Tanner for (approval to the BCC) for the (Lely MSTU) vacancy. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Discussions ensued regarding Jennifer Tanner and David Larson additionally serving on the Civic Association Committee and Sunshine Law. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. XIII. New Business-None XIV. Public Comments-None 4 1611 All' There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:31 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee @~ ~tLi Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on ')..-1/ -0 ~ as presented or amended % . The next meeting is November 19, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 16 I 1 'A 11 '1 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMInEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 October 15, 2009 Summarv of Minutes and Motions III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. Landscape Architectural Services Contract Change: Subsequent Agenda Items were renumbered Add: IX. C. Award of Doral Entrance Project Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: September 17,2009 Tony Branco moved to approve the September 17, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Landscape Architectural Services Report After much discussion it was determined inconsistent bid requirements hindered a fair bidding process. It was recommended to rebid using an identical Project Scope. David Larson moved to advise Urban Green of the rejected BVO offer and advise Windham Studios not to expect negotiations. (Additionally advise) a new bid process will go out with modified bidding requirements and ask for new offers. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Transportation Operations Report A. Project Managers Report - Darryl Richard reported Hannula is the lowest qualified bidder $32,212.34 for the Doral Circle Entrance Landscape Project Robert Slebodnik moved to award Contract to Hannula in the amount of $32,212.34 for the Doral Entrance Project Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. - I - . VII. 16.1.1 All Old Business \ A. Applicant recommendation for Lely MSTU vacancy It was clarified Jennifer Tanner holds an accounting degree. David Larson moved to accept Jennifer Tanner for (approval to the BCC) for the (Lely MSTU) vacancy. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Discussions ensued regarding Jennifer Tanner and David Larson additionally serving on the Civic Association Committee and Sunshine Law. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. -2- ii!: ~f t~" .......... !~lil ~ ~:"'"'''" 0 omo( Q) ~fBi~ - '" . '\ . fl- 16 I 1 'A ~t~=~~~t~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~m~=~.~N~O~m~m~AWN ..I.......~~~mm~4o~o~o~oc~cr~0z~morzoom ~zoo~~~zz~o ~'mm~cc~~~~~~~m~n~Q~c~oo>~~~ocz ~m~~~~mm~<~i ~~z8gzz~~0~~ffi~ffi~~~on~~~o....ffio~~~ z~~~ZZ~~rnI> '~~OOmmOOOO> >~~.~oo--ooz~>~ ~oommm OO~~~OOOOZm4~o .';.I.<<~~~~~,~~oON~mcn~~~ .z>~"oQ~~m ~ ~~~~COO~I ,rnm~~~~oo~zoo~m- ~ moz_o~ zoo ~rnoo~~m~m~~ f dO~~OO-CmQQm~~~~~m ~mo~zm80o OO~~~~~~~~05 : ~Ozz ~~~~~~ffi~~oz~ ~~ffl ~zoo~~ ~~<<~~ax-o~ , 0%0000 C~OO~ ~~c~o~~ ooz< >O~mm om~~oo~o zm o~~> z~Qm z~z~~m~ ~m< 06~OO~ o<oo~~~o~:~ z.... """,, z" mzZcn QQm~cn~~~ ~~~ ~mz~ z OQ~>-I~Z~ 00 -> )> )> ~ ~ ~mx~ ~mcn~'" Z o~ 0 mm me ~~,~' I~m - Z 0 X Q ~0 ~ ~ 000 zmOO ~ ~~ ~ ~mO~ ~~~ m rnm ~ r I Q Z 00 O~~OO 0 00 z n~ m ~ m C~lm ~ ~ "........ '" :!: m 3: m ~ -(0)> - z 1110 :;u m 0)> tp -l o ~ ~ -< 0 m ", '" o " .~ 0-"" !!I8l a.o J:W ~i ~i h ~:i ~ ::! iiio ...... tI~ .. ~ ~!a ~f 2'.. ..~ ,; .!!! .b ill '# NN~~~ ww........ co.... f::NN-:"'-""'b!:'NGO ;s8g8gcs8tgg ggSg8gSggg " o 3 2. 3 .. ~ lit -~-~~-~-~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QfIJ~~f/t omN~ Ul'Ot))'O'O ggg8g 0,0,000 00000 ~w w Ul~""oo>UlO ~8gg:gg~g 00000000 0000,0000 00000000 ..'" '" '" o 3 0. u; .. o.~ '" ~ 0. -." " -." !l !. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .9 .9 .9 0... '0'0 88 00 00 _~~_~_~~WWWWWWWWWWffiWWffiffiffiffiffi ""~f/t~,,"fIJ""~f/t~Q ~ N w ~ o '" .w "'''' W 0. W m "'0. .. ~ m '" o ill "'''' m W 0 o ~ ill m ill m m '" m '" w m 00 "'''' - "'''' '" .. '" ~ '" 0. ....0. :' jo'!'J ........ ~ ~ .~ .. '" w u.<n ll! ....~ ;.,,'N .... '" u. m m ;.., '" -." t :., ;.., " ;.., -." ...0> 88 -- l:l ... .. ::1 '" '" ~ ~ 0. ~ 0 "ill ,.,~ ~ W '" ~ " 0> .. 0 0. .. 0 :....:..... 0 88 88 g '" 0 ~ '" ~ .. '" ;.., '" 0 '" 0 ..0 OD 0> .. 0 0. 0> W 0> 0 0> .. " l/l CD ... If 3 go ~ Co> ? N CI CI ... ....,.. c::~ ZoO( Os: -l/l "'-I Nc:: _flJ~_~___~~~MMfIJ~f/tMMMQ~M~M~f/t ~MMUJUJ~~MUJQ~ m . ~ -:::;: 'E .0> 0 Ul ~ .NCo ~~R~~ (ni:n:""":""", -=-...jS.:::!~ ", ~ ~ 0.0 ~!. ; .. _QUJ_ _Q_Q~QUJ~~MQQMQMMQMMQ~ ftt,,"MQ~QfttQMfttQ ", ....~ ,. 0. ~ H :O:w .. '" :., -0' " " OD " o~ .. ,. 0 i>>i:n m .. ~~ ~'" "0>'" ..ww ODO" Ni>><o _0_ -~ ....~ ww ~<o .... ~~ 00 .... ...- -8,,-:0: ow o~ ~oi>> ....os w"'l N <n-.... "'~o. wo>~ i>>:....", oos O>W .W:"_51l Ul<Dm-....~.... N ,""","""Ul ga1g&~~~~~~ oooi>>i>>i>>:""':"""i\)A OOOUl~-...j~O~W en en en en [: c: [: c: ::J::J::J ::J 2222 sa-sa-sa-sa- ,;;,;;,;;,;; g: g: g: g: ~~~~~~~~~~~~[~~~~~~~~-~_. ~S33~BBQQB~~C:~~3~i::J::J mffi~~m:mmmm~~~~~s ~&~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~2~~~ ;::J3.~ 66 ~~~~ ~ ~~~~::J m ~~ ~~ ~~~~o~ ~::J~i~ g ~~ -- ::JXnnnX m~ ~ ~ ::J~ ~ Ii g. '2. i: ~ o ~ "' '" .. 3 .. a b'~~~b'b'g>6":: 333333~-Ia 33333 3 ~ a m CIl m CD III CD III 0 ::J ... 9.9.9. a 9. 9. g ~'f ~~!a!!.!!!.!!!.a5"a lU lUlU:; lU :;'<c P.. ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ~ 0..Q.Q.a.Q.a.~ 0000 HH "1J"1J "1J"1J OJ Gl Gl OJ '<'<'<'< .... V"!' 00 00. .... o.~ w~ (5(5 "" ...... Y'!! 000 ~~~ 0>"'''' ODODW .... !! 0_ wo ~~ OD_ ~~~ <r~g i;~1515oi;! 2~NOO~c:.n"1J O~'""" w....Gl o Q) N CD ~'< ~~~ ~ !~! Y' 000(50 ::::;::a:o~ NWW N ~OQ) 0> ...... ~~~ 000 00.0. ..-- 0.-- 0>0." ....0 'I' 'I'~' 00$1 a:a:"1J 0.0... 0> O>~ .. 0. '-" ~i m z z zz )>)> )>)> 00 ~~ H ww ~~ .... .- o ~a:a: ~q.g; ..~ g 0> 600 'f' o 0. "t; >0> ~ 0> :Ii o 0 0 f"zI!iiI- ~)>Oc.o a1 ~- i .. 000 z:z:Z; g~~ 00- o zzz:k )>)>)>0 .. w o 000 Cf cpcncp UlZWq.W N)>~g~ o NUlO 00 zZ;f"z )> a:~)> ODO> zzz )>)>)> .... o [ O"1JO"1Jcw~~en~o>~cen~5"Oocm~~oo~~~O~~~<-I <~8~~Omo$~0::J>>~w.o::Jo~-C~~$GlGlOOGlGl~a ~~ 3~~_c~::J;::J ~[:C:'~ ~a~~::J::Jin::J::J~ O~~~~~$<~~_C:OOOO Gli~O_ ~=::J~~~_aa.~m~ ~~m~~~~"1J.-9~!~':::J~~oo ~i2~~9~~~;~ ~3'~~-f~~~~~a~Q'2'~~2~m~~ ~~~ii~~iif~ _~O~=fg;;~::;..D""'IIl""'~~[~ s.a.z ;:!!!'fiJ3:3:.' 3:3: S. en~~~,,8~:i~~:;aa q 2::J.CD ~~~~~~~~~_ ~o::Jo~~ ~~~~'.~ ~~~ U <::J::J~-::J::J' ~Ul<Gl~::J' o..mQ.m'"tlC'l~ -~ 5: g;~r"'30r"'r'" a.alllg-w~ ~::J~~cCD~ ~m 0.. i~ii(l) !fa fJ.2m:a3Ul::J CD"1J (Jl a(505!-=ti-::::(5 ~g'ii' g~ i::oi~'~ ~..Q. ia~~lJ.6a m~~ ::0 >~>~m 0n 5~~~~5 5.. 2.. 0.. ~ g. ~ g. ~ ~ ~ (:13 OJ ::::I ft ~~ ~a~~::J 3:~~Z~~ ~~~ CD~IIlCDa. Gl~CDn_OJ 3'~Q. ~::J~~$ ~3~Z2..~ I~m~ a ~a6 ~~::o Q.~ x ~ - - CD ::J g;:::.g Q. :E -'ii' ~ ~ 00 { -.0 iil a. -'-(D < <os:: ~iil2 I en I I~~ ~I~ CIl en ~ EiiJ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5' = ~ + ... ~ " o 3 ~ 0 ,. i ~ i::::l ~ a :u o 0 ~ . o C' " 3 ~oo w 00 ffi 0000 ffi ". ". ffi uo 00 uo ". ffi 00 W ". W ffi 00 00 uo ffi vo uo VOoo vo vo W ffi UO'" ~ . -< ~ '" 3 0 ;.., w w '" w '" . w 0 ~ w m '" m ffi '" w 5. ", OD 0 .. , '" .. w w 0 m 5' ~ ~ w ". 0 m ffi 0 W ~ 0 0 m 0 0 0 0. '" 0 ffi W '" ~ 0 0 0 o. '" 0 '" ffi ffi "''''''' '" .. .. .. QQ~$M~WM~MMMQUJMUJf/tfttf/t Mtf.lQ""~ftt~ .. - ", ~ "'- 0>- 0. OD W 0> '" .. " n '" ~ '" 0> - ~ W ~ OD ~.. [ -0'0 :"'0 0. '" ;.., :., '" t .. ;.., -" '" ~ '" 0; '0.-...<0 ..'" ~ :., 'NQ; o.~ W N ~ ~~ 0.0 ~ 0 '" OD W '" 00. 0; ~ '" OD " 00. "w ~ _w 0 OD~ ~o OD ~ ~ '" .. 0. .. 0_ 0. 0 W " 0> '" 0.- W 0. .. 0 ~ CD 1:0 ~ i>>i:o ~ 0 (",0 '" '" in '" i:: 8 '" 0:"'" '" '" a; 0 N '" '" ~i\) '" " '" ;.., ~ ~w ~o wo 00 0. 0 ~ 0 w 0 .. 0 0 .. 0 '" .9- '" ~ ~ 0> ~~~~~~ttt~~~=~~~~~~~~Gm~~~. .!:~~~~~~~~O~OO~OC~c~~Z~mOrZ0CZ mmm~cc~~~~~~m~O~QC~OO>'~~C 0000ZCOZ>~~mz~~mzZI~c~~I~~~Q .....11..,.'. ~ ~ ~ en ~ ~ C/J tii ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ tii ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ :~~~~~~~d~~~~~~~QO ~o~Qg~~ZCh ,cn"TI"TI;tJ:;:O::Ocn......CmG>m:::OOOQg)::03: :;OmO-lzmO(j)o ZOOO)::o)::o ......-lZm;;oI~~Z)::o C/J(j)cn~-l-g"TI-l 00:::0:::0022 ......>-lxl:>m,mOz ~mm ;:O~-lmI COO~C/JC/J C<C/J~~;:o~;oO-l -lZ~ ~_:::omm ~OO-ld~ ~ (j)~Z~Z~:::O~ mmm -lOmOO;:O ZZZ ~ z mC/J(i)Om-lm)::o 3:~;O C~- O~~ 0:;:0 00 Zm OOOOzz 3:' ~-l3:", rnZZ 0)::0 m me 00)::0 , )::0 o~~ ~w ~ ~ 000 zm - r~ ~~~ ~~ ~ r ffi (j) ~ m 3:~~ d ~ ~ ~ en ;0 m 0 z o f::. 0 m _~~_~W_~_~_~~~~~~~~$~$~W~~~ t~. NI\JUttnC: ....o..........cn......WtolOC>N mUl i!bo,.8i.o~:"'20""""OO C5ggi508ggi5g~g88 ggSggggggS8Sgg C;~",. W.tti:Q1U1c.n <.naoo. (0-0'00'0:" '0'0 ggggg8g~gggg gggggSgSgggg _0~_Q~_Q_~~M~Mmwrnrn~MMMWWM ~ ~ ~ ~ w .w U. ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -QQ-QQ-Q---Q$QQQ$~QQQQQQQ~~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ iD '0 0 -., ~ ... 0 " " 0 ... 6 a; 0; 6 .. 0 0 -QQ-~~-Q-~-~~~~~~Q~~~~~~~ t~ "'" NI\> CR<.n:: -o-~m_WWOOQ m_ 01\>"'" mom~0~~~2o~~0~~<.n00a ggg5gg8gog!ggggggggo~1\>000 000000008" omoooooooog' m~oog 00000000 omoo090000 ~NOO ~~ if ~ -- l!l:;~ 11_81 .' .0 wi;;: :n~ olillil E::g:!! -<ii iii I i <If S"~ ~ is lIe: ~ 8i .,. ~ t"..lil . CI-<a 82:10 16 , 1 A fl ~ i:-~oCD m.;o._ W N__ .!rz ~~o ~~;o - zoo '!!m,.,.""m':'i<mc z"::U;O)>)>fijmmr-;o cn*~~~~z~~~~ "'" "",,,,,,,,,,,"T1C(f.lS:~ mmOommm-lm>< ::Uw;;o::u;;O::Uf/J-lZ'-)> (I)-1~~""''''''C:}l>-Io5 ~:::u>)>;:o;;oa><-:::u;o om;;o::uOO-lo~mm O<oo3:3:~om3:s: Z OQ-I}lo-r-;o-l-l ;ti "T1m~:g hirn~~ m mZottl 0-1 zmo~ -I g~:=(f.l ~ ~r-mm ~ 0" '" -I '" 0 -< " ,. " o """'''''''~'''~~'''E$tn ~ .. in o o ~ u; '0 o o 6 .9 _aJ~ ~a! ?CL ~-& o 6 .9 """'~"''''QQ~~~~ o o 3 3 ~ . , it ~Q~~{,IJ~~~ft$Qft$ 0;'0 ~ A:"'" i:.? .=0 - m M . ,. , n ..- _. c -. c - ii Q~Q~Qft$"'~~ft$~ ,. i N-l~ _<.n Pi ~&i <.n 0 m-e:: CXI 0-0 . -00<>>0 UJ:""'owo .!e09~9 ~s::s:~&>[:agg:= l;',l;',l;','=~'''''3=' mmmf.'l~n 3~g. """"",,:Jgo ~gi )> )> b c: g iii" c: . {I:I {I:I ij) ::J _ -:J 3 ~~~ -<';;0 1;-<'. 000 ;;0. ::JC 03' c.. ~ :<" . c ,,~ . . 3 3 ~~ I~ - o n S' ... CD , - ~ N <> <> ... ."r- el!! Zoo( C!I: -Ill "'-I Ne ""''''''~ ot;;o ~ <.n 'fl"'tl -. 0 -- 0:::::~G5G5~~~~ ~~~~OO"O:::"O=I: (O~g(C ~~~ 0000 0 CXlCXICXI<.n (0 &. ' I , Z Z z' og;g;~)i;)i;};g: mmm~ CXI ooo~ to :Ii o lD~ Z _. 7Il:' )i;CL 0 "a. . "- )>r:::r:::\1>;;DOmQ:i: s):o)>~Ogi'aDl C f/J f/J Cil :E::J U c:: (j) ~~~6i"l)-<'~:g.; "l) _._.:::1. CD en-<, g,@Q!!t3<D s::~ . IP IP f/J;:;.- S. !!. I I; i3' i3' ~ 2 ~-. ::J -. ... __ IP :J c.. ~""O2 Dl ~ _. ~ Ul :J 1ii ~.., 2 '" en ~ ~~. ~ cO -l;:;'-Ul::J O~<Dc.. [c:: :?: ~ =!!.lI-~' ffi~~{ ~ s. g ~ :i i~' w 0 .9 ~ ~ o _'2 lir' 3 :0 o .. ~'" ~ '" ~ .. ~ '" ~ "';0 .. . -< ~ ~ 3 ,; ~ - .N W W ~ . 0.0, w w ~ 0 3' ". w ~ ~ 0 0 3' ~ ,.~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 "'~Q~"'Q~"'~", .. ~ ... ... .. .. <.nO..... O~... 00-., 00:"" Oow "i'; <n6:~ -., - ~ a; ~re ~~~Ng~gm~~2i~8a8re - ~R '!2~~iti~Si$o;::::9.~~;c;Si!s!~"': l:i<"!..... ~M_""'t -__~;J;_... :<l."tN.-.iZ!... N!i. .-- ~... .. - - ~N"'_~ M Il. .. <"> .... 8~~~8:il8::2~S:S '~~~~~~~~g~i <Don ~<ri"':N =: -------~------------------------- o < < " ~<m ^OO ^O" "'GDOa> ['--0000'> '00<00"""": :;:;:;;~~~ ON' w '~ '~ . .~ E .E < 0 ",';;; o E > . ~~WWW~MWWWMMfflWmMMWmMmWmmM__________ . eS (1 ~H [q · a id ~~~ l ~ E ~ . - 0:: <: 1- _ >< . t n~~H !~jd ~ ~ iji ~illl~1 i" Si~j~~, l o E ~~!~il~~ ~ .! ~'I;j~" ~~_"! ~"r~~~~~~j.~ t.. i~~~~~~~~~lj~ Q;.:!l:l!o'2::1i!&<ir J:~~ .."l.... w crf!....O/IS@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ i~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~.igi~~~~i~~fi~~~t~i~~~~~~~~I~I_a ~~8~~~8~~~~~~w888i&~~~~~~j~~i~~~ . j g .. .~ I.~ O~ -glll~ ~~ ~i~~~~~~~~:il~ ~~~~~~~~~:il ij~~~~~~~ . 8 ~~ ~g 88 8S 88 ~ ss ~ 9 " .. o o ~N~ I..... ~- Q' >z.li -'''E ~u..1 . .. .~;~~..~~ ~~.~.. ~.8-.EoO -~~~ ~~i~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~ii .~~$$$$$$ $$$~$$ $$$$$$$$ $$~~ o i ~ ...~ ~ !~~~~~~~! ~ ~ i~ u ~ __ e~~ii~~ii~5~ i ~~~~t ~~~g~~ ii~~ !'I.~~II~.' . "~. _ .C~~~~ ..55 i8E.~i~Ei.-ei ~wU~0e~~~~~~ ~~~. t~~.~~~..~t~i~~~~j~iB~~~~~i~ii'ff ><ouu8uuu8a~aaa~~~~~~~22~~Z~~~~oooo ;~~~g ~~g8 gg ~~g~~i~8g8ig2g8~g= ;g-81 J_~~!i~~ 'uu u '~~~~~~~~u~~a~~!ii~ 'ui~' ~t~ ~ ~ ~-~~ g~ ~e-M M~ eM -~~~ ~ !:.... -- - ~ ----------- ------------------- - ----- 0_0 !~i~~~.'.,., I-E~."'8.~~ .~ ~ $ '", - 8;;8~l!il&nn~ ;; ~~~g .~.~~~~~~.~ '~~Ea 1Ii~:R"';"': ..flli . ,.:..,- ~aa88gl?:~ '~=.~!i~a Ef:;f:;~:i"':"'-~ ----------- ------------------ - ------- ~, j E E 8 <" <~ '&18 m . . ~ ;;;g: OJ '~~ NO '0 '~g -------____ ~w~oooow~oo~~~~moo~mm~__ ____ _ 8 8 8 8888 I-~'~'~.'UU Jc ~ oe ~ ~,f--~! ..... '" ..... ..... m- - ~~!~I~~~~~!~~'~~~~I;I~~II!~i g~og~.~ .~~g m~ -~~i~~.....o m ----------- u g < . > g m u m ffi~~~ Iii (5 !!;!~~o ffi....ti ~8~ffi II! ~~m~-~~~~ ~ ~~~8!~~ri!~~8 ~d-~-2.a::.a::~~.a::~ :;I.c!z:....ci5aa.a::o:::ti(t'J >~~ti~~~122w~ ~~nUg~~h -------------------- ------ w u " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ffi ~ ~ .a::ti ~ ~~ ~ w~ 005 ~ ~ ~~ ffi ~< < ~oc ~ .a:: 0::: <~ G ~!Z:~ ~2 Sz~ooo~ ~~ 8 .a::8 ~ -w~ ll::.a::2 ll::~m~WOG W z ~ z .a::oo~Qti ~~~ ~~~25mz ffiG~z ~gtio ~~~~g~~~~ ~~~~~;~~~~~~ 338~ OGOwz....ow.a:: w~<~00:::w~~w~_(t'J~~ ~ m~o~8~.~~~ ~~~m5~~ti~~~~~~~~~; a~w~~~ ~z~~~~~0:::~O:::~~6<0(t'JWW0~.a:: ~~~~~o~~~~~.~~~Qo~w~~o~~~~i~~~im~ W0_~ W>_0 ~~~~ a ....O_~....~mm....ll::O::: -N~.~.~..~~~=~~=~==2~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~=~=~*; . . o 8am! .e~IOQ 81&....:~ !I ~ . ~ it ., ~~ l. 8~ ~~ !! ~~ . Ii: ~8 h 8~~ lL..:!i ~z o. H ~! II 16 'I 1 A 11 " 1611Al1~ Report Date: October 15,2009 Lely MSTU Project Status (L-47) ACTIVE". Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative 'source' for water and utilize a 'mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re-use water to either potable water or well water. 8-20-09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7-29-09); $3,876.00 total proposal 9-17-09: Po 4500110200 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16,2010. 10-15-09: McGee 30% plans submitted (L-46) ACTIVE -" Relocation ofIrrigation Pump (Warren Street) to 'outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7-23-09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16,2009 that Lely MSTU 'move the pump outside of the utility sub-station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub-station; and (2) re-connecting with a new 'tap' the service line. 8-20-09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7-29-09); $2,340.00 total proposal 9-17-09: Po 4500110201 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16,2010. 10-15-09: McGee 30% plans submitted (L-46) ACTIVE - Median No.3 Project - McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7-16-09: McGee presents "concept plan" to the Lely MSTU Committee 7-27-09: Delivery of electronic copy of plans is pending from McGee's office for CLM to provide quote per maintenance contract. CLM quote for installation cost pending. 7-27-09: Staff submittal of ROW Permit Application for the FDOT Type rail confirmed with ROW Dept. 8-20-09: Staff added additional information to ROW Permit Application; Permit Issue pending. 9-17-09: ROW Permit #09-0341-E issue for project. CLM to provide quote per Committee request. 10-15-09: CLM performing installation per contract rates. (L-44) ACTIVE .-Doral Circle "North"- Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property) McGee Proposal Submitted (dated 11-20-08) 7-16-09: ROW Plan review progressing; Comments received from Traffic Operations 7-27-09: ROW Permit issue is pending; Plans are at Traffic Operations under review. 8-20-09: ROW Permit #09-0303-E is pending issue for project 9-17-09: Project Bidding currently in progress. 10-15-09: RFQ 09-5339 quotes received Committee to review/approve award Core Construction Group Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc. Vila & Son Landscaping $37,040.95 $32,212.34 $34,148.87 (L-43): REACTIVATED -Dora I Circle Hedge Project; Rattlesnake Hammock Wall and Landscaping 7-27-09: Staff is currently investigating condition of po do carpus shrubs. 8-20-09: Hannula Landscape to continue treatment of shrubs for 'wax scale' found on podocarpus. 9-17-09: Hannula Landscape is required to treat for 'wax scale' (found to be spreading) and replace noted 14 shrubs in dead/declining/brown condition. 10-15-09: Hannula replacement of 14 shrubs per Warranty pending. (L-34) - ACTlVE - 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. (L-45) ACTIVE"" On Going - McGee Annual LA Services - Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 6-24-09: Purchasing Department to attend July 16,2009 meeting to review services under RFPIBID # 08-5060 1 1611 Al1= 7-16-09: Lely Committee makes motion to direct staff to proceed with BVO Process and include 2 representative members of the MSTU Committee (Bob Slebodnik, David Larson) and also one representative from the Lely Civic Association. Staff will coordinate with the Committee on this request. 8-20-09: BVO Draft is 'in process'; Confirmation of Lely Civic Association representative for BVO Selection Committee is pending. 9-17-09: 2 Firms submitted proposals to serve Lely MSTU Committee: Urban Green (Dayna Frendrick, RLA); and Windham Studios (Scott Windham, RLA) 10-15-09: Committee to review a 'revised'/negotiated price adjustment from Urban Green 2 16 ilIA 11 1 October 15, 2009 Lely MSTU "To Do List" I. New decorative light; Status: 'Tabled pending review of Stormwater LASIP plans. 2. Solar light 10-15-09: Hart's Electrical reports 'battery' requires replacement 3. Subrogation Recovery: Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate EI002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage - subrogation (insurance recovery pending) 4. Subrogation Recovery: Accident 864; damage amount: $612.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed; (CLM Estimate EI002524) No Traffic Accident report found to match damage - subrogation (insurance recovery pending) 5" Subrogation Recovery: Accident #770; damage amount: $436.26; Median #14 Pebble Beach Status: Accident associated with Accident #770 6. FPL damage to irrigation on St. Andrews: Status: confirmed repaired/resolved 7. Irrigation Inspections; confirmation of irrigation clock timing per maintenance contractor request/coordination 8. Refurbishment of Sign age at Doral Entrance & Forest Hill @ Augusta (Per staff inspection with Tony Branco) Status: PO pending issue to Signcraft 1 ~ 1 1 A111 :4 -. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South. Naples, Florida 34104 e239-252-8192 . FAX 239.252.5899 09/22/2009 Date Location 09/02/2008 St. Andrews and & Pebble Beach Blvd" ATM Accident #: 770 Claim#: Police Report # 08-00025506 - 70982454 Fund Quantity Description Reimbursement Amount Account Numbers - Commercial Land Maintenance Estimate # Lely MSTU Fund E1002383 (attached for details) 152-162541-369130 $436.26 - Accident site clean-up and dispose of damaged materials attd reinstall new plant material. - Irrigation repair and test. - Administrative Processing Fee 112"163652-600761- $100.00 369130 $536.261 Total Amount Due: c " l~e y; c n H: " ,l' 16 Ii l'A f 1 II Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management ESTIMATfo. E1002383 3980 Exchange Avenue . Naples, FL 34:1.04 OffICe: (23~) 643-6205 . Fax: (239) 643-5012 E-mail: info@Comm/andmafnr.net CUSTOMER NO. Bill TO: Colli. County Dept of Transportation 3301 East Talrialri Trail Naples, FI 34112 1&2541-634999 1 ,.AcdrffIMf LEL Y MSTU MEDIAN #1IfPEBBLE BEACH . 770 Supel'llisor labor 10 remove non reported lraIfic d8lllsged c of lhorn and'dispose of debris. 51.64 51_64 1 Regular labor to assist. 1 county Dumping Fees for mlllerials removed from sile. Purchase and Inslall Dwarf Bougainllillea, '3-g81lon Red-Crown of thorn, 3-gallon) 38.81 40.00 38.81 10 19"96 40_00 199;60 4 . Labor only 10 Install Euclllyplus Mulch (Proyided byCClUnty) 0.94 3.16 1 IrrigBlion Technician Supelllisor Labor 10 troubleshoot and . replece irrigation heads damaged by third padyqmd adjuSt I new plants" Testsyslem. .. .51.64 Irriglllion Technician Labor to assist. 38.81 38.81 THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR lIllS1NgSS P!;,EASE NotE PAYMENT TERMS()NREVER.\'ESlqE u% wru. BE ADDE.D MONTHLY TO ALL1NVOTCES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL pAID FLORIDA~TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT DO NOT W,.ITE IN THIS aPACE n R /(~ I "Ill I' Lc1Ni3 FORM MAIL TO: DfPT. Of HIO/oMIAV S,.t.fEfY.. MOTOR VEHlC~. TMFJIlC CMaH , RECORDS. NEIL Klll,.;W\N IIUILDING. TAl..l..AI1A8I~l!,'L !2::IllI-OAT OATE01CRASH I TIWEOI'CAASH I I TlMeO"I~~rnp IITrMIEOFF1C~:RlVED ! IINVEn.JJiENCYREPORTNUMlIeR HSMVCAASHAEPOATNUMBER " 1222 E><i.. PM 1222 ,. PM 1222 .. 0 PM 08-00025506 0 09 02 08 :; COUNTY I CITY COOl! I'En .. Muta) Ino E r'i CITYOIlTQWN (ChIdIlliIlOlyorTlIW'lj n I COUNTY COLLIER 0 64/00 4 CITY OF NAPLES .3 '" AT HODE NO. ~ FEET . MIlEII) -I 'ADM NOD! NO. NEICT NOOE NO. I NO. OF ~s lCiJ 1.OIVlCIl:I [:ON8TAEly.ROAOOAHIGHNA'f '" 2 Z.U'-OMDEO ST. ANDREWS BLVD. ~ "'TTHeINreRSI!:CTIOHOI"(strHt,I...dot~ . ,.,,, -" Infln ~ FAOM'NTERSECTIONOI'I"'MI,lOlIdor~lg/IwII,1 i= IPEBBLE BEACH BLVD. DRIVlA 1. p,,-,-, [i] """ ..... .,., I '"' YrH. UC!HR NJM." STATE \'EJo4lCl!IOENTlFfCATIONNUIoII!Il 0' '1' . , ,,- ACTION 2. HI . hn 08 BUICK 01 01 IOIXKR FL 2G4~582081219277 ,,- :S.NIA , " " " . ~- 'ltAlLflll ~ tOWED VEHICLE TRAlI..EJI:TI'PE 21T_ S It.FOAMATIOM " " 12111 . 1__IJONICf . :~I~TR~U~ ON " bl:W>H jPo-''' 51lMdl 1:&1. VEHICLE DAMAGE 1,DlsIllllng GJ fSr. TRAIlER o.........oe. --0 , 20 30 2000.00 ::~~=.. ~- I 181 PEBBLE BEACH BLVD. I worD" V!HlCl.! INIURANCi eOfolI'AHY I~IAI"ITY OR PIPt POUC:VNUlIIBER j'R.HICLEREMOVEOIIV: I.T_"",*"UIt 3.0lIvw~ 0 G STATE FARM INS. 7522286-59 6 DAVE'S TOWING 2.T_o-'IR~4.0Ilw I 1j . :E NAME OF VEHICLE OWNEIl {Chltdl BClI II SlI""'" OrmrJ (gI ClJRREHtADDflESIIN\IIllMrItlClSu",t CITYNfOBTATE ZJPCOOE ~ NAAlE Qf OWNER (Traillr or T~ V-"irAll CURRENT ADORESS (tunbtr Illll &lrttll ClTY~&TATE .,.... t 0 " HAlliE OF MOTOR CARRIER (CoOl'lrTlBf..1 V_I Ol'ifl ClJRREHT AOll'tl!:SSf~r"llU"l CITV.ITATENlDZIPCODE ITIIIIm m .~ ; __Of'_(T.~.P"""_U...Ma)IPlICII.T"VAH C1JIII1tEHT ADORE" INr.ombef IIIIllltlrftll ClTY,STATEaZtPCQOf DATE 01' III'ITlf ~ JANET GOETZ MILLER 436 BRISTLE CONE LANE NAPLES, FL 34113 02-15-1923 ~1II!"UC2N&e_" ITATI OL.j:EO. ALC/OftI.lOTUTTYPI rml~~ __'oeJl'l'UI RACE ';. 1'7 I.QUIP. !.,IECT. TYP"Il END. 1_''--'_ 5 1 I 21 11 FL 5 I n_4""'..... 1 HALAItOOlMfMftlltlo\l.I I'I-ACARIlUI I~TE,.U'lOlC""11_0II4DfO/f_R'lIOlII_0II_ {'- ..l:_IIODf!rA:l!lItl.DAM. _'~NO. 'I!lOlQT1IA_n:t10 CDII-....--'-.-...--jM- """"UIAlPILUD'" ffrEIIlCI'LAIIII..NARfU.tM! ,y..II. ,,...,... CD,....."... W ,,...,... W I ) ~1UII!1It,.P_... "~AR ~.. ~;~ I ~'le VDl. uellHle __PI "AYE \ll!H(:lAloeHIWIc:ATlOl\I""-" 'I' .(. . , ,,- 1....I4R.... 06 MITSU J44ICW FL 4A3AJ<24F06E058529 ,,- AC;TIOHI '.NIA TRAfLEROR TOWEOVEllCLf TRAILERTYPf ~ " 0 . ~- 211_ S INfORMATION 1 1 12111 " t_FIlSTI'OI/ICf . VEH/ClETRAVEU.ING ON " ettWH 1~'~8PMd' EIT,VEHlCU!OAMACZ '-. GJ I:5T. TRAILER OAMM)l! --0 , 181 ii"i1i?1-13 ST. ANDREWS BLVD. 2.FUIlCllorIIl 1 ~- I 30 30 2000.00 S.NoO~ I MOTOR VEHlCLl! INSURANCE COMPAM' lUAllUTY OR PIP) poueVNIJMllER I" RENtl'I/EDlJY: ,. TlIWRotIIlcInl.lll .- Q m 0 <l STATE FARM INS. 7248661-59 6 DAVE'S TOWING 2.Towo...n~ 4.ot.- . :c ~ NAMEDI' VfHlCLf aMa!R(ChNlt.IClII'....1w Drlwr1jgl CVRIlEHTADOlItEIIINumbfi.IldSIrMt) ClTYJHJSTATE ""one NAr.lEOfO'NNERITI.....OITow.dV.hlcR) CURRENT 1DORl!1I (~1Il'Id Ilr_t CITY ANJ STATE "'COO< 2 0 C No\MI! OF MOTOR CARRIER (CD_rel.1 v.IIicl. 0tI1l'1 ClJRRENT AOORE6S (Numbtr.1l4 Sl(411) CJTV.,TAn:ANOZ/flCOOE m :s ~ NAM! 01' DRIVER fT4U I'rllllll)rlvw U~nMII Pl!:Cl!:STRIAH eURRENT NlORESS lNurnbti .1Id "'Ntl CITY,STATE&ZlPCOOE I OAtE OF 81RTH Q. KAREN ANN KA VERMAN 207 P ALMETIO DUNE CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34113 10-10-1969 I'ft/Ve"u_~'.~_.- irAn: 0\ I REO IlLCHIIIUG1EITTY.... wI RUUlU IIALCIllRUQ PHYI.OEFI REII. RACE Sv: IINJ. '-""'. TYPI! lJOll. '._1""'...'_ S ern 2 I 2 I I 1 ~. HAZMDOI/I"""1UlIll FL 5 1 ,_._ . 1 1 1 1 I I'lAC.llltOlD 1..~.._I1!IWlI!OIl'OUIIOIOIf__EIlfIlOl,lD~OIlIe* DI,:"'-OO\II. RIlC:_NDtIlIIYIRU-u.ur, ~_HO. q-lHlIlIlllldPOInl"D [!] c.PI.ACAIlOIl/fO'OIGI1"_R'_lOl1VIII01~lJ. ....l~IIIALII'l~L1.m ffn'Uf'l.MlfW/CAIIMTllllm ' ,~ , n. I 2 11/ I '_'1lIo 2 ,v. Ufe 2 It 239 ,4175590 ..., . ....../P..:l. "- lOR Uft LOCA'''''' .,- 01_"."'_ 0........__ ,c....,..""_ 1""'~0Cll_ ,_I>oI................~ 'N\lEH1CU OI"-n (g~,,"'-- 02Ta__lhI_ Z_In_ I~",,~ 2_~..'-"""_ g ,t~""'nwdll".U.-lDI"_II'" OI~.lc.o- 01,-..,.._ '_0uII"_. ,,......,-.., 10000.U___ 'PIOM~ .. IoIoolumTnd;.4...,... 04P\t1lICT~ 048adc11tMounllI'IIIlIled ....._Iaol~ 4Ht.llnQo.led 4 AIcaIIOI & 0.,. _ l./1Idef In"'*- z........e_ al ...,.TNcl-z..........,,_. OSPIllllcISollool_ ,,-~ ...... IHICIB..nOlillIdrllJ SI'ranIRIgN E c:.TnaTNi:fOrlC.b-llabldt DlPIl1"&II&dlDoI8ut llIl1t1l1yTrtlllr .. U .C ,- l:s.I&ln'~J.SI~ 8 Pondl"ll Al,.C/DRUQ TnI RtllIltI 4R.lrLd 01Molar~(RV) OTAirQlIe_ O1..--T...., 4D1CIIIu""" ..... 6A..,e....., 01 IIuII drMt..... lor e.1$J ll-Iu.bIDn:I"*lI 01 PcMTnl1tr .~- .- " .n .., TY Of' S ....- llSI...ld'........ltlor_161 De FlnIRftClM 08T~\IahIdot 81!10p0r.-R"" .- ..... INlllln... 11"8octr0llndl G ,,- 1D"'", tOAuloT....po<t ,.... ZPouIbl, 2S..lhl/llh\tulderHam... I.... Pauangw \ 11_._ 11cv..._,"_... ,,- REQUIReD 1__.......... ~C/l1Id AttlnlnI .- .2....... ,,- ,"- ._~ ..........~ () UAllT._"~ 1Ie_......... "" ,,- 11'_\WI"~zoo.,.l S~...._tl""''''"''' 14 TO.., '4-......R_ 'H. __"'.l'IIe~....,. 4,,,,My__ 'H. 1:::=.....-"-.... 14~...." I,. _.-..- 7ey...",_... 2 V.. 71011>el , . 'I'~ Ptp.....l....llr...i... (IWV.01/OZ) F(,(7 6 Ill~" I A 11 ,jJf u(}-'1.Jpf~ ~ .. ~ I;., ~ l;: 'Ii: 1611 ~11' DRIVER I.PIIInIotn D 'YEAR """ lYPEl USE VEH. UCENSE PUolBER STATE VEtlCLf IOEmlRCA llON tUoIllR , , . " , T 1'~' ACTIOH ~.Hl&Run.. ...".,.,. "3,NIA 1 " 11 17 . 2OWirolItMk! TRAlliROR lOVED VEHICLE TlWLERTYPE ~,- S ' IPEORMAnON 1413 12111 10 '_fllll~OI' POII,d SPHdl EST. VEflCLE DAMAGE It. DiUllq D EST. TRAILER OAMAGE --0 e o l?;,""o"'66 .... AT EstMI'tl . Z.F~ -- C 3.NoOlIlllg. ~.... t MOTOR VENCU INSURANCE Ct:MPN<< (llABIUTY (R PP) FOUCY ........ I YfHCLE REMOVED BY: 1.T_ADlllllDnLlll 10....... D i " 2.T_OWWIR..,..a4.CllIw 1j 0 i: _OF (~BGirIfSIlN"OlMI)D CURRENT AOORESS (t<<lnUt ... Street) ClTYNI>STATE 2I1'CODE " n > - llilwor owtdVINcll) ClIlREHT AOOAESli {MIIIl'Dtl' tnd snIIl) C1TYAHDSTATE "'CODE 3 0 c: N.wE OF MOTOR CARRIER {t.aIInn:l1l Vttidl 0nIrI """""AOORESS_"""" ~ 'ERS '" " I I I I I I ." 1ii SS~IIla:i1N1l) ClTY,STA1EIllPCODE I -DATrOFBlRTH " ... ,... ""'<<""""" "0 " Cl. PH'l'S.DEfJ RES. IIW:E sa IIN' alP EJEIOT DIWER UCENSE N..NBER 1ST'" I,E!.I::~ 1='T~1ISTTYPE D rw roo'"" TYPE END. tBIDod3lkillt$Non. I I 2s.1l4RII'IMd . ~TER~~I~DEO -1-IFYElIIOCATEK'Jl!0ll41llQlTIMIIEIlntONOlAMONllORIOJl. 11~l!IUAI.IPWO? ..- REtoIAEiCiOllN8lRl!-fJloW. 11lRNER ,..;.u. IElNGTIlNI8POIlTa) I OfIllMlCNC). IFYESEJIIWlINPWlRATMn lV.,_ ".JIIt D" I D,y.,... l1'.INII ( I # J>ftOf>ERTY CWMGED . OTHER 'fHAN VEJ-lCU:S EST. AMOUNT OYH:R'S~ l'OO"" OlY STATE liP I 1 TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGN . 250.00 LEL Y CIVIC ASSOC NAPLES FLORIDA 34113 # I""""'" OWERS ""'" ADORE" OlY STATE ZIP 2 I ~' ~:,~ 01 No..... DriWII I IT] m ill ...ill ill ill ".-..... ][ J1J..JiI ,- " 21 m 02 c... DrMtg f&~ In NIrrWI.) ~ EfJ[!] ~_~'_'- GUGU[!] :=..... II II I / I OOf...,To.,....RlgIt-ol-w.y 03WDmiSnloolllT.... 01 01 / ==,.BT_ 01 0] / 0I1/rIpfOpIl'8Ic1d1lCl 04D*tw,/1/IpRlpW .- 05 "",",,*lan,Cha9 ~ - [!] O5MaldnaRiQN:TWII ,1Pau.i:'1g SE........OpInliolI 081~Tum 115PIIIIdI"/~ I / / O6Cl\11'lgingLallll 12 or . " O1A1catlo1.UndIr__ IlIS111lt1vMldl. 01E,....JI.H...'PnlngSpec. ~VehIcI' 08 Drup . lMd<< 1"'1Q ~ 07 WndIIIiIld WpIIs OIPrDplrtyPartId nAlQIN,(&pIiIil ,.........'" 'JjLJjL OIA1cahD1IOrug1.UndlrlnlulllCl 08 EquipllllnlfYlhic1l 77~=In~ 091IllplllpldfP,J1red ln~) ,-..... G:J[!][!] 10 FoIDwId Too CloIIIy '"'"' In IOMIkirGtJ.Tum ~=$lIJt 1 1 I 'lDi~TrdcSIgnlf NT COWS ION 12 En.....S.r.SpMdUIlit 191qt1(lp1floM D10raRolcl IT]~W Sll1... 13Di'"flldtdSlDpSlgn 200IINprded0llwTrtIlIeConlnJl OlNatOnRold GU 01 / p A nON LOCAl T'fP 14 FlilMTo Mllnc.in EQIip./Y","* 21 D,Mng Vftng Sidt/w., ,,_... D'C~Nal.1IllInIclIan 07WDr1lil1o ill m ill '- 151~P.1Iing 22 Alling PoIcrt 04....11I D2c,....II:~o-wIIIl InRolcl GU[!][!] ---GJ 11S~lIlIofc.nlW "v........... ~. D3Cto111nc1I1Ia1R1C1on OIS11nd1~ 17 &CiHdldStattclSP"dUnil: 24 onv. rx.ar.ctIoft j&plllin 04W1l11dngAlangRolllMTrtlfic lnRo.! 01 I I 2P_ 2 .- 'IOtlIlrudIlgTrlllIc In NImiIII) 01 Mont ~nrl 05W111ntAklnaRold~llIfTrllkOllStandinglnPtd'ltrtMlal.,Il(I ,....'- nAlOllltr(Eq:iliIl"'~) 112Nnrbf 01 GU / 08Wll1t:1ngOllVllhidllnRt.:l nAlOlllw(EJpIIiIIIn MwrIIir.) "...... ..- , T .0 I NTIFIER IGHTING 01Colh1onWIIl hl.IInIpOII(RwEIId) 15 C*l0lI Wth Arirnll IT] m ill Ot I'"'*' 01 RoM ~ 01DIl)'IighI GU 02Co11lionWltlWInTr...."ort(HtldOn) lUNHtSignISlgnPm 3ORIIlotFUollnloWlllt 02 U.S. OIP11n11ROIclw.,. 04 '21"" D3CDIIIonW1llfNlnTrnporI(MgII) lTNNHlUIII1PD1lfUglCPoII 310'111lum1c1 ~[!] 03SlIII nAIIOllllt(&plIill 0301Wll 01 04 Corllioll WIh MIl 1II T'*"'flOd (LIIlTIlrn) l' t.N 1ft GuIrdrIlI 32 OccupIIjfll ffOllIVIhIcIt 04Collnlf 11INInIIvI) 04o.t:{SnIlLigN) 06 Calblon WlIl W ill TrMIpOIt (Right Turn) llWIfIFItIlCe :s3TrICIOl'fTrntJICtiInifId 06l.oc:., DSOIrII(NoStrlllliQhO OICD1hiDnv.4lllWiIIT...-parI{SlianipII 2OWHlConcnlllBlnltrw.l """ ~GJ[!] O&T~':'ktiTal BlUIlkllown 07ColhiortWltlMltInTrnpDll(e.ctIdlrm) 21WHl~~1 ,,&- . . mE OICclIIIIDnI'ftlParkldc:. 22fNHilT,..fSllrulllll,., M Downhill R.-y ~ 01"" 01Clllr O1S1llliGrlnliS1a'll 08C_OllWtllWOIlROIdrny :n CoIIi1ioft WIll eon.trucIiDn B.mcMe Sign 37C1rgaLClUDl'5'IiI: "VIo, GU 02C~~~ 02BIKIctDp ~ 1 o CdIiIiDn,^""PllSIIlriIlI 2-4 CoIIlIlallV'.lll Tldc GIlt MSlplrdotDfUnill D3Slipplry 03 Rain 01 ".""""" 11 CoIIlIiClIIMIlIlicydl 25 CoIIllDn '^"" Cnlb AIlInuIlDrl 38 MlclIIl CfCIIO\W ~ ".., 04fDII """"" 12 Co/IiIlon 'MIll Bqdl(lljt;l Lw) 21CClIiIlOllWllFillIdOliKtAbawlRAcl 17AlIOltllf(&p1l1nln 17AB""'" 17 Alf OIl11r 051'" 13Co111onlfltlllMopld XfMVHlou...FblIdObjIC:t No-I (ErpllinIllNllrrlltin) (Erp/linln TlAllllllr..~1n 1-4 CoIllilmWlllTtIin 2ICo1h1cln'IMIMclnlllllOlljctOnRDId -l - 0 N A 01Noo.t'~ 01 ..D..'''.. 01NoConlrDf 01 "',"m.. '" """,,"I I:J 01.SlJIigN:.lIvlll 020llltnldlanWtll'Nlrnlro GU Cl2fndlmenlW"lhef ~ G2Sp1ci11SpNCIZOIlI ~ "AI"""""'" 02. SlrIigfll. UppfII ~ 03Ol:l1In1cl1on'NllMMWlming 03PIIQd/SloppldVIIide 03 SpMd Corn! Slgft 03lnllull'aClByIntlIHClDll 02 - 04RamLfnclwRtplir/CoMltucl)on 04 TNII/CItIpII 1Iurh. 04Sctlc1c11lon. 04 DInwty Ace.. 03. ClwI. LIVtI 05 lOOM SllflmMlltrilll 05LotdOnV.ticlt 05 Trdc Signal llPDlltdNoU-Tum 05R1it'am 11lPrMlIPIllpIrty 114.~, O&S/lDIJJlII~.Soft/lowIHgll 05WdiIlll/FbrIdOt;tc:t ClSlDpSign 12 No p......Z- 08&1dg1 12TDIlBDotll 07~IRIb/~PwIdEdg. rnSlgntiBllllDlrdI 07YlHfSign TlAllOthtr{EJpWnln 111 e..c. RI/I'CI 13 PuIillc 8lI. SloplDtll OISt1nd1ngwater [!] O'Fog 77=~_ [!] 0I~Uglll: NlrlIM)~ 08E1:itRi"" T1A1Otl1f{EJ:"ln 01.PI'fId ~ ~=~~~=, 00..... 01 RII", 8i1lnal ~~~::=:Marraliftl ".- ,,- 100ll_JGl.aWfF'-1IDIl 06 DO."'" SECllON' "".""'........ C>WlGE Ul SECllOH' ....... I'lSTA CI1N<<lE ~ ClTATICW M.MlER ~ 0 16 SECTION' CHAAGE C1TAllOHN..MIlER 0 5 SECTlQH, CHAAGE C1TAllOHN..f.IIIER PIOJC-Lor~ FLORIDA TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT I OONOTWRITEINTHISSPACE . NARRATIVE/DIAGRAM MAll TO: DEPARTMENT Of HIGHWAY &fJ'ETY lMOTOR '\Il9iICl.EII. TRAFR: CRA$H RECORDS IECTIO~. NEI. KIRKMAN IUILDINIJ, TALLAHAlIEE, R. mf8.0500 - I, 16 I 1 1A l' TIME EMS NOTIFIED /F,A.T.loIJneS ONlYl ITIME EMS ARRIVED (FATALITIES ONLYI I O"'TE 01'1 CR~ I I COUNTY I CITY COOE I INVESt_ AGENCY "EPO,", NUMBER 1"'""7'0982454 N/A 0,.0 ,. N/A 0.... 0 ,. 09 02 08 64" 08-00025506 VI WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY AT 105 ST. ANDREWS BLVD. FACING WESTBOUND TOWARD PEBBLE BEACH BLVD. V2 WAS TRAVELLING SOUTHBOUND ON ST. ANDREWS BLVD. APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION OF ST. ANDREWS BL. AND PEBBLE BEACH BLVD. VI APPEARED TO IIA VE LOOKED IN BOTH DIRECTION BEFORE CROSSING ST. ANDREWS BLVD. FROM TIlE DRIVEWAY AT 105 ST. ANDREWS" VI APPEARED TO ACCELERATE QUICKLY IN ORDER TO CROSS BOTII NORTIIBOUND AND SOUTIlBOUND LANES OF ST. ANDREWS BLVD. VI CROSSED THE NORTHBOUND LANES, ENrERED TIlE BREAK IN TIlE MEDIAN, AND PROCEEDED INTO TIlE SOUTIlBOUND LANE WHERE V2 WAS APPROACHING TIlE INTERSECTION. VI'S RIGHT FRONT STRUCK V2 IN TIlE LEFT FRONT OF TIlE VEillCLE WHILE VI WAS TRYING TO CROSS THE SOUTHBOUND LANE. VI CAME TO REST IN THE EASTBOUND LANE OF PEBBLE BEACH BLVD. AND V2 CAME TO REST ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE MEDIAN SEPARATING THE LANE ON PEBBLE BEACH BLVD. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED BY EITHER DRIVER. BOTII VEHICLES WERE REMOVED FROM THE SCENE BY DAVE'S TOWING. SEC. ". CInlAENT AOOREIS& ClTYSSTATE ZIP CODE DATE Of IIIRTH ."" ." LOC "" IS. EQUIP. fJl!CT. "" ". CUR"EHT ADPRESS CITY'ST....TI!: ZlPCOtlE DATE Of 81RTH ..., SE' LOC '''' "EQUIP. EJECT. I 8EC. '"~ ClJRREtfTADORE8S Crrt&lSTATE ZIP CODE DATEQf81lfnl .""" SE' '0' '''' ..EOUf', I"'''' I SEC. ,... CURRENT ADORESS CITY' aTATE ZIP CODE OATE OF BIRTH "" ." '" '''' ...... EJECT. I nc. ,,. CURRENT ADOAI!'SI crry"S'ATE lIP CODE DATe 0' 81ATH ..., SE' co, '" &EOUP SEC. ..... CURRENT ADDRESS ClTYISTATI! ZIPCOOE DATE Of !lIATH ."" ." '" '" u.. EJECT. t SECTION' NAME OF VIOLA lOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARG< CITATION NUMBER - B . SECTION' NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE 1i CITATION NUMBER 5 WITNESS fW.4E (1) Cl.HlENT ADORESS CITY&'TAT~ ZIPCODE , WITNESS fw.E (2) ClJRR~NT .\DORESS C1TYf.,r,\TE "'''''''' N/A ~TAlOGMH8"-NAAE ,. PIIy.lcilln IIr NI/f1I' 2. ,..r.mlillc or EMf 3. PO~C8 01f1Cfl TAKEN TO: 1""_ 4.Cmin.d 1.t Alder 5. OIher [- II N/A WAS rn IF NO, THEN \'MERE? f: rFNO.TJEHYMY7ID~~Ofr;T I o81=~ ItM:STlGAlJOH 1.VES llNESllGAllON 1. YES [II JFYESBY WHOU7 0 lMDEATSCEHe' 2.1tO I,YUm l.lMIESTlGAllNON:JEJC'f COMPLETU 2. NO 2. NO . 0IlQ , " "'1<& ~ 1IOIIIIIWeHUMBEK DEl'ARTMEKT '". SO PO OTHER CPL. J. WHITE 1856 Collier County Sheriff's OffIce 0 ~OO HIMVotoOO'!ftn, 110:1) P... ~Of 4 DIAGRA~ J I ~.J~ ~,olr o~ tlr1C'" <I V 2- l'!. 1611 All' 01"'- Ul,lf.. P.g'~Of~ @ INDICATE NORTil WITH ARROW 5D 1<1 VV -JI z. ,.) _,..,,,,l 000 00 C fI\~lhoI ~ "* l'!. I ,} /\Ul -..II l'!. Vi 16 IliA 11 ~ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LEL Y GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU BVO 08-5060-2 August 16, 2009 Submitted to: COLLIER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES DEPT. We are pleased to submit this Best Value Offer (BVO) to Collier County for the above referenced project. To respond to the specific needs of the project, we have assembled a team with a great depth of experience in addressing these types of projects, and a track record of successfully working with committees and homeowners' groups. Our proposed team members are: Urban Green Studio - Prime consuitant, project management, design, coordination with MSTU Committee Pergola, Inc. - Sub-consultant, maintenance and horticultural expertise, design input The project consists of Landscape Maintenance Consulting services for the areas defined within the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU in the attachments issued with the Request for BVO; Boundary Map, Maintenance Areas sheets 01-24 and Exhibit A, Scope of Services. As one of the earliest MSTU districts to be formed for beautification purposes in Collier County, the Lely Golf Estates community has a long and successful history of implementing and caring for landscape improvements. This is a teslimonial to the commitment and willingness of the community residents to contribute their time and money over many years toward the aesthetic value and quality of life in their neighborhood. The nature of landscape improvements is that they are always a living and evolving entity. While some elements, such as large canopy trees and palms may be more permanent in nature, the shrub and ground cover layers are shorter-lived and more likely to be affected by various pests and diseases. In addition to normal horticultural attrition, in a roadway setting there is often the reality of damage caused by an errant vehicle or pedestrians. Thus, the landscape design is not a slatic element, but a living and changing entity whose continued well-being needs a guiding hand. Maintenance Consulting services should be performed with an understanding of the intent of the original design documents, awareness of the physical context and sightlines, and a practical view of responding to apparent issues and horticultural advancements such as improved cultivars. While a fXlsitive case can be made for the continuity and understanding that the original designer brings to ongoing maintenance efforts, an equally positive case can be made for bringing in a fresh perspective. A different designer may bring an objective view of current conditions, without being defensive or protective of the history that it represents. A fresh eye may also be more able to discern inconsistencies in theme or character that may have developed in a gradual progression over time, and offer suggestions to reinforce a more distinctive community identity. Based on a recent site visit, it appears that the plantings within the specified areas are generally in good condition, and a fairiy strong plant palette and pattern of use has been established. The remnants of older materials, such as Washingtonia palms, Sabal palms and Dahoon Hollies are evident, and it is apparent the overall pattern has transitioned over time. Some elements, such as the Foxtail palms and a 1611A11~'" 2 good portion of the shrub layer appear to be more recent plant material selections. The new shrub layer plantings require a high level of maintenance to keep them within the proper limits of roadway safety guidelines because in many cases the species are incompatible in size and growth habit. In order to compensate for this, and facilitate a consistent appearance, al this time, all of the plants are being uniformly sheared, detracting from natural form, reducing blooming, and causing long-term reduction in individual plant health. Our understanding of the project scope and deliverables, per the Exhibit A Scope of Services, is that it will include the following: Attendance at monthly MSTU Committee meetings, performance of two (2) site visits per month, review and comment on the Contractor's general maintenance report sheets and estimates, provide written or oral recommendations based on the on-site observations, and evaluation of Contractor performance. A written report is to be submitted to Collier County A TM staff three days prior to the monthly MSTU meeting. Optional services may inciude Refurbishment Design Services and Miscelianeous Services upon request. URBAN GREEN STUDIO STAFF AND PROJECTS Ms. Dayna L. Fendrick, founder of Urban Green Studio, has over 23 years of experience as a practicing Landscape Architect in Southwest Florida. Many of her projects have been streetscape related, including the original Naplescape project that was the springboard for the Collier Naplescape program. While her greatest strength lies in the design role, Ms. Fendrick has developed a keen understanding of plant material performance, and techniques to lessen maintenance requirements in roadway settings. Ms. Fendrick has worked with several homeowner's associations and beautification committees to address renovation and refurbishment projects. Collier County BVO 08-5060-2 Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU August 16,2009 South Collier Boulevard, City of Marco Island Project managerllead designer . 1.7 miles of median renovation and street trees at edges Evaluated condition of existing materials damaged during Hurricanes Charley & Wilma Coordinated with the Beautification Advisory Committee Xeric and coastal native plant selection, with focused use of color . 10" Street North Streetscape, CRA District, City Of Naples Lead designer/team member Central Ave to ih Avenue North Redevelopment area - challenges wI encroachments Pedestrian & crosswalk improvements Street lighting Site furnishings Landscape I irrigation design . . URBAN GREEN STUDIO 16111A11' 3 Calusa Bay, Collier County Project manager/lead designer . Re-design and relocation of the project entry, signage, call box and landscape buffer due to the six-Ianing of Goodlette Road Design alternatives were presented to the Master Homeowners' Association, and coordinated with the Board of Directors. . Services included landscape architecture, site civil engineering and construction administration. Lely Resort, Lely Development Inc., Collier County Project manager/lead designer Developed r.o.w. cross section wI engineers to establish median width, sidewalk layout, lighting and utility corridors Entry road alignment to create a dramatic setting for sculptural feature . Conducted a nationwide sculptor search for Freedom Horses bronze sculpture Landscape & irrigation design for 3 major roadways - Lely Resort Blvd, Grand Lely Blvd and Triangle Blvd" PERGOLA INC" STAFF AND PROJECTS Founded in 2001, Pergola, Inc. is unique because we are landscape architects and designers with the ability to offer our own in-house landscape construction and horticultural management services. We focus on providing weii-considered design that is driven by owner preferences, that compiements the site architecture, and that looks beautiful. Our design lends itself to practicality of construction and related to that, budget efficiency. R. Jeffrey Petry, RLA, President, Pergola Inc., is a registered landscape architect and offers over 18 years of experience in the Naples area providing landscape architecture, construction and horticultural management. He wiii provide hands-on maintenance knowledge and horticultural expertise. With the exposure that comes from the day-to-day management of projects in the field, Mr. Petry is readily capable of diagnosing horticultural issues and recommending an appropriate course of action. This knowledge of typical maintenance issues provides for sound guidance to the design process to generate better design decisions. Pergola Inc. can also offer the services of their experienced supervisor, Claudio Gonzalez, who is bilingual and may assist in communicating clearly with the Maintenance Contractor's staff. Mr. Gonzalez has over 20 years of experience in horticultural management overseeing all aspects of daily staffing, equipment and client relations. He has been involved with projects such as Village Walk, Island Walk, Coastiand Center and Fiddler's Creek. Collier County BVO 08~5060~2 Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU August 16,2009 Little Harbour, Naples Horticultural Management and Landscape Enhancements 2002 to current . Private neighborhood of 30 multi-million dollar estate residences, marina, mangrove shoreline, ponds and 5 acres of common area Recognized nationally in 2005 by Professional Landcare Network (PLANET) with an Environmental Improvement Grand Award Landscape Architectural review URBAN GREEN STUDIO 1611 A 11 4 Fiddler's Creek CDD Collier County Project Manager for Michaelffodd, Inc. and TruGreen/LandCare 1998 to 2001 Oversaw daily operations for horticultural management and landscape enhancements of all roadways, neighborhoods, clubhouse, sales center and common areas Recognized nationally in 2000 by Professional landcare Network (PLANET) with an Environmental Improvement Grand Award Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort Collier County Project Manager for Michaelffodd, Inc. and TruGreen/LandCare 1997(0 2001 . Team member for horticultural management and landscape enhancements of all grounds, potted plant accents, mangrove forest management and special events . Recognized nationally in 1999 by Professional Landcare Network (PLANET) with an Environmental Improvement Grand Award Urban Green Studio and Pergola, Inc. have an array of experience on similar type projects involving maintenance consulting and working in a positive manner with committees and homeowners' associations. Please see the attached three (3) letters of recommendation from previous ciients. Since the nature of this contract is an on-going monthly activity, our project team will designate the appropriate time necessary each month to fulfill these responsibilities. The date and time of the monthiy MSTU meeting will be reserved on our calendar as a regular commitment, and lhe site visits will be scheduled at an interval sufficiently ahead of the MSTU meeting to generate the report three days prior to the meeting. These site visits and MSTU meetings will be a standing priority on our schedules, and we will adjust other work schedules around them. Similar to many consulting firms, we have experienced a slow-down in the demand for professional services due to the current economy, and are eager to take on additional work. Urban Green Studio and Pergola Inc. both have capable and experienced staff immediately available to begin work on the project. We are fully prepared to commit the resources needed to successfully work with the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Committee for the duration of the project. Please see our team's projected workload and available labor resources below. WORKLOAD CAPACITY OF TEAM MEMBERS . ... . ... ... ... projectRespohsibilitY. < . PrbjectedWorkioa~% Team Member . ... current with project Dayna L Fendrick, RLA Project Manager/ Lead Designer 20 25 UGS Staff CAD production/Admin Assistant 10 15 R. Jeffrey Petry, RLA Maintenance/Horticultural Review 60 62 Collier County BVO 08-5060.2 Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU August 16, 2009 URBAN GREEN STUDIO 16 I 1 'A 11 1 r'.1l rYJfV>,,, ~5 ,{i:J ~ ~\~l'-r .",'::> '~~r"~~~'"- rr~~ ""'_' c:/rl~ZJ Kristen Sena Petry, ASLA Perjj,ola, Inc. 132311 Street North Naples, FL 34102 R. Jeffrey Petry, ASLA September 15, 2009 Ms. Dayna Fendrick Urban Green Studio PO Box 111841 Naples, FL 34108 Subject: LETTER OF INTENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LEL Y GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU BVO 08-5060-2 Submitted to: COLLIER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES DEPARTMENT Dear Ms" Fendrick: Pergola, Inc. is pleased to provide Urban Green Studio this letter pertaining to the subject BVO. Pergola, Inc. is committed, capable and ready to provide Urban Green Studio with Landscape Architectural Maintenance consulting services when selected by Collier County under this BVO. We intend to be a committed part of your team providing services that will benefit Collier County in a positive and effective manner. 16/1 All' Little Harbour Home Owner's Association, Inc. 2177 Gordon Drive Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-643-5628 To whom it may concern: September 14,2009 I write to heartily recommend Kristen and Jeff Petry and their company, Pergola, Inc. They have worked as landscape designers at our residence and they have also performed landscape maintenance for all the houses in Little Harbour for the past five yea rs. Both Kristen and Jeff bring a high degree of professionalism to each and every job. They are knowledgeable and creative in their approach to best practices in SW Florida's challenging climate. They have been fair in their pricing and their work crews have performed admirably. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Incerely, 110 LU Ie Eide President, Little Harbour Homeowners' Association 16 I 1 'A 11 1 Anchor Associates, Inc. 3940 Radio Road, # III Naples, FL 34104 (239) 649.6357 8eptember 14, 2009 To Whom It May Concern Subject: Pergola, Inc. " We have been working with Pergola Illc. for the previous seven year$. We manage Commercial Propertie~ eonsi~ting oflarge Homeowner's associations and shopping centers. Pergola IIlC., ha~ heen very knowledgeable in providing sound horticultural recommendations for the management and imptovement of the properties for whieh we have responsibility. They most importantly combine the owner's long-term interest for "Ihe property with safety, jurisdictional and code requiremcnts. We entbusiastically recommend Pergola, Inc. and thei.! staffro assist in your landscape related projects Sincerely, r ;f~ .Tim Lavinski, President 16 IlIA 11 .. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Dayna L Fendrick worked with the Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee as we were developing a landscape plan for South Collier Blvd. She was quite patient as we worked our way through aiternatives, never failed to spot potential problems and provide alternate solutions, and she never missed a deadiine. To this day the Beautification Advisory Committee receives compliments on the finished product. Although I say we were developing a landscape plan, in fact, Ms Fendrick did the creative work as well as the actual plans. She then listened to our reactions and questions and then altered or adjusted the plans as appropriate" She was very easy to work with, polite, listened carefully and did thorough research with regard to such things as grants, underground utilities, traffic patterns, and so forth. I was Chairman of the Advisory Committee at that time and serve in that position at present. We would not hesitate to request proposals from her company as our budget allows. Sincerely, Sydney S. Mellinger, Chairman Beautification Advisory Commiltee, City of Marco Island September 9, 2009 1611 All BVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 BVO # 08-5060-2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and informed himself fully in regard to all terms and conditions pertaining to the project. Addenda received (if applicable): #1 #2_ #3_ The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with Ihe Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 16th day of september, 2009 in the County of Collier ,in the state of Florida URBAN GREEN STUDIO, PLLC Firm's Complete Legal Name (Circle one): Corporation, Sole Proprietorship, Partnership Phone No, 239-263 -4029 FAX No. 239-594-7091 E-mail: dayna@urbangreenstudio.com 1263 Hernando Street Address Naples, Florida 34103 City and Stat BY: Da 5 ; ! i " " , . . " . u . ~ It <( I ~ ~ j' , ~! i ~ ~~ !c., ~~j~~~ I '" <' . . ~~~!~ Ii .. ~ " j n~ .1 <' . ~ ::E] Z . j... l 8,L~!~ - "j " , , d , g:; , , " , . 1,j " . . d , g:; , " , - . ! ! , < , 1 , < ! , ; , ! ~ " , j ~ . , ! . . , , , . " . , , , :;}::l , . ~ , " ! . , . . , ~ ri " j , , , , 1 ~ ::l , ! , ~ , " ! ! i ! , i , " I 1 , I , ; 1 1 ~ ; , , . , , I ! 1 ! . l , ! 0 i , , , , , ! I l ! , I I i ! , , , ! , . , j .. ! I I j . i ~ j! i . , j , . . ! I ni , . , , I : I J , , ! ! j 1 i { I i 1 I . i ! ! , 16111' , l , , . , , t , , j ! i . , ! ; . I j i , l , ~ ! , , I ~ i . I . i j . . ! , Ii , . ~ ; r ~ > .,>5 '" ill l;; i5 i5:; . . ri , =- J , , ~ a , . , I , , , . . , I I I . j i j i I , I I ! t , j ! i , l A 11 1611~11" 8VO # 08-5060-2 "Annual Servicos for Landscap(~ Architectural Maintenance Consultina services for the Lelv Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" BVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 BVO #08.5060.2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates MSTU" The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and informed himself fully in regard to all terms and conditions pertaining to the project. The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with the Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 16th day of September, 2009 in the County of Lee, in the state of Florida. Windham Studio. Inc. Firm's Complete Legal Name (Circle one): Corporation Phone No. (239) 390-1936 FAX No. (239) 390-1937 E-mail:scott@windhamstudio.com 8891 Briahton Lane Address Bonita Sprinas. Fiorida 34135 City and ,,~ta:j>~~ _ Zl~ BY: ~ Written Signature Scott D. Windham. President Typed Name and Title \'('indbam Studio. Inc., l.andscapc Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Splings, Florida 34135 Phone: (23tJ) 390-l93G Fax: (239) .190-1937 I~.nlail: scott~1:windhamsl'udio.com www.\\'indhalnstudio.coll1 16111 ...... -"',1 BVO # 08-5060..2 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consultinq services for tile Letv Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" September 16, 2009 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: BVO #08-5060-2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates MSTU" Dear Darryl: It is with great pleasure that we submit this proposal for Annual landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U" and we appreciate the opportunity to continue our professional relationship with Collier County in this capacity. Scott Windham, Owner of Windham Studio, Inc will act as the prime consultant for this scope of services. Scott has practiced landscape architecture in southwest Florida for 19 years following receipt of his BlA from the University of Florida in 1990" He has been a registered landscape architect in the state of Florida since October 1994 (lA 000-1516) and maintains a Corporate landscape Architecture Business License as well (lC 26000365). Grading Criteria Item #1: Understanding of project and required deliverables Upon review of the project areas, the medians and ROW areas contain primarily ground cover plantings with a few shrub masses together with a variety of palm and small scale tree species. These planted areas will be closely monitored for heaith and vigor with speciai attention to the several flowering species of trees, shrubs and ground covers (ie Plumbago, Ixora, Dw! Allamanda, Crown of Thorn, Jatropha, Cassia, and Hibiscus, etc). The majority of the palms observed are very mature and will require careful monitoring and care to maximize longevity particularly the Washington and Carpenteria Palms. long range planning together with the committee and county staff will be another component of the review and evaluation process to identity replacement goals and objectives for the future, As observed with mature plantings such as this, periodic addition of new plants to 'fill in' where gaps exist as directed by the committee will be an on going task. Together with the committee, ciear identification of priority areas will be essential for strategic design and enhancement efforts. As the primary team leader, Scott Windham will personally attend all advisory committee meetings and project site walk throughs. He will also review the General Maintenance Report Sheets and prepare monthly written reports to inform the committee and county project manager of project status, contractor performance and related actloniresoiution ilems. The monthly status reports will be submitted to the county project manager a minimum of 3 days prior to the MSTU meetings. \:{!indham St'udio, Inc., Landscape .Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Splings, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 Email scott@\vindh:mlsrudio.com \V"V>h'. windharnstudio.com 2 1611 Atl~" FWO # 08"5060.2 "Annual Services lor Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consultina services lor the Lelv Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" In addition to the monthly maintenance consultation duties, Scott Windham will provide limited refurbishment design services and construction observation on an as requested basis including preparation of miscellaneous planting plans, specifications, etc. Two other subconsultants wili provide support to Scott's primary leadership role including participation in select project site meetings, intermittent review of maintenance reports and assistance with the deveiopment of contract maintenance specifications relative to their areas of expertise. Grading Criteria Item #2and #3: Experience and Expertise Related to Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting including Staff Experience and Documentation of Previous Performance in Landscape Maintenance Consulting Services Windham Studio has enjoyed a posilive relationship with the Collier County DOT and ATM staff over the past 4 years and has completed 10 successful Roadway Beautification projects together. It is from this long standing role as roadway beautification design consultants that we approach this scope of services as a naturai extension of proven expertise in successful roadway corridor development. As wilh our roadway beautification design projects as well as our other private development projects, we have assembled a team of the highest qualified professionals in their fields to provide unparalleled expertise for this scope of services. Please see (Exhibit B) Letter of Recommendation" Scott Windham has attended the monthly meetings for the Radio Road MSTU Committee for the past 8 months as design consultant for Phase 3 of the beautification project and he will be assuming the landscape architectural maintenance consultant position for the committee following completion of the Phase 2B beautification project installation in early 2010. This opportunity has provided knowledge and insight into the specific requirements of this type of MSTU consultant position. His current role involves the preparation and presentation of monthly status reports, plans / specifications and budget estimates relative to the Phase 3 project; a team project with Windham Studio as prime consultant together with civii engineer and irrigation subconsultants. Francis (Frank) X Kitchener, General Manager of Renfroe and Jackson, Inc. will act as the horticultural consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in landscape maintenance, pest management and diagnosing plant problems and nutrient deficiencies" Frank earned his B.S. in Ornamental Horticulture from Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture and has been managing High-end landscaping for over 15 years most notably as the Grounds and Maintenance Manager for Bay Colony in Pelican Bay for 15 years prior to joining Renfroe and Jackson. He is a Certified Pest Control Operator (CPCO), Certified Arborist, Certified Horticultural Professional (FCHP), Community Association Manager (CAM) and has been certified by the University of Florida in Best Management Practices (BMP). Please see (Exhibit C) Letter of Recommendation. \"!(lindham Studio, Inc., Landscape ,Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 39U..1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 En1ail: scotttfywindb:unstudio.com \l,'WW. wlndhamstudio.com 3 16 111"1 A 11 Bva # 08.5060 2 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consultin services for fhe Lei Golf Esfates Beautification MSTU" Frank Kitchener has provided landscape maintenance consulting service on the following projects as well as numerous others: . Keewaydin Island- Consult with owners and general contractor to develop a maintenance program for the island landscape upkeep. Trouble shoot insect and fertility issues and make appropriate plant installation recommendations.uu..Ongoing . Continental Construction, Ed Wilson 253-9096 . City of Naples LA services- Consulted on City of Naples streetscape issues as well as 5th Ave corridor. 1996-1997" . Joe Boscaglia, 213-7134 . NCH Community Hospitals- Consult on maintenance and landscape of hospital grounds at both the North and South campuses" 1989-2009u u'" Ongoing . Gene Galsterer, 436-5347 James C. Abney, Owner of James C. Abney and Associates, Inc. will act as the irrigation consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in irrigation design, specification and evaluation" James earned his BlA at Mississippi State University in 1989 and has over 20 years of professional irrigation consulting experience including the irrigation design of all Windham Studio past Collier County roadway beautification projects. He is a State of Texas Licensed Irrigator (#0005636) and a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Irrigation Associalion Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor (#018448). James is Knowledgeable and experienced in irrigation consulting, design, engineering and system construction, as well as in system auditing procedures and advanced system management and SCheduling" James Abney has provided irrigation maintenance consulting services on the following projects as well as numerous others: . Pelican Bay Development: Reviewed existing systems to determine corrective action necessary to develop an irrigation application management plan. After systems evaluation, provided irrigation design for the entire development's ROW system and developed irrigation system maintenance and application management specifications. . Naplescape 90s, Goodlette-Frank Road - Phase I, Golden Gate Parkway - Phase I: Provided irrigation systems review and catchment cones testing to evaluate the systems' application efficiency and develop a long term remedial and management plan. The City of Naples, Terry Fedelem. \X1indham Srudio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 T:highton 'Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 F:tax: (239) 390-1937 Emait scott@]windhamstudio.com \\'W\V. \'vindhamstudio.co11l 4 1611 1~ BVO # 08-5060.2 "Annual Services for L.andscape Architectural Maintenance Consuitinq services lor the L.elv Goll Estates Beauliiication MSTU" Grading Criteria Item #4: Ability of Firm to meet schedule requirements In an effort to control and manage the maintenance consulting schedule, as primary client contact and team leader, Scott Windham will plan and prioritize the entire year of site walk throughs, MSTU Advisory Committee Meetings and relaled subconsultant meetings as a standing obligation to be worked around. Monthly reminders will be sent to the subconsultants in order for them to plan ahead and allocate resources. All follow up reports and action items will be compiled and distributed by Scott including all necessary subconsuitant review and input for seamless one point accountability. I LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES Windham Studio, Inc. agrees to provide the following services: TASK I. Attend M.S.T.U. Meetings Windham Studio will attend all Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.STU publicly advertised meetings. (This proposal assumes one meeting per month with the committee totaling 12 meetings) TASK II. Field Review Meetings Windham Studio will attend two (2) meetings per month in the field with staff to review the project. Project review will include two (2) hours to complete each site visit for a total of four (4) hours per month. Windham Studio will attend all of the monthly walk throughs. Frank Kitchener and James Abney will attend one field meeting every other month. TASK III. Review General Maintenance Report Sheets Windham Studio will review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets" which are required to be submitted by the Maintenance Contractor with pay request submittals. Windham Studio will review of estimates provided by Contractor with recommendations. TASK IV. Monthly Field Reports Windham Studio will prepare monthly written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the M"S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies" This includes evalualion of . Contractor performance per contract specifications. TASK V. Monthly Field Report Submittal Windham Studio will submit the monthly written report to Collier County Alternative Transportation staff three (3) days prior to M.S.TU meeting" \Xlindham Studio, Inc., Landscape,\rchitecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brightol1 1,ane, Bonita Splings, Florida 3413" Phone: (239) 390..1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 I~:mail: scottQ:Dwindhamstudio.CQffi w'ww. w.illdhamstudio.com 5 161 BVO # OB~5060~2 "Annual SF:rvlces for Landscapo Architectural MaintEmanco Consultina services lor the Lei'. (Joll Estates Beautification Iv1STU" I OPTIONAL SERVICES: TASK VI. Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services 1. Windham Studio will provide limited (minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, I.e. deliverables/functions might be as follows: a" Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. b" Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. (All proposed refurbishment services will be presented to the County Project Manager for review prior to presentation to the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee) TASK VII. Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) 1. Windham Studio will provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications for purposes of bidding. 2. Windham Studio will attend pre-bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum related to maintenance contract bidding. It is assumed that Windham Studio will retain the ability to request that the Project Manager shift funds and/or re-distribute activities between tasks, if tasks require different leveis of effort than originally estimated. FEES: Please see attached Windham Studio Scope Breakdown and Fee Matrix Also please see attached (Exhibit A) BVO Estimated Project Staffing Spread Sheet Thank you for the opportunity to submit this scope of services in order to assist the county and the Lely Golf Estates M.STU. Advisory Committee in maintaining and improving the district. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 \X/indbam Srudio. Inc., Landscape Architecture:, T.C 26000.165 8891 Brighton I,ane, Bonita Springs, Tilorida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 1936 Fax: (239) .)90-1937 'Em ail: Scott(i?;windhamstudio.com \\'W\\'. ,\'indham~fudio.c()m 6 2 o . u I Ji . u . . . . " .. ~ .. >< !i, 'C ui: - ~'" m 1i::ii :::i ~:s Cb .8. ~ Cb 1G.r:! u.. ::= "C -gill c: j~ ca 'Ill c: ;!;.!! ;: ~~ o g J1 "D "":= ~ i~ Cb"'O >- m ~iiij CD J, ~ c. ~ frl o ~. ()<(~ Ul c ~ o . ~ o ~ . o ~ o ~ o . ~ ~ .. E . ;; ~ " , o u J! .. u ii w :; u " w g~:::>a:~ ~~~~ c<~:g ~[3] .. >-:::ii::>~ ~~~a: . . . . . z o .. uw w ~~I~~ !ig~:g o<("'~w w:o.:.gl- ~~~~ '" . w . . . w . ~ a:~ ~t;~LL Z~N ::5:J:;;; ct~w ~<~ z a: ~ . . .- ~ 2 ~a: ~~~~tlJ ::iwg"u. COUl~ i!i <(f z ;; . . r-- . Z' ';' co. <z...w u:r: ,. III u~" w. e. . ~ ;;; . ~ l'J ~ o ~ In E . ~ ~ ~ ii " ~ ~ . Z C U o z ~ . " " . . ~ u " w z z o . ffi . . ~ " Z o u Z o " . u . w c . . ~ " .w ew o. e >' m " ~ ~ . . . . . . 00 cid . . o j ~ ~ ffi . > . . . . . c e " . . jj . 88 gg O. .. o. ;;;;::; .. 00 c.;; d~ g~ OM .. 00 .. ~~ :3~ d~ .. I . f . - I j . . ~ " 88 n ,..;-,.: .. 00 n 88 og o. ~~ d:3 ." .. 00 ~~ 88 H .. .. 00 n ! . . j . , ~ . . o o li ~ . . , . 8g ~! N ~E!~ ... UN --~ "'...: .. 00 ~~ ~~! 8~ .. 888 U~ :;l:;! qqq to"'lt go .0 ~~ 888 ~il; .. .-. 000 ui";;:S 88 ~~ g;~~ ~~! ..:,.:~ .. ... ~~ ~~i ... dd qqq ODO ... dd qqq 000 ! . . o . . . , ~ ~.:J i ;i~ . e ~ ~ f ffj o 0 . > ffi . > . . . ~ , . o . ,; 16 'iI '1 A 11 .... . ~ . w . " . z c " o ~~ 888 0 0 ~ NN' ; [3~;; ~ NN N .. -. . g~ ~~ 0 ~~ .~ ~ ". " -- .-- - ~~ qqq 0 00. . ~€!~ ~ ~~~ -- --- - dd ~~::.I 0 N 88 8~8 0 ~~ .-. il .ON :! -. .-. . 00 OOD g ~~ ..r..r'i 00 .~ 0 00 0 00 . .. .-. . ~;! dd;! ~ 2!~ 8 i ~~ ~ .- ... . . :j;! 000 . cia"; ~ f I 11 ~ ,! . . , . " " , =.;:! c . ~ 0 >c u . e w i . " c . . . 1 m . w " . > w . . w w . . . " . . . Z " 0 ~ " ~ c j j o . . o . ! ~ ~ . ~ E " " " :0 :c ~ !!!. " z ii: .. .. I- "' I- o W -, o a: .. o W I- .. ,. >= "' w g !!! a: w .. .. o w ::> -' .. > Ii; W II> Oil ~ . .. ~ .. " . . ~ . . ~ ~ .0 - :g ! '" . ~ . II II 0 . > ~ al ~ M . M ~ ~ ,; o ~ .. "' .. " o dO g iii ~~ j ~ 5 ~ ID (I).E 11 ~ ~.g' i Q ~ '" m 1:1,... := M .!: CIl 8 en 3=:8 en ~ c c :!!!! , , . . c c o 0 ..", ~ M m o o M .. M N ~ ~ . ~ < . i . i w "0 ~ ~ 3 .. . . . o. ~~ '::~ < 0 ;::..!: ~"3 < . . < ~8 o. < 0 . < i ~ ES 0;.5 ~ . ..~ .;:! ~ ~ " ~~ ~~ ~! g B ~ . < ~ . < ,.~ ;; of ~ .8 ~ ;; .. c ;; E ~ is 'Ua . .< o. a:~ . ~ " . ;e .E~ $ ~ ...,. ... C;; N ~ ... . ;;; .s:.; ;e .5,~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o > o Z " o ~ . . 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ . o ~ " .t ooC!qoqoq a:;i N ~ ,.. N .... N .... o " ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ . o " , . ~ ~ ~ ~ :;; ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ :: ~~::O~:3~:: ~ :: o 0 .. coqqo <Xi N .... .... oJ o 0 oci ....: o " o " o " o " o " o " o " . > "'''''' IJJ IJJ Vl II> l/) <I) rn <I) . ,""'" li .~~~ .~:8,~g z <>-oooc..15C1.o .. i g .2 ; U ~ 11,;; "' ~.2 & ..!! ~ .g uiii j ~! .S! ~~ ~ 11..3: r!r. * 9 ~ .~ . o . 5 . : iij .q ~ .~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ . i ~ ~ i ~ ~I ~ " <2 . . I ~ o " o " o 0 " - o " o " o " o " o 0 " - o " o " . > . . u * ~ . 5 ~ i ~ . ~ 0; I " w . N ._=;_~ u ~ - ~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ u ~ ] ~ ! ! "' < ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ j !f. ~ ~ 8 ~ of I;l ~ ;;; ~" ;;; a ~ ~ o ;;: ~ ~ ~ . i ~ :~.o.s:..!f~~ i .; d ~ ~ ~ lP ~ _ E i':;; ~ ~ ~ .!g ~ .e 16 , 11'1 A 11 n ;;;a o l:l . i 8 ~ ~ ~ . " . . 8 z .. E . ~ ~ . ~ . ii - .. " .. ~ z l 8 !5 * . u . . . i! , " E ., ~ II ! " w . < 'i . ~ i = 5 " ! . E ! I ~ ~ i . .. < ! ~ ~ -" .i C( . ! · 1" i iJlo . " . f ! I I Board of QOlJeTl1OTS Ex~ Commitu~ Pete Merkel President Kim Rosenberg Vice Pre..lwnt LJ. Schoenwener Secretary Bob Mushkin Treasurer Ed &anIon TbeBiltmore Doug Danforth Trieste G~, Thomas Dl~o Bay Colon)' Shor~ Rob McDonald BrigJwm Bill Mc.Omnick TbeCarlysle Ronald A. Porter Qmtessa }ames E. Fllgg TOe Estaus SteveWyse Mansion La PaltM Tony Vallace ~ Marquesa John Beal The Remington Gerald K. Neavo!ls Sa"mo Kathleen Fabela The Strand Eliot K. Cohen Toscana Fritz Friday Villa La Palma Fred lucont Vitca)'Q Doug Esson The Windsor (EXHIBIT B) 16 I \1 'A 1 f- -B~!UNS~19~Y May 26, 2009 Re: BVO #08-5060-1 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Golden Gate MSTU" To Whom It May Concern: As the General Manager of Bay Colony, I oversee the operations of this exclusive community of nearly 1,000 residences including the tennis club, golf course, beach club and a variety of resident services. This encompasses the general maintenance of the community streetscape and common areas to protect and enhance the ongoing investment of the residents at large" From 2004-2007, Scott Windham of Windham Studio was instrumental in preserving the inherent value in this community through thoughtful design and project management services. As prime consultant, Scott and Windham Studio coordinated the design and construction of a multimillion dollar refurbishment of the primary community entrance and gate house, Bay Colony Drive and related common areas including extensive hardscape design of decorative rhetal entrance gates, pilasters, walls, decorative paving, landscaping and landscape lighting. To complete these services, Windham assembled a team of sub consultants to bring expertise to every facet of the project including Humphrey Rosal Architects for the gate house design, Agnoli Barber and Brundage for the civil engineering and Frank Kitchener, our then Manager of Grounds and Maintenance for the sustainable landscape design strategies. I have found Scott Windham to be a capable design professional, knowledgeable in current trends, effective and well versed in team coordination. Scott is aVailable, communicates readily and responds efficiently to project demands, adhering to predetermined schedules. I highly recommend Scott and Windham Studio Inc. for this consulting and design service. A" Ne on, CCM, CAM CEO\ neral Manager Bay Colony Community Association 8700 BAY COLONY DRIVE. NAPLES, FLORfDA34108 . 239,591-2202 . FAX 239-591-1685 . www.bay-colony.org 1611~All- (Exhibit C) Co~~Y County Public Services Division University of Florida Extension 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 Phone: (239) 353-4244 FAX: (239) 353-7127 UF FtoRIDA IFAS Ext(>n5i~)ll May 22, 2009 To whom it may concern: Re: BVO # 08-5060 -1 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Goldeu Gate MSTU" As the Commercial Landscape Horticulture educator, I have been involved with the landscape maintenance personnel in Collier County for a little over eight years. I have found Frank Kitchener with Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. to be one of the more astute and thorough individuals in the business. Frank served on my Commercial Horticulture Advisory Committee for about three years (2003-2006). Frank provided insightful observations and suggestions on local landscape issues. Frank has always kept on top of new developments, whether it is a neW pesticide or fertilizer product or trying new plant material (Zoysia comes to mind!). He also understands the local ecosystem and sensitivity of estuaries and bays. In fact, Frank gave a talk at the Nature Conservancy on mangrove pruning. Frank is one of those go-to-guys I seek when I get stumped on a landscape problem. Frank communicates readily and is a good natured, team player! I highly recommend Frank for any consulting services. Please do not hesitate to call if any questions! Sincerely, DOUG Doug Caldwell, PH.D. University of Florida Collier Co. Extension (a Public Services Department) Commercial Landscape Horticulture Landscape Entomologist 14700 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34120 239-353-4244 x203 ".""------c:-239.27-3-007.3_.__._.._"._"_"...______".___".____"_"__.______."____"."_ "._"..._"__"_._".___._...".___"_______.______""__.____..------""" FAX: 239-353-7127 http://collier.ifas.ufl.edu/CommHort/HomeCommHort.shlml The Collier County University Extension Is a department of Public Services Division of Collier County Government and an off-campus branch of the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Extension programs are open to all persons without regard to race, cotor, creed, sex, age. handicap or national origin. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, please direot special needs by calling (239) 3534244 at least 3 days prior to the scheduled program. 16 J 1 ~ 11 : (Exhibit 0) atiI RftJ~R~~ l!l!I J ACI(gOfJ September 14th, 2009 Windham Studio, Inc. Mr. Scott Windham, ASLA 8891 Brighton Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Re: BVO # 08-5060 -2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" Dear Scott: Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. is pleased to team with Windham Studio, Inc. in response to the upcoming Collier County A TM, BVO # 08-5060 -2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU". Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. has participated with Windham Studio on many large projects in the past and we look forward to future opportunities. '- Francis X Renfroe Jackson, Inc. Naples, FL 34117 239-455-5020 office 239-455-3151 fax fkitchener@renfroeiackson.com www.renfroeiackson.com 1611<<11-: (Exhibit E) James C. Abney & Associates. Inc. Irrigation Consulting, Site ObseNation . System Auditing & Management 2984 44th. St. SW . Naples, Florida 34116 Phone ( 239 ) 353 - 8724 . Fax (239) 353 - 1850 E-Mail: JAAIDC2@ao1.com September 14, 2009 Windham Studio, Inc. Mr. Scott Windham, ASLA 8891 Brighton Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Re: BVO # 08-5060 -2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenauce Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU" Dear Scott; James C. Abney and Associates, Inc. is pleased to team with Windham Studio, Inc. in response to the upcoming Collier County A 1M, BVO # 08-5060 -2 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU". Abney and Associates has always enjoyed working with Windham Studio on similar projects in the past and we look forward to continuing our relationship with you in the future. Sincerely, James C. Abney and Associates, Inc. VflI1fU' e IIb/(t-? James C. Abney, L A., C.LT. State of Texas Licensed Irrigator, LI 0005636 LA. Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor, 018448 1611l11' MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 2009 TO: Tessie Sillery, Transportation ~ Sue Filson, Executive Manage Board of County Commissione ~ FROM: RE: Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Kelley Bridwell 102 Willow Creek Lane Naples, FL 34] 13 Jennifer Tanner 297 Bay Meadows Drive Naples, FL 34] 13 Please let me know, in writing, the reco~endation for appointment of the advisory coihmittee within the 4] day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252-8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments 1611~ Atl filson 5 _rom' ent: 0: Subject: kelleybridwell@gmail"com Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:56 AM lilson s 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: 8/26/2009 11:56:08 AM. Name: /Kelley Bridwel~ Home Phone: ~39-248.652ll Home Address: 1102 Willow Creek Lane! City: iNaple~ Zip Code: ~4l131 Phone Numbers Fax: Business: ~39-514-l234j .Mail Address: Ikellevbridwell(a)gmail.coml Board I Committee Applied for: /The Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committeq Category: iNot indicated/ Work Place: /Design Group Wes~ How long have you lived in Collier County: H] Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? ~ !Not Indicated) Do you or your employer do business with the County? ~ iNot Indicated) . NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1 1611 A11' recommendations made by this advisory board? ~ .ot Indicate~ Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ~ Do you currently hold puhlic office? ~ Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? ~ !Not Indicated) Please list our communi activities: oun Professionals ofNa les - Membe Tennessee Technolo 'cal Universi Licensed State of Florid . 2 1611 All' filson s .rom: Went: To: Subject: JennTann13@aotcom Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:09 PM filson s 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: 8/1912009 3:08:36 PM. Name: ~ennifer Tanneq Home Phone: ~39-732-81081 Home Address: ~97 Bay Meadows Drive/ City: jNaple~ Zip Code: /341131 Phone Numbers Fax: ~39-732-81 091 Business: 1239-404-88981 _-Mail Address: ~ennTann13@.aol.coml Board / Committee Applied for: /Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory! Category: !Not indicatedj Work Place: /Self Employed Property Manageq How long have you lived in Collier County: [ill Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? IH9 !Not Indicatedj Do you or your employer do business with tbe 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 witb whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1 recommendations made by this advisory board? ~ 1611lAll" .ot IndicatectJ Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ~ Do you currently hold public office? ~ Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? ~ iNot Indicate~ Please list our communi activities: Civic Assn for 7 ears Administrato Education: !B.A. Accounting - Marian University, Indpls., Ind.! . . 2 16f1 A 11 .~ *:#::#:*-*-*-*- 5:"'00......00 tv",C!~r-:l"'l!~~ QI\I)Qt.nro..N,...O b;....""N"'"NMP4 .S *- '1 ~ J~ ~ I~ 00;:$ ~ fllllll 5 ;J""i,> ~ i ~ III I 'i! f~. ~~ ; .,.~. j .. .."! .il,l! j nlU j J UUI ddlul 16 I \1 ~". A 11'~ . 0 0 :s:: z )> m ^ -l , m ^ ::::0 )> r (J) (J) (') I m 0 C r m )> -l 0) 0 *' \J );: (J) I - . - X EI ~~[I] ;u ;~ ~~ ;u ;u ;u - >. - ~~ H~ ~~'\ ~ ~~ " ~ Gl ~~ ~~ Gl 8~ ~~i n n 0 )> ~~ ~j) )> . " , m -i " "'" ~ ! ~ "Q . -i ~~ ~ >Z , ~ g~ - ~~ - ~ 0 ~ 0 i!1I ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . 0 Z n Z ~ Z > z'" () I . , ~; , UlQ, gi~ z- ~ ~~ . ~ r 0 Gl o~ ~~~ g; ~ z ~ ~~ Z ; m .~ ~ m ~~ ~ Gl ''1 ~~ ,~ = ~" Z Z ~ ,. m -, c m jjZ ~N ~~ ~~ ~ ~ " ~ z ~~ ;u ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 2 8 ~ <:;> ~~ ~ )> ~ c 0 Z< . g 1ti~ , Z 00 r ~~ ~~ !j~ ~ ~ ~ za ~ z ~~ ~. ~~ . ~ ~~ . x 11 ~ 0 ~ r'l!; ~ -i ~z ,,~ ~~ z .~ l m ~~ ~~ ~~ , z ~ .. . ~ ;< . ?<m ::og z z ~ !:!z 0 ;; . ~ , ~ ~ ~ " 2 ~ '" > . 0 . ~ . " 30% PLANS -.......----- -"'..- ........__...._._..u._ ____.. ___ '0'_ _ _....____.._ _..._ ........___._'*_..""'._ ____._._ ..._ ~:~I: """,, Prepared For, ~ ?1tetjee & /t~ ~ ! ~ l.a..,.. c:.Ol.F ESTATE, M.5.T.u. ~ ~ . IAAIc:.ATION REUSE Jl'lATER SOJRCE Landscape Architecture _001 A. lIaO.o,rJ,Q. RENOVATION. MODIf=lc.ATIONS f'kI.Uo.'lA8ll' ~. art DESIGN. EJl\llRONIolENTAl.. MANAGENENT . PLA.NNING art l'Ia.Uo.,LCOM ~,u IAAIc:.ATION Pl.AN S07DT,,",10I'I'IITr"~Ea.t. "'..I_,l"I_34113 - Phon., <"(1) 417-0707 Fax: (1l41) ""7-0708 I ~ ! III ! i I, Ii I I III II ill Ii ! 'i I m I In () -I '" I ~ r "' m ;0 S () m " m m 0 ,. -I " c: ., " "' )i =' 0 z ~. ~~~ '" ~~~ 8~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c z " Z 0 . ~ ~ ~ ~ " " 0 ~ Z ~ " ~ c ~ " " . <0 <0 " " >/:-; > // >~ ~>::- " ~ v/.t ~, 0<.~ ~~ "7).,," %~/ ~<~ )\, L<.'< ">:<<>': . "i1 0~ ~ ~~;;;~ % '(;< ;<, "l %'" % ~% <i-:~~~~ .~~~ /.~~0C~ ~~ >::- ,~ ~);;>) ~~ ~~'; >::- ~-::< L< ;,' ~ >> />j 1 %~' ''<L<0~~ ' ;-/ L< L< ;-~ ~m ;~I"!~II!lii'!'!iijii:!!I!lli!!'i-!'~ ~~ 'I I',' "J'~I'1 i l'l,j' I" ;. !!j! Ii il!i'U i!i!Milji1jf!d "I 1!'!.!I Ii Ii :ll!ll!;i! !.! ii ~ ~lh!i: ~!il !i '!!'!'IE!!lili! l' ~ ," ,~l i ' " i!i,!,.I, I.j.!l ; II I11I !il ii 111!!il,I!!ii!I"1 I 1 I~ II!! lill" il!' i I . , '"I:' I . p ,. " " P..~.. to ,. !lI ~ 'i"i"I""!'O!i!~'I'!;~I'iil!i" g~ i '1",11;110 !lh'lh'liJi 'ild; ~- !"il!!jll!i:i"illi.ls!'!il,.I'li ~~ ii! '!I.l!lli,!i! ~i I'l!!~ii!ll > tWill' j!iEI!i!'I'!ji ! illilUI! ! "! I ' 'l~"' 'I "~ i !!!llj'!' 0 !i' i,: II I! I:, il ! jC!,i!!I!i ~ i 1 m I, II 'II i ~ 1 i,. I, ~ 111111 II I; j,!! i il mill i i I'j jl !! " lei Ii ilsl~! 0 . . oi,' I . I , "!" j , . 'I I. .. j' fi g~ - ", Ii ~ i ;;; lll!il I! illll'I'I"IIII'lll'l ;0111'11, Ii III 1'1 ,I ~!! ilii II i' !!li:1 !lll,: ,!I !1111 ~ i: hi! Ii !! In! I, 1~1I1 III !I! it I zl'IJlillj I' !II~ I hi I, 1111 ~ll ,i' !"I" I iii' I ill III -i II! /11111 ll~ 1II'Il Ii I I I I ~ !I'I!II!I !l !~ IIi I i!!,'lllii ' ~ I ',il l! :1 1'1 'III Il',~... ~ i ; !Ill i! :1' IIi! I "'I! :h Iii m II II" ~ , ,:1 I I' I' '" I' , I 'I! I >1' ~d '" I " s: e- ~~ - m X e- - -< i~ Z Gl 1'= (") fIl ~;; J: :-' > i= i~ s: '" - i~ m ;0 ;0 ;0 - (") " Gl ~;; r > > -i ~~ Z - 0 h" < z ~(") - m :;: Ym :;: > h -i --i en m ;0 (") ;0 - J: " C m en s: 0 Gl > C > e- -l ;0 - (") " (") m C s: f'tl ; i~~i !!Ii ~ I ~ ~ h~ .~.~ .en ~ ~I~i ~:.~ ~ ~ ~ fj ~~ '~II ~ :: I ~I ~i ju., i ~ l/I i ;fj~"l.~ . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~j '; ~s~.I' " . e.~~ ~~ ., ~ ~I ~ i~~~ ~ ~ i~~S ~ . ~.~ ~fj~~ i!'i~ ~!~ ~ m e- m < > -i 0 Z en m (") -i 0 z en (") J: m s: > -i , - i (") , I ~ I 1611 A114 I"' Iii Iii ',i 1,1 :< :0 111!11~ 111I1 !III ~~ Ii III !ili III ~ 1iiCl . Ii: !iI! ill . ~~ Iii !Il! i~ I ~ )i ill 'II' ~l ;o~ ;,1 iI, il ~6 i'l I 'j' Oz II i!ll,l ~o 'i! !lli~! g ~ ! l.1 00! . "'0 en,. z=' 00 ",z '" r f'1 f'1 < f'1 vi I" S!P ~~ p~ ~ U P ii~~ .~i '~Im~ ii ~. ~ ~~ I ~~ ~ b b!i I~. i~~~. ~ fl; I ~; it i i I ~ n ~ m!! I~dl ~~I'~" 'I~ I!;.!m q ~ Id ~ ~I~ ; I ~~ i ~ ~~ . !~ ~ ~I; ~I ~~ ~! piP ~h; I r~ I I~ ~ ~ . . " ~, ~~ ~r ^ " ~,'.. , II II on oij II IlIl :I"-=:=-_ ~ , ill, II ill l,l" I ,il . j I , j:'jl II' Ifill I'j Ii 'ii, 11,1,i'l II 'I i\~<l . 0 '.. II g.. I; Ii! Ii l!~ I, Hi II' I ... 'A..,.... -"------- -....- .........----.---..-..- ----II' --- .0'_ - -"-------- -...__ .......___._.._....._ _..__...___ '0._ J ~~h -~ Prepared For, ~ ?1tet}ee & A~ ?It i "'" I..El..Y 60LF ESTATE, M.5.T.u. ill I . IRRI6ATION RaJ5E Y'lAT!':R 5OIJRC,E Landscape Architecture ~ .._....lkICloe,rJ.~ I RENOVATION 4 MODIFIC.ATIONS f'I<o.Lk>......lIM IV ." ~ OESlGN~EN""RONhI~TAL.MANAGEl.lE"T*PLAt-lN'~ f1...Uo.,L.C0II8 ~ ~- IRRI6ATION PLAN 507; Tornlaml TI'<I~ Ea.t. NapI_. F1o:16a 34'1" - p,,_, (~1) 417-0707 F"", (g4\) 417-07011 -- , Fiala Halas I:.:: 1:: IV E D C '.- Henni O 2010 ~~ - JAN 6 Coletta _~" ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 November 19,2009 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Darryl Richard at 4:10 P.M. No quorum was established. 1 II. Attendance: Members: Tony Branco (Excused), Kathleen Dammert (Excused), David Larson (Excused), Robert Slebodnik (Excused) County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager Others: Jennifer Tanner-Applicant, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Meeting was adjourned 4:11 P.M. The next meeting is December 17, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corres: 1 DalI: ltem#: ronies to: v All; 1611A112 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta uary 21, 2009 130ard of Coun!) CommiliSWners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, January 21,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue Barbara Buehler Paul Nyce Kerry Geroy Bart Zino ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Misc. CorTes' Date: Q 1 ~ IIImt Copies 10: 1611 A12' January 21,2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:08 PM. , II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was given. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Donohue moved to move item V.b to be heard after v.d. Second by Mr. Olesky Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Donohue moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of December 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes o/the December 17,2008 meeting. Second by Mr. Zino. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. New Business a) Directors Highlights Barry Williams Director of Parks and Recreation provided the following updates: . Discussion continues with Miami-Dade for the Off Highway Vehicle initiative proposal to utilize the MiamilDade Jet Port parcel as an A TV site. The site is located in Collier County, 60 miles from Naples. It is 90 percent wetland, however there are existing trails which may be improved utilizing borrow pit material on-site. South Florida Management Water District may provide fmancial consideration to the proposal in exchange for its agreement with Collier County to provide a permanent A TV site. Other sites are still under consideration; the Lake Trafford site has potential, but has issues to overcome (contaminated materials, etc.). Ms. Geroy arrived at 2: 14 . The County acquired Port of the Isles Marina and operations are running smoothly. The convenience store remains open to area residents. The site may be utilized to construct a Fire Department Facility for Ochopee. . The Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of preparing a Parks Management Plan for Collier County. It needs to be completed by 2010 and is intended to facilitate long term planning for recreational activities within the County. c) Annual Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman Mr. Donohue nominated John Ribes as the 2009 Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Nominations were closed. Mr. Ribes accepted the nomination. 2 16 I lA 121 January 21,2009 Mr. Donohue nominated Edward Olesky as the 2009 Vice Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Nominations were closed. Mr. Olesky accepted the nomination d) Mileage Re-imbursement Policy for Advisor Board Members - Barry Williams A letter from Jim Mudd, County Manager to BCC Advisory Board Liaisons dated November 19, 2008, Mileage reimbursement Policy and Reimbursement form was submitted to the Members. Any member traveling more than 20 miles round trip to attend an Advisory Board meeting is eligible for Compensation. Mr. Nyce arrtved at 2:25pm b) Employee of the Month for November and December - Barry Williams The Staff of the Golden Gate Community Center was recognized as "Employee(s) of the Month for November. Donn Garby was recognized as Employee of the Month for December. VI. Old Business a) Update on Bayview Park - Gary McAlpin Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director. provided an update via a Slide Show on the County's proposal to increase Parking for Bayview Park Boat Launch. He highlighted the following: . Boat Launch Counts have been conducted which indicates the facility is over utilized causing boat owners to park along Danford St. in the area of the Mangroves causing safety and environmental concerns. . In 2004 the Board of County Commissioners approved real estate incentives to acquire properties in the Danford St. neighborhood via a "Good Neighbor Policy (willing sellers to the County as opposed to eminent domain) . From 2004-2008 15 properties have been acquired at a cost of $2.6M . The proposal is to reconstruct the parking in the existing Bayview Park to increase it to 30 spaces and construct a 39-space satellite parking lot on Bay St. approximately Y. mile from the Boat Launch. . The proposal requires a rezoning ofland from Residential to Community Facilities. . The Boat Launch Ramp will be increased from 2 lanes to 3 lanes . The project proposes a connecting street at the west end of the residential properties to connect Danford St. and Bay St. . The project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. . Three Neighborhood Information Meetings were held to provide input in developing the final plan. . The improvements to Danford St. include widening the traveled land and installing sidewalks to provide a barrier to the Mangroves. The sidewalk will be linked to the Satellite parking lot. 3 1611 'A12' January 21, 2009 . The Collier County Planning Commission rejected the final plan by a vote of 6 "no"- 2 "yes." . The item will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners for final approval. Sneaker Phillip Litow, Danford Street resident addressed the Board highlighting the following: . The only owners which have chosen to sell properties to the County are absentee owners . The residents who reside in the area are opposed to the project. . The character of the area in the location of the proposed improvements is residential neighborhood. . The proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood and inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. . He disputes the figures obtained in the Boat Launch Counts. . There is currently overflow parking on Danford St. in the area of the mangroves without great concern to the Collier County Sheriffs Department or the neighbors. . The property owner in the area of the proposed connecting street objects to the proposal. . The proposal will decrease property values in the neighborhood. . He expressed concern the County is participating in "reverse eminent domain" (constructing these improvements in the residential area to lower the residential property values facilitating the ability to acquire the remaining properties). Chairman Ribes asked if a recommendation was required by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Gary McAlpin stated the item is for informational purposes only and the Board may make a recommendation if it so desires. Board discussion ensued on the following: . Verification of the data used in the Boat Launch Counts. . At times there has been parking on the adjacent residential streets (other than Danford St.) . The proposed parking lot will have a traffic-accentuated gate. . The proposed connecting street will be open 24 hours. . The Collier County Sheriffs Dept. will not enforce the current parking on the street until the County provides adequate parking facilities. . There will be a masonry wall and plantings buffering the parking lot. . Obtaining Environmental permits to provide parking on the improved sections of Danford Street by encroaching on the mangroves is unfeasible. . The property purchases were overseen by the Real Properties Management Department and the County Attorney's Office that, if necessary, would have assisted in determining the viability of the proposed zoning change for the properties. 4 --- 1611 A12' January 21,2009 . Fish cleaning stations are not addressed within the proposal. . Recommended the County go above and beyond the normal standards for creating the buffer between the residences and the parking lot. Further, to ensure no lighting spills onto adjacent residential properties. Some members expressed concern over the proposal being located in a residential neighborhood. The Board chose not to make a formal recommendation on the proposaL VIII. Marketing Highlights - Partnership Policy and Holiday Hopper Pass - Peg Ruby Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager presented the following updates: . The new Sun-N-Fun Lagoon brochure. . A draft Policy for the new Parks and Recreation partnership with sponsors in the sale of banners to be placed at Sun-N-Fun Lagoon on an annual basis. . Reviewed the Holiday Hopper Passes - A partnership with King Richards Park. . Outlined new advertising promotions . Sr. Expo will be Wednesday, February 11, lOam at Golden Gate Community Center Discussion ensued on the new policy for the selling of "sponsorship banners" for Sun-N Fun Lagoon and whether this is a proposal which may be instituted in other Parks and Recreation Facilities. Barry Williams noted this is a shift in policy for the Department as a way to obtain revenue for the Department and may be instituted in other facilities. The Board noted, until recently, Co-Sponsored Leagues could not sell sponsorship. They expressed concern the Board was not consulted on the proposal. Shari Ferguson noted the sponsorships have always been allowed for special events (Country Jam, etc.). The new proposal would allow the sponsorship banners for special events to remain in place one year. Barry Williams noted the item was an update and the proposal has not yet been fInalized. He will place the item on a future agenda. VIII. Recreational Highlights - Kelme Florida Cup Soccer Tournament - John Palinchak . The Kelme Florida Soccer Cup Tournament was held at North Collier Regional Park and Vineyards Park on January 10-11, 2009 with 2100 players participating. . The event generated $6,000 in revenue for the Department. In addition, the concessions grossed $9,700, with Sweetbay sponsoring beverages for the referees. . The event was successful with teams participating from Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota, New York, etc. IX. Capital Project Highlights - East Naples Community Park Soccer Field - Tony Ruberto 5 1611 ~A12' January 21, 2009 An update was provided on the proposed construction of the new soccer fields at East Naples Community Park. X. Adopt a Park - Bart Zino Bluebill. Access #8 (furthest north). - Pavers in need of repair. Clam Pass Park - Decking in the concession area needs replacing; the chase boat is in need of oars; screws in the tram decking need re-seating. Starcher-Petty - Very good condition overall. Oakes Nei!!hborhood Park - Very good condition overall. South Marco Beach Access - Rest Rooms need attention. XI. Informational Items Attendance Report Submitted BCC Recaps Submitted Recreation Activities Submitted Adopt a Park Assignments Submitted Meeting Schedule Submitted nIt was noted the next meeting will be held at Immokalee Community Park. XII. Public Comments Mr. Nyce noted the Department should consider moving the "points o/sale" locations associated with the concession stands at Sun-N-Fun Lagoon. Barry WilIiaDlll noted the public input meeting for the restrooms proposed at the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road would be on February 17,2008 from 6-8pm. An informational packet on the issue will be distributed for members. A recommendation on the project will be sought from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meetin2 Attendance Renort Ms. Geroy arrived at 2"" 14 PM Mr" Nyce arrived at 2."25 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:22 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 6 1611. A 121 January 21,2009 These Minutes apl2!oved by the Board/Committee on as presented ~ or as amended_. 1... l tJ. 0':;' 7 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 ~~I~ Fiala ~- Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16 , 1 1 A .121 , March 18, 2009 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 18,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue Barbara Buehler Paul Nyce Kerry Geroy ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Sidney Kittila, Operations Coord. Peg Ruby, Parks and Recreation Misc. Cons: Dati: Item I: Copies to: 161 1""A 12' March 18, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:04 PM by Chairman Ribes. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Geroy moved to approve the agenda subject to the/ollowing changes: Item V. New Business 3) New Member Application 4) Dave Saletko Filed usage at Pelican Bay Park 5) Florida Statutes 112.313(3) - County Attorney's Office/Colleen Greene 6) Wiggins Pass Issue Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of February 18,2009 minutes Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes o/the February 18, 2009 meeting. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. New Bnsiness 1) Directors Highlights - Barry Williams . A Grand Opening was held for Port ofIsles Marina. Fish cleaning is allowed at the docks of the facility. The Florida Department of Ettvironmental Protection prohibition offish cleaning station "over water" continues to be an issue addressed by all parties (fishing community, etc.) · The Department has been directed by the County Manager to prepare a budget which indicates a 25% percettt decrease over the previous fiscal year. The Programs slated for elimination will be identified and prioritized to assist in funding considerations as Department moves forward. 2) Jannary Employee of the Month Jean A. Benoit was selected as employee of the month for January. He provided att overview of the "Youth Basketball Program" which provides children ages 6-12 with coaching and instruction. The Program also promotes tournaments for area high schools and is conducted at the North Collier Regional Park. 3) New Member Application The Board reviewed an application for new membership submitted by Dave Saletko. He has resided in Collier County for 30 years and has a strong passion for sports including baseball. Mr. Donohue moved to recommend to the Board o/County Commissioners Dave Saletko be appointed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 6-0. 4) Dave Saletko - Field usage at Pelican Bay Park 2 1611 'A12' March I 8, 2009 Dave Saletko noted he had previously addressed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requesting the area of Pelican Bay Park that was utilized for "pick up" baseball and sodded over last fall be returned to its previous condition similar to a conventiottal baseball diamond (or with dirt around the bases and pitchers mound). Based on that presentation, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board directed Staff to review the feasibility of returning the field to this condition. He has been notified Staff has determined to leave the area sodded over. Barry Williams stated Staff has reviewed the issue and the fields have been designated for all purpose use (lacrosse, soccer, baseball, etc). They have decided the area should remain sodded over. The area is still available for baseball use with the base paths identified by "chalking." He noted Staff did consider the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board request. The final decision was a Department Operations and Maintenance issue, and not within the purview of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 5) Florida Statutes 112.313(3) - County Attorney's Office/Colleen Greene A document was submitted entitled "Ethics Overview for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board" and "Advisory Board Guidelines for Public Records and Emails" dated March 18, 2009. Colleen Greene provided an overview of the documents. If any questiotts arise in this area, Advisory Board Members or Staff should contact the County Attorney's office for assistance. 6) Wiggins Pass Issues Mr. Donohue stated a member ofthe boating public had advised him that he had run aground boating in Wiggins Pass. It was noted dredging of the Pass had just been completed, however the boater was told by the dredging contractor the area in question was not dredged. At the time ofthe dredging, the contractor informed the County it could be dredged for an additional $6000, however the County declined the offer. Barry Williams stated he would contact Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Managemettt Director for an explanation on the matter. VI. Old Business 1) Non-Ethanol Gas at the County Marinas - Murdo Smith The Board reviewed the Executive Summary "Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve past expenses for non-ethanol gasoline for County Parks & Marinas. " Murdo Smith noted the gasoline containing ethanol causes significant problems with boat engines. The County decided to convert to selling non-ethanol gasoline at Marinas, however purchasing ofthis type of gasoline was not part of the original purchasing contract. The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting re- imbursement for the "out of pocket" costs of purchasing the non-ethanol gasoline before the Purchasing bidding policy was amended. VII. Recreational Highlights - Summer Recreation Guide - Peg Ruby 3 1611 A12' March 18,2009 An update was provided on previous and upcoming events at Sun N Fun Lagoon and other area Parks. The Board reviewed the Parks and Recreation Department summer publication for the R.E.A.L Guide (Recreation/EducationlActivities/Leisure Guide). VIII. Capital Project Bighligbt-Golden Gate Community Park Water Slide - Tony Rnberto An update was provided on the construction of the new Water Slide proposed for Golden Gate Community Park_ The improvements are slated to be completed by June 1,2009. IX. Informational Items Submitted It was noted the boat ramp trip statistic indicates the number of "launches." X. Adopt a Park - John Ribes Chairman Ribes visited the Parks listed below and noted, in general they are in good condition and Stafrs Operation of the Parks is to be commended. He noted, in all facilities, the County should consider upgrading the signage, drinking fountains and benches as they are starting to show signs of wear and tear. Staff should consider implementation of a re-ocewring landscape maintenance review program for the facilities. He submitted a written report and highlighted the following: · Peliean Bay Community Park - Some of the fencing is in need of repair. · Vanderbilt Beach Access - Overall aesthetic quality of the area is poor and consideration should be given to improvements in this area. · Vineyards Community Park - The waterscape area is in need of improvement; it was noted there is a capital project scheduled for renovating this area. · Sudgen Regional Park - Improved entrance signage is recommended. XI. Public Comments None Meetinfl Attendance All present There being no further business for the good of the Countr. the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:20 PM. . COI.I.lF.~ COUNTY PARKS &; RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 4./ tj . 0 , as presented ~ or as amended 1611 A12~ _..-J~ Fiala ~~ ~ Hala~ ':} J.J: November 18,2009 Henning --V- Coyle ~} ((AI) Coletta ~_. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 Board of County Commissioners Naples, Florida, November 18,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phillip Brougham Kerry Geroy David Saletko William Shafer ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Margaret Bishop, Project Manager Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Ma~~~~: Date: Item.: Copies to: 1611"" A12~ November 18, 2009 I. Call to Order Vice Chairman Olesky called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm and a quorum was established. Mr. Schafer was welcomed as a new member of the Board. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Brougham moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions: V.g) Discussion of Tony Smith email to BCC Chairman Donna Fiala V.h) Discussion ofamendmettt to Field Rental Policy Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of October 21, 2009 minutes Ms. Brougham moved to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2009 meeting. Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. New Business a) Employee of the Month for September None Chairman Ribes arrived at 2:05pm and assumed the Chair. b) Recommendation to Approve David Saletko to fill the Vacant P ARAB Seat Ms. Buehler moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that David Saletko be re-appointed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Second by Mr. Brougham. Carried unanimously 7-0. c) Community Partnerships - Kerry Runyon and Gary Stagg Gary Stagg, Recreation Supervisor provided an overview ofthe Community Partnership, which involves events with the Collier County Sheriff's Department and area youths. The events include "Drug Free Collier," "Hot Summer Nights," etc. A Collier County Sheriffs Benefits Fair was held on October 1 with approximately 570 Staff and Spouses attending the Event, which included free HINl flu shots, promotion of Parks and Recreation Programs and participation by area vendors, etc. d) Parks Master Plan - Barry Williams Board member Phil Brougham had requested the item be placed on the Agenda, as according to the Ordinance empowering the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's (P ARAB) duties include providing input on the Parks Master Plan, and no plan is in existence at this time. The followittg was highlighted during the discussiott: . If no plan is intended to be adopted, should the Ordinance be revised to reflect this? · The Growth Mattagement Plan requires the Plan be adopted by 2010. 2 1611 .. 1\ / t)) .. t\ 1 ,;:: November 18, 2009 . A Request for Proposal for preparation of a Plan was sent out, however it was withdrawn as Staff realized there were no futtds available to finance the endeavor. . Nick Casalanguida, Director of Transportation Plattning informed Parks and Recreation Staff, the Parks and Recreation Department may "piggy back" preparation of their Master Platt on a Trattsportation Platt being prepared for his Department. . Combining the preparation ofthe Plans by the same Cottsultattts may assist in reducing costs for both Departments. . Consideration is being given to Staff developing the Plan "in house." . Consideratiott is being given to amendittg the Growth Management Plan to a date more in line with available funding. . The costs estimated for preparing the plan is $300,000 - $400,000. Chairman Ribes expressed concern on developing a Master Plan in conjunction with the Trattsportation Department, as the Cottsultattt's scope of discipline is differettt than a Parks attd Recreation Consultattt. Staff will continue to provide updates on the status of the Plan. e) Amending the PARAB Ordinance - Phil Brougham Mr. Brougham noted the P ARAB Ordinance does not identify atty responsibility for the Board to advise the Department in preparation of the Budget. He sought input from the Board whether consideration should be given to amending the Ordinance to include the duty. Committee members expressed concern that assistance in preparation of the Departments budget is beyond the scope of responsibilities of the Board. Barry Williams will continue to provide updates on the status of the budget. For informational purposes, he will provide Board members with a copy ofthe budget. 1) Recommendation to Approve the Parks 5- Year Business Plan - Barry Williams The Board reviewed the "Parks and Recreation 5 Year Business Plan" The Business Plan differs from the "Master Platt" as the Master Plan is a vision on the long-term (20- year) direction attd overall goals of the Department, while the Business Plan addresses "Short Term Operations." The following changes were suggested: · Section D-l, last paragraph, line #3 the revising the word "except..." to "accept... " . Section D-2, first paragraph, line 3 revisittg the word "decreased..." to "decrease... " Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Parks and Recreation 5 Year Business Plan. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 7-0. 3 1611 A12'" November 18, 2009 g) Discussion of Tony Smith email to BCC Chairman Donna Fiala The Board reviewed an email from Tony Smith of Recreational Facilities of America to Donna Fiala, Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Chairmatt, regarding individuals pulling ittto Tigertail Beach, but not choosing to stay. He expressed concern the ittcrease in the parking fee from $6 to $8 is a hindrance to Beach attendance and affecting revenue on all levels, (County income, vendor income, sales tax, etc.). Barry Williams noted this is a concern in all Beach Facilities; the question to address is why is it occurring? Staff is reviewing the issue and preparittg a Report for the BCC and will provide an update to P ARAB next month. Committee members expressed concern fee changes at Tigertail would require a fee change at all Beach Park Facilities. h) Discussion of amendment to Field Rental Policy Mr. Saletko sought input from Board members on the feasibility of ittstituting an ittcentive for renting of Collier COUttty baseball fields. For example, if a field is rettted a given number of times, a free rental be awarded to the rettler. The goal would be to provide additional income to the Department via ittcreased participation itt field rentals. Staff noted: . This would require an amendment ofthe Fee Policy. . Some ofthe fields are already in high demand. . Some fields are underutilized and a Policy may be directed to the fields. . Concern the "fee policy" may need to be consistent for all field usage. . A Program that creates a reduction in field rental revenue would have an adverse impact on Department funding. Staff will review the proposal and provide an update at next months meeting. VI. Old Business a) Capital Project Highlight - Update on Gordon River Greenway Park - Margaret BishoplTony Ruberto Margaret Bishop, Project Manager provided the documettt entitled "Gordon River Greenway - Staff Working Draft" and highlighted the following: · The Greenway is located on the South of Golden Gate Parkway attd East of the Naples Zoo and Conservancy of Southwest Florida Lands. . The plans for the Greenway Park are at a 30 percent design stage. · The project is a joint effort between varieties of entities including the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, Conservation Collier and Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust, etc. · The Plan has been submitted to Community Development and Environmental Services and Staff is awaiting comments. b) Update on Manatee Park - Gary McAlpin 4 1611 A12" November 18, 2009 An update was provided highlighting the following: . The project is located off of Manatee Road on Roost Road. . It will be developed for Passive Recreatiott use such as volleyball, bocce ball, a playground, fishing pier, walkittg trails and a dog park. . It requires the execution of an inter-local agreement between the Collier County School District and the BCC for the expansion ofthe existing lake. . The downturn in the economy has negatively affected the funding for constructiott ofthe Park. . The plans are 80 - 90% complete and a pennit application for the Environmental Resource Penn it has beett submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. . SFWMD has provided comments, which are beittg addressed by the County. . The goal is to have all permits in hand by December of20l0. . At that time, the County will review funding option and develop a financing Plan to construct the Park. c) Review of Adopt of Park Program - Barry Williams Staff is revising the Adopt a Park Program and will be providing an update at the next meeting. Ms. Geroy left the meeting at 3."30pm VII. Marketing Highlights - Peg Ruby The following highlights were provided: . The "Accreditation Banquet" will be held at 6pm Ott December 3, 2009 at the Naples Zoo. PARAB members are encouraged to attend the event and transportation may be provided. . "Fall Festival" was held at Eagle Lakes Community Park. · "Howl-a-Day Jubilee" will be held on November 21, 2009 at Veterans Commuttity Park. . "Sno-Fest" will be held on December 5, 2009 at Golden Gate Community Park. · A "Calendar of Events for December 2009" was provided for informational purposes. VIII. Recreation Highlights FRP A Conference - Sidney Kittila A Florida Recreation and Parks Association conference for the Southwest Florida Regiott was held at North Collier Regional Park. The event was one day and consisted of professional networking, continuing education classes and private vendor participation, etc. The Association indicated the event was extremely successful and is considering holding the event at the site next year. IX. Adopt a Park - John Ribes Ms. Buehler provided the update noting she had visited Max Hasse, Jr. Community Park and noted: 5 1611 A12" November 18, 2009 . The Park needs new equipment for the Fitness Center (the Director requested $50,000 in the current budget and was awarded $20,000) . User pay a fee for the Fitness Center, and these fees are returned to the General Fund. . It is recommended the fees generated be returned to the Center for expenditure. . Improved signage is needed to inform the public of the Fitness Center location. . Due to budget constraints, a full time Staff person who left has not been rep laced. . Consideration should be given to funding a part time employee to fill the staffing void left by the full time person who resigned their position. . In addition to the available daily activities, there are After School Programs, softball leagues, summer camps, a Halloween a Party, a Christmas Party and other events held at the Park. . The Golden Gate Land Trust Committee donated futtds to the Facility for sound equipment. X. Director Highlights Barry Williams provided the following highlights: . The BCC approved a rental rate of$l annually for the Naples Zoo. . The Caxambas Park modifications are complete. . The 951 Boat ramp should re-open by the end ofJanuary 2010. . Expansion of the parking area (double the size) at Conner Park is underway. . Goodland Park should open by June 1, 2010 with a marina store, boat ramp and 79 parking spaces. . The County continues to pursue the expansion of the parking at Bayview Park. There will be a Neighborhood Information Meeting on November 19, 2009. XI. Informational Items Submitted XII. Public Comments Board discussion occurred on means to improve public involvement or expanded media coverage of the activities ofthe Parks and Recreatiott Advisory Board. Meeting Attendance Chairman Ribes arrived late. Ms. Geroy left early. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 4:00 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 6 1611 · A12 ~ I! November 18, 2009 . These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented )( or as amended_. . Lt..". ", , 7 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2010 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta Board of County Commissioners 1611jAl~ December 16,2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, December 16, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2;00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phillip Brougham Kerry Geroy (Absent) David Saletko William Shafer ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Tona Nelson, S1'. Administrative Assistant Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager, Region II, Golden Gate Community Center Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: 1611 A12~ December 16, 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Ribes ealled the meeting to order at 2:02 PM and a quorum was established. II. Pledge of Allegianee and Invoeation The Pledge of AlIcgiance was rccitcd and Invocation was held" Ill, Approval of Agenda Chairman Ribes suggested amending Agenda Item XII to read "Committee Member/Public Comments," Phillip Brougham moved to approve the Agenda as ammded. Second by William Shafer. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of November 18,2009 minutes Phillip Brougham moved to approve the minutes of the October 21,2009 meeting as submitted. Second by William Shafer. Carried unanimous~v, 5-0. V. New Business a) Employee of the Month for October . Sidney KittiIa Employees of the Month for November . Shari Ferguson, Peg Ruby, Shannon Peters, Mary Toro, Nancy Olson, Tona Nelson and Sidney Kittila Barry Williams read Certificates of Appreciation for the Employees of the Month recognizing their dedicated service. b) FY 2010 Budget (A copy of the 10-page Budget adopted for Fiscal Year 2010 was included in the packet distributed to the Committee members) Barry Williams outlined the different funds, eatcgories for each (i.e., General Fund, MSTU), amounts in each fund, and the various expenditures. There was a discussion concerning available Grants and the application process. c) Tiger'tail Beach Analysis on Turnarounds (A chart detailing the number of vehicle turnarounds per month was distributcd to the Members in the information packet.) Barry Williams outlined the main reasons for turnarounds: . Fee is considered too high for daily vacation use (one/two weeks) . Too tar to walk to outside beach (3/4 mile distance) and dislike of lagoon . Murky water (not flowing or attractive) . Vehicle occupants were not dressed tor the beach . Vehicle was a rcntal car without beach parking sticker Staff supported the increased tee irom $6.00 to $8"00, citing beach attendance increased approximately 3% from last year and noted user fees help offset operating expenses. 2 1611 lA 12 ~ Decembcr 16, 2009 Mr. Williams stated. in thc future, only vehicles cntering thc parking lot would bc counted, whilc vchicles turning around at the cntrancc to thc Park will not be included" Thcre was a discussion concerning thc salc of alcohol which has been rcquestcd by a vcndor. It was noted alcohol is sold at Clam Pass Park and the use of alcohol. but not the sale, is permitted at Golden Gate Park. The vendor will make a presentation to the Advisory Committee at a future mecting. VI. Old Business a) Adopt-A-Park Report Guideline . The format was created by Barbara Buehler and membcrs were asked to use thc guidelincs tor their cvaluation reports . Ms. Buehlcr suggestcd adding another category "Ovcrall Recommendations" . Members received copies of their assignments and scheduled report dates b) Update on Ballfield Incentive nequcst Bl\rry Williams refercnced a portion of Rcsolution #2008-283 which stated, "Nofees may be waived, " and "The Board ofCol/nty Commissioners shall selfees and charges for aUf ad/dies and programs. " He further stated the Director of Parks and Rccreation may modify rates and charges on an individual basis tor special promotional events. . Thcre is an 80% usage of existing fields, which was the targeted goal . Maintenance crews are necessary to "'refurbjsh~' the areas between each use c) Accreditation Update - Shari Ferguson . An ot1icial statement wiII be made in March, 2010 by the National Recreation and Parks Association, capping the two-year process . CAPRA logo may be displayed on thc Parks & Recreation website and in advertising (brochures, etc.) . Collier County is one of only 88 agencies throughout the country to be awarded the dcsignation Discussion followed concerning publicizing the achievement and a Member asked if a tie-in with Tourist Development's advertising was possible. TOC's campaign is destination specific, and Parks & Recreation would be charged standard advertising rates for any participation. StafTwill prepare Press Releases for distribution to the media when the announecment is made. (Vice Chairman "Sanla" Olesky arrived al 2:48 PM) It was noted that Commissioncr Fiala was advised of the pending award and she indicated thc Board of County Commissioners will issue a proclamation at the time of the official announcement. 3 1611 A 12-' December 16, 2009 VII, Marketing Highlight~ - Peg Ruby (Due to technical difficulties, the RepOlt was postponed.) VIII, Reereatiou Highlights - Annie Alvarez . "Sno-Fest" - December 5, 2009 - Golden Gate Community Park - approximately 3,000 people attended despite the poor weather conditions (rain/cold) . "Christmas Around the World" - December 11,2009 - Immokalee Sports Complex o 153 entries in the paradc o 30 noats in parade o Santa arrived via helicopter o Record numbcr of vendors Annie Alvarez notcd that 201 0 will be the 25'h year for the parade, and Parks & Recreation will apply for the Dorothy Mullen Special Evcnts award. IX. Capital Pro.ieet Highligbt - Review of Capital Project Report - Tony Ruberto An II-page repOlt was preparcd, copies of which were distributed to the Members, outlining the completed projects on a per park basis. Tony Ruberto provided an update regarding the status of current projects. lIe stated any excess funds not uscd for a specific project will be placed inthc fund's reserve account upon approval by the Board of County Conll11issionel's. A question was asked concerning the requircment for a permit lor the Port ofthc Islands. Mr. Ruberto stated dry storage must be permitted by the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). A qucstion was asked concerning the reasons for the fence repair at the Parks: . Most fencing is at least twenty years old . Fencing is subject to rust . The fcnces have been misused - players bat baseballs against the fences X. Director Highlights Barry Williams provided the following highlights: . New playground equipment has been installed at Golden Gate Community Park, Tigertail Beach, Poineiana Park and Pelican Bay Park. . Approximately 100 people attended the Bayvicw Neighborhood Information Meeting held on Novembcl' ] 9,2009. In order to expand parking, the play ground area will be smaller and repositioned within the Park. A proposal will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. . Staff has begun work on a 5-year Capital Maintenance Plan to develop a long- term planning process focusing on thc Recreational Open Space Element as part of the Growth Management Plan and will consult with Comprehensive Planning 4 XI. Adopt-A-Park - William Shafer (Report will be presented at December 2010 meeting.) 1611 'A12"" al. Member/Publie Comments Members received a copy of the 2010 Meeting Schedllle. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:45 PM. ,COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ).J)VISORY BOARD ;k- P. Rihes [he Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on ... is presented or as amended _~_' I \.1.0 . 10 5 The next meeting is January 19, 20093:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 , Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee :t885 Horseshoe Drive South N .ples FL 34'04 December 15,2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect Report A. McGee & Assoc. B. Windham Studios VIII. Old Business A. December Public Informational Meeting IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 16' l~A 13' Misc. Corres: Date: 3 C<:"nfe-.:: ;'~. RECE!VfiPL I '1'" &1 2 JAN 0 6 201sL 0 \ u. "..~} v1' '.i(.;1:.j (~, Cour-ly Con,rp;S$I0f13fS Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Commitue z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 Fiala Halas Henning coyle Coletta ~ ~j a:> November 17,2009 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:31 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Excused), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager, John Miller- Devonshire Lighting Project Manager Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel-Hannula Landscaping, Scott Windham-Windham Studios, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan, III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Traffic Operations-Devonshire Lighting Project Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20, 2009 Helen Carella moved to approve the October 20, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report-Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $28,732.42 o Available Improvements General $392,859.50 Darryl Richard reported per Mark Isackson FY2010 Carry Forward $341,589.00 (potential) can be recognized early via Executive Summary resulting in Available Capital Outlay $734,448.00 (effective February 2010.) B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard gave additional information: attached) (R-23) Devonshire-Mainline Replacement RFO-006 o Boring process is underway (See MisC. COffes: 1 Date: \teI11# Cop'"s to: 16114A13' (R-18) Radio Road Phase III Proiect o Scott Windham announced Plans are 100% o Public Informational Meeting is scheduled December I, 2009 from 6:00 - 7:30 p.m. at East Naples Middle School Discussion took place concerning the method of notification for the Public Informational Meeting. Dale Lewis questioned if a Resident mailing was legally required as the event will be publicly advertized. It was suggested to use flashing board signs if public mailing is not required. Staff will confirm if a pubic mailing is required and the availability of flashing board SignS. (R-15) Radio Road Phase II-B & Phase I-A o NTP was issued Friday 11/13/09 o Hannula-Materials have been tagged o Project schedule and MOT Plan (Maintenance of Traffic) will be provided to Staffby Hannula o Scheduled completion date February II, 20 I 0 o High estimate on Lane closure days was given for contingency purposes and will be monitored daily o Lane closure fees do not apply to Turn lanes C. Traffic Operations-Devonshire Lighting Project Darryl Richard reviewed Devonshire Lighting Project Plans. (See attached) He stated the County is currently maintaining Devonshire and noted it was abnormal for the County to assume Maintenance responsibility on Devonshire as Lighting and Maintenance is an MSTU function. Discussions ensued on the MSTU assuming responsibility for the Devonshire Lighting Project and lighting maintenance. The Committee questioned Commissioner Henning's inference of dissolving the MSTU upon Radio Road Project completion as an MSTU can only be dissolved when payments stop. The Committee questioned the necessity, timing, and cost of the Lighting Project and concluded Radio Road MSTU Projects take precedence. Dale Lewis moved MSTU feels it is not their responsibility for Lighting on any street and due Budget constraints cannot consider (Lighting Projects) at this time or in the future. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT-Hannula-None VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates - Mike McGee reported: o Weeds at the base of Magnolia Trees (in front of reuse tank) o Dead sod in the new Phase area requires immediate attention 2 1611~13' o Median #26 Possible irrigation leak o Full report will be provided to Staff and Hannula o Median #15 (east end) area is saturated and Valve numbers are needed (by Roger Dick) to analyze the irrigation program o Future Magnolia Tree thinning is needed to allow light on the new Hedge and Viburnum o Valve Box checks (by Hannula) have not been conducted at each Median Damon Himmel will address incomplete Valve Box checks. B. Windham Studios Scott Windham reviewed Status Report Phase III Curbing, Irrigation, and Planting Design: (See attached) ABB: Curbinf! Desif!fl o Soil sample and Percolation tests-(3) per median were conducted o Percolation rates-Good o Excavation and select fill for Curbing-Not required Windham Studios ODinion of Probable Cost 100% Plans (See attached) o Base Sections I.-V. Planting and Irrigation-$259, 289. 95 o Section VI. (Item 3) Credit for Bahia Sod if completed in (I) summer- $25,668.00 o Section VI. Curbing and Lane Construction-$424, 690. 00 o Total Base Sections I.-VI. (with Sod credit)-$683,979.95 o 15% Contingency was removed Discussions developed on the best Bid method to secure the Bahia Sod credit. Pam Lulich responded the Curbing Project Sod installation line item can be deleted as it was only included due to an unknown start date on the Landscape Project. Staff concluded the Projects will be bid separately to be cost effective. Discussions redeveloped on Devonshire Lighting Project. John Miller reported the following: o Collier County took over maintaining lighting on Devonshire previously installed by a developer o Entryway and wall coach lights are tied into Median street lighting and requires disconnection o Billing and payment for street, entryway, and wall lighting is unidentified o Poles do not meet Collier County standards o Wiring is direct buried (not in conduit) o Collier County is funding (total expense) the Lighting Project Staff requested existing Devonshire and Hedge As-Built Plans for John Miller. Dale Lewis noted the County is required to restore the Devonshire area back to original condition if damage or changes are incurred during the Devonshire Lighting Project. 3 1611 All' Darryl Richard stated Bid results will be available at the January 2010 meeting. Scott Windham announced Phase III Budget did not reflect installing smaller plant material (additional cost savings.) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. December Public Informational Meeting 1. Confirm date and time-Previously discussed under V. B. IX. NEW BUSINESS-None Tessie Sillery confirmed a Resident mailing is not required for the Public Informational meeting. Additionally flashing signs are not available. Betty Schudel recommended directional signs be posted at the East Naples Middle School. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS-None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee (: (j)~t~. Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes aPJlroved by the Committee on I d--. - \.) . 0 c; as presented ,/\ or amended . Public Informational Meeting is December 1, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. East Naples Middle School 4100 Estey Ave., Naples, FL 34104 ( I , The next meeting is December 15,20093:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 1611A13' Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. . Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS November 17, 2009 111. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Traffic Operations-Devonshire Lighting Project Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20, 2009 Helen Carella moved to approve the October 20, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: C. Traffic Operations-Devonshire Lighting Project Darryl Richard reviewed Devonshire Lighting Project Plans. Discussions ensued on the MSTU assuming responsibility for the Devonshire Lighting Project and lighting maintenance. The Committee questioned the necessity, timing, and cost of the Lighting Project and concluded Radio Road MSTU Projects take precedence. Dale Lewis moved MSTU feels it is not their responsibility for Lighting on any street and due Budget constraints cannot consider (Lighting Projects) at this time or in the future. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. m ~ ~ ilt!~ :; !'h a !jf '" , Q ~ ZZ ~o . , IP . a , ~ ro g ~ . , 8 .., ::0 o OJ p.. ~ OJ '<: t'""" ....... ()l:l ::r r+ ....... ij ()l:l , " ~ t:::I 5 E;t::J:j ~< 00 ~Z E;W >-3~ 0.......... ~ g2t::J:j z :;;tJ:j tt:l0 goC:: ~~ Ol~ ~S ~ x ~ ~ ru" '" o ." =< " r~ ~r- 0", nO 01)> ZO -<:;: Sti:( r- tf)- 010) nI o:j zz 00) )> ::Utf) -<01 ::0 << on C::;01 )>" ~Q z -< --0 o ,- fTl oOMg OOOOz 0()~Z :;oO:x:Sl oz C-lcG') Z~"'T'J:::o 2 r-..... 0 ~M~~ oo~" >n::!J-o :::C::;r.(")o $?W(/)r-" :-<ZG1l"'l ~jE" Clr-i A:loz g~t\J ~:tl>< ZOl;') "'oo fTlMg ,OOz ~QO ;tl~~ Oz" g~ . ~ [~ 8.e. 0- c~it:;:!.s R~.!tlll J>- 1Il:J -'Nil .go:~z: a:~ !t~ - - " :1!!!.::rifG) tI"~g~z: '<"s::rc !ia~9,6 -o..ib ~ 0 0..3 e: ~"'c;rll.o N:t'< 3 Ul ooo.Qci3- ita~':r . ~g.~ x o~.~~ "0 .....(tl... c- o 0 !to tz -.g 0 0 :J~.... -'0 <r::.o.. ,~ . g,go o ~ 00 liE.. 3. ~~ =(11 0_ . . o g ~ !:l~ '0 ~5 .0 ~!. ., o o. , 0 ~5. ~~ iia H -'0 n ~ o , ". ::2: - ::;0 ~ - z z " '" G) f'i , 0 ~ fTl ~ 0 oo -1 ~ ~ )> oo ,- ""0"0 Q og g g ~~T.(Il --=:J = ~g~Q1 . 0 c Xn , ~'< III a. ~o 0 ~~ Q g ~o'~ () ~az~g ......0....... o . l.ola.!. It 2.itS:3 v.g #.Q g lf~ g O,~ -...Il:l.iD iJi"'::,! Ill: =. "', '" ~'1 -~ \I~ .~ ~c ~ L 0> > 16 0..... (Jl>=i zr lJ -l to ::c '"" r l"'1 ~8~~ ~~:I'l ~8~Ul 1'''0 F ~ OZl'Tl Cl IV) 03:: .- ~~:a:~ "'8f?11'1 ('TI~ fij5 ~ O~~=i n-l;;:~ ~~CD ~S X 1Il~1'T1~ ~N:::!g 'ri : I'TlUJ Vi ::c r UlOa _III :r > !II 0 ""lo~z :!!l"'1:I: Gl> :;0 F::c~~ ~-...Ir~ 5?~~ elF 8 t1JO;:ol"'1 ~~I'T1j!!: :::!oo C ~ ,.".....~1II o~MS;: ~I'TI~ e~ ~ "~~Z-I zoo:;! Ul~:;tI ~ 0 :;tI O. >-10 . Vi)> z~ ~ ZI :;tI2!!z I'TI~ Ul9 !'i Z Ul)> On ll::o ~o . ili~~ ~8~ ~iil~:il ~ tD;:;l::e ~~r o;:;tI:::!_ I COI S' ll:: [IJ ~~ Ul Q~~ ~~a Jl~!Il~ ~ o ~z g~ :;tIBi ~ R ... Ul~ ZQ:t :i!ro 0 I'TI :;tI"'Tlr t/lffjl'Tl I'TIr ~"lI 1"10!'i"'Tlr =< fT1 0 O:;tl_ OI'Tl:;tl"ll-< _ .. C~ :;tIr8 C-I ;c: ~ z. :;tIQc ZO ~. C'lo O~ii t/l"ll '/!i- e::o ~r'2 ?Z:;tI ~Z )>n~ O~ g~ egiil ~ o '" ~ a> In... U ~ ~ . .. .:n -tZS:r:t F.i )>>:rOI'TlIO~I'TII'TI/'TI 1=g:I"1.Z~:~ ~~Ul ~O!;i ~ ~:;tI>pp ~ ~<35 ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~!:i~ I'TI ~a~~~ E Ul:;tl IlI'r ll:: 0 _ 8c/'TI Ul!"'ltDC8~ ~ c ~ -t "lII :;tII"1Ul ;;;: Ul 1i 1"1 0 :J:'/!i- UlC:J::;tIF= .. ;c:)> III 0.... ~UlZ r ~sgl'Tl gz F8g~~ Ulm~ FE ;ga~F~ ~Oo OQ>O ;e FAJ!:(~l'TIa=la~z tDUl> a> l'TI~rr~ ~~~ ~~ ~ISg~ ~r~~;g~:rUl~~ . ~ ~ .'lQ. l'TIorf::J ~::e0 6!,Qg!"1l'T1r ;g~b z~~~?Z 00 OM. --00 ~-:r ~--o ~~ !=J Bi I'TI sg S 5z ~~ g~ R~ :r ~ ~ N ?Z~ /'TI e; g ~ O. l'TIl'TI ::c AJ Ul ~. I'TI S 5 d ~ F ~ :;tI ~ oo " !"1 f'1 tDUltDN "'Og?COAJ~ ~VlUlI'TI~ ~o VlUl ~o ~o l'TI::C::C~::e::C Oz o!:::1g::r~Rl I~N Sg ,,~~ i2 I I ~ 0 m~ ~~" ~ os;lC ~8~ ~~~~~~~ ,,:::j o. zrE ~?e?eo2S I"N ZOr 0 00 ~-g ~ I I >1Il~ ~e::c 8~~ o~r~6;dAJ ~ . 8~ ~ ~~o oo~- ~" c, ~ ~ ~~: ':E2. Ms;;l ge::~ ooo"'Tl~O' !!.ol'TlO::!lZd l'TI.L........ Z 0... x~o oo~o 01;' Il........!io~g ~cc ~~~ ::::~~~F~~ z " ~oo> tD!;2l'T1:ao> "'". Uln<~tDxo ~1lI'~ ~O"llOz"" o~c Zlll~ 1fT1!'i:::!~~~ O::l1""r ~" ~. !'lOoo .....5 oro" :;:O;:(gMtDOlGl oo" c~r !IIi32o ~ Gl upzZf::Jg:z oz or"-'rO:J: ~~ ~o?Zz!--l "'''" ....!3 ~<ul ~ glll'~ ~~c oo 0 z' 0 ? :::j ~ 2!:i oo ~ " '" ~ '" ,,~ , 0 00 c 'z 9:fT1 ,,, ~N ~~ if!=, n ~ ~~ & o [ ~ [ o' , OC'ltDgz~?e 2..Rl~z~gC'l 2:~:;:o;:gS;:zm o or;:1o_ &'U2:ao::eBi :t~~~:i!~~ ;c:ooo;::eor;:1 ~~IIUlg~o S'PII-tZ'::j' <0 )>SOI~::e -I::&:' ::&:::e-l OC'l::ezzz~ ~ a>::Cz~C'lf;l ;';O:;~"'O~f=3 Z :;tIzr t~2:e~~~ "'fC'l~O....~ :8 ~~g~~ i3 II >iJ 0 ~ ZI"'1 n p. ~!'I;;o C ~ r ~~ ~~ Si z . 8~ ?es' ~~ o~ c_ "Q oo~ g~ 6~ ~1.1 ~2. ro o z o C'l;;otD"'Tl ?e:;tlI"'1C< C'l1"'10fil'Tl a>~g:;:O;:8 00 z ~ '0 ~ C'lQ.~ ~~a "'=<;o ~ "" oo " C ~ FACE t ro R BASE OF TRANSFORME FACE OF CURB ~~e::g o "z ~8MS "zz z:tl~~ C'lOIO :?b~o~ ~;:O"'Tlo "<O~r . 6j~~ Z"'TlO ~F.io C'l!,Q~ ~~~ 2'/!i-::e S?n:::j ZOI C'l~z f;;~~ ". '"~" oAJ~ O"C ~,"z 0-0 ooz ~ '1 "0 , r () fTl () ::e S:lII ::J <0 o ,r <0 .., Q 3 (J') G'> CD CD ~::? g ~ CD a if 3.:; g.CD 5:. ~ (11 l: :J:::r3...2: g- <l z~ 2ass3o e:: fTl_. - "'0 < 0.5 2 ~ or5'~a t; I'.J :J -'Q (11 C C'l Ul~ 5-.5 ...'gii Xl 9 ~ ~iliI's-g S' g Ul.. '<1:] 2'_5,<0 Z Ula o2.3i1s,CD 0 a. -;a3:J<O if ;;0 (11.... ~(11 ~ 0 3" ii~S.::rifR 0 In Q5N2.~CD ~ [ ~ S.05=~~ Ol, s: 3 9: it CD ..:: ~ g' ~2:""~2 g. o. ];~8:~:< ~ .a ~ ~:tg C'l ~*~l~ .....::r CD <0 iiCD....2. ro~ W=tJ ~~.'" R-, "<O"'Tln r "':J--o"'n ;;oUl'5"~ CD "'r!i 5.g n 0;0:; ~'g-fi i5'~ :J... :::!:.... o 0 . , M~~~~~~ ~ Ii~~~~~ z 'Ii z '" o . ~ <~~ ~~~ ~ro'" ~1"'18 :::!~n 0..0 ~~~ ~o~ ~" 0 ~5=: .~, ~~o ~Ul'/!i- !"1~r :;:~ oo ~~ u +" ;; ~ ~"N ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~o'gO' 00' Co ~zc '< S'/!i- ~>c ,~" ~G):!i ~~Vl ~o .'0 ~.mN "'OCDtD -.AJ IViVi ;:~~ ~t/lUlI"'1~~Q II!,Qr::e 8~ ~ ~o~~ r I :b.>n"'Tlg o~::I111l0c_ ;:0< I "lIt/l;:{J n~;o~~~t; 8r;rso;:{J~o l'TIl..............,o... ~ c.... C oVis:lo ~~~2l'T1o~ =i6"'OIIlZZ l'TI O!"1~zr o ~ M -'ll'TIB ...r"-' ~c::c ".!:) .~;;I ~ S:r o ~ " ~ 36"+ ~ ?' ~ ro ~ , 0 " x z oo 0 C 6 ~ z ~ x ~ o " Si o m ~ & ~ ": o c ~. " oo " ~ " o o z " ~ ~N X ~~ o x , - ,,~ Sio ~c zl' ~. <:i~ !~ \ OON 8s;l 2: Q "'- >~ ~g ~> I. Se ~" ~~ ~ o ~ " :;'8 ~z "0 0, 6Vi C;~ ~~ ~!Q -, ~o oz ;iio ,,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "- ~~ oo> ,z 'Ii~ Zo ~ '" o !Q:;:~ ~O, p~> ~R-E r~~ .iil02 ~~ . o~~ "=>0 ~IC (;;~~ A~~ ooz ~5~ "~" z ~ <:i ~ MEASURED - MOUNTING HEtGHTTO LUMINAIRE FROM PAVEMENT 3" 12' / Ij / I;;I;/;; . ..~.. FPL 5ft. Min 6 ft. LCEC 5 ft. +6" ~~~ s:l~~ ~m" ~$;~ :Aiz~ ~!Q ~~ woo" ~ ~ ."",:00."",:00 .',. "" -;:::'Z~IZ r4"l 908 1'TI.;;;r;)~ ~ ~Q.~Sl~"'Tl fi gou oVi :J~;;oUlCffi act ~=<M ~Q 0:;-"8 lr=tJ ~.ct'" R-Z <g !i=tJ~r; IIl;;oZ"fi Q~.[::; S;o:; 5.~'~ 5'~ ~::> ~~ o 0 . , , o. ~~ ~~ o;~ ~" 5~ ~2 of Zo ~c ~~ ~~ , oo C ~ ~ r C s:: Z ~ ;0 m en en I )> r ,.... ro m o z en m ~ ;0 ~ m Q ;0 () C :::j en ~ ~ ~ ~. w ~ ~lIt!~ ;; ! ' ~. . , SIn 0 '" , 0 '" ZZ ~g ~ . II I . no J 0 0 '" , 2, ;; 0 '" , 0 S tr:I o i> ;d ::0 :>> t:J ~ ~""O t' '1:J~>rj l'J"'OZ !"~:OUJO "JCl1:t!~O ~U~~ >:x: H'"'" . 00'" 'I':X:'1:JZO ;::ot'J 0 olU:oUJ ..[JJ:>>t'JC Ul::J~Z :X:O;:::., ~oZ()-< ~t'jU1~ "'tJ UJ~ -~t:::l u "'<t'J:;~ Cl1l'J'1:J,,"'" "'I :>>>;:~ :0"' ~ ~ t-30(J) '" ;;=:ZUl '" t'J ~ Z 0 ..., Z i:':1 ::0 Ul ~ o p:i p.. ::t; p:i '<: t'""" ...... iJtl P" ...... ...... ::J iJtl ~ '1 t:::jl; ~t?=j 0<: :;a 0 02: E;CJ:l ~::r:: o J--l (/):::0 ~t?=j ~t:d t:t::lO S:;C t:t::lr ~S2 tl:l:J;> ~:::o t:::I w ~ ~ ~ i-----" ~ OJ (f) a: " Z::: 0 a~ m 6""'~ '" JJ- g" r ii 5")> 9l. 15' " m x ~ 5- <0 '" (f) a: ~ 0> '" "'ClW oQ CD x. "OJ 00 C 0 " " o.n ~ro g CD ); -0 -0 ~ ~ Q) '" '" .Q '< 0. ill- 00 r o 9l. o' " .!'!- m 5'-0" x ~ 5' <0 '" (f) a: ~ 0> '" ~ !!'. "'Cl 0> ~ ~(f) a: " (f) U "'0 JJ!t " 0> 0= 9l.)> o' " (f) a: " (f) ::: " 0> " "'0 JJ!t " 0> 0= 9l.)> o' m" 0> !!'. ;;:: ~ .~'t"'~ l" w. '.1;,- .,. " o ~ o Z (f) I "ii m W < o o ~ o Z (f) I "ii m W < o "'Cl 0> ~ '< .:".~~loi;.' W " '" m "'Cl(f) ~ 0- . _0> " 0 (f) ~ "+ W 0 ~'" 0 ~ 00 + ~ 0 0 ;:0 }> g o ;:0 o ..., q ..., ai '" Ci Edge of Pavement )>JJ a ill. C 0 " &1 0._ " " o (f) 3 ~ ~~ =:0) 0- " "" '---l "'Cl(f) 9..6i " 0 " + ~'" 00 ""~ -Il' W _. ~!!'. 5' <0 "'Cl o 1ii' r o 9l. o' 2- m ~ . ~ ~ i DEVONSHIRE BLVD "'Cl(f) 0- _0> " '" ~.:!;. 0.... ~ "'Cl(f) Q.w " '" ~3. 0.... ~ W ~ GlOO'" g q q' "W)>1li o.~~ , , GlWJJ ~ -" m~o. """llo lloGl ~~ CD ~ OJ l) "'Cl(f) ~ l)(f) 2.Qj' Q./iT " W "", ~6, 0 ~+ 0.... JJ O~ ~ ~ ~ "'Cl(f) l)(f) Q.ti) Q./iT " w "", 'g:+ ~+ o'f O~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ob Go iif'lit ~~ !')~ -'l' , ~ oo+z - o'tJGo.............~ ffJii1' ~ "" " l> 'Vi/j ;R ~ f:!"" .",OJ 4;' - q," q, o D.oi' '""-4 ~ '1;\- ,,0 "'0-;:;000 mZm....-l JJ(f)",)> "'- O)>JJ.... ()rm+ ",rmel OZX om(f.i \":i:,,, "''''- o....Z ~oGl ;;<r ",00 Ir)> "'0 mro rOm m)>z 00", "'om ~mJJ OZ)> S:"'Z mmo ",JJ m JJ '\ ~o" ",~OJ ",,'i> O~') P!~" " ->>C!', ",<I' <<i'<:! . ~oo ,,0 o # ~o. 0\0~ r:J\~ ~S \6\"'') 9>1,'1,\ f'o,8 ,Q>S ') v00,8 ,\6 -;:1i..,.,') "'~"'\~, \'),#, c, 0\~\'S' ~...Q0 ~""..J SANTA BARBARA BLVD ROW . - . T Pole Centerline Edge of Pavement Edge of Pavement ~ w ~ Edge of Pavement ..., q ..., oj 0'0 ~ 0 -" ~- " OJ "'Clo. o 0 ::: ~ " (f) ~ ~ Oil!. 0- 30 -o!t 0> " ~ 3 -i S' OJ " " - '" ~ 0''' 3W " :< ~ -. _n " cp j&JJ _CD ![-@ 0' ::;- " " 0. o 0> CD ..., oj Edge of Sidewalk 000 000 33;3. -o-o~ 0> 0> 0> " " 0. '< mOo ~lI>c;, ="U::r r6'~ o ~ - n_W 0> 0 CD CD?;'JJ ~ '< m 0. C-o _,,0 0.0." ~ CD ~. _~O' ~~ 1ii' -.cO' ~,,~ CD 0.0 -. < 0 ;~;:, O>;l-w g. g 2:-.;:' CD ~<O ~ CD )> c= s:~ ~= -< '" " 9 Ig, OJ 5"-n QCDm9:c3 ;;r o!\! n _. o -. ~ 0) CIl 3.~=:J'~::r ~ ct;!!!. 0 ~ . OCO;:'c. -.;:'2;-- ~a~ffi~ CD-O'I-om CDi6oii)= 9 -.~ ;:, m ~D3m~22 ~~mdlQ. 3:;;-a-1ii'i" C";:, 3 z-' CD CD c::l <n' -03 g. ~ ~~ [g> ~ 0 ::l (j) ffi' OJQ9:iCll CD~g,=n J2 z m OJ = mc:'CDz 23031~ [ig@[ n'(f)~:;O' ~=:J'O)-"" . ~,<)>m 0:; m:g ~ CDaa::T J2S~.-g 0) (ii 3 - n _.., CD ~Q:rom CD _u> -.,< " ...., oj Edge of Sidewalk '" . - .1 Pole Centerline ROW ~ '" q ~~. ~ c g, S' ~-.g. -I(f) fg:i:g. ~Q~ W"'C ro I(i) ~~~ :::o:C')-o CD 0 < o " 0 ~ 0. GlcO ~ 0. 0 ., 0 " ':<Cjlg. G)_:::O: a~o 5 c: ~~r o..~n (j) ~ ::rIg O)g.m ~(j)ai ro ~ g Gl=CD ~wo. CD CD C ~ OJ;:' . - 0. ., CD n ~ """'Cl o ., ~ < JJ" CD 3 _0. CD ;3. '" c)>c ::><<0 :::;;ro:J" Ow=: 3<O~ _. CD -<-0 .,..,~. CD ..-v=:cn W W -. _ _<0 O' _::::J )>Olo < CD ::J, <0::>- _UlCD :s:: -., _.-.< w' ::J .. .. o ~." o o C'i OJ ::> ::> a.(j) CD , 3 CD a. iii' - CD 0\06 ~ \ \~ ~S :,\?'O \') 01\')9>1,'1,\ ?,\,\\I' _ CI''\'O "'\'jla\o~ \.C '')\')99+9 \. e\S ~a I~:J v~# alod €€+H elS ~OI~:J 9~# alod 86+8~ elS ~ OI~:J L ~# alod uOlle~ol alod BUIISIX3) 89+00 elS ~ JJ",'" CD I..!..' S'-:i:il Zo~ CD ~ (f) " ",n -I~ elS~ (f)2C ~C')(i) =o~ w"o CDo."'Cl ~ c < 0.0 -. Q C') roCllo o 5" ::l ~ U> 0. G)C:~ ~ CD' 0>' C ':< I;:' Gloo. ~ -" o (j)t:C c ~ ~ " ., 0 o.-c (j)ro::l ~CDo. ~[JJ~ OJii)::r ro~z G'lo9 m .... (j) CD ? o .. "'Cl ~ W ~ m;rg> CD CD :< 0. 0. _. "'-0 2 !!l!!i"'Cl (j) () Q. " 0 " <=- -. CD' r n ~ 0 CD 00> :!Eoo. ;:::;':CC') ~"CD s:-< ;3. CD (f)CD -CD~ ~ :< '" o n'~ 0'''< ro-oQ. C') Q.::: o a 0 QoG) 9:roa ;:, m c: m _, ;:, rono.. o..C')O' ~,-I .., 9=03= ,,00. "'Cl\"CD r~~ ~o . c " 0. -.<r- .... 0 c: ;:, 0);::;:3~ ~ 0 S' ~ O'~ ~. OJ 3 D3 m ~ ro ct;:E m .... 0 -. r OJ ::l 9=<2)' "0 ~ $ ;:, " ::!" 0) (.oJ ~cE ;:,ohOJ o..:I!c:r -'0.' -0 ",:::-,0 1 ~=It(f) :I! 0 0-1 . 5"'O::U ~gg~ cE(OCIl~ CDI-'I CD '< '" ~<2)'"8 6 3;:t=ffi o OJ 0 ' ;:, .., -. r ()c:~m o ~ ::!.O ::l ro C'" nc.s.9' .... -. C ~~gr CD c ' "3~.(f)< o -. .., c ;:, ro 0'1 ;:,c:a.", 0.30'0'1 ~~~3 o_~:l> ?roo ::: ~ 1~:J v ~# alod €€+L ~ elS G ~:J ~:J 9 ~# 8iod 60+6 ~ elS 88+00 elS 9 ~~~~ ~~ ::r - 3 - ro 3 -.O:j'~ Slo D3 "8 ~. OJ OJ (ii ~ D3 ro !e..~ m ..,., -:E m '< x- o 0' -" r -n-' 3 ::l 9= <2)' c:~. ~g-n~~cE OJ(.oJ~::l -ON m o,CO 0 0'1 CIl C')OJ CD'O (J):I!c: r en:E O)~oOl>>O) ::l::::..=I:lcn::l:::l: c.g 0-' c.s: (Xl a '9. ~ I ;!! :;' -, -. (j) CO@N ::r ~I--I:I: g ~!!!,::ci ';-l g )>rg.~$2 x "--OJ r ::IOJO I c: en 2 (ii' r 3 o en _ m -. ;:, :::r g: 9 ~ ~~a9' ~. ;:,)>oC m Qc;:,r;- ;:, CD3:::(f) 0. ro 3" ~' < ~co..fa c30't.n "l)~3 ~Q.~)> g:(J)o ? o m < o Z [f) ;J; JJ m W < o ~ r m G) m z o 16 I l'Jt 13 , ~~~~~~~t~~~~~=~~~~~~~:~m~~~~:o~m~m~~WN~ ill"'jmml....nfoo~o~C~c;:;:oozmo>zm jZOO........"'z~OO mrn 65 ~~~~~~....~e~~oz~-z~~~~o~zoQ~ m~~~~~~~~~ mm ~Q Z~-~m m-z~ 0 Z m ~- ~~~zzm0z~> ~~~~~~m~~~~E~~mz~I~~~~~~~~ .#<<m0Z~~oo =m~~~~bo~Z~~~o<rn~~ ~~~Qg~,~ ~mdd~~ffi~~~< dn~~G~cmQm~om~~m ~~m~~~8z ~~~~~~~~~6~ ~ozz -~~~~m~~co~ m~~ ~Z0Q ~~~~~>>~-o~~ OZ00 c.m~'>>r- 0> rOO >O'~ om>>>>DOCZzmm o~,> ~<Qmz~~~~~~ ~~~ oo~m o~oo~~~~-~~ z o~ z mZQOZZ~m~ z~~ ~mmm ZZOQ'>C~Z" , o~ 0 Z.mamQ~_- 0 >>>z~ ~c >~~m'>> Z o~ 0 m~cmg ~~~ ~~~ r~mQ ~m~~~~m~~xx ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~om OOzOO >z ffl,~I ~~o~ rn z ~~ 0 . cffi Q ~, >>m~ c>,m , 0, ~ m~ ~m < ~ ~,~m < 0 ~ 00 u~z 0 ~ m o~ ~ m ~ m ~ >>, o Q 00, ~ ~ '" ~ o <0 ~ '" '" '" ~ :t..o-. ~'" "m mo 00 ~~~~ - _~~m$~mmmm~~mmmmm , f): .,( " ...... 88 00 00 ~M2m~ ~__ m--w o~~ww&o~ ~~-~ ~pp~ m~~~ ~mA~~~~_~o~~o~ooo~m~~o~o ~gg88oo~8gg8gggg8ggg~ggg 8888g~~~888ggggg888g~88g ..~ ..."'... ~--.~ ..........~ =:E~ :"~:c.. ... ~ <0 YJ{f:l{f:l{f:lYJYJYJ{f:l{f:l{f:lYJ(R .. a, m '" ~ o ~ o a, '" _~__{f:l_{f:l_ {f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:lYJ{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l_~ "'~m .. 0.. '" 0 ~ i:n,:...,Co ~o... lllll: ;;; ~~ ....... ... '" ~ 0; "'" -,JIr. en ""'0 0 0 ... "'0 ~- .. '" 0 '" <0 ..- mo i~ !: w 0 w w ~~ 00 ~ 0 0 ... 00 ..."'~ NI\JCDCON WWNNOI ,JIr. ~~=t=l~8 OOtD (1100 g8~gf88 if !i i ~ " ~ II " ~ I E~ ~ 0 ~ f ~ ~ II . ~ ~ e ~ ~ 5 II _{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l(n{f:l{f:l{f:l_{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l{f:l ~- '" ~_Olp~ CDI\J~Ol ~mOlOOOOo) wom'O oooooooomCDOOO 00000000......01000 oooooooOCooooo OOOOOOOO,Jlr.OOOO ~~~~~i~iii:a6'i5' a=:EDlQ:::JiIl'~55ri::!. :Tcn"'OI:C~SlCCC ~i 1U';ij(Dgo,go,::! mmm -<_< 3it3:"t:o> ~:;I;:; ::o~.~ !a3~r:S!: ~:::J:::J:::J m!l~ a/l' .00 :::oQ.a.Q. 0-.... 5.~c5oo f!.a~~ ~gz . 3"C"C ~ Q ~ " !="S'S.S. flll CD CD IDIDIO !!J ...... ... ...... ......... ...... ~g: ~q~ "'''' m",,,, Omm 00 000 -. 00 ~ ooao 00_000 ~0101 ~ ~ ~ ...........0.................. " ~~"tl~ ~:::o::: ........... 0...... WW"tl........... .. ,JIr.mm~ '" ~ O)............m,Jlr.-..I t ~'< ~ "'~ ~...... W,< I\J-..I ~" WI\J wo Om ~~s: ~~~ :$0 O)'z" 'z~OI,z,~m o.~_OlOlW_............Ol_WWO: o-..l>~~:::j>::::::::~)>o~~n~,., ~...... 00...... :::0;:0"'" I\JO :;~~:;:;&,Q:;~:;~~3. fi~3aaQ5ac5a.uo~ se iJ;:;S!! /I' !!o<flll all! "'o-.:T<:ro' -;m- OiilOJ g"'Gi-. :::J O"C 0 "C 'C ffi' f"C ~"C ~ -l rb 0 rb rb -..... ltI I'll (1) > go, a > > s. :r m :3'il '}i} ~ ll.5. S:lfi1.~ ii s: 'g 3. if CD !:!: n n. :::0 co 3 cngg'!:i~ (D~ ~i'< ~~ 5g +(I)@ feW ~-o ~lQ. (I) <. <, g..Q. ___:::J :::Jrb n .",,,,, '" '" w U> "'''' "'''' '" U> '" '" N ~ :::; m '" N 3 <> "~ "m ~ '" ~ <0 ~ " ~ 0 ;. '" 0 <n 0 m m a, W 3' ~ '" '" m " ill ~ ~ ;:; ~ <0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 '" 3' .. 0 0 0 m '" 0 ~ ~ '" '" ~ 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 m -fltEtlt{f:lE,ol{f:l0UtEB{f:l{f:lE,ol-ut..,.., ...~ ."" ..~ .. 0 ...~ CoIN "'... )> n c !!. ~ .......c..CI:I!!. CDm<Dc. g~~ _......:F3_ -..I,JIr.-..I 1\J(00)",.o,'O-..... gm(j2g~~ o:""owooa. O~O-..lOOO {f:l{f:l{f:l(A{f:l(A(AEtIt{f:l{f:l{f:l DI )> c 3 ~ W a. .. " 0 a. om m .. ..0 a, - .. 00 0 a. 00 0 00 0 00 .9 flJEtltEtltfIJ-ut.gt{f:lEtltfIJflJYJ 0 0 3 3 g .. " it {f:l.EtltEtlt-flt_409EtltYJ(A{f:l m >C .. 1: " '" N a. 2' "'.. '" ;:;: !!. ~W(D"""_-:;::"" C OICDCCI\JI\JOW ~ <D<DI\JU'I<DO'II\J .:'0.:':""0:'" ~~O)......~-=~ {f:lfIJ__Etlt__Etlt-utEtltEtlt _0; N I\J ......OIW ClO -..I 0I0(()1\J......",. -..I ~g~8~~~~l\Jo~ Dlo......oU)m-..lA.<DO'I~ f,.)ooo:o.:':"'u,:""oC:n .....O~gt.Jl\J..fDl'o.)......~ at! !~ .. z ~ ~ C CD"TIO 3c:;U {~O ........)>0 ....cnC - ... 3: ~ 1Il o -l CO c: " :<i o ~ o 00 , 1611'A 1\3' November 17,2009 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Reoort (R-23) Devonshire - Mainline Replacement RFQ-006 (offGC Contract #O6-3971) PURCHASE ORDER: P. O. #4500113622 (dated 11112/2(09) CONTRACT: RFQ 006 Per Contract #06-3971 11-16-09: Notice to Proceed sent to PBS (Hannula Sub-Contractor) for completion by 1-15-2010. (R-22) - ON HOLD - DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs -now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09-5111R rates: :&8,700.00; 8-25-09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R-21) _ COMPLETED - DEVONSIDRE (Belville to Santa Barbara) Spray Irrigation REFURBISHMENT; 11-17-09: Newly planted hedge is in healthy condition and is being 'watered in' as new planting. Property owners along this section of Devonshire have expressed satisfaction with new planted hedge. (R-18) - RADIO ROAD PHASE ID PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 8-25-09: 60% Submittal plans under review. 9-15-09: 90% Submittal plans under review. I ()"20-09: Pubic Meeting coordination with Committee 11-17-09: Final 90% submittal comments have been forwarded to Windham Studios; Final 100% submittal for ROW Permit Application is pending. Public Meeting will be held on December 1,2009 at East Naples Middle School. (R-15) - RADIO ROAD PHASE II-B & Phase I-A (II-B is from Kings WaylBriarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I-A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) 8-25-09: BCC approval on September 15, 2009 for award to Hannula Landscape 9-15-09: BCC approval of Bid for Hannula Landscape. 10-7-09: Contract under review by County Legal 11-10-09: Pre-Construction Meeting held with Hannula Landscape 11-13-09: First Day of 120 Contract Begins; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLEfION DATE: 02-11-2010 FINAL COMPLEfION DATE: 03-13-2010 (R-19) - MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8-25-09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per 'agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. (R-14) - MAINTENCE CONTRACT - BID# 09-SIlIR - "Radio Road Beautification MSTDtMSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8-25-09: Hannula maintenance Contract #09-5111 R - Ongoing with 3 one year renewal periods 1 '. 16:1\'13 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County A TM Jim Carr, ABB James Abney, Abney and Associates From: Scott Windham Date: November 17, 2009 RE: 100% Status Report on Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting Design Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting design: ABB: Curbing Design ABB has incorporated final, 100% staff review comments to complete the 100% curb construction plans and bid documents and specifications . Following completion of the soil percolation tests and sample tests, it was determined that the existing fill quality is of sufficient quality to support plant life particularly below the 20-24" depth including acceptable percolation rates. . In compliance with county requirements, the medians will be excavated and filled with 1B" of approved top soil to set the final median grade for landscaping. The 18" top soil shall be placed in three - six inch (S") lifts. The first lift shall be rotortilled to a depth of eight to ten inches (8" to 10") to blend the top soil with the existing median soil. The second lift shall also be rotortilled to a depth of eight inches (B") minimum to further blend new and existing soils. The final six inches (S") of topsoil does not require rotortilling. . The final curbing plans, specifications, bid tabular and related documents have been submitted to county staff in preparation to be put out to bid following the public meeting in December. Wmdham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 Emai1: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 16111~A13' Abney and Associates: Irrigation Design Abney and Associates has incorporated 100% staff review comments to complete 100% Irrigation Plans and SpecifICations . The final irrigation plans, specifications, bid tabular and related documents have been submitted to county staff in preparation to be put out to bid following the public meeting in December. WSI: Planting Design Windham Studio has incorporated 100% county staff review comments to complete 100% Planting Plans and Specifications . The final planting plans, specifications, bid tabular and related documents have been submitted to county staff in preparation to be put out to bid following the public meeting in December. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 EmaiI: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc 100% Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost October 20, 2009 Revised: November 17, 2009 RADIO ROAD MSTU PROJECT PHASE 3 CURBING CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1611A13' A. CURBING CONSTRUCTION ltemNo. Description Unit Quantity Unit Total Cost Cost I MOBILIZATION LS 1 137,500.00 137,500.00 2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS I 110,000.00 110000.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING (13.6 AD LS 1 120 000.00 $20.000.00 4 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRElll PAVEMENT SY 1.362 110.00 113620.00 5 REMOVE EXISTING BRICK PAVERS SY 185 15.00 1925.00 6 EXCA V A TlON CY 4943 110.00 $49 430.00 7 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY 588 115.00 18 820.00 8 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOIL CY 4,759 117.00 180 903.00 9 UMEROCK BASE. 6" TIlICK /pRIMED) LBR 100 mNDER F CURB) SY 2,614 111.00 $18.754.00 10 ABC 9" TIlICK SY 4 155.00 1220.00 II ADJUST EXISTING MEDIAN INLETS TO MANHOLES EA 3 13 000.00 19,000.00 12 ADJUST EXISTING IRRIGATION V ALVES TO GRADE EA 50 1300.00 115.000.00 13 CONCRElll CURB & GtJ'ITIR. TYPE F LF 9410 110.00 $94 100.00 14 CONCRElll SIDEWAU<. 6" TIlICK SY 23 135.00 1805.00 15 BRICK PAVERS (INCLUDES 10% WASTF'l SY 498 150.00 124.900.00 16 SODDING rRAHIAXINCLUDES WATER. FERTILIZER & MOWING) SY 13100 12.00 126 200.00 17 SIGNING AND MARKING LS 1 $2 000.00 12000.00 15% CONTIGENCY 163,300.00 PROJECT TOTAL - WITHOUT LEFT TURN $485,477.00 16 I 1 A 13 B. LEFT TURN LANE AT ESTHER STREET I MOBILIZATION LS I $2 500.00 $2 500.00 2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS I $2,000.00 $2000.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS I $1.500.00 51,500.00 4 EXCAVATION CY 500 $10.00 $5 000.00 5 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY 15 $15.00 $225.00 6 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOIL CY -300 $17.00 -$5 100.00 7 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER. TYPE F LF 190 $10.00 $1,900.00 8 BRlCKPAVERSfINCWDES IO%WASTEI SY -98 $50.00 -$4 900.00 9 SODDING fBAHIAYlNCLUDES WATER- FERTIUZER & MOWING) SY -266 $2.00 -$532.00 10 TYPE "0" STABn.lZATION SY 590 $5.00 $2.950.00 11 LlMEROCK. BASE. 6" TIlICK (pRiMED) LBR 100 nJNJlER F CURB' SY 38 $11.00 $418.00 12 LlMEROCK. BASE. 10" TIlICK (PRIMED) LBR 100 (\IN])ER NEW PA SY 480 $18.00 $8 640.00 13 SUPERPA VE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE ITRAFFIC ClI2 112"l SY 400 $14.00 $6,720.00 14 ASPHALTIC CONCR1ITE FRICTION COURSE (FC 9.5l1RUBBERVI"l SY 400 $7.00 $3 360.00 15 SIGNING AND MARKING LS I $3 500.00 $3 500.00 15% CONnGENCY $4,200.00 TOTAL - LEFT TURN ONLY $32.381.00 PROJECT TOTAL - WITII LEFT TURN $517,858.00 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, lnc 100% Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost October 20, 2009 Revised: November 17, 2009 RADIO ROAD MSTU PROJECT PHASE 3 CURBING CONSTRUCTION PLANS Note: Quantities in Part A. include the earthwork and paving/grading quantities that would have been necessary without the proposed turn lane improvements at Esther Street The quantities in Part B. include the line items necessary for the turn lane work, and line item deductions for the Part A. quantities not proposed as a result of the turn lane work (net costs saved). " . ~ ~= i'l !Ii i ~ . m 3 " " = ~ ;: N _ _ _ - - - - ~ - - - c.......<11 UI .... '" N -- " c co GO .....,...... Co> N _ co . . . . . . . . ;j. . . i i :E~cn~ <-~,",mrnm=G1 .~i a!iCS::: Ii :;j ~ 6 Iii g ~ g "'Il m " ~ n'ffUEI HI ~iH tUU ~i Hi flh ~ LII ~ . ffj~~"'fl HI II" ~ hi -. ff ;. Q ~B i - ! i~~p I B :~I f -l{~ g ~ i i~ .. ~ r J;' ~ . . - 3. m .. "i\ :::I. l ~ if i i ~i!'n~C~ .~I ;!'iolJ imzl::Gl ~t i~! f g .. ~<i ig.'HOI! h~ ~f[fr. a[ "u · Il' .":!1 ~ ~ ~ J Ii!' . . !: :::l! t.. t ~ Ilff! p . aaa~i ~. u f U~~d . i ~ ~ l ~ ~ -i l~i . i i 2.e ~ ii if ~ [ i r . - . ~ ~ J! ~ Iii I . . f 8 ~ 5 ~ " ~ ii ~ i ..i ~ !l' ......w.._......w ~ ~ ~ VlG!.3c; ____N . nnn'lll }'II'll ~<ltC!"'!U1 H n,;;~ 2 ~ ~ ~ j. E! :> "';'.?.? "'!'::l -=~:..'" ::'~f~. I a ~~~~~i;5~ ,~ii ii~~ 51 = ji! I '''''1 .~. ;; ~~ii~1 )< >< .. .. .. .. i if ~;;jiij ;:a~"I ...Ii.. . 'U . Hi~ i . . ~A HIli ~ " . i :.. i h ~ . f ~ aa"'ll . !f -" · if! ~ ! f a sa .. < . . ~ ~31r N !. f & ~ ~ ~ m "". ~ . . ~ . . ' - ~ 8 ~ H; . !. i _ Co> _ ..... :~:i~~~~~ Dl=t . . . ""......- _ .... CII .... ... ..... - - ... (0)01....... !' ::r:~==lrlr i i . '" i' ~ ~ - mmm . . . =lr=lrlr ~ mmmm .. .. .. .. ~ ;, ~ rrirrrrr Irr rrrr iiirr i ~._--_.- -.- ---- -.-.- ..._..... .. N;j .. 8.... . ~ Ii g g go ~ z ~ ,. m ~ ~ E~ . - ~ - i r I f !I ~ - . . f a; i ct ~ 0 II l1!:! i ~ ir- ~ i K f 10 il' . .- !t..... ;:j !"?' i. uK 161 A 13' 3 ~ ~ :!! /; l2 l2 ~ ~~~6'"ffi . . il z ::a:;ll::a o 0 n n .... = ~ W N _ _ ~ ~ 0 0 lC' HF"' ~ iH s_ ;iil~ ~ ~;:~ p HHg- 8 ~~ i '"-:U~i ~ i" ~ ih~ ~ . f [~ ~ i ~ I [ ~ t ~ o . f ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ i B [ g ~ g ~ il ~ en W ----m . $ ~ ~~~~~ ~ mill _tot....", 8-g-"'-l ~~b.~~ ggo;..g~ .' ~ i ~ Ii m ~ ~~~ ""..W1'I>_ li " ~0~ c:i!2!:!:: o ~ ~'m 3 ~ ~ ::~if UHf :1 Hi "p [.. 8 ' If t"t i i ~.-i - 6i i f ~ ! E PIt" if ~ - i 0 [ ~ ~ . 1 ~V HUI n 1.1 zf "-"- i- ~31l ~ 3 i If! : ~-.. ......,S'i ~ w. JE~ ~i ~~ Ii g! " K ~ii;;i\iSl aa~~l ~~Hi ll',_ UHf - ~~IH HIlt U""l ~ ~ f r ID H- -; !!.!!.~~J . D ~ ~H d. i "- " 3 ~ w ~- :S n moo i ij , 0_ . n r .. . 3 . .- ". ~ H sa i it r : ~ ~ ~~o; . 0; ~o; ,,~w ;:lo6~!01o A 1-' <" . . . . . .' .... . jifll!~i!!~if~!illffili~~~!!iilIIIIIR ~l~!i!~~~~r;!;;!tiii~~iEffIE~~!tf ~i Iliiiii~~il~iJ~lii!!tliiiiii!~ji~jli ftliitt~ji!~I~ii~t~i!itiliii~~ fljji i~3.i8~lf[jr~JE5g;.I'~liJffi[fi ~>~i~ Ji~i~lr~f;~~ii~~~il~i~~l[[[[ii ;!1~~ #'~i~i~i~taf~r~fi~!~-i~~~~~~f3 '~~.l [~=~fii~i~~i~i~jl.~J~;ija[[i[ ~ I~si~ i'I~13 1 ~~!~lr..~~JIJ~ltlltl I ~~1:3 !i !5 !i!~Jfi~fifilllftiKi~~~i i ri~~i ~ill-. ~'if"<"" ,f~tfsi~i~f' "Sar ti1t1 jl!.fif~iti~~ii'll"'"" f i~~f. ;jB i l~if~~i%~l i.~i5<iftit ~ !~lff illll !!!lilii!i' ~l~~II[[I~~ ~ il~~l I. ~~i "I !i~~~~ Iflr~~11111 ~ '~l~ii .a. 5' ~.l~~i ~j' . 11~.ll' f I 'i ~ i ~:I ~.i ~~.fi~ I ~ ~i~[, i ;8~f .. <~g d~ ~~~i6~ E 0 l~b~~~ ~ I [m= ~ J~i ~~~ ~~Ii~i ~li i~~j~t~ j iEitl I gt~ ili ~~~.~g ~ES lniB~~ ~ i~?a; ; i~i i~~ ~~i~~w as! I~~I' I 9 ~i !I ~ ;i~ f!~ i~~jfi II~ i~S; i ~ ~[ i~ '!q ~-~ ~ 6"- ~ ~~.-. ,:...- ~ ~f~ x~~ I, ~~. 0 0 ~fG;' i 13 iJ ~ fll ~i' l x. '" Xg~: i~'"S fill !tl Ii i~ lfi ~~ll ~ Ii it i fti l~ g~ ~8 .~~ a,: ~ :i if I '"t ~~i ~~.~ ;i~ Ii! ! II jl ! l~ .!~ li!~ !ii i~i ~ it j~ J al" ~! ~~ Ii ~~ll'~ ~r~ ~.J il f ; 3e.;D]J g ~. lI!5_o ~ fi" III I -S~K_' i,"_. .~lif ? iI::e :l '! '.. 3. . 0 S' 110 ;r_- g: 8 =l: .... ~ ~ i a .. if III . iii" ",ii!:!"6' ~ 3 gO!. 3 ~ a~ ii 6-, i III 0. ~ 0:.8 ii i go Si l;r !iI j. ~ it 5' &- 7 UI ~ .. 6' g::o:;o _.~ ~, o D i' 9 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ !. Ii' ~ ~ !I: ~ a D , ! i ~ .- 1 w i - ~ - m .. - --~ 5 ~ ii ~ ~ ~ - ~N~ -N-eci8.9>9>c;;~ - - !r . ~ ! N D &~~t!H~ 0 ow_ (,q':;Gii:tJ ! r 0 ~ ~ ~ r if ~~~ lrmmmm [ r $/D /D/D~ m ~ ~ lrg'fr ~ ~~ gaC'\r C'C'E;;E;iE;;E;;E;;E;;E;; m ~ C' ~ . . . . w' , 'rlT . 1I , I~ - - --- - - -- - -. ......"'...... i ~ w w ...."'...................... . - - m rim ~ T. I I m I Ii III mrrrm ~ w ~ :S ! I,:~'i He ~ ~ ~ i ~ i " . . r i if .. i i ~ i l!i l<= " - -- ....-............ . .-- --- - - _ w_ - - - - -- .............. - - - - " oN ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 5 II 51 - ~ - - 0 " ~ ~ ~ - - i N ~ - N ~ U jj. ~ 8 " 8- ~ E ~ g . . 0 - 8 g ! - e goo e 1611 '~1~ 8 ~ . - o q ~ . ru N ~ ~ ~ .; . .. ~ ~ i . ~ 8 . ~ ~ 8 ~ C.~eIl(ll Q!f;~g'fi HHi -< l iiI (,0 i -;: ~ ...'" ",_1IC p:q~ ~i8fl Hh~ HuH .l p iff!~ if = E ~ ~ l~~~l ~'Iif~ luff - Ii 5 ~ . j i' If.!'! I ... .. . 8 j ~ . if .[ P B d i!ll i. !II . I J ! ~ ~ N . i! iIltne.s: .!!ole It~I~,t,~f !lli!c.lh. "- ii 7!i ~i2.W'. ~. ac~.i.~11 . ~ Ii 6. f 0' if ;:II !iigf~.i -;:h ldll l:liBl;I:q - Gl 0 - i '"' tl ii di ~ : g ~hiBi i N ~ 1> .. i m Ii' ~IPP ~ ;;; -Bif . Q-g ~ i J. i Hili: ~ ifilH .!!~lii~'il . "11;: ~,=-' .. 3 't 8 i i ~i7:it~ t!..:!I::::ia .... 0 ~ Q. ~ n'" Cio '" 9.. -< i ;:l! ;= .:!J ~ ! 0. !!- J if 3 ~ - " CIO ~ ell ... .. Co> '" _ ii l~~;;;!;;;~~N~ 13 . . . . . . . . <. . . il ~2C)mmmCllIi!> CIl!l::~ !iZ'iiliS5C1llil ~~:f iH i! . .. _ 8 . s.. 8. . . 0 . . . Iii.! II> ~ r !!! i iprrif id.H~1I' iii"'l:I~~;~'" ~OH~~i ."d~Q.I=!!" ""Ii en i ..... Q;I - = '- ! ~ '" ~ ~ g ~ giJ!!' ~~. ... - ~ "'. p'p:~~H fH ~!dHij H~. ! ~;;;;~~= . ~ ~"iiW~ i 7 .. i ~ 2 i" 6' . ~ _ w '" ~ ~ w W Co> Co> _ Co> HI niP In ?:fF....::>::>f ~;:J_~ :;Ci~ii~~~ "liii~ ~~;~ :~~ ~i: 0>--1 _0>0> iii[ iii . . ~ . . " i i ~ [ ~ ~ . . ~ J!', ~ ~ . ;;; . . ;;; , , N it ~ - ~ ~ ~ !HHiu , m ~ t: . ~ n ~ i l!'~ ~ <;; ~ ~ <;; <;; ~ l!' ~~~~:l.V~: ~mm < ~ . . l!' v v I v I- I - - - - - - - - - .."'..-.....,.... - -- I fl Ii I I I I N r J rrr mr r f I ~ i 8 8-8 . :Ii ;l f f ~ ~ - - - -- - - - - - - - - ......-..--.. - -- . =. - 8 :: ~ - r - ~ '" - ... ... ~ - y , . ~ 'it . O. N 0 " ~ ~ " ~ " " 0 8 g o. g 8 8 8 k ON 0 HHIHHHiHi ~. q~~~i~ig'-H~ jH~.Hi[~t!!i!!h .ffUi~iI!P~i::ili l~ihkf!iiliin~ fit~::><ii35- ~f~a ~l-lilt~.~ f"F"C ""G~'8'!t01:li-i :~!!!.t ~~pnhh_i;l", p~f~n!i!"i.lf H?;tph~d::i:rg "!i~gEl>!".".~ii i'qi!I"H~i~h :i h :(i~ ~ n HilH ;: i."tI!. oiif~a.i.- 8 !t!!: iH~I~r'[;i Hi'ijh,. ~.d~c iiil!~fil ~iJii ti-Es-a:'l:Id2lS!ilierS"'i =~n~iHI~piliP :i[hihi fH~i ii~!gr~lf~ lPI~ ~~8=1:' ._ ~~~ ~ -~.." .. -~"s a'ii ;"1 .;; s: II ~ B Ii it (II 9df;, Wt~ h~ ~ Ull~ h! H.~~ ~'.'i~ -;'Q ~lini in; h~ ilPt -hI t-.~ q. ~ i',~ .li~ fs,B . Hri !.j'~ -d i E~ ~ ~ ~ i'b i h i~ ~iB i. E i ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I [ !II 5" 8 c;s a 6" !" i i IU if' i8'z'~gfl 5~~ii:r.i :.~ iff~ i!~~ii~i ~'Iii_ ' ~.~ ~I l~iit ~ J. if 1611 A141 """""" "... M.s.7.1t. ,A,f"'SOIY eo",,,,lIt.. 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL :14104 December 3, 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: November 5, 2009 V. Budget Report-Caroline Solo VI. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM IX. Old Business A. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee Member Vacancy X. Update Report A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin C. Liaison - Dick Lydon XI. New Business A. Parks and Recreation Department XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on January 7, 2010Misc. Corr . ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 0 es. 625111TH Ave. Date: d-- Naples, FL. {~ Item #: I(! It Co;,!es to: RECE JAN 0 6 2010 16111Al4l """"""~. M.I.7A AIltllsoryeo",,,,,,,,,,, 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Fiala Halas . Henning J Coyle :r~ ~ if ...d\ Coletta Koard ;)f (;OUfliy COll\missjon~rs November 5, 2009 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:05 p.m. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering (Excused) County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director A TM Others: Jim Fritchey-GLM, Chris Tilman-Malcolm Pirnie, Jeffrey Gower- Malcolm Pirnie, Ryan Drumm-FPL, John Hart-Hart's Electrical, Gina Downs-Resident, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Add: XI. A. Parks and Recreation-Request to attend December meeting XI. B. Vanderbilt Beach Member Vacancy-Election of new Chairman Discussion ensued and it was confirmed Channel Drive monies ($24,000) is on the November 10, 2009 BCC Consent Agenda. Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 15, 2009 Change: Pg. 1, line 1, should read: "a.m." Pg. 3, third bullet, should read: John "Lehr" Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of October 15, 2009 as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) o Anticipated Revenue Structure $1,018,700.00 o Available Improvements General $4,922,900.00 o Open P.O. $157,031.04 Misc. Coo8I: Date: 1 I~em#: .: opiea 10: 1611"A14; Dick Lydon perceived the $23,000.00 (Transfer to Fund 111) should reflect a decrease as the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee did not conduct summer meetings. Michelle Arnold responded Staff is tracking their FY10 hours to determine if an adjustment is due (Transfer Fund 111.) A Balance Sheet was provided to the Committee as requested at the October meeting. (See attached) VI. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur Darryl Richard introduced: Malcolm Pimie-Chris Tilman and Jeffrev Gower-Giving a presentation on: o Project aspects related to Properties not underground o Proposed easements in Phase I Project Hart's Electrical-John Hart o Performed Channel Drive Underground conversion for 3 out of 4 properties (1 property declined) o Obtaining ROW to the house line from the 4 properties (Channel Drive) o Coordinator on Phase I Project with properties needing conversion to underground utilities FPL-Rvan Drumm o Project Manager Channel Drive Charles Arthur reported follow up questions from the October meeting were posed to Attorney(s) concerning mandating Property owners to convert to Underground Utilities. Michelle Arnold provided their response(s) that can be accomplished via Ordinance Amendment: o Can compel Property owners to connect utilities underground o MSTU can opt to pay for land line to the house and meter can Discussions ensued concerning payment by the MSTU for Home owner utility conversion. It was determined only a few homes do not have underground utilities. The Committee agreed it as advantageous for the MSTU to pay for Homeowner meter can installation (estimate $18,000.00,30 properties). It will protect 25% discount and eliminate Homeowner cost. Michelle Arnold noted "Right of entry" will be incorporated into the Ordinance Amendment. After much discussion it was clarified (3) individuals who paid (for conversion) will be reimbursed. 2 16J,lt1A14t1 Charles Arthur moved to request BCC approval to amend (Vanderbilt Beach MSTU) Ordinance allowing the MSTU to pay the entire (conversion) cost including Homeowners conversion where they have an aerial connection and for the Ordinance to include provisions requiring (Homeowner) participation and legal remedies to use in the event a Homeowner does not agree (to convert.) Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. It was concluded a request to amend the Ordinance will go before the BCC on December 1, 2009 and should be in place by year end 2009. Additionally upon BCC approval of Ordinance Amendment a letter concerning the conversion will be mailed to the Property owners. Darryl Richard reported Comcast cost estimate $4,000.00 for Channel Drive Project involving 4 properties. Charles Arthur moved to approve payment to Comcast for $4,000.00 for the Channel Drive Project. Second by Bud Martin. Discussions ensued concerning Comcast underground conversion cost at $1,000 per home. It was clarified a total of 8 homes require Com cast conversion from aerial connections. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Discussions took place regarding deficient information on FPl drawings for Contractor Bids. Ryan Drumm replied Contractors have submitted bids based on FPL drawings. After much discussion it was clarified due to Project size the Project will go out for bid and "FPL" will serve as Project Manager of Subcontractors. VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard (See attached)-Previously discussed under IV. Malcolm Pimie-Chris Tilman and Jeff Gower. Reviewed easement/infrastructure photos and drawings for proposed easements (19) noted placement of utility boxes in ROW. (See attachments) The Committee inquired on the number of existing above ground utilities and easement acquisitions: o 48-49 Properties have existing above ground utilities o Utility Boxes may be relocated into the ROW to eliminate acquisition of private property easements Charles Arthur requested a walk through of the properties with Malcolm Pirnie prior to meeting with FPL to determine which easements are required. 3 16 1.1 ~, A 14 "1 . VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM-Jim Fritchey Dick Lydon relayed Resident concern on the hedge cutback. Jim Fritchey responded hedge was cut back to 5.5 fl. to maintain at 6 fl. IX. Old Business-None X. Update Report B. Maintenance-Bruce Fonnan-None C. Tax Analysis-Bud Martin-Will be available next year D. Liaison-Dick Lydon-None XI. New Business A. Parks and Recreation request to attend December meeting Dick Lydon noted Parks and Recreation requested to be listed on the December agenda to discuss beach access issues. B. Vanderbilt Beach Member Vacancy-Election of new Chairman Dick Lydon's term expires 12/1/09 and had not been publicly advertized as of yet. Staff will advise Sue Filson. XII. Public Comment Gina Downs gave a brief introduction. Dick Lydon announced Gina Downs is running for District 2 County Commissioner. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU t?U;11l~ Dick Lydon, Chairman These minutes approved by the BoardlCommittee on I J- - 3 - 0 9 as presented or amended 21 The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on December 3,2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave., Naples, FL. 4 161 I A14Jt IItMUf."", 8Me. At.s.7 Jt. - AdvlfJOlY eo....IU.. 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 November 5, 2009 Summary of Minutes & Motions III. Approval of Agenda Add: XI. A. Parks and Recreation-Request to attend December meeting XI. B. VandertJilt Beach Member Vacancy-Election of new Chairman Discussion ensued and it was confirmed Channel Drive monies ($24,000) is on the November 10, 2009 BCC Consent Agenda. Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 15, 2009 Change: Pg. 1, line 1, should read: "a.m." Pg. 3, third bullet, should read: John "Lehr" Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of October 15, 2009 as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. VI. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur Michelle Arnold reported Attorney opinion is Homeowners can be compelled to convert to underground utilities and conversion may be paid by the MSTU via Ordinance Amendment. Additionally "Right of entry" will be incorporated into the Ordinance Amendment. Charles Arthur moved to request BCC approval to amend (Vanderbilt Beach MSTU) Ordinance. To allow the MSTU to pay entire (conversion) cost including Homeowners conversion where they have an aerial connection and for the Ordinance to include provisions requiring (Homeowner) participation and legal remedies to use in the event a Homeowner does not agree (to convert) Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Darryl Richard reported Comcast cost estimate $4,000.00 for Channel Drive Project involving 4 properties. Charles Arthur moved to approve payment to Comcast for $4,000.00 for the Channel Drive Project Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. ~~WWWWWWNNNNN....NNNNN_________ ~m~~WN-O~m~m~ WN-O~~~m~~WN_ -imlIJ-I-f ?!CC?!?! ZGlOGlOZZ ;n.::ocnmm(l)C/) <<...,.............,..... mmm-f-lmO rn...,;o;o;o;O oo)>>CI>= ;oOZZ ozrnrn )>rn.....)> .,,-10" =i 0"0 )> 0;0 ..... ..... 0-0...,0....."ll~ )>S:~m m :. "ll"llri'i;o:tGl<!!C -;o;o.....m)>Zf) >O)>:r;o.....::!I .....iij::!ms:)>Z g~tiill~~~ .....zmOm;oZ ......xI..........O C:'<rn"llmS;:ino Z Glms:zz;o Z mZ mG)~ o zf{l 0 z o C 0 ;0 rn oCOCD.....mO'l..WN_ 1611 ill A 1l1. '"~ ow 00 00 00 00 ...... en............ ~ C7.lOla 0(.,)0'0'0 00000 00000 00000 00000 z o < CD 3 cr CD ... .C11 N CI CI CD ~ Z 'TIC c:m z::U c!!! ....r ..-I wi: en -I c: ~rnz~mos;:z z~~~h1~Zg -1z;:om~m~::u m;><;)>;o;o;o m z.....z)>;::o~~m )>mOZ~O"ll~rn z;omo.....zmo"o ornGlrn-<.....-rn..... ~~~~ ?!~""'ffi zm~m ~~~;:u oS:)>;o CZ1: cn~r- )>-1m o~ r~c zmOO-l-l:::O--OO Gl)>)>;o;omzzmc ;0;0)>)><.....<.....;0 c.n;:o:::ozzmgj~)> ~-<-<cncnzm-foE; rnbb~~lii~~~~ -I;:o:n."."cn-lZrr- "fil~~;o;o;;j5<~~~ o<;o;ooocozmm o ooS:S:~orris:s: ~ OGl>:1ti!ijFfili!i! ;:0 "llmx-o mcn><x ffi mZ("):::omo-l z 0)> ..... (') .en ~ em ...QQ......Q...-&I......... -:;;;: -=:: .. ":::w '0 Ntn.....O) ..... .....OMC1I CD oCoCnw :..... NONe 0 0000 0 8. 000 .a' _0..9..9 _ QQQQQQQQQ......Q...QQQQQQQQQQ '"'" bb N NN..........CO tnOlN........WW..........!>> 8o:""'i!l20"''''~ 08880<:s8i?Hl8 g8888g8g8g ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... '" ... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" :f ~ en en '" .... '" '" ~ '" ~ ~ ... 0 -.... '" :.., 0 ~ 0 '" 0 '" 0 .. 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 " 0 '" 0 .. 0 .... 0 0 0 .... 0 ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... QQQQQQQQQiIlQQQ - ~ p '" '" '" ~ c. Ie '" '" 0 '" '" 0 ~ 0 '" co ..., co , ~ 0 '" '" It: c. <0 B ~ 8 '" '" 0 ..., '" "''" 0.'0 00 00 00 00 ~ ~ 0," '"'"80 8808 0000 0000 <om~ ..., c:: CD _CD a. :::J ~CDa. ~.....& o S! ~ o o o o o S! ...Q-69Q.....................n o 3 3 ;:;: 3 CD " It ...-Efl...QQ................m .. al )> " n ...~ e=!!. iil .. ~- oo~ -......-.....- <0......._ .................c.n ~m(nN maN.... ---- it ;.., .!!! ~~~*~~~~~~QQ~~~~QQQQQQQ ........ 00N """""'''' "''''''''''''' tnUlO....cnWWNNcn s;l0"'''':'''20il!''':'' cs8!::8!::o8cs8e g8l;:8l;:g88g8 il ~. ~ w ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~~::! E" ':..,...... -< g;GIio...... ~I .a;,;: . . lZl- co 1$ Ii ii~o ..., ;o"'''''''--''''...,...,non< ::J:iii'iii'iii'iiliiLloooooe ~o8-no-!:i =i-r-(jJ :::::!.3 3 == ....0 m'" 0>0.33'"- w ---~Sl -m ..,. 5"333nn ~~~~i P"lJ"lJ1JCDO :::O-'-'-'cm 3- 3' 3- Q ~ m m ~ ~ a 3 -- -- -. CD 0 ~ r- r- . CDCDCD~;::O comO) CD CD ....::J:::::J ~ ~_' i!l3' ~ Q,Q, 0> "''" tnO 88 00 00 ~ "''" ,","00 0000 0000 0000 0000 cnnn" ~ 000 (I) =:::::J:::::J:::::J C ~ ~ ~ DJ <;:O:;:O:;::;=:::::J CD -. _. -- 0 .... :::::J:::::J :::::J CD :;; [ o' :::I cncncn '" '" '" :< :< :< 1'i' 1'i' c'i' CD '" '" 0> .. 0> QQQQQQQ-QQ~ ~ "'~~ tnw:"'" ooco 00'" 000 00'" ... .. -::;;: -)> :. ~w 0 _.... CD-I:; ......c.n......m ...... ""'0- ....,ONcnCD......OO _0 OO;rii' 00C>>W:""':"''(J) 0 :""'-cr OOONOCD.cn 0.0 i" :"'I???:-":-"'~tn?!"? Nooo......m....i\>oNO ~o..9..9mO$.....9CD..9 ~ ~ "'0," NCoOO ~g8g Coooo ......000 nms:cnGlGl::J: 9.CD=.....oom =: Sl 0 5' c c ar ~ :::::!_::T ",:::::J :::::J .., -9. (ii"Q,Q,Qo "'.. - .., s: s: g S:mmcn;:; :::::J m-'-'~. 5-~?a(63 ,... - ....,.. ..J:to...e:.. UtUtU'lUt U'lc.nc.nUt 0000 0000 ~~g~zzz~~~~Z"1J oo<oo:;;:':;;:'::;::-a.-a.-a.-a.:i>Q wUtmco................-a.-a.-a.1\) __ ~allll~ Ulal~li;l 'fmm", "'''''''m "ll o .. ..., -< - o o s: LI ~ ;,.... 0 OlD r-~g7lg =i.~~~~_.a: 1 I C,.t,) 0 Z Z CD I I I I (jJ ==- :r.p..WQ)-a.:-:-Sl(.o)WUtc.n!l~ ~~~~g>)>1J~~~glJO (,h1\)....,6~ mNaocom. .t mm :ell: ~ 6 '" ~ '" .... .... M"'" m _~ J'v _co 8o~g~ ~g~09 00000 ,J:t.oooo ifl~{R{R{Rtfl{R-ER{R-En{R(:A~ ;0 CD 3 !!!. :!. " '" '" ...."'..., o~wm OWOOo 0000 o~Coo 00'::"0 -Q~QQQQQQQQQQ - 0 '" '" '" "ll '" II 0 -.., -.., a: .. 8 '" ~ 0 CIl co co co ..., it> 0 B c. :... <0 ... 0 0 '" ..., o 6 i i '3 . .l . o . . ~ il' ;; , o . . . a ~ . ! O' . ~ . Ii -lC>;-:i~> ;2";o.-a. ; ~E; iil:;::i ""11I-"'-- $:s::l_.o iiI a. ~" ::::I iil o III iil 3 ~ :; :385';= o rr < Cl _. III o lD lD III ~ UI _11I::1 0 ;- :: 3 , . o o . , <! ~ . , ~ . .. ~ .. :: '" ~l;...~ ~ c,.Jwww <D j...,~-oo.U'l~ 0...<;>>.....0.... 01\)0'1<0 W IV 8~~8gdB . 'I: ~ '" 10 ~ '" .. ~ ~ ~ '" ~-~... ~ ~ Wl\,)W(..l co N81g~~~ 801 "'....w.... o (J):""i::oi:biD O~....,.....U1--.j . ~ w w 8 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l . , .e "'<0 g g; g g: ~. o~n ~"o 3 adi g:~ -0. :::l'!! ~"'o a (11::1. 3 ~~ o' o . '" o' , o c: "' c: S; ... " '" ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ,.. ;;' !1: a! . . . , ~ '" "' =. <! .. . $ ~ " ~ ~ ~ . 'I: w .. ~ '" io ~ ~ . 8\ ~ a. ~ '" .. ~ ~ . 8\ ~ a. ~ '" .. ~ ~ . a. '" ~ Rl '" .. ~ .. . a. '" ~ a. ~ '" .. ~ ~ . a. iil a. ~ '" .. ~ ~ . a. '" ~ a. ~ '" I?:, ~ . -~ '" ~ a. ~ '" .. ~ c , ?i' ~::3~f~:!&~~i!irf i;;a=~~~~~'~~;g~~= ~~~~3 ~~Ill~lo~:!g; g68i~ ~3a~~ga!fa~ ~-l~~~ Cl~:~Cl~~C~O !io>,!: ::I!~ S- "~2. Q, Ci) III ~... -,., 41 iD ... lD 0 III 3!!. n ;;; ~ g- tIl ~ !.;: 1Il ~ ~ ; n~ 3~' ~~. a lit !i o s: o ~ . E "' '" ... ,g ~- - ~ - ~- 1'\)..........-.............,... w-.......... ~e-~~~t:~. w~~~~ o~~o:::::jo~::j8~gg g~~~~!~~~~~~ ~'f ~~ i:>>--...j ~~ ~~ (0:"" ~~ a. ~ ~ '" .!') w J\3'U; "~,,.~ -~o ~~~ $~~~ <C b !; 16h1'A14' ~ ~ a. w m b ~ ~ w " '" ;; ~ .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ... g "- ,. . . . ~ 3"COOii:'t1 ~c:cc.o 1\I 1II III 1II ;. 0 ;aaa:!.:l ;333:i~ nq'tl-lc~ ~;a=~1ll Ill..., 1 (') 0 ::I i~~g~~ Q,>~::< -"S":JlIl ~":g ii' 3 ~ ~ ~;: ~ ~ . a. m ~ " ~ '" o . _'I: _(1)...... <>>.... <D ....... :...r:"io ::t~~~~~ 00,0.:"":"';"';' 00 ON(1)::; (,11 ~ . a. . w .. ~ '" io ~ m .. :; g ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ <i o , . . , , . "- :$ ~ ~ <:: ~i'! ~o9: :g....[ .. . ~'I: .~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~w !XI~ 0'8 ~ ~ g ~ .. ~ ~ o .. ~ i; ~ ~ o .. ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o is '.. ~ ~ o i:'J><O o~&~ .....11I"" ...-~.. :&2:&> ~ ..'". ~!:~ ~gg.;' 2':~o lO::'Ul::::!' !~~ C , . . ~ i ~ ;;' o "- ~ o o ~ <:: , . . ~ [ 1611~14~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reeommendation that the Board approve an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement and authorize payment to Florida Power & Light Company in the amount of $23,242.00 required under the UFCA for conversion of certain overhead electric distribution facilities located on Channel Drive within the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit for underground distribution. OBJECTIVE: Obtain the Board's approval of the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement ("UFCA") and to authorize payment to Florida Power & Light Company in the amount of $23,242.00 as required under the UFCA for conversion of certain overhead electric distribution facilities located on Channel Drive within the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit (the 'MSTU') for underground distribution. CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary seeks Board approval of a required Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement between Collier County in its capacity as the governing body of the MSTU and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and for Board authorization to remit payment to FPL in the amount of $23,242.00 so that FPL may commence converting overhead utilities underground. Back2round 1. On December 11, 2007, Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved a "Right of Way Agreement" with FPL for the conversion of overhead power to underground within the MSTU. 2. On April 2, 2009, the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the poles on Channel Drive be converted to underground because of the presence of a new construction project (new residential unit under construction). By undertaking the project before completion of the new construction project, a real 'cost benefit' is realized to the MSTU by expediting the conversion of overhead utilities on Channel Drive rather than going back after construction is concluded. This project involves underground conversion of 4 properties originally identified as the "Channel Drive Project." 3, On September 21,2009, FPL provided an Engineering Cost Estimate for Channel Drive Projeet; Project total is $23,242. 4. On October 16, 2009, provided the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement for Channel Drive Project. Upon execution of the UFCA the Channel Drive Project can be move toward final conversion to underground distribution facilities. In addition to realizing a cost benefit to the MSTU by approving the UFCA, the Channel Drive Project will also allow the county and FPL to review on 16111A14 FLORIDA POWER '" LIGHT COMPANY Third Revised Sheet No. 9.720 Cancels Seamd RevIsed SlIeet No.9. 720 UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CONVERSION AGREEMENT (NON-GAF) This A81eenoent, is mode and entered into this _ day of . 20~ by and between the _ Vandabih BcaclI Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, by and through its governing body, the Board of Commissioners for Collier County, Florida. (hereafter, "Vanderl>iIt MSTU"), the Board of Commissioners for Collier County, Florida (hereafter, "Applicant"), with an address of 3301 Tamimni Trail, East, Naples, Florida and FLORIDA POWER & UGHT COMPANY ("FPL"), a Florida COIJlOI'8lion with an address of P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0429. WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested that FPL convert certain overhead electric distnbution facilities located within the following boundaries (the "Conversion"): -.Along the west end of Channel Drive, in Naples, Florida (Vanderbilt Beach MSTUL (colleclively, the "Existing Overhead Facilities") 10 underground IiIl:ilitics, including transfonncrs, switch cabinets and other 8JlPIIIfeIW1l facilities installed above ground as set forth in Attachment A hereof(collcclively, the "Underground Facilities"). NOW THEREFORE, in considcmlion of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledgcd, the parties intending 10 be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Avoided Storm Restor8tion Cost (" ASRC") ElIgibility Criteria. The Applicant represents and wammts that it meets, and is capable and willing to cnfon:e, the applicablo oliglbility criteria for the Conversion (selecl one of the following ASRC 1""'): U ASRC Tier 1: .. In order for the Conversion to incorporate a sufficient amount of overl>ead facilities to provide ele<:tricaJ continuity, the CooversiOll must include a minimwn of approximately 3 polo line miles or approximately 200 detached dwelling W1its wilbin contiguous or closely proximate geographic areas (tho "Conversion Area"). The Conversion may be completed in mutuaJJy agreed upon phases, with the project size minimwns applying to the aggRlJ1IIe project - provided that any necessary subsoquont phase begins within a I year period from completion of the prior pbase and the minimums are met within, at most, 3 phases; and b. The Applicant must teqUirc all customers within the Convetsioo Area who cum:ntly have overhead service directly from the Existing Overbead Facilities to convert their service entraJlces to underground within 6 months of completion of the Underground Facilities installation or each phase thereof, and c. If the Applicant requests that ticlIities be placod in the ROW, tho Applicant must be willing and ablo to execute a rigIrt of way ("ROW") agreement with FPL or secure a ROW agreement through the appropriate local govemmelll(s) with FPL; and d For any aIfected lalenlJs, the complete 1ateral must be converted, including all stagcsof any multi-stage lateral; and e. There are no _ or rederal timds available to the Applicant to cover any portion of the cost of the ConvetSion. Spec:ial CircwnsIan<es. Conversions whieb do not meet the Tier 1 project size minimlDDS described in section I.a are eligtble for the ASRC in the fullowing spec:ial c:ircumstanccs: i. An island or peninsula where 10ll"A. of the Existing Overhead Facilities are to be converted; or Ii. When the aggregate size of the first 3 phases of a project would salislY the miniJrnnn size criteria but, for mutualJy-agrcod engineering or logistic:aI reasons, thooe phases are nOll-contiguous; provided that (a) the next (4th) phase must be adjocent to one or more of the firot 3 phases such that the combined contiguous area meets the minimwn size criteria, and (b) this 4th phase begins within 1 year from completion of the W~ . (Continued 011 Sheet No. 9.72 I) Issued by: S. Eo Romig, Director, Rata ud Tarlfl's Efreetlve: November 13, 20M 1611A14' FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Orl&lnal Sheet No.9. 721 (Continued fiom Sheet No. 9.720) U ASRC Tier 2. All eligibility ai1eria remain the ...... as Tier 1 with the exception that the Conversion AJea must only include between llpJlIOximalely 1 to 3 pole line miles or a minimum of approximately 85 deI8ehed dwelling units within contiguous or closely proximate geographic areas. (!) ASRC Tier 3. A Conversion AJe8 that is less than 1 pole line mile within contiguous or closely proximate geographic areas. Additionally, Tier I requirements for project completion timing in paragraph 1..., as well as, pIUII8I8phs J .b. and J.d. do not apply. 2. ContribII_iD.Ald-ofoConstructloD (CIAC). The Applicant shall pay FPL a ClAC as Rquired by FPL's Electric Tariff and Section 25-6.115 of the Florida Administrative Code. i. ClAC(excludingASRC) $_24,465 ii. ASRC $_ 1,223 UL CIAC Due $ 11 ".41: ( 1t'Pl. .........n...... .n _Ark) In the ......t the actual cost of the Conversion (excluding ASRC) exceeds the estimate, the ClAC (excluding ASRC) shall be adjusted by the \esser of (a) the diflerence between the actual cost of the Conversion and the estimate, or (b) 10% of the C1AC (excluding ASRC) identified above. The ASRC shall also be adjusted accordingly and the Applicant shall pay FPL the resulting difference in the amount of the CIAC Due. 3. Applkant-lnstaUed Faelllties. The Applicantlllll)', upon entering into an applicant-installed facilities agreement satisfactory to FPL. construct and install all or a portion of the Underground Facilities. Such work must meet FPL's construction standards and FPL will own and maintain the completed facilities. The Applicant agrees to teetiJy any deficiencies. found by FPL. prior to the connection of any customers to the Underground Facilities and the removal of the Existing Overhead Facilities. 4. Compliance with Tarlft The Applicant agrees to comply with and abide by the requirements, tenm, and conditions of FPL's Electric Tariff. 5. TIming of CollVenioD. Upon compliance by the Applicant with the Rquirements, terms, and conditions ofFPL's Electric Tariff, this Agreement and any other applicable ag.eemenls, FPL WIll proceed in a timely manner with the Conversion in accordance with the constntction drawings and specifications set forth in Attachment A hereof. 6. Reloelltlon. In the ew:nt that the Underground Facilities are part of, or are for the purposes of, relocation, then this Agreement shall be an addendum to the relocation agreement between FPL and the Applicant. In the event of any conflict between the relocation "l!'~"...tl and this Agreanent or the Electric Tarin; this Agreement and the Electric Tariff shall control. 7. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for as long as FPL or any successor or assign owns or operates the Underground Facilities. II.. ASHC Repayment. If the Applicant does not saIis1Y the relevant eligibility criteria, the Applicant shell n:pay the ASRC within 30 days of written notice Iium FPL of such I8tlure. Additionally, if at any point within 30 years of completion of the Underground Facilities instaJlation, the Applicant eIecls to have electric service within the Conversion AJea supplied by a provider odter than FPL, the Applicant shall n:pay FPL a pro-Jata sbare of 1he ASRC. The pro-Jata share (which shell reflect partial years) shall be determined as follows: ASRC · [(30 - years since the Underground Facilities completion date) t 30] Non-gow.mnelllal Applicants, whose ClAC includes a Tier I ... Tier 2 ASRC, shell provide, at the time of execution of this Agreement, either a surety bond or irrevocable bank 1_ of credit (the "Security Instrument'') in 8 fonn acceptable to FPL evidencing ability to n:pay the ASRC. This Security Instrument shaIJ remain in effect until such time as all custom... within the Conversion An:a IlIC converted. The Applicant may provide either 11II lIIlICIIdcd or Iql!al:cment Security Instrument in a form accepllIbIe to FPL at any time to reflect the pro-nIllI adjustments to the ASRC amount. If, upon notice of cancellation or prior to exphation of the Security JnstrumeDt, a replacement Security Instrument in a form acceptable to FPL is not provided by the AppJicant to FPL, FPL will require the third party issuing the Security Instrument to pay the filII baJence due in accordance with this Agreement in cash. (Continued on Sheet No. 9.722) bsuad by: S. E. Rom.. DIreetor, Rates and Tnrll'& Effective: N.",ember 13, 2008 16 11 "A 14" J.I'LORJDA POWER A: LlG8TCOMPANY 0rIIIU1 SIIeet No. 9.722 (ConIinued liom SbeetNo. 9.121) 9. 1'erIDlutD Prior'" tile C-........... Com"""'" Faihn by IIle AppIicIlIl m C<lIIIJlIy with lIlY ofllle teqUiJements, 1lllImS, ... ~",. of this ~ ... WL's I!Iec:Iric TIrilf sbaII rau1I inllllminllion of this ~-. The Appliellll may ........ this ......eatllOlll at lIlY time prior to the _ of IIle ConYenlon IIIId the C1AC paid by the App1iallt will be retImded ... the Appllc:llnl; provided howewr. 1hIt the JeIIIIid of the C1AC sbaII be otliet by any costs incuned by WL in ""'lil........ UDder the AiI-......up to the dele of1enllBlation. 19. ..-"*'........t. The AppIicIInl sbaII DOtassi&n this AiI-- wilhouIthe wriUaI eonsentofFPL. 11. AdopdoD ud lteODnIIag. This Aar-nent shaI1 be odopled by 1he AppJiclnt IIIHI nuIinI8inod in d1c oftlcia1 records of lbo Appllcllnt fbr lbo dInlion oflbo IIlIm of this AiI-t This A&---lIIso sbllI be ntCOIded ill 1be Oflicial Rllcords ofllle~ in whieh1be Ul4.........d Focilitios"'" Joc:etcd, in the ploce IIIlIIa the _ill wllichdeods"", ~ ......dod. 11 CGllIIId .-- ,.."". of IlnIdIoe AI-_to In 1be..- ofa eonfJic:t bel-.1be _ of this AplemenIIIIId IIIYpennit ...Danehise ...._""'"""" into by App1iearot IIIId m.1be _ of this ~l sbaII c:onII'Ol. IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, WL IIIId lbo Applicanl have executed thia Agreement 011 the date tlnl set fbttIt above. Par.... .. _1f.r1M VANDERBILT MSTV AcJotIooryOMMl_ FPL: Signed Siped N_ NIIIIC Title TIlle By 1IIIiI1Il1'Olllll COu.u:JlCOUNTY. J.I'LORlDA u tile LOCAL GOVERNMENT _ .. 1Is~,..,tty ullle JlIIftI'Ilblg bedy ofllle VANDERBILT MSTU: SigIool\ AlTEST D~GHTE,BROCK.CLERK ~ Donna Fiala BY: Title eha i rman Appoved as... T..-IIIHI C'o....sblot.. (tfrequiml by AppIicIInl) SIpld Name Title =-S::1~LreqabedbyAppIicIlIl) Name $'Lb1t R. -U""h Title I~f''''~ e"".,.~tJ-Ol''''''' ......lIy: S. L .... --.., RalIIIIIIiI 'rarIm ~ N8flIR1-U,__ eo.l e.r.~ fOr CUstolll'l&' Cornritndion. 1611 ~ 14 ~ .... _ fI'l au98 (Sll!37j 16419 123.711 to to R1nl to ,... l11.223l 123.242 I1I.SlI2 - lUGS 111.543 11.712 (W49J I~ 11787 0fIect E..I ~... UIIII.nJt......Ud _port IU34 (Sl.3l4) me 11350 T_ t. YM"~ - _ooF_(o) CnlCllIOf_OiH OH_to) T_ Nlt8Dak~C+) s...oogo - ~J - E___tl ~CoIII(.) ASRCtl Ryan Drumm EngIneer I Bonita Springs Service Center 26430 Old 41 Road Bonita Springs. FL 34135 0lIlce: 239-947-7341 FAX: 239-947-7345 Celt. 239-851-1683 www.fotcom ~ 1611 A14 Report for: October 15,2009 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie SilIery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (VA-32)- ACTIVE - Legal Review: underground utilities conversion project 10-12-09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated ]0-8-09 Gregory T. Stewart) (VA-31)- ACTIVE -FPL Channel Drive (Design and Cost Estimate) 08-07-09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan contirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09-16-09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL-Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8-18-09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09-21-09 Ryan Drumm contirms total cost for Channel Drive project is: $23,242.00; Staffwill process payment on FPL Invoice upon BCC approval of UFCA (pending legal review/approval) 11-03-09 UFCA is on BCC Agenda for Nov. 10,2009; Upon BCC approval invoice for $23,242.00 will be processed for FPL payment 03-26-08 09-24-09 (V A-30)- ACTIVE .. Comeast Channel Drive & Phase One (Design and Cost Estimate) 10-06-09 10-15-09 11-03-09 Initial review of project with Cestari Maureen Channel Drive Plans forwarded to ComcaS! for quote of underground conversion for Comeast overhead utilities Mark Cook infonns County Staff that Comcast has re-assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. COM CAST (Mark Cook) CONFIRMS 100010 of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipmentfexisting installation. Services are identitied as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcas! is through Comeast contractor managed 'entirely by Corneas!'. Comeast is currently working on Design and Cost Estimate for Channel Drive Project; after completion of this task, Comeast will coordinate on production of design plans and cost estimate for Phase One Project (pending tinal FPL plans for Phase One) Staff receives quote for $4,000 total project cost for Comcast Underground Conversion; all construction is by Comcast. (V A-29)- COMPLETED - Channel Drive Undergronnd Facilities Conversion Agreement (UFCA) 10-13-09 10-14-09 10-28-09 County Legal formal approval for 'legal sufficiency' of Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement (UFCA); Signature from FPL requested Phone call from John Lehr (FPL) indicates that a 'revision' to the UFCA submitted by Ryan Drumm on 8-7-09 is necessary and that there should be 4 pages total rather than the current 'one page' (phone call w/ John Lehr) Staff receives 'revised' UFCA Agreement; County Legal approves (V A-28)- ACTIVE -Malcolm Pimie; Phase I Construction Management Services (Vanderhilt Beach MSTU FPL Underground Power Conversion Project) 09-28-09 Notice to Proceed sent to Malcolm Pirnie 1 10-14-09 1611 A 14" Malcolm Pimie meeting with staff to review 10-14-09 FPL plan submittal. (V A-27)- ACTIVE - Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 10- 1 4-09 Currently as "Phase One" is still under preliminary design review - FPL has not submitted proposed language for PHASE ONE UFCA, however, as soon as (]) Design is completed and approved by County (Malcolm Pirnie Review); and (2) Cost are identified in "Engineering Cost Estimate"; FPL will submit language for PHASE ONE UFCA. (VA-26)- ACTlVE -Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 10-09-09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project ] 0-] 5-09 Ongoing plan review for phase one design; need to confirm 'no easement' required for Phase One per ]0-14-09 plan submittal. 1 1 -03-09 Staff confirms Malcolm Pirnie will provide report to Committee on 11-05-09 regarding 'easements' (V A-24)- COMPLETE -FPL receipt of Engineering Deposit 04-20-09 FPL confirms receipt of payment for $13,027.00 Phase One Deposit; Design to begin (V A-23)- ACTIVE - FPL Phase One Design 06-25-09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans ]0-]4-09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') (V A-]9) - ACT1VE-ONGOlNG - On Call Servkes - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering MP-FT -3657-08-03; PO 4500098S66; On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 10-]5-09 Malcolm Pimie indicates 'renewal of services contract for FY-20]0 is necessary for continuation of "On Call Services" for the MSTU FPL Project. (V A-18) - ACTIVE-ONG01NG- - Maintenance Contract - "Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance 'base contract' per Quote Company Base + Mowing & Edging = Total Base Planting Services Total Quole Commercial Land Maint $32.988.00 (+$2.600) = $35.588.00 $25,491.00 $61,079.00 2 16 I 1~ A 14 , From: RichardDarryl Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:24 PM To: Vaspaslano, Andy RE: Good survey Information for Gulfshore Drive and Adjacent 'finger streets' (,-, _l. Importance: High :.__ ~: n:; ;:;.; i'~ ~; , Andy, ')"I,;. Per our discussion today, the attached estimate for $4,000.00 covers all the cost associated with Comcast portion of the conversion per Ryan Drumm's Channel Drive plans. Also, per our conversation no spedfic 'agreement' Is necessary to initiate the work. I will present your estimate to the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee on Nov. 5, 2009 for approval for the $4,000 project cost. Upon approval I will notify your office so that you may send Invoice to process payment. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RIA, MSTU Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes darrylrichard@colllelllov.net 11I11I11I111111111I11I1111I111I1111I11111111I1111I1111I111111I111111111I111I1111111111111111I111 From: Vaspasiano, Andy [mallto:andy_vaspasiano@lcable.comcast.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:14 PM To: RlchardDarryl Cc: Cook. Mark Subject: RE: Good survey information for Gulfshore Drive and Adjacent 'finger streets' Richard, Sorry about the delay In getting this to you there was some confusion on my end with what was needed. For the Channel Drive pilot work we are looking at a estimated cost of 4,000 for labor and materials. I have put off the phase one job to my contractor for a cost and will provide you with that in a few weeks. Please let me know If that meets your tlmeframe or not. Thanks, Andy V . CoUler County o.p.rtrnenl ofAllemltill. TTllnlportalion Mod.. CollerCountt.Floridll Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Under round Installation of Power line - Phase 1 ~"'- CoJmr.y c( m c( ..... c( c z :' m (J c( c( m (J c m l' N c(1 Ol .: .: .: .: ~ .: .: N .: .: .: .: .: .: CI) CI) CI) co CI) ...J CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) C C C 'It C CI) CI) C C C C C C ...J ::: C C co N N ('I) ::: ::: co co c( co co Ol ~ Ol Ol c( c( c( Z c( c( Z c( c( c( c( c( Z Z Z Z Z .... Z Z .... Z Z Z Z Z Z t;~ .... .... .... .... co co .... .... .... .... .... .... co co co .... co N .... .... N co co CQ co co co N N N co N .... CQ co .... N N N N N N f .... .... .... N .... a: N N a: .... .... .... .... .... .... i a: a: a: .... a: .... .... a: a: a: a: a: a: a: co a: a: .... '. , .... N ('I) 'It it') Cl ..... Cl .... N ('I) 'It U") co ..... " Cl Cl Cl Cl .... .... .... ~i~ .... ij Cl Cl .... 7 J .. 11 .. ,~ ,r " 0 ! 0 II 14 ~ i --------- It. 1 A1J " s . . ii~ I . : t . ; ! u . ~ u 14" .,." \ \ .~t_ ________-.-' #.._. .,' ~ e .. I .~- . ,. ~,', ';' * AlII F;.la ~ I C ~:~~ing \~ <U 1 6 I 1 o:Jll, 200_ coyle ~"' Coletta ----' . 0 (' n, n::: !"" MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY" .J ,., ,-_0 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JAN 12 2010 INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM fJoa,nufCuuniyCommissionors Naples, Florida, October 23,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supe~~JCorre: Date: 0 () llllm II: (Q Copies to: 16 I l'at1er 23~09 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:12 AM RECONVENED: 9:46 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item III (A), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda #3, Notice #1360900041648 - BCC vs. Amy Anderson . Agenda #4, Notice #1360900044253 - BCC vs. Daniel R. Anderson . Agenda #5, Notice #1360900022143 - BCC vs. Dominick Andreoli . Agenda #7, Notice #1360900008761 - BCC vs. Leonel Baca . Agenda #8, Notice #1360900009991 - BCC vs. Leonel Baca . Agenda #9, Notice #1360900014546 - BCC vs. Mohammed A. Barrie . Agenda #11, Notice #1360900006310 - BCC vs. Antoine E. Bernard . Agenda #14, Notice #1360900040442 - BCC vs. Scott Michael Carter . Agenda #16, Notice #1360900051670 - BCC vs. Jennifer L. Didonato Pucci . Agenda #20, Notice #1360900027753 - BCC vs. Gold Medal Growers, Inc. . Agenda #21, Notice #1360900002442 - BCC vs. Mark M. Goldsworthy . Agenda #23, Notice #1360900035985 - BCC vs. Interstate Brands Corp. . Agenda #25, Notice #1360900050896 - BCC vs. Keith Robert Jennings . Agenda #27, Notice #1360900007292 - BCC vs. Kirk Steven and Melissa L. Jordan . Agenda #29, Notice #1360900047629 - BCC vs. Wayne F. Korn or Maria Dolores Molter . Agenda #30, Notice #1360900013985 - BCC vs. Benjamin Krick . Agenda #33, Notice #1360900052090 - BCC vs. Hristo and Liljana Mangovski . Agenda #35, Notice #1360900033884 - BCC vs. Jessie D. Milton . Agenda #36, Notice #1360900012045 - BCC vs. Dale J. OIeff . Agenda #37, Notice #1360900040145 - BCC vs. Frances Pro celli . Agenda #39, Notice #1360900015329 - BCC vs. Teresa M. Reisiz . Agenda #43, Notice #1360900006278 - BCC vs. Armalin Phillip Richardson . Agenda #48, Notice #1360900001196 - BCC vs. Marie Lourdes Staco . Agenda #49, Notice #1360900027613 - BCC vs. Christian M. Tobin 2 16 '1 H 1 ~ cmober 23, 2009 . Agenda #52, Notice #1360900010874 - Bee vs. Zulima Alfaro Turino . Agenda #53, Notice #1360900004471 - Bee vs. Linda Wetzel . Agenda #54, Notice #1360900015915 - Bee vs. Steven Robert Whittaker and Marisol Soledad . Agenda #55, Notice #1360900006203 - Bee vs. David D. Wolff The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. PUBLIe HEARINGS A. Hearings: 2. Notice #1360900012391 - Bee vs. Ale Electric Service of SW FL. Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by Anthony Carlone, the owner. The County was represented by Officer Dan Salls. Mr. Carlone resides at 6017 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida 34119, and verified the Corporation is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. Date of Violation: August 12,2009 Time: 9:01 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent reviewed the video and stated he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. He further stated the Corporation employs 22 individuals and owns 15 vehicles which are numbered. He noted the video did not show the specific identification number of the vehicle. He questioned whether he should be responsible for payment of the fines since he was not the driver. He further questioned how the Citation could be issued since no Officer was present, only a camera. The Special Magistrate viewed the video and stated Citations are issued to the owners of the vehicles, not the drivers. She explained a video is reviewed by an Officer who determines if a Citation is to be issued based on whether or not a violation occurred. The Respondent objected to the process and noted a "warning" notice would probably have been issued if an Officer had been present, and there was no "proper signage" at the intersection alerting drivers to presence of the cameras. The Special Magistrate stated that "points" were not assessed to the drivers' licenses and the County was not required by Florida Statutes to post signs at each intersection where cameras are present, but some signs have been posted as a courtesy. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $/25. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. 3 ~t611 Ql ; October 23, 20~ Total Amount Due: $175.00 6. Notice #1360900039527 - BCC vs. Brenda Aviles The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 10581 Regent's Circle, Naples, Florida 34109, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 29, 2009 Time: II :03 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston Road. The video was reviewed by the Respondent and the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she did brake and the video showed her brake lights were "on" and she proceeded with caution into the intersection under a turning arrow. She further stated it was late at night and no oncoming cars were present. The Special Magistrate pointed out a large, white van was present two lanes over from the turning lane and appeared to block the view. She questioned how the driver could have seen around the other vehicle. The Respondent stated she could see down the road for a long distance and, as she approached the intersection, she slowed the speed of her car and did brake. She stated she could clearly see the traffic light and the lights of other cars. She admitted her vehicle crossed the white line in order to proceed into the intersection. Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County Sheriffs Office, stated the Statutes require a vehicle to fully stop at the white line prior to entering the intersection. He pointed out the Respondent's vehicle did not come to a full stop and it was determined that a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was allowed 30 days to pay the fine. ** Supervisor Jen Waldron stated each Respondent will receive an Order via U.S. Mail Delivery within one to two weeks after the Hearing and asked that payment not be made until the Order had been received. She confirmed payment would not be accepted during the Hearing. The Special Magistrate corrected the vreviouslv stated time frame to 21 days. 4 16 I 1 B 1 :1 October 23, 2009 12. Notice #1360900017952 - BCC vs. Randall J. Betten The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Michael Peabody. The Respondent resides at 362 Trade Winds, Naples, Florida, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 16,2009 Time: 8:26 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent stated he had reviewed the video but was unsure of his plea. The Respondent stated he had received an initial Citation for $125.00 which he paid, and noted his daughter had been home from college on the date of the first Citation. He received a second Citation for the same location dated two days later. He further stated his daughter had no idea she was in violation and, if an officer had been present on the first occasion to either issue a warning or a Citation, she would have been alerted and the violation would not have occurred a second time. He admitted the vehicle did not stop completely but came to a "rolling" stop. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and noted no "passes" (i.e., exceptions) are allowed concerning observing traffic laws. She stated the vehicle was in violation ofthe Ordinance. The Special Magistrate ruled since the Respondent pleaded "in violation" prior to the Hearing, costs would not be assessed. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00. Total Amount Due: $125.00 13. Notice #1360900051993 - BCC vs. Christopher P. Brav The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present and confirmed that he is an attorney. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 12840 Brynn Wood Way, Naples, Florida 34105, and verified he is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. Date of Violation: September 6, 2009 Time: 7:05 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston Road The Respondent stated he was unaware ofthe availability to review the video until he 5 16otoJr2~60~ .~ arrived at the Hearing, pled "not guilty," and stated that based on the Notice, it appeared that he was not in violation. The paragraph disclosing the availability to view the video (located on the second page of the Notice) was printed in very small font. He based his plea on the still photographic evidence printed on the front of the Citation. Lt. Harold Minch recited the referenced paragraph from the Notice and noted the images were available "on line." He stated the pill number was printed on the front of the Citation and suggested a request could be made to use a larger font for printing. The Respondent stated he interpreted "recorded images" to refer to the still photographs on the face of the Citation. He further stated he would have mailed a check, rather than appear, if he knew he had access to the recorded evidence. The Special Magistrate stated it appeared the tires of the Respondent's vehicle were on the white line which was, in fact, a violation of the Ordinance. The Respondent and the Special Magistrate reviewed the video. The Respondent amended his plea to "guilty." Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay ajine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50.00 within 21 days "from the written order." Total Amount Due: $175.00 19. Notice #1360900008779 - BCC vs. Denna L. Fiorito The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Dan Salls. The Respondent resides at 3575 El Verdado Court, Naples, Florida 34109, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 6, 2009 Time: 9:36 AM Location: Intersection Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent stated she had received a "Delinquent Notice" but had never received the initial Citation. She pleaded "in violation." The Respondent stated her mother had called her that morning because her father was very ill and she was driving to their home. He passed away two hours later. She produced a copy of the Certified Death Certificate. The Special Magistrate stated she would take Judicial Notice of the document. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found 6 16 Lt!er~3,2S91 , NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation by the Special Magistrate due to extenuating circumstances. ** Supervisor Waldron reported: . Agenda #22, Notice #1360900015253 - BCC vs. George Harvey and Patricia Sue Hermanson had been DISMISSED by the County. 26. Notice #1360900052835 - BCC vs. Jonathan Jimenez The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 2224 Flora Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33907 and verified he is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. Date of Violation: September 6, 2009 Time: 9:46 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road The Respondent stated he was not sure how to plead. The Special Magistrate and the Respondent reviewed the video. The Respondent stated he paid attention to the car in front of his and thought he had stopped. The Special Magistrate stated it appeared the vehicle had slowed down to break, but did not come to a full stop. The Respondent requested the "name of the offense by law" that he was charged with. The Special Magistrate cited Section Three of the Ordinance entitled "Adherence to Traffic Controls" as follows: "(a) Steady red traffic light. The driver (operator) of a vehicle shall not allow any portion of the front most part of that vehicle to encroach over a vertical extension of the nearest part of the intersection, intersection line, crosswalk line, or "stop here on red" line, as applicable ... " The Respondent asked ifthere were other options besides paying the fines, i.e., if community service could be substituted in lieu of money. The Special Magistrate noted the Ordinance did not provide for options and stated no points wOllld be assessed against his license. The Respondent was visibly upset and stated he was unable to pay the fines. She suggested the Respondent contact the Collier County Board of Commissioners in writing to explain his situation and request special cOllsideration. He was directed to the BCC Office to obtain the mailing address. 7 161a 81 . . October 23, 2009 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case to February, 2010, and stated the Respondent will be notified of the specific Hearing date. 24. Notice #1360900032563 - Bee vs. Interstate Brands Corp. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by Angel Dejesus. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 2378 Magnolia Avenue and verified the Corporation is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. He stated he is the Corporation's local Sales Representative and authorized to represent the Corporation at the Hearing. Date of Violation: August 27, 2009 Time: (not stated) Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road The Respondent pleaded "not guilty." The Special Magistrate and the Respondent viewed the video. The Respondent pointed out his vehicle came to a complete stop before the white line, the time was 4:00 AM, and he thought he had a green turning arrow. He stated he has driven the same route for three years and is aware of the traffic signals. Lt. Minch stated there is a turning arrow at the intersection. The Special Magistrate questioned the Respondent regarding his "customary practice" of driving, i.e., if he usually came to a full stop at traffic signals regardless of whether there were turning arrows. The Respondent answered affirmatively. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation by the Special Magistrate. 28. Notice #1360900043172 - Bee vs. Kevin John Klimek The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Dan Salls The Respondent resides at 4412 Preserve Way, Naples, Florida 34109, and verified he is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. 8 !0~rt,lo09 B 1. I Date of Violation: September I, 2009 Time: 6:45 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road The video was reviewed by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated he was not driving the vehicle at the time ofthe incident and had allowed one of two people to operate his car. He noted rental car companies were allowed to identify, in writing, the driver who rented their vehicle as cited page two of the Citation. He questioned why a rental car agency could receive an exemption that was not granted in the Code. He referenced Section Two of the Citation ("ways to contest the violation") which stated it was "presumed" the owner of the vehicle was also the driver. He stated he felt his "Due Process" rights as a citizen had been violated because he was innocent until "presumed" guilty versus being innocent until "proven" guilty. Lt. Minch stated if a rental car company is cited for a traffic infraction, the procedure is for the company to pay the fine and bill the amount to the individual who leased the vehicle. The Respondent cited a portion of the Citation as follows: "If you are a rental car company, send your letter identifYing the driver along with this Notice of Code Violation to Collier County. " He cited the example of a speeding ticket where the driver receives the Citation, not the owner of the vehicle. He sent a letter, via Certified Mail, asking the County to provide further evidence to prove he was the driver of the vehicle. He claimed the process was not fair to the citizens of Collier County. The response he received was to appear at the Hearing. The following items were admitted into evidence: . Respondent's Exhibit "A" - copy ofthe Respondent's letter to the County . Respondent's Exhibit "B" - certified mailing receipt . Respondent's Exhibit "c" - proof of delivery from the U.S. Postal Service The Special Magistrate stated she would be willing to continue the case in order for the Respondent to obtain an attorney and would also notify the County Attorney's office. The Special Magistrate explained the Respondent was alleged to have violated the law and the County fulfilled its obligation by notifying him in a timely manner. The Respondent questioned whether or not there was a separate turning arrow at the intersection, and Lt. Minch replied in the negative, The Special Magistrate ruled that based on the evidence presented in the video the Respondent was in violation. 9 t2bU200~ 1 I Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay ajine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 ** Supervisor Waldron reported: . Agenda #51, Notice #1360900009371 - BCC vs. Zulima Alfaro Turino and . Agenda #56, Notice #1360900041044 - BCC vs. Marjorie A. Ziff-Levine had been DISMISSED by the County. 38. Notice #1360900013183 - BCC vs. Michael Edwin and Janet Marak Posch The Hearing was requested by the Respondents. Respondent Michael E. Posch was present and represented his wife, Janet Marak Posch. The County was represented by Officer Chris Gonzalez. The Respondents reside at 27150 Del Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 13,2009 Time: 2:44 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 4l/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent pleaded "not guilty" and objected to the alleged speed of his vehicle which was indicated as "26 miles per hour." He contended ifhe turned the corner at that speed, his SUV would have flipped over on its side. He stated the Citation directed him to view the video at www.violationinfo.com and contended the video did not provide footage to show his car had stopped prior to the white lines before rolling forward into the intersection. He further stated he knew he was supposed to stop prior to the crosswalk to view oncoming traffic. The Special Magistrate reviewed the still photographs ofthe intersection. The Respondent stated he always checks to the left, then to the right and again to the left. He further stated it was difficult to remember the particular date since so much time had elapsed. He questioned whether the County could produce any evidence that his vehicle did not stop. Lt. Minch stated the County cOllld not dispute the Respondent's claim because their video did not show footage prior to the Respondent's vehicle entering the area. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation by the Special Magistrate. 10 1611 B 1 I October 23,2009 45. Notice #1360900039121 - BCC vs. Robert Doul!las Sands The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi The Respondent resides at 206 Autumn Chase Drive, Annapolis, Maryland, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 29, 2009 Time: 8:57 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road The Special Magistrate reviewed the video. The Respondent pled "not guilty" and stated his vehicle came to a complete stop. He admitted he stopped further into the intersection in order to obtain a better line of sight because a large, red truck to his left blocked his view. He stated it was his second day in the area, and he has driven at least "one-half million miles" without an accident. He stated ifthere had not been a blockage, he would have stopped on the wide white line. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation by the Special Magistrate due to safety considerations. 10. Notice #1360900048437 - BCC vs. Marc J. Battistello The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 585 Clubside Drive, #103, Naples Florida, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: September 3, 2009 Time: 4:56 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent pleaded "not guilty." He stated he is a full-time resident who "knows enough" to stop twice and look for ongoing traffic. He stated he was not aware he could view the video online. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video. The Respondent stated his normal habit is to stop twice at intersections. He poillted out his stops for the Special Magistrate. The first stop was just past the line bllt there was no traffic at all on the road at that time. He then stopped again in the II 1611 B 1 3 October 23,2009 intersection. He said he followed the "intent if not the letter" of the law and stated the white line is too far back from the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated, unlike the previous case, it was not necessary for the Respondent to enter the intersection as far as he did because nothillg was blocking his view and there were no safety considerations to view on-coming traffic. The Respondent stated he used good judgment by stopping twice and looking both ways at each stop before completely proceeding into the roadway. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance is specific so the law may be applied evenly to everyone. Drivers are required to stop at the white line. Lt. Minch stated the camera flash lights up the intersection. The Respondent's car was breaking steadily until the camera flashed at which point the front of the car dived because it stopped. He further stated it appeared the Respondent stopped his vehicle after the picture was taken. The Special Magistrate stated while the Respondent's intent was good, the specifics oflaw must be applied. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent he will receive a Notice in the mail. RECESS: 12:28 PM RECONVENED: 12:48 PM 1. Notice #1360900008456 - BCC vs. A Touch of Class TransDortation & Limo. Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Harold Minch The Special Magistrate ruled that the requirement for Notice had been satisfied and the Hearing could proceed. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 12 1611811 October 23, 2009 ** Lt. Minch reported: . Agenda #17, Notice #1360900004299 - BCC vs. Timothy C. Dunford had been WITHDRAWN by the County due to payment. 18. Notice #1360900026078 - BCC vs. Brian Georl!:e Fabian The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Harold Minch The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 ** Supervisor Waldron reported: . Agenda #15, Notice #1360900042182 -BCC vs. Patrick T. Lyons or Marion Rose Cordisco had been WITHDRAWN by the County. 31. Notice #1360900001873 - BCC vs. Kurt P. and Kristina Marie Lenl!:emann The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Officer Michael Peabody The Special Magistrate verified with Lt. Minch that he used the license plate to obtain contact information for the Respondents. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 32. Notice #1360900026631 - BCC vs. Lockhart Enl!:ineerinl!:. Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been provided, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found 13 1611 81 I October 23, 2009 GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 34. Notice #1360900001345 - BCC vs. Johnnv Cleo McCarter The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Michael Peabody The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 40. Notice #1360900008373 - BCC vs. William Robert Renaud The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Dan Salls The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 44. Notice #1360900009942 - BCC vs. Mary Lvnn Roeller The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Harold Minch The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 41. Notice #1360900049583 - BCC vs. Raul Ravmond Reves The Hearing was reqllested by the Respondent who was not present. 14 1611 8 1 ~ October 23, 2009 The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. It was noted the Respondent had been present earlier but left before the case was heard. The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated on September 5, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 42. Notice #1360900037091 - BCC vs. Raul Ravmond Reves The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Chris Gonzalez It was noted the Respondent had been present earlier but left before the case was heard. The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated on August 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 46. Notice #1360900015600 - BCC vs. Christopher Allen Sharpe The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Chris Gonzalez The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 47. Notice #1360900006567 - BCC vs. Robin Dale Shrock The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Michael Peabody 15 160Lbt 23~o1 ~ The Special Magistrate stated sufficiellt Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 50. Notice #1360900038537 - BCC vs. Tonv Toepfer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Officer Harold Minch The Special Magistrate stated sufficient Notice had been given, reviewed the video and determined the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. Total Amount Due: $175.00 IV. OLD BUSINESS: None V. NEXT HEARING DATE - November 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ~~ nda on, Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Speciaj.Magistrate on as presented _, or as amended V' . \)~u.~ \'8, ~\!)~ , 16 16 11 N:~bl17,_9 F-:ala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 5 S OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM JAN 1 2 2010 Board of County COlllmjssjon~rs Naples, Florida, November 17, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Misc. Corres: Date: ltemt: CopIes to: 16 II 18 1 :A November 17, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:03 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:17 AM RECONVENED: 9:45 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item III (A), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #1, Notice #1360900021566 - BCC vs. Claubert Alexandre . Agenda #2, Notice #1350900057214 - BCC vs. Catherine M. Allton . Agenda #4, Notice #1350900013738 - BCC vs. Raymond Attwell . Agenda #5, Notice #1350900026649 - BCC vs. Francis Babbitt . Agenda #6, Notice #1360900020279 - BCC vs. Heather Begley . Agenda #13, Notice #1360900018315 - BCC vs. Leland Michael & Janette David . Agenda #14, Notice #1360900014488 - BCC vs. Louis F. Diedricks . Agenda #22, Notice #1360900011773 - BCC vs. Teresa L. Haney or Rene M. Baker . Agenda #23, Notice #1360900027910 - BCC vs. Gail Hayton . Agenda #28, Notice #1360900029569 - BCC vs. Gene N. Landrum . Agenda #29, Notice #1360900012995 - BCC vs. Joseph Vincent Laurino . Agenda #30, Notice #1360900006492 - BCC vs. Joseph Vincent Laurino . Agenda #31, Notice #1360900029080 - BCC vs. David Llewellyn . Agenda #33, Notice #1360900048429 - BCC vs. Diane M. Maloney . Agenda #36, Notice #1360900011823 - BCC vs. Randal Wayne Marshall . Agenda #37, Notice #1360900018893 - BCC vs. William P. & Yong S. May . Agenda #39, Notice #1360900025518 - BCC vs. Lynn McGee Muffiey . Agenda #41, Notice #1360900017796 - BCC vs. Brianne Nicole Packard . Agenda #42, Notice #1360900007490 - BCC vs. Julio A. Palacios . Agenda #44, Notice #1360900035178 - BCC vs. Lawrence G. Porter . Agenda #45, Notice #1360900040285 - BCC vs. Kelly Hess & Steven E. Robinson . Agenda #48, Notice #1360900019883 - BCC vs. Roses Food Mart, Inc. . Agenda #49, Notice #1360900041960 - BCC vs. Nancy A. Spencer 2 to~mLt, 20J3 1 I . Agenda #50, Notice #1360900019479 - BCC vs. Richard H. Stevens . Agenda #51, Notice #1360900019784 - BCC vs. Charles Trevor Sutton . Agenda #52, Notice #1360900048858 - BCC vs. Rafael A. Valdes & Mabel Marrero . Agenda #53, Notice #1360900025724 - BCC vs. Robert A. Candelario Velez . Agenda #54, Notice #1360900022911 - BCC vs. Joseph Gerard Viacava . Agenda #55, Notice #1360900047348 - BCC vs. Stephen Raffington Watts . Agenda #56, Notice #1360900023794 - BCC vs. Yelena Weiss (b) Under Item III (A), "Hearings,"the following case was DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda #35, Notice #1360900039337 - BCC vs. Valerie Marie & Jeffery Bryant Marlow (c) Under Item V, "Next Hearing Date," the location for the Hearing was changed to the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES") Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 23, 2009: Corrections: . Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright was not present at the Hearing. . Under Item II, "Approval of Agenda, " all listed cases were WITHDRAWN by the County, not dismissed. . Regarding Agenda #22, Notice #1360900015253 -BCC vs. George Harvey & Patricia Sue Hermanson, the case was WITHDRAWN, not dismissed. . Regarding Agenda #19, Notice #1360900008779 -BCC vs. Denna 1. Fiorito, the case was WITHDRAWN, not dismissed. . Regarding Agenda #51, Notice #1360900009371- BCC vs. Zulima Alfaro Turino and Agenda #56, Notice #1360900041044 - BCC vs. Marjorie A. ZifJ-Levine, the cases had been WITHDRAWN by the County, not dismissed. . Regarding Agenda #10, the testimony ofthe Respondent, Marc Battistello, described traffic as "on-coming" rather than "ongoing." . Regarding Agenda #42, Notice #1360900037901-BCC vs. Raul Raymond Reyes, the Respondent was not present at the time of the Hearing. The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on October 23,2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. 3 lklbl17,Bol ~ III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 8. Notice #1360900018745 - BCC vs. Marvlvnn Capobianco The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent resides at 3511 23'd Avenue SW, Naples, Florida 34117, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. She noted her correct name is Mary Lynn Capobianco. Date of Violation: August 13,2009 Time: 4:13 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway @ Collier Boulevard. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she could clearly see the intersection as she approached it. She mentioned there was a Hess Station to her left which blocked her view so she pulled up further into the intersection in order to check oncoming traffic. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance requires drivers come to a complete stop which the Respondent did not. The vehicle appeared to "pause" in the intersection. The Special Magistrate noted there are no exceptions in the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUlL TY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 30 days to make payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 The Special Magistrate confirmed the Board of County Commissioners reduced the amount of fines on October 14, 2009, but the amended Ordinance was not retroactive. Investigator Waldron clarified the Ordinance requires payment of fines within 21 days after receipt of the Notice. The Special Magistrate noted the correction and advised the Respondent payment is due within 21 days. 3. Notice #1350900034015 - BCC vs. Faheem Haazil!: Arbvummi The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Officer Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 4531 2S1h Place SW, Naples, Florida. Date of Violation: August 13,2009 4 IN~vet!17,aJ " Time: 4:13 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway @ Collier Boulevard Before the video could be presented, the Respondent stated he was "taking responsibility" for the vehicle and not contesting the Citation. He further stated he was unable to pay the fine and asked if it would be possible to perform community service lieu of payment. The Special Magistrate stated she cannot waive the fine or impose community service. She noted Collier County enforces the Intersection Safety Program Orders and makes the determination concerning how an Order is enforced. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 The Special Magistrate introduced Diane Flagg, Director of Code Enforcement, and suggested the Respondent speak with Ms. Flagg concerning his situation. 12. Notice #1360900025773 - BCC vs. Cynthia Crav The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent resides at 1065 Pine Isle Lane, Naples, Florida 34112, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 23, 2009 Time: 10:50 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Airport-Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she researched the topics of insufficient yellow light timing and incorrect timing devices installed by vendors. She further stated the traffic light was yellow as her vehicle began to turn and changed to red while she was turning. Lt. Minch stated vendors have no control over the timing of the traffic lights and cannot manipulate them because timing is controlled by the County's Transportation Department. The Respondent contended the wait at the Pine Ridge intersection was not the same as at other intersections and noted Judges in various jurisdictions throughout the State were not honoring camera-initiated Citations since an officer must be physically present to collect money from a citizen. She stated her concern was the timing settings for traffic lights at camera-monitored intersections. 5 16 I, 1 B 1 _ November 17,2009 Lt. Minch stated none of the timings at any of the intersections had been changed to favor the cameras and the Respondent's vehicle entered the intersection at 24 miles per hour. He further stated the traffic light had been red for .2 seconds before the Respondent's vehicle entered the intersection. Robert Tipton, Traffic Operation Director, confirmed the traffic control equipment used throughout the State has a minimum "yellow" time for any movement of three seconds. In Collier County, traffic signals adjust for the speed of approaching vehicles and, at the Pine Ridge Road intersection, the minimum time is four seconds. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance requires drivers must stop when a traffic signal is red, it has not been over ruled and is the law of Collier County. She further stated the "stop" is to be a complete stop with the brake light on and no forward motion. She reiterated a vehicle either stops or it rolls through a stop sign or light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 20. Notice #1360900036713 - BCC vs. Lorrie A. Goulet The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 10898 Sea Coral Court, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 28, 2009 Time: 4:59 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston Road Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated the traffic signal turned green as her vehicle approached and proceeded through the intersection, but the car did slow down before entering the intersection and turning onto Livingston. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent's car was in the intersection before the light turned green, and while the car may have "paused," it was not a complete stop. She stated the vehicle did not pull up to clear the intersection and then proceed into traffic. Sgt. Gonzalez stated the light had been red for approximately 82.8 seconds while the Respondent's vehicle approached the intersection. The Respondent would not have been able to see if there was a pedestrian entering the intersection. 6 pfq B1 :I 1 ~vemjjer 17,2009 The Special Magistrate stated if her vehicle had made a complete stop, there would not have been a violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 24. Notice #1360900047116 - BCC ys. Timothy P. Heslin The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 10057 Boca Circle, Naples, Florida 34109, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: September 3, 2009 Time: 2.52 PM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road Cpl. Amorosi presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated he was not contesting the video. He stated he received three additional Citations for violations at the same location and stated ifhe had been made aware of the first violation immediately, the other violations would not have occurred. He protested the two week "plus" delay in receiving the initial notification. He further stated he was aware that "a 90-day grace period" had been allowed at other camera-monitored locations because of statements made by several County Commissioners. The Special Magistrate noted she could only review the Citation presented during the Hearing. Lt. Minch stated the grace period was County-wide and the purpose was to alert the citizens of the presence of the cameras at certain intersections. The Special Magistrate stated, while she understood the Respondent's argument, the law requires a vehicle to stop at a red light before turning and enforcement is not subjective. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 7 161'1 iSl ~ November 17, 2009 34. Notice #1360900006047 - BCC vs. Batva Maman The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Sgt. Dan Salls. The Respondent resides at 712 100th Avenue North, Naples, Florida 34108, and verified she is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. Date of Violation: August 2,2009 Time: 3.31 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Sgt. Salls presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she received six different tickets for the same location at approximately the same time during a one-month period. She claimed to the "only car on the road" at the time and was aware she could make a right turn on a red light, but did not know her vehicle must first come to full stop on a red light before proceeding. She stated she was from Israel where the driving rules are different. She explained to the Special Magistrate she did take a written test to obtain a license in Florida, but was assisted by a translator. She further stated she is unable to pay the fine because she is unemployed and her house is in foreclosure. The Special Magistrate explained she will address only the Citation scheduled for the Hearing and not the other issued Citations. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 38. Notice #1360900029676 - BCC vs. Midwest Repro. Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by Jeffrey Stevens. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Mr. Stevens stated he is General Manager for Midwest Repro, Inc. and verified he was authorized to represent the company. Date of Violation: August 26, 2009 Time: 10:54 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate The Respondent stated he was operating the vehicle on the day in question and pulled the vehicle past the stop line in order to safely see oncoming traffic at the intersection. 8 1611 81 November 17, 2009 .. He further stated he briefly stopped the car at the intersection before proceeding into traffic. He claimed the video showed his vehicle moved a very short distance in 2.1 seconds indicating his short stop. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video again. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 40. Notice #1360900039287 - BCC vs. Maria Rosaura Orteea The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 607 nod Avenue North, Naples, Florida 34108, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 29,2009 Time: 8:24 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. The Respondent stated she attended the Board of County Commissioner's meeting on September 29,2009. At the meeting, a situation similar to the past two cases was presented to the Commissioners who dismissed the other Citations, allowing the Respondents to pay for only one, due to the length oftime between the date the infraction occurred and the date the initial notification was received. The Special Magistrate noted the Board of County Commissioners sets policy for the County and makes laws. She reiterated she will address only the one Citation scheduled for the Hearing. Cpl. Amorosi presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated there is a sign across the road (to her left) blocking the view of cars attempting to make a right onto Route 41, and there was a truck/van that also hindered her view, so she pulled her car into the intersection in order to see oncoming traffic. She further stated she observed the camera flash which startled her so much that she pulled her car even further into the intersection because she thought an ambulance may have been coming behind her. Cpl. Amorosi disputed her claim and pointed out the car's braking pattern. The Respondent stated she was in the process of braking but was startled and felt she must rush through the intersection due to the flash. She further stated her purpose was to alert the County to a "situation" at the intersection which may be due to a malfunction of the camera equipment. She suggested it should be recalibrated 9 1~6 I 1 81 ~ '~ \lovember 17, 2009 because it was a contributing factor to her decision "to be prudent and get out of the way." The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and stated the logical place to stop was not where the Respondent's vehicle had stopped and reviewed the tenns of Ordinance #2008-22 referring to Section Four, "Exceptions" which states: "(e). If the vehicle driver was required to violate the applicable traffic control device (or the official) in order to comply with another applicable law that supersedes the respective traffic control regulation; " The Special Magistrate also cited from the Ordinance: "(d). If the asserted defense would have excused the no/iced violation as if such violation had been cited by a Uniform Traffic Citation pursuant to Florida Statute; " The Special Magistrate stated the language of the Ordinance allows her to apply the exceptions to the factual situation presented by the Respondent and the County did not object. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. The Special Magistrate stated she was not setting a precedent and reiterated the law states the vehicle must come to a full stop before clearing an intersection. RECESS: 11:55 AM RECONVENED: 12:13 PM 10. Notice #1360900026441 - BCC vs. Cynthia Cossu The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 2537 SW 9th Place, Cape Coral, Florida 33914, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 24,2009 Time: 9:59 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Amorosi presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated after viewing the video, she realized she did not stop behind the first white line and learned where she is supposed to stop her vehicle in the future. 10 '61,81 q ~ovember.h, 2009 The Special Magistrate stated due to the Respondent's admission of guilt, she would not assess any costs Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $/25.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 '- The Special Magistrate stated she was accepting a Stipulation from the Respondent. The County did not object to the Special Magistrate allowing the Respondent to "stipulate" to the violation. 21. Notice #1360900015758 - BCC vs. Sebouh Gouriian The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent initiated a discussion concerning the type of recording made by the County. The Special Magistrate stated the proceedings were televised in addition to being recorded for minutes and explained the procedure regarding obtaining a copy of the minutes or the recording from Minutes and Records to appeal her ruling. The Respondent resides at 151 Cypress Way East, Naples, Florida 34110. The Respondent stated he would present a Motion to Declare the Statute Unconstitutional. The Special Magistrate stated that she, as a Special Magistrate, was not authorized to and would not rule on the constitutionality of the Ordinance. The County objected to the Motion as outside the scope of the Hearing. The Respondent objected to the County's objection stating he would present a Declaratory Judgment at the conclusion of the Hearing. The Special Magistrate stated she would only hear the case and determine whether or not a violation existed. The Respondent asked the Court to recognize his "standing" and referred to Section Nine, "Conflict and Severability," ofthe Ordinance as follows: "In the event this Article (Ordinance) conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, this Article shall apply and supersede. If any phrase or portion of this Article is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent ... " The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent will have "standing" because of the Hearing and will be able to contest the ruling in the appropriate location (i.e., Court). The Respondent verified he is a criminal defense attorney. 11 1611 81 _ November 17, 2009 The Special Magistrate noted the Ordinance has not been declared unconstitutional. The Respondent stated he was required to "make a record" in order to appeal the constitutionality of the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent's point was made. Date of Violation: August 15,2009 Time: 2:40 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Airport-Pulling Road When asked to verify his ownership of the vehicle, the Respondent stated he would "stand silent." Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. Lt. Minch explained a search of the license plate ofthe vehicle was performed through records kept by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and introduced a document entitled, Violation Evident Report, dated November 11, 2009 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A." The Respondent objected to the document stating it had not been obtained directly from the Department of Motor Vehicles and did not meet the standard of proof. Lt. Minch stated the vendor, hired by the County, generated the documentation as part of its contract with the County and obtained the information by utilizing the same computer system used by the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Special Magistrate overruled the Respondent's objection stating the Ordinance permits hearsay testimony. The Respondent claimed there was no foundation for the document and it had not been authenticated by the State. The Special Magistrate determined the document to be accurate. She further stated the standard of proof in the forum of "Special Magistrate" was different than in criminal or traffic court which is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Special Magistrate admitted County's Exhibit "A" into evidence. The Respondent objected to use of the video and photographs taken by the camera stating if was not known if the equipment was DOT-approved. The Special Magistrate noted the Sheriff's Department Officers represented the County and did not appear on behalf of the State of Florida. The County objected to the use of State Statutes as outside the scope of the Hearing because the subject matter was controlled by County Ordinance. The Respondent cited Florida Statute 316.008, "Powers of Local Authorities," under (3) as follows: "No local authority shall erect or maintain any official traffic control device at any location so as to regulate the traffic on any state road 12 Jo~Jer~,20e 1 I unless approval in writing has first been obtained from the Department of Transportation. " Lt. Minch stated the intersection was a County Road and the cited Statute was not applicable since State Roads were assigned designated numbers. The Special Magistrate confirmed the Respondent had asserted the equipment was a "traffic control device." The Special Magistrate stated the County's Ordinance was not in conflict with the Statute and overruled the Respondent's objection. Lt. Minch stated the Department of Transportation does not allow camera devices on State road Right-of-Ways. He further stated the device was County authorized and placed on a County road pursuant to the County's Ordinance, outside of State control. The Respondent noted the ruling for appeal. The Special Magistrate again reviewed the video. Lt. Minch pointed out there was a steady red signal and the vehicle did not stop, stating the vehicle was found to be in violation of the County's ordinance. Cross-examination: The Respondent asked if a Citation was written and Lt. Minch stated the Ordinance required that a Notice of Code Violation be issued. The Respondent questioned whether or not Lt. Minch could issue a Notice of Violation on behalf of Collier County's Code Enforcement Department since he was not employed by Code Enforcement. Lt. Minch stated the County's Deputy Sheriffs are cross-designated by the Ordinance to enforce Code Violations. He further stated the Notice of Violation was issued by Code Enforcement and not by the Sheriffs Department. The Special Magistrate stated there are laws that are both State Statutes and County Ordinances and a discretionary choice is made as to which is enforced. The choice was made to hear the case under the County's Ordinance. She explained several officers are empowered to enforce the County's Ordinance and reiterated Lt. Minch has the authority to present the County's case pursuant to the County's Ordinance. The Special Magistrate noted she had previously sustained the County's objection and stated the purpose of the Hearing was to determine whether a County Ordinance, not a State Statute, had been violated. The Respondent asked whether the Deputy has issued Uniform Traffic Citations under State Statute 316.075 - "failure to obey a traffic control device?" Lt. Minch stated he has issued "thousands" oftraffic citations during his career. 13 16 ~OV~b~7~009~ The Respondent asked why Collier County Code Enforcement had not issued the Citation. Lt. Minch stated he did not issue a Code Violation, it was issued by Collier County Code Enforcement and he was testifying concerning the evidence used to determine whether a violation had occurred. He further stated the Ordinance requires a Deputy Sheriff to make the determination. The Respondent questioned Lt. Minch's training/experience with the "D.A.V.I.D." System and Lt. Minch explained the computer system was used to track drivers' licenses and contained information concerning vehicle ownership, etc. Lt. Minch stated he routinely uses NCIC ("National Crime Information Center") or FCIC ("Florida Crime Information Center") databases to verify vehicle registration. Exhibit "A" contained information on the Violation Evidence Report and was obtained through the NCIC database. The Sheriffs Office views the evidence obtained through the vendor hired by the County, and testifies in Court pursuant to the Ordinance. Lt. Minch confirmed the equipment is operated by the County's vendor, American Traffic Solutions whose offices are located in Arizona and he is not employed by American Traffic Solutions. He stated when a Citation is issued, the driver may either sign the document presented by the officer or post a bond. Failure to do either is a misdemeanor. Respondent's Closing Argument: . Notice requirement - the Ordinance requires service by Certified Mail. o The Respondent stated he did not receive mail delivery at his home and was required to retrieve the notification from the Post Office. He did not sign for the Certified Mail. The Respondent moved for the Citation to be set aside because State Statute 3 I 6.077, "Provisions Uniform throughout the State," expressly preempts the County's Ordinance and cited as follows: "The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this State and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this Chapter unless expressly authorized However, this section shall not prevent any local authority from enacting an Ordinance when such enactment is necessary to vest jurisdiction of violation of this Chapter in the local court. " The Respondent contended Statute 316.075 supersedes and preempts the County's Ordinance and presented copies of the following case law: . Duvall Lumber Co. v. Slade, 147 Fla. 135,2 So.2d 371 . Citv of Wilton Manors v. Starling. et ai, 121 So.2d 172 . Santa Rosa Countv v. Gulf Power Companv, 151 P.U.R.4th 552, 635 So.2d 96) in Head Notes 6 and 7. 14 1 ~JeJer la~ ~ The Special Magistrate asked Lt. Minch to clarify his testimony concerning whether there were overlapping state roadways at the intersection. He stated the term "state road" is a description of a roadway for legal purposes and does not refer to every road in the State of Florida. State Roads are identified by a specific assigned number. The Special Magistrate asked if either of the roads in the intersection in question was considered a "State Road." Lt. Minch stated both roads are County roads. The Respondent stated some of the issues he presented were expressed and implied preemptions and presented the following case law: . Hillsborough County v. Florida Restaurant Association. Inc., 603 So.2d 587 He stated Statute 316.075 contains an express preemption and presented the following case law: . National Rifle Association v. City of South Miami, 812 So.2d 504 He stated a municipality can enact Ordinances which are not expressly preempted by State Statute and presented the following case law: . CarlL. Thomas v. State of Florida, 614 So.2d 468 The Respondent contended there was a conflict of the laws because the "Statute" imposed a fine of$125.00 with an addition $50.00 if the Citation is contested, without allowing for other remedies. The Respondent referred to Section Five, "Penalties," of Collier County Ordinance #2008-22, specifically to Paragraph (a), "Civil Fine and Costs," and presented the following case law: . Lawrence E. Edwards v. State of Florida, 422 So.2d 84 . Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Boswell, 167 So.2d 866 . Phantom of Brevard. Inc. v. Brevard County. 3 So.3d 309 He cited the Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion, AGO 97-06, dated January 24, 2997 concerning use of unmanned cameras. He stated the Attorney General's opinion was that enforcement oftraffic citations based on the use of unmanned cameras could not be enforced. Lt. Minch stated the Respondent testified he did not receive Certified Mail and did not sign for it at the Post Office. Lt. Minch directed the Special Magistrate to the evidence package which contained a document obtained from the U.S. Postal Service website which indicated the envelope was obtained by an individual who signed as "Sebouh Gourjian." 15 lV~bL J 20~ 1 I Discussion ensued concerning whether the Respondent's testimony pertained to the Citation scheduled for the Hearing or another Citation issued to the Respondent. He stated his issue was the way "Notice" was issued pursuant to the "Statute." The Special Magistrate ruled the Respondent was in violation based on the evidence presented. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125. 00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. TotalAmountDue: $175.00 The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was entitled to appeal the Ruling and noted appeal guidelines were contained in Ordinance #2008-22, as amended by Ordinance #2009-54. She also directed the Respondent to review the Collier County Code Enforcement Ordinance #2007-44 for additional information concerning appeal procedures. RECESS: 1:58 PM RECONVENED: 2:06 PM 7. Notice #1360900042711 - BCC vs. Frederick Caple The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 31, 2009 Time: 7:49 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #L93-5DZ. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125. 00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 9. Notice #1360900049203 - BCC vs. Harold Cohen The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: September 4, 2009 Time: 7:35 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston Road. 16 t2Jbert, 2~e 1 3 Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #HOT-DNG. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125.00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 11. Notice #1360900032639 - BCC vs. LaQuentin Cotton The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 27,2009 Time: 5:29 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road/lmmokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle had stopped as required by the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 15. Notice #1360900021681- BCC vs. Lawrence Doane The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 20,2009 Time: 6:52 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road @ Immokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle had stopped as required by the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 16. Notice #1360900039873 - BCC vs. Vincent W. & Matthew John Duwe The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 30, 2009 Time: 4:55 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. 17 l~bl J20~9 B 1 , . Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owners was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #KI6-7GW. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondents are allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 17. Notice #1360900046209 - BCC VB. Vincent W. & Matthew John Duwe The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: September 3, 2009 Time: 1:44 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owners was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #KI6-7GW. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondents are allowed 21 days for payment. TotalAmount Due: $175.00 18. Notice #1360900040632 - BCC VB. Karen S. Eldred The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 30, 2009 Time: I: 10 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road @Airport-Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #914-LMY. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 19. Notice #1360900032191- BCC vs. Catherine F. Gallowav The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. t8 1611 81 :t November 17, 2009 Date of Violation: August 26, 2009 Time: 8:49 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 4lffamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #AMAZONE. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and $5,.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. TotalAmountDue: $175.00 25. Notice #1360900017820 - BCC vs. Kirk Steven & Melissa L. Jordan The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 16,2009 Time: 7:06 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 4l/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #C63-81M. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondents are allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 26. Notice #1360900006799 - BCC vs. Robert D. Jovce The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 3, 2009 Time: 7:25 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 4lffamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #090-KBJ. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and $50.00 19 16 I love~be~ 7~009 :t in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. TotalAmountDue: $175.00 27. Notice #1360900043628 - BCC vs. K.D.D.. Inc. d/b/a Mr. Shower Door The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. - Date of Violation: September I, 2009 Time: II :09 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road @ US 41ITamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle stopped as required by the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 43. Notice #1360900011047 - BCC vs. Jose Perez The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier but left before the case was heard. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 10,2009 Time: 4:59 AM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway @ Collier Blvd. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #X77-3UX. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 **Supervisor Waldron stated the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #32, Notice #1360900047181 - BCC vs. Robert A. Lutz . Agenda #47, Notice #1360900032431- BCC vs. Sam Romano 46. Notice #1360900025005 - BCC vs. Marv Lvnn Roeller The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. 20 1611 . B 1 :1 November 17, 2009 Date of Violation: August 23, 2009 Time: 7:02 AM Location: Intersection ofVanderbiIt Beach Road @ US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated a violation had occurred and information concerning the registered owner was obtained by researching the vehicle's license plate, #K95-5TE. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and $50.00 in administrative costs. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 IV. OLD BUSINESS: None V. NEXT HEARING DATE - December 18,2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES'') Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, as corrected under Item 11, "Approval of the Agenda. " There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order ofthe Special Magistrate at 2:27 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ~"'t~t, The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented _, or as amended /' ~lc..~ \%,~(L , 21 ~::s Dr;;~>M~v Henning ~ g~r~~a _ -r&-~_ f,1ECEIVFD MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTyJAN 1 2 2010 SPECIAL MAGIS TRA TE R03'0 of Counly COIT,,"ission.rs INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM 1611 I 81 1 December 18, 2009 Naples, Florida, December 18, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES") Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Cpt. Michael Peabody, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Cpt. Joseph Amorosi, Collier County Deputy sHlffi~: Dale: Illlm II: Copies 10: 1611.'131 :J . December 18, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:03 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:10 AM RECONVENED: 9:36 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item III (A), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #8, Notice #1360900064871 - BCC vs. Cleo nice P. Araujo . Agenda #13, Notice #1360900058063 - BCC vs. Lindsay Erin Danto . Agenda #25, Notice #1360900052462 - BCC vs. Fortunata Naber . Agenda #26, Notice #1360900054674 - BCC vs. Fortunata Naber . Agenda #28, Notice #1360900013449 - BCC vs. Robert Bruce Price . Agenda #30, Notice #1360900009371- BCC vs. Zulima Alfaro Turino The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 17,2009: . In Agenda #3 - Notice #1350900034015 - Bee vs. Faheem Haazig Arbyummi, the Special Magistrate noted Collier County enforces the Intersection Safety Program Ordinance (not Orders). The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on November 17,2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 1. Notice #1360900011096 - BCC vs. Ashlev Nicole Adkins The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Michael Peabody. 2 161181 _ December 18, 2009 The Respondent resides at 4525 Coral Palms Lane, Apartment #4, Naples, Florida 34116 and verified she is the registered owner ofthe vehicle. Date of Violation: August 10, 2009 Time: 6:49 AM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she objected to being held financially accountable for the traffic violation when she was not the only person who drove her vehicle. She claimed the "law had not been passed yet" by the State of Florida. She further stated other municipalities take photographs of the drivers. The Special Magistrate explained the Ordinance is "the law," and it had not been challenged. The Ordinance stipulates the registered owner of a vehicle is the party held responsible, and taking a photograph ofthe vehicle's operator is not required. The Respondent claimed her vehicle's brake lights were on and the car came to a "rolling stop" which was sufficient because there was no oncoming traffic or pedestrians present. The Special Magistrate stated while the vehicle appeared to be slowing down, it did not come to a complete stop as required by the Ordinance. She further stated the law is to be observed consistently by everyone, and not at the discretion of each driver. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 12. Notice #1360900026870 - BCC vs. Russell Thomas Cowles & Anita Bernhardt The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were present. The County was represented by Cpl. Michael Peabody. The Respondents reside at 8127 Los Palmas Way, Naples, Florida 34109, and Mr. Cowles verified he and his wife are the registered owners of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 24,2009 Time: 12:56 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated there were inconsistencies in the type of traffic lights at each stoplight, i.e., the lights at the other three corners at the intersection (facing the other 3 1611 ,B 1 ~ December 18, 2009 directions) were all "5-bar" lights (5 pods in each light). The light at the turning lane in question did not have the same light as the other comers ofthe intersection, i.e. it was not a 5-bar light. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondents' vehicle did not stop at the light as required by the law. The Respondent introduced three photographs, taken on December 17, 2009, which were marked as Respondent's Exhibit "A" (3 green lights - Airport Pulling Road), Exhibit "B" (3 red lights - Pine Ridge Road), and Exhibit "C" (2 red lights), and were admitted into evidence. He called the Transportation Department on several occasions complaining that intersections in Collier County are not lit in the same way at each intersection, i.e., the lights should be the same at all comers of an intersection. The Special Magistrate stated the lights are timed to respond to the flow of traffic at each intersection, and the amount or the shape of the lights should not affect the flow of traffic. Respondent, Anita Cowles, testified she was familiar with the traffic lights having a turning arrow, and stated as she approached the intersection, she saw there was no oncoming traffic and observed a car making a left turn from the opposite direction, so she decided it was safe to make a right turn. The Special Magistrate reiterated the Respondent's testimony that she believed there was no light for the turning lane. The Respondent stated the video showed the light was red for less than one second before she turned which meant the light was green as she was approaching the intersection. Lt. Minch explained the length of the lights - the video showed a four-second yellow light while the car approached the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated there was a violation and a fine will be assessed. In answer to the Respondents' question about what the "next step" would be, the Special Magistrate explained they can obtain a copy ofthe tape from Minutes and Records in order to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court. There was a discussion concerning the difference between the jurisdiction of a Special Magistrate and a Judge, and the proceedings held in Traffic COllrt versus a Special Magistrate Hearing. Since no points are assessed for the violations, the penalty is not assevere as in Traffic Court. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. 4 1611131 .. .~ December 18, 2009 Total Amount Due: $175.00 15. Notice #1360900049336 - BCC vs. Francis J. Dolge The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Joseph Amorosi. The Respondent resides at 14898 Tibby Island Drive, Naples, Florida 34119, and stated he is not the registered owner of the vehicle. He leases the vehicle from Lexis Financial of Baltimore, Maryland. Lt. Minch stated the leasing company identified the Respondent as the lessee ofthe vehicle and supporting documentation was provided in the information packet submitted to the Special Magistrate. By definition in the Ordinance, the lessee is considered to be the "owner" of the vehicle. Lt. Minch asked ifthe license plate was in the Respondent's name and ifhe was paying for insurance on the vehicle. The Respondent concurred. Date of Violation: September 4, 2009 Time: 8:59 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated all lights were clearly red at the time the vehicle rolled through the intersection. The Respondent stated the vehicle traveled a very short distance in the two second differential shown on the video, and he was a "safe driver and all laws should be directed toward safety in a total common sense manner." He further stated if an officer had been present at the comer, no ticket would have been issued. He contended the sensors ill the street are affected by the heat and may not be activated correctly. The Special Magistrate directed the Respondent to present evidence specific to his case. The Respondent presented the following evidence for dismissal ofthe Citation: (1) common sense; (2) a two second differential where his vehicle did not travel more than IS feet; and (3) the "aspect of common sense" is true safety. The Special Magistrate stated there was a violation and assessed a fine of $125.00 and $50 in administrative fees. She further stated the video showed the vehicle went through the light without stopping. The Respondent admitted his car did not come to a complete stop, but there was no evidence of "reckless driving" and "using common sense, there was no need for a Citation to be issued." 5 1611~1. .~ December 18, 2009 The Special Magistrate reviewed the video again, and noted the car did not come to a stop. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 18. Notice #1360900044527 - BCC vs. Dion G. Homer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent resides at 808 Willow Springs Court, Naples, Florida 34120, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: September 4, 2009 Time: 1 :25 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Road LI. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated he thought he had stopped at the intersection. Lt. Minch pointed out the turning arrow was not activated. The Special Magistrate stated although the vehicle appeared to be slowing down, it did not come to a full stop, and fines will be assessed. The Respondent requested "flexibility" regarding the fine. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 90 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 31. Notice #1360900010874 - BCC vs. Zulima Alfaro Turino The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The COl\l1ty was represented by Cpl. Michael Peabody. The Respondent who resides at 3240 29th Avenue NE, Naples, Florida 34120, verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: August 9, 2009 Time: 8:39 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. 6 16/1811 December 18, 2009 Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she is a safe driver who observes the law and contended her vehicle did stop at the intersection and, although it may not have been a long enough stop, she was able to observe there was no oncoming traffic to prevent her from proceeding through the intersection. She further stated she was taking her disabled mother to the hospital to see her older brother who was critically ill. The video was reviewed again and Lt. Minch stated a quick stop appeared to have been made. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent was NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 5. Notice #1360900030732 - BCC vs. Michaele Amen Hart The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent who resides at 5530 Tupelo Drive, Naples, Florida 34119, stated her last name was Amen, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: Augllst 24, 2009 Time: 12:26 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tarniami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she stopped her vehicle twice as indicated by the brake light so she could look twice at the oncoming traffic. She further stated the presence of the brake lights differentiated a quick stop from a rolling stop. Lt. Minch stated the brakes lights were on and there were a couple of "good pauses." The Respondent stated she was distracted because she was on her way to help a friend who was a victim of domestic violence. The Special Magistrate ruled that, due to mitigating circumstances, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. RECESS: 11:25 AM RECONVENED: 11 :45 AM 2. Notice #1360900021566 - BCC vs. Claubert Alexandre The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. 7 1611 \31-' December 18,2009 Date of Violation: August 20, 2009 Time: 2:27 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 3. Notice #1360900057214 - BCC vs. Catherine M Allton The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: September 10,2009 Time: 6:37 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 4. Notice #1360900050656 - BCC vs. Robert J. Alwine The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: September 5, 2009 Time: 12:49 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 4lITamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay ajine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 8 16 I 1 8 1 _I~ · December 18, 2009 6. Notice #1360900041648 - BCC vs. Amv E. Anderson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 31, 2009 Time: 7:53 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light, cutting off oncoming traffic while proceeding through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated the video was an example of a bad decision by the driver. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 7. Notice #1360900022143 - BCC vs. Dominick Andreoli The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 20, 2009 Time: 7:06 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 9. Notice #1360900049930 - BCC vs. Meean Mariorie Black The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: September 5, 2009 Time: 1:49 AM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Road 9 1t..11 'D1 ':; ~Je~mJjer rn, 20~ Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 10. Notice #1360900040442 - BCC vs. Scott Michael Carter The Hearing was requested by the Respondellt who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 30, 2009 Time: 10:27 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 4I/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle entered and exited the intersection under a red light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 11. Notice #1360900042182 - BCC vs. Marian Rose Cordisco or Patrick T. Lvons The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: AlIgust 31, 2009 Time: 3:36 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 4I/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondents are allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 14. Notice #1360900018315 - BCC vs. Leland Michael David & Janette David The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. 10 1611 81 i~ December 18, 2009 Date of Violation: August 17,2009 Time: 7:38 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 4l!Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. The Special Magistrate noted the vehicle appeared to be speeding as it entered the intersection. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondents are allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 16. Notice #1360900042109 - BCC vs. Debi J. Gore & Milton B. Gore Supervisor Waldron stated the case was WITHDRAWN by the County. 17. Notice #1360900011773 - BCC vs. Teresa L. Hanev or Rene M. Baker The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August II, 2009 Time: 10:39 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondents are allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 19. Notice #1360900050970 - BCC vs. Claudia P. Jonsson Marson Supervisor Waldron stated the case was WITHDRAWN by the County. 20. Notice #1360900007292 - BCC vs. Kirk Steven Jordan & Melissa L. Jordan The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 4, 2009 Time: 2:00 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 4l!Tamiami Trail N. II 1611 B1 ';l December 18, 2009 Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondents are allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 21. Notice #1360900012995 - BCC vs. Joseph Vincent Laurino The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 13,2009 Time: 10:02 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 22. Notice #1360900006492 - BCC vs. Joseph Vincent Laurino The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 2, 2009 Time: 5:28 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. The Citation was the first of two for the driver. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125.00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 23. Notice #1360900018893 - BCC vs. William P. Mav & Yon!!: S. Mav The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. 12 1611 'B 1;' December 18, 2009 - Date of Violation: August 17, 2009 Time: 6:21 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 4l/Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondents are allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 24. Notice #1360900033884 - BCC vs. Jessie D. Milton The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 27, 2009 Time: 2:42 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days for payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 27. Notice #1360900007490 - BCC vs. Julio A. Palacios The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 4,2009 Time: 10:09 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 411Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrativefee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 13 16 lID.. '~ DecemberlrA, ~09 . 29. Notice #1360900019883 - BCC vs. Roses Food Mart, Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Date of Violation: August 18,2009 Time: 12:43 PM Location: Intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $125. 00 and an administrative fee of $50. 00. The Respondent is allowed 21 daysfor payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 V. OLD BUSINESS: None V. NEXT HEARING DATE - January 8, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County .' Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3,d Floor, Naples, Florida, There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order ofthe Special Magistrate at 12:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE The Minutes ~ approved by the Special Magistrate on J 'bt\I.V4 ~ \ do\C as presented _, or as amended 14