The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/13/2010 Item #16I161 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 13, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Aimort Authority: Minutes of January 11, 2010; February 8, 2010. 2) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010. Minutes of January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010 no quorum. 3) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 14, 2010. 4) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of January 28, 2010. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of January 21, 2010; January 28, 2010 special session; February 4, 2010. 6) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of February 17, 2010. 7) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 3, 2010. 8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 1, 2010. Minutes of February 1, 2010. 9) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 24, 2010. Minutes of November 18, 2009 no quorum; January 27, 2010. 10) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 1, 2010. 11) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 8, 2010. 161 12) Library Advisory Board: Agenda of February 24, 2010; March 17, 2010. Minutes of January 20, 2010; February 24, 2010. 13) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of January 20, 2010. 14) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of March 3, 2010. Minutes of February 1, 2010 Community Improvements Town Hall Meeting; February 3, 2010; February 9, 2010 Improvements Plan Joint Workshop; February 12, 2010 Improvements Plan Joint Workshop. 15) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 4, 2010. Minutes of February 4, 2010. B. Other: 1) Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program: Minutes of February 1, 2010. 2) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of February 19, 2010. 3) Collier County Housing Authority: Registered agent or office form; FY2010 Board Meeting Schedule. 161 1 A 1 RNICEIVED COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY MAR 16 2010 MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010 MEETING - +Darn or :ounRN Gommissloners MEMBERS Michael Klein Richard Rice Lloyd Byerhof Dave Gardner PRESENT: Jim Murray Frank Secrest Floyd Crews Meld STAFF: Bob Tweedie Debi Mueller Debbie Brueggeman -_ t�lAlgb . __S�7 Jennifer White Jim Kenney Lisa Morris Henning Coyle PUBLIC: Mark Minor David Griggs Linda Secrest Luc 03oklft Fred Watts Tim Parker David Schmitt David Odem 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Secrest seconded, and the Agenda was approved by a 7 -0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 14, 2009 MINUTES Mr. Murray made the motion approving the December 14, 2009 minutes. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion. The December 14, 2009 minutes were approved unanimously. V. FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2009 Mrs. Mueller addressed questions regarding year -to -date versus annual budget profit and losses, fuel pricing and margins. Mr. Byerhof requested additional information about how the airport sets fuel prices. Misc. Correa: VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Date: o 1 A 22 0 { Item N _ .L Updates and discussion of the following projects took place: ,yes tp Metro Energy Proposal — Metro Energy, a renewable energy company that converts waste products to clean fuel, is looking for approximately 200 acres to build a facility. The company has indicated that it has federal stimulus and grant funding available. Mrs. Brueggeman will meet with the Authority's engineering consultant, Michael Thompson of URS, to discuss how and if this might fit in with the Immokalee Airport master plan. The Community Redevelopment Agency is actively pursuing this possible plant because of the number of potential jobs it would bring to the area. FAA Funding — Pre -grant applications for construction of the Marco Island taxiway and Everglades South Taxiway were submitted to the FAA on 1/7/10. Krystal Ritchey at the FAA indicated that projects that have already been bid are in a better position to compete for discretionary funding. As such, staff with working with its engineering firm to prepare bid documents for the Marco Island taxiway for FAA approval. Y. Udmin[slrationUA BoarditnuleslFY 2009-201011 11 10 mlmaes dab.do x CCAA Minutes Januar, 2010 161 lA1 Everglades Airpark T- Hangers- Mr. Schmitt, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, and Mr. Griggs, Coral Sands, provided additional details for the change orders increasing the cost of the Everglades T- hangar project by approximately $95,000. Mr. Griggs also proposed adding additional pavement to the project. The Authority indicated that there is no funding available for any additional materials or work, and that any additional paving beyond that specified in the permit would probably require additional mitigation.. FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Desi ne ation — The Collier County Transportation Department prepared a justification report for the reclassification of the Immokalee Regional Airport from a Non - Designated Strategic Intermodal Facility to an Emerging Strategic Intermodal System Facility. The Authority discussed the criteria for such a designation, and concluded that the Immokalee Regional Airport probably does not tit the criteria because it is not a commercial airport. Phase 2 and 2A ERP at Immokalee — The Authority reviewed and approved the proposed area for the Phase 2 and 2A ERP at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mrs. Brueggeman will request proposals from the Authority's engineering and environmental consultants. Project Prioritization List — Mrs. Brueggeman presented a prioritized list of projects, by airport, to the Authority. She indicated that the list is not static, and requested that the Authority review the list, and provide comments or feedback. CCAA -USDA Manufacturing Building — The bid documents are currently being reviewed by the USDA state office for concurrence to award the bid. Executive Director Search — The Executive Director position was posted on county website January 7, 2010. The position will be posted on the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) the week of January 11, 2010. The job posting will be on both websites for 30 days. Applications /Resumes are to be submitted to the County Human Resources Department. Ms. Brueggeman advised the Authority that the selection committee would be more effective if the number of Airport Authority members was limited. Two members specifically said that they are available. BCC Agenda Item— Ms. White advised the Authority that she is preparing an Executive Summary to identify changes required in the Airport Authority Ordinance and/or Administrative Code to restructure the Authority to operate similar to the CRA, as tasked by the County Manager's Office. The County Manager's office requested that this item be prepared for the January 26, 2010 BCC meeting, but it may be postponed until the February 9, 2010 meeting. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Board Members report on meeting with respective Commissioners. 1. Mr. Gardner met with Commissioner Coletta. Mr. Gardner indicated that the Commissioner emphasized a need for good communications with the CRA and other County sectors. 2. Mr. Murray met with Commissioner Coyle. Y. IAdministmtionlAA Boa,&A1inu1es1hY 2009 - 2010 \1 11 10 minutes dab. docx 161 1 A 1 I CCAA Minutes January 11, 2010 Page 3 3. Mr. Byerhof met with Commissioner Henning and discussed competitive fuel pricing at the airports. Commissioner Henning inquired about how the Airport Authority sets fuel prices. 4. Mr. Crews has not had an opportunity to meet with Commissioner Fiala because of schedule conflicts. B. Mr. Rice made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10 -21 approving and authorizing the Authority's Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency to create and operate the Immokalee Business Development Center at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -21 was passed unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 10 -16 amending section 120.4 of the Authority's Administrative Code adopted August 9, 2004 to require that the Executive Director be a Certified Member (CM) of the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), be working toward a CM, or have at least three years of airport management experience, and to indicate that an Accredited Airport Executive (AAE) is preferred. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve. Mr. Crews seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -16 was passed unanimously. B. Resolution No. 10 -17 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Change Order #2 to Coral Sands Contract #09 -5209 in the amount of $11,959.95 for building modifications required in the reconstruction of the T- hangar building at Everglades Airpark, increasing the total amount of the contract from $299,984.50 to $311,944.45. Mr. Rice made a motion to approve. Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution 10 -17 was passed by a vote of 5 -2. C. Resolution No. 10 -18 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Change Order 43 to Coral Sands Contract 909 -5209 in the amount of $83,313.30 for electrical work required in the reconstruction of the T- hangar building at Everglades Airpark, pending BCC approval to utilize funds from Immokalee Infrastructure Fund 497 to complete this project. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve. After additional explanation and discussion of the electrical work increase by the General Contractor, David Griggs, Mr. Gardner seconded, and Resolution 10 -18 was passed by a vote of 6 -1. D. Resolution No. 10 -19 Approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Change Order 43 to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Work Order 4QGM -FT- 3969-08-02 in the amount of $9,915 for engineering consulting services required for the PUD for the Immokalee Regional Airport, increasing the total amount of the Work Order from $57,745 to $67,660. Mr. Rice made a motion to approve. Mr. Gardner seconded, and Resolution 10 -19 was passed unanimously. E. Resolution No. 10 -20 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Passarella & Associates, Inc. work order with CCAA tracking number PAS -FT- 4168 -10 -01 in the amount of $44,500 for environmental consulting services necessary for annual mitigation monitoring and reporting required by the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the construction of the south taxiway at Everglades Airpark, pending FAA funding of this project. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution 10- 20 was passed unanimously. Y.WdmmistrationldABoardl fmweslFY 2009 - 2010 \1 I1 10 minutes dab.docx 161 1 Al I CCAA Minutes January 11, 2010 Page 4 IX. Public Comment Adjournment: Next CCAA Meeting: Monday February 8, 2010 The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY Y. UdministrationWABo ardA1m,teslFY2009- 2010 \1 1 110 minutes dab.docx 1 b 1 1 Al Charles Beam "I RECEIVED MAR 16 2010 COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ewrd of r.:oonry commissioners MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2010 MEETING MEMBERS Michael Klein PRESENT: Jim Murray STAFF: Bob Tweedie Jennifer White PUBLIC: Michael Greene David Griggs David Odom Pat Utter Richard Rice Lloyd Byerhof Frank Secrest Floyd Crews Debi Mueller Debbie Brueggeman Claudine Auclair Lyn Wood Luc Carriere Pete Salazar Charles Beam Shane Johnson Brent Addison I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mark Minor Ralph Hester David Turrubiartez Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Rice made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the Agenda was approved by a 7 -0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 11, 2010 MINUTES Mr. Gardner made the motion approving the January 11, 2010 minutes. Mr. Byerhof seconded the motion. The January 11, 2010 minutes were approved unanimously. V. FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009 Mrs. Mueller addressed questions regarding capital expenditures. The Authority requested a cost breakdown of the Everglades T- hangar project, and discussed the purpose of the loan from the County. VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion of the following projects took place: Executive Director Search — The job posting for the Executive Director position closes at 5:00 PM on February 8, 2010. As of Friday, February 5, Human Resources had received approximately seventy (70) applications. Ms. White provided a recruitment plan timeline to the Board Members. Misc. Comes. Date; Y. IA din irnstrationUA BoardlMinu[esV Y2009- 201012.8]0 nunuies. docx CCAA Minutes February 8, 2010 1611 Al Page 2 of 4 Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Facility designation for Immokalee Regional Airport IMM - Claudine Auclair, Collier County Transportation Department, discussed why IMM meets the requirements for such a designation, and emphasized that the designation would make IMM eligible for funding under the SIS program February 9 2010 BCC Agenda Items • The funding required to complete construction of the T- hangars at Everglades Airpark is on the Consent Agenda. • Commissioner Fiala is requesting that funding for the taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport (MKY) be added to Collier County's Federal Legislative Appropriations Requests (Agenda Item 9I). • CCAA Reporting Structure (Agenda Item lOB) - Ms. White provide a report and sample draft ordinance amendment identifying the changes required to the Airport Authority Ordinance and /or Administrative Code to restructure the Airport Authority to operate similar to the operations of the Community Development Agency Board's Advisory Committees. BCC -CCAA Workshop — A letter for Chairman Meade's signature is being drafted to the BCC Chairman, Mr. Coyle, requesting that the Authority's annual workshop be postponed until the new Executive Director is hired. CCAA -USDA Building IMM — The Authority received concurrence from the USDA to award the bid to DeAngelis Diamond. Purchasing is preparing the contracts for signature. The USDA will schedule a "grant closing" & pre- construction meeting after the contract has been fully executed. Possible ground breaking the end ol'April 2010. Ground Breaking for the Construction of the Apron & Parking Lot Relocation at MKY- The ground breaking is scheduled for Friday, February 26 at 11:30 AM. Brewery at IMM — The Economic Development Council (EDC) has presented an opportunity for the construction of a micro brewery at IMM that is seeking approximately twenty acres for the facility. The Authority does not have twenty (20) contiguous acres in the Phase 1 permitted area. Permitting for the next phase of development will take approximately 18 months. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 10 -22 approving and authorizing the Immokalee Water and Sewer District to install a drinking water well on its current leasehold at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve. Mr. Crews seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -22 was passed unanimously. Y. IAdnunwrationlAA Boa,&XhnuteslFY 2009 -2010\2 8.10 minutes doex 'CCAA Minutes February 8, 2010 1611 A 1 AR3of4 B. Resolution No. 10 -23 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Change Order #4 to Coral Sands Contract #09 -5209 in the amount $8,758.16 for reconstruction of the T -hangar building at Everglades Airpark, pending BCC approval to utilize funds from Immokalee Infrastructure Fund 497 for this project. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve. Mr. Rice seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -23 was passed unanimously. C. Resolution No. 10 -24 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Passarella & Associates Work Order with CCAA tracking number PAS -FT- 4168 -10 -02 in the amount of $9,700 for environmental services necessary to modify the ERP as required for Phase 2A development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, pending BCC approval. Shane Johnson from Passarella explained what the survey would entail. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -24 was passed unanimously. D. Resolution No. 10 -25 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order with CCAA tracking number QGM -FT- 3969 -10 -04 in the amount of $48,480 for engineering services necessary to modify the ERP as required for Phase 2A development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, pending BCC approval. Mr. Minor from Q. Grady Minor discussed the expenses associated with permitting for the next phase of development at the Immokalee Airport. Mr. Meade made a motion to approve. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -25 was passed unanimously. E. Resolution No. 10 -26 approving and authorizing the Authority's Interim Director to execute Passarella & Associates Work Order with CCAA tracking number PAS -FT- 4168 -10 -03 in the amount of $78,700 for environmental services necessary to modify the ERP as required for Phase 2 development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, pending BCC approval. Mr. Rice made a motion to approve. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -26 was passed unanimously. F. Resolution No. 10 -27 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order with CCAA tracking number QGM -FT- 3969 -10 -05 in the amount of $86,820 for engineering services necessary to modify the ERP as required for Phase 2 development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, pending BCC approval. Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve. Mr. Rice seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -27 was passed unanimously. G. Resolution No. 10 -28 supporting the Collier County Transportation Planning Department's request to change the Immokalee Regional Airport from a non - designated Strategic Intermodal Facility to an Emerging Strategic Intermodal System ISIS) Facility. Mr. Secrest made a motion to approve. Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -28 was passed unanimously. H. T -Hangar Rates for Everglades Airpark. Mr. Klein recommended that the monthly hanger rates remain low emphasizing that Everglades is not the same as Marco or Immokalee. In the past, hangar rates at Immokalee and Everglades have been the same. The current T- hangar rate at Immokalee is $224.47 plus applicable Florida sales per month. The T- hangers at Everglades are new, up to current code and larger than those at Immokalee. Y.IAdministra(ton'AA BoardW nutes1,Y 2009 - 2010 \2.9.10 minutes docx CCAA Minutes February 8, 2010 1 V 1 1 A I Page a of Mr. Murray made a motion for discussion to set the hanger rate at Everglades at $200 plus applicable Florida sales tax per month. Mr. Klein seconded, and the Authority voted unanimously to set the T- hanger rate for Everglades at $200 plus applicable Florida sales tax per month. I. The Authority reviewed the proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Budget. The Authority's proposed Fiscal 2011 Budget will be on the March 8, 2009 Agenda to be adopted by the Authority before being submitted to the County. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Pete Salazar, Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc. informed the Authority that he would like to continue leasing space at IMM and is ready to sign a lease for CCAA -USDA Manufacturing facility. The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY Y: IAdmintstraHOn1AA Board VdlnatesTY 2009- 2010\2.8_I0 minutes docx RELE.NE® MAR 19 20% Board of Goonty Co`nmissioner% 161 Sheriff's Office CERV 1 A2 USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council Fiala Chamber of Commerce Halas Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Coyle Coletta Agenda January 20, 2010 1:45 Pledge of Allegiance - Opening Remarks -Roll Call Chairman • H1N1 Update • Membership Update • Resource Directory 2:35 Next Meeting /Adjourn February 17 Kathleen Marr Jim von Rinteln Russ Rainey Chairman Misc..Cwes: Date: D l 3 ! fJ Item #: , �_� ,L� Sheriff's Office CERV Fire Chiefs CERT CAP USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce EMS Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Marco Island City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch PRMC NCH EM 1:50 Approval of Minutes Vice Chairman 1:55 Threat Update LT Mike Jones 2:00 New Business Vice Chairman • Chairmanship Issue Jim von Rinteln • Haiti Update Jim von Rinteln • ARC Update Joe Frazier 2:20 Old Business Chairman • H1N1 Update • Membership Update • Resource Directory 2:35 Next Meeting /Adjourn February 17 Kathleen Marr Jim von Rinteln Russ Rainey Chairman Misc..Cwes: Date: D l 3 ! fJ Item #: , �_� ,L� 1 b 1 1 Fia la A r E H CEIVED Henning MAR 19 2010 Coyle Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Coletta G and of ";°°° " "' °ar,m asi °nes Agenda February 17, 2010 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman - Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheriffs Office CERV Fire Chiefs CERT CAP USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce EMS Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Marco Island City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch PRMC NCH EM 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update LT Mike Jones 3:15 New Business Chairman • Membership • Shelter Managers • Exercise Update 3:20 Old Business • H1N1 Update • Haiti Update 3:35 Next Meeting/Adjourn March 17th Jim von Rinteln Jim von Rinteln Joe Frazier Chairman Kathleen Marr Jim von Rinteln Chairman Misc. Cares: Dale: Item N: ccnes to 1611 A2 v / Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee January 20, 2010 Voting Members Present: Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Maria Ramos for Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriffs Office Voting Members Absent: Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross (Excused Absence) Expert Consultants Present: Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Brian Kelly, RSVP Kathleen Marr, Department of Health Voting Members Absent: (Non- Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes Motion to accept the minutes of the December 16, 2009 meeting made by Jerry Sanford and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Jones, there are no changes to the current threat situation - Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level, and high level for domestic and international travel. Please note that Severe Weather Awareness week runs from January 24 — 30, 2010. New Business Chairmanship Issue and Membership Update Jim vonRinteln reported that at the last BCC meeting, several of our members were up for re- election. Because Reg Buxton is running for School Board, he cannot be on the Citizen Corps board. Reg was elected Chair at last month's meeting. Russ Rainey will serve as Acting Chair for now. Note that Reg will still represent Business and Industry as the ESF -18 representative if the EOC is activated. Other Citizen Corps Group Issues Per Jim V., Brian Kelly will sit in as a non - voting RSVP representative until a voting member is elected. Please note that there is an opening in CERV (volunteer coordinator position vacated by Floyd Chapin). This position will work on the volunteer resource guide, organize volunteer groups in the community (Boy Scouts, churches, etc.), etc. If you know someone who would fit this position, please let them know we are looking for a representative for this group. Jim Elson expects to resign as head of the Veteran's Council by the end of the year. He wants to restructure the Council with committees. He has an assistant now (a Sergeant), and there are 5 people available to aid during disasters. He asked if 1611 A2 *1 %"... Fa the Citizen Corps group sends out information to the individual groups as well. Per Jim V., yes, unless it is a sensitive homeland defense issue. Jim E. would like to get info out electronically to all the groups. Russ said he was worried about it becoming too much transmitting, that people might just consider it junk email. Jim V. will talk with Rick Zyvoloski about text messaging various information. Jim E. discussed the email system for the Old Naples Homeowners' Association. Jim V. reminded the group that the Citizen Corps is a group to approach the BCC as needed. We need to be fully operational. Haiti and ARC Update Jim V. spoke with Debbie Horvath (unable to attend today's meeting due to relief efforts). The Red Cross is looking for cash donations only. Per Reg, they received $120 million in 6 days, with $22 million coming from money being sent by cell phone texting. At this point there are no Red Cross folks from Collier or Lee Counties on the ground — most people there are international. If Haitian refugees are brought here, then it will be an event. Manpower is needed by ARC (driving to Miami, etc.) — let Jim V. know if you have folks who are able to volunteer. Haiti will be a long -term cleanup event — if there is a need for volunteers, Jim V. will let folks know. At this point, the Feds, military, and Red Cross are running the show. Per Reg, the volunteer base for Collier County is about 650 people, most of who are retired or "of age ". Some organizations are offering food or water. Rick can find out from the State if any of these things are needed. As a side, there was a 6.1 aftershock today. Please note that the Salvation Army is accepting donations as well, and they have staff in Haiti. They have had churches and schools there for 50 years. A website has been set up and a lot of money has been collected locally by Salvation Army. Their canteen is in ready mode, if refugees do come here. Old Business H1N1 Update Kathleen Marr presented a slide show regarding the mass vaccination program that started on November 5d'. It was opened to all on December 10, with a high turnout. The numbers have now dropped to less than 200 people a day. As of January 19"' a total of 107,723 have been inoculated. This is one -third of the County population, which is higher than any other county's. We had a moderate pandemic here in Collier County, with no deaths and 12 hospitalizations. Since April, there have been 47 million cases for the age group of 18 -64 years, with an estimated 16,460 dying in the U.S. The State of Florida had a total of 187 deaths. We had 2,000 volunteers logged in. We will not be out of the woods until spring. January 26`h is the last big clinic - vaccinations will be given at the Health Department after that. A thank -you for workers will be held on January 281h Resource Directory The Citizen Corps wants to put together a listing of volunteers, showing what an agency or company can provide, including their vulnerabilities. He and Judy Scribner will meet with folks to see what has already been done. Other Rick announced that the Wildfire Roundup will be held this year on Friday, February 19`h from 9 a.m. to 12 noon in the EOC (2 "d floor of the ESC). If any of the group would like further information, please email Rick. This is an annual meeting for first responders to be sure they are ready for the wildfire season. Jim V. will send the agenda out to the group. Rick also brought up the Skywarn training — Jim V. will send this information out to the group also. The Local Mitigation Strategy was adopted by the BCC on January 12th. Rick is still waiting for the State to approve the plan. We continue on, as if it is approved. Per Jerry, a new CERT class will begin in North Naples on Monday. The CERT State conference will be held from March 3 through 5 in Umatilla, Florida. Accommodations are very rustic. Jamie Cunningham, John Riley and Jerry will be attending from North Naples. $10,788 was collected at the Freedom Memorial golf tournament held on January 2 "d. Jerry said they expect to hold another one in December. It was a great tournament. Greg Speers said that the third CERT group will be started at Fiddlers Creek on February 11 `h. They expect to do the whole training course in 4 -5 weeks, with morning classes. The Sheriff's Office will be working along with them as well. Russ said Fiddlers Creek has subscribed to the Forestry Department using CERT to assist going out and seeing where attention is needed. It is a great CERT project and is certified with the Forestry Department. 1611 A2 Various tabletop exercises are coming up at the ESC —Jim will email info to group. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 17`h at 3 p.m. at the EOC (please note that this is Ash Wednesday). Captain Castillo has offered to hold any future meeting at the Salvation Army office. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:50 p.m. made by Russ and seconded by Walt Jaskiewicz. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Acting Chair: r' e' � "V Russell Rainey Date 161 IA'2 A_,.. orgy,__ yWFrTXFq 9F ,� m u o =� '�n,errt o�c� fM Op ca�' NOAA, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, WEATHER FORECAST OFFICE Miami, Florida 33165 January 24 -30, 2010 is Florida Severe Weather Awareness Week The week of January 24 -30 2010 has been proclaimed by Governor Charlie Crist as Severe Weather Awareness Week. In partnership with Florida's Division of Emergency Management, the National Weather Service will issue a public information statement each day next week focusing on a specific weather hazard. On Monday, January 25, the hazard will be lightning. On Tuesday, January 26, marine hazards and rip currents will be discussed. Wednesday, January 27 will cover tornadoes and thunderstorms, and will feature a statewide tornado drill beginning at 800 am and culminating with a test tornado warning at 1010 am. Thursday, January 28 will highlight hurricanes and flooding. Friday, January 29 will end the week with heat, cold and wildfire threats being discussed. Although south Florida is blessed with nice weather most of the year, it is not immune to hazardous weather. A total of 8 people died in south Florida as a result of weather related hazards in 2009, with an additional 14 people injured. As is normally the case each year, rip currents led all hazards with 5 deaths and 8 injuries, with two deaths attributed to lightning and one to cold exposure /hypothermia (Table 1). South Florida was hit by two severe freezes in 2009, one on January 21/22 and the other on February 5. Another severe freeze occurred less than two weeks ago. The combination of these freeze events caused significant damage to crops, with losses from the 2009 events alone estimated at over $60 million. 2009 marked the fourth year in a row that south Florida was not directly impacted by a hurricane. In fact, no tropical systems impacted south Florida last year, the first time since 2003 that south Florida was not even indirectly impacted by a tropical cyclone. Nevertheless, this should not be interpreted as a sign of things to come in future hurricane seasons. Statistically speaking, south Florida remains the most hurricane - prone part of the United States. 161 1 Despite the wetter and stormier than normal 2009 rainy season, less tornadoes and severe thunderstorms were noted than in previous years. Significant flooding took place on June 5 on Miami Beach where over nine inches of rain fell in just over 2 hours, causing water to enter structures and severely flood streets. An even heavier rain event occurred on the evening of December 17 in northeast Miami -Dade and southeast Broward counties, causing major flooding of over 80 buildings and severely inundating large portions of neighborhoods from Dania Beach south to downtown Miami. For further information on severe weather awareness week...as well as your one -stop source of weather information including warnings and forecasts... please visit the National Weather Service in Miami website at weather.gov /southflorida. Table 1: 2009 Hazardous Weather Statistics for South Florida 2009 Hazards $ Damage Injuries Deaths Lightning 154,000 5 2 T -storm 119,000 1 Tornado 100,000 Flood 100,000 Cold /Freeze 61,550,000 1 Wildfire 65,000 Rip Currents 8 5 Totals 62,088,000 14 8 A 2 '� 161 0 Collier County Emergency Management Department FREE SKYWARN Spotter Certification FREE Spotter certification being offered twice in Collier County: The National Weather Service Miami will provide FREE Basic and Ad- vanced Skywarn training, twice. The first set of classes are held on Fri- day. February 26th and they'll be offered again on Saturday, February 27th, 2010, at South Regional Library, 8065 Lely cultural Parkway, Naples 34113. Training will be presented by the Miami National Weather Service (NWS) Office. Skywarn storm spotters are the "eyes in the field" for the 1A2�j National Weather Service. Register via the Library's on -Line Basic Skywarn training is straightforward ... and fun. The two hour class will be offered twice. It will begin at 10 am each day. The class includes information necessary to report weather hazards to the NWS Miami. Simple terminology for thunderstorms and tornadoes is cov- ered, and severe weather definitions are highlighted. In addition, NWS watch and warning functions are discussed. This is the Certification class. Registration Program: httD://ww".colliergov.net/index.asi)x?paze=1641 or E -mail your request to register to: EmergManw1( ollier0n.net Advanced Skywarn training will be offered each day beginning at 1:00 pm. It lasts about two hours. This class is designed to provide a deeper understanding of hazardous weather effects in South Florida by providing meteorological tools necessary to evaluate the hazardous weather envi- ronment. Some of the subjects include thunderstorm classifications, tor- nadic thunderstorm schematic, and optimum Severe Weather locations within storm cells. FAQs... What is a Storm Spotter? The Skywarn spotter program is a nationwide network of volunteers trained by the National Weather Service (NWS) to report significant weather. Anyone is welcome to participate. Must be at least 18 to be a spotter. Why Skywarn? The NWS's mission is to protect lives and property. When weather conditions are favorable for severe thunderstorms or tornadoes are expected to develop, a severe thunderstorm or tornado WATCH is issued. A Severe Thunderstorm or Tornado WARNING is issued when severe weather has been reported by a Skywarn spotter or indicated by Doppler radar. Skywarn volunteers become the NWS's and local Emergency Management's eyes and ears, helping to provide better weather watch and warning services. Who will activate Skywarn? The NWS and /or the local emergency management authorities may activate the Skywarn net whenever there is a threat of severe weather or the NWS issues a severe thunderstorm or tornado watch. Collier Board of County Commissioners 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, fourth Floor Naples, Fl- 34113 Phone 239-252-3600 1 ax 239-252-6735 Finail_ Richard /yvoloski(a)CoIGerGov.net 1 1, 9 r, Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 January 12, 2010 Contact: (239) 252 -8848 www.collierlzov.net www.t-*vitter.com/CollierPIO FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 20`" at I:45 p.m. at the Health Department conference room 202, on the 2 "d floor of Building H at the County main campus. Please note that this is a change of location and change of time for this meeting. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board /committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004 -05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi- judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Jim vonRinteln at (239) 252 -3600. -I'Ind- Board of Collier County Commissioners Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 January 13, 2010 Mr. Jerry Sanford 1347 Old Oak Lane Naples, FL 34110 Subject: Collier County Citizens Corps Dear Mr caafefa; I Jim Coletta District 5 While convened in regular session on January 12, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners voted to re- appoint you to a 4 -year term on the Collier County Citizens Corps. Your new term will expire on November 5, 2013, or at such time as the Board re- appoints you or appoints your successor. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I wish to extend our appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the residents of Collier County as a member of this advisory committee. If I can ever be of service to you during your term, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Commissioner, District 4 FWC:sf cc: Jim von Rinteln, Emergency Management Department W. Harmon Tumor Building • 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112.239- 252 -6097 • FAX 239 - 252 -3602 �flUN t Board of Collier County Commissioners Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 January 13, 2010 Captain Walter R. Jaskiewicz 420 South Barfield Drive Marco Island, FL 34145 Subject: Collier County Citizens Corps Dear Captain Jaskiewicz: Jim Coletta District 5 While convened in regular session on January 12, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners voted to re- appoint you to a 4 -year term on the Collier County Citizens Corps. Your new term will expire on November 5, 2013, or at such time as the Board re- appoints you or appoints your successor. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I wish to extend our appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the residents of Collier County as a member of this advisory committee. If I can ever be of service to you during your term, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, EredW. Coyle, Chairman Commissioner, District 4 FWC:sf cc: Jim von Rinteln, Emergency Management Department W. Harmon Turner Building • 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112.239- 252 -8097 • FAX 239- 252 -3602 Board of Collier County Commissioners Donna Fiala Frank Hales Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle Jim Colette District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 January 13, 2010 Lt. Mike Jones Collier County Sheriff's Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Collier County Citizens Corps Dear Lt. Jones: While convened in regular session on January 12, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners voted to re- appoint you to a 4 -year term on the Collier County Citizens Corps. Your new term will expire on November 5, 2013, or at such time as the Board re- appoints you or appoints your successor. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I wish to extend our appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the residents of Collier County as a member of this advisory committee. If I can ever be of service to you during your term, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Fred W. Coyle, Chairm Commissioner, District 4 FWC:sf cc: Jim von Rinteln, Emergency Management Department W. Harmon Turner Building • 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112.239- 252 -8097 • FAX 239- 252 -3602 � fh ti .,,., �. v.% -H.. �... 2 N's � \\ r � W _. � ��.. mr t� « ? s.. s +rr iJ C-4 e C%4 �r s fig C6. R d"1 0 L-j C**4 c* 0 mom c *Z 6� ol ra C3 =2 L-j O .� C%4 G 0 " 0 a) C� a = +� moo ---� a x a N umrav mares .e- su�xixt Wo C'*4 AN Mt MIN j5 LO bw C Gaw rm ,aKi vltiee.. 4J l}S� b SAT- CN CN CN a Gaw rm ,aKi vltiee.. 4J l}S� b ,aKi vltiee.. P`_� T.' Sam c P IONO M-1 60 In air a 400 E Ark "with1.4 W'r. ic VISIT too, its, gi E Ark "with1.4 W'r. ic VISIT its, E * ic t2 is 0 I m v �itj df* i �� ,� " r °�"y�'�' �� ti �� +, 161 1' Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee February 17, 2010 Voting Members Present: Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Voting Members Absent: Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol (Excused Absence) Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff s Office Expert Consultants Present: Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Maria Bernaldo, Department of Health Voting Members Absent: James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council (Non- Excused Absence) Captain Castillo, Salvation Army A2 "✓ Minutes from January 20 "h meeting were not approved, as there was no quorum, nor were minutes taken today, due to lack of a quorum. Next Meetine Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 17th at 3 p.m. at the EOC. y �If /i /2 Coffier County Government r�I ,N1 Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 February 9, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: (239) 252 -8848 www.coiliergov.net www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 17"' at 3 p.m. in the 3`d floor Policy Room at the James V. Mudd Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board /committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004 -05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi - judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Jim vonRinteln (239) 252 -3600. -End- 1611 A2 " Please help get the word out... G -601 Preliminary Damage Assessment Training Training course that provides basic format for conducting preliminary damage assessments. (certificate Issued at the completion of the training) DATE: March 4th TIME: 9 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m. LOCATION: South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples 34113 Training is FREE Course delivered by Florida Division of Emergency Management Who should attend: Representatives from private -non- profit agencies, deputies from the sheriff sub - stations, fire officials from the fire districts, damage assessments team members from all jurisdictions, members of homeowner associations, CERT members, etc. , THIS INFORMATION IS GOOD TO KNOW IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT COUNTS AFTER A DISASTER EVENT. Registration: E-mail Rick Zyvoloski, RichardZyvoloskikCollierGov.net A j ge 2442 7 a� Dei mal"p, M. E&, F.D. I_A D"e of Nmv&t a & 1/saaa Educatlua & PIO Calmar Cauvery ffevbb nepar t }381 E" romlmd IMI Naples, Pl. 341864429 (239) 252 -8228 pm. ome na.+a.a,v n,oaa rommsraw mor w,�ne„comm��oeo� :mo, nom :rare aw��.n,agomire> -r rc n�.�ao :,a,e noee�2wm�,,.wnoorpmrno v�en�:�n mPmc �,pM ,.acme rocr x.oa�r �orom��mno,., mr�y rnaAmmooa ci,erm m paoxc o�ecro +o,a. For up -lo -dale inforn aAon about HIM Swine Flu visit nbp.jt W..tMOMWi Ay,c9m or call 877 352 3581 2/15/2010 1611 H1 N1 STATS VACCINATION PROGRAM 108,328 vaccines given through 1/26/10, the CCHD vaccinated 48,628 or nearly half of the total number. o The Health Department held 34 large vaccination clinics, seeing over 2000 people per day during peak demand. o Health Department nurses offered vaccine to all daycare and school age children by holding over 90 clinics onsite in schools throughout our community. As a result of this comprehensive vaccination approach, the Health Department vaccinated: Over 3,000 children four years and younger; Over 23,000 school age children; Over 5,000 individuals twenty to sixty -four years of age and Over 10,000 individuals sixty five years of age or older. A total of 28,110 hours of staff and volunteer hours were labored to enact this mass vaccination effort. In addition to Health Department staff, assistance was supplied by many wonderful volunteers and staff from Emergency Management, EMS, County Transportation and CCSO. The Health Department also credits community partners including healthcare providers, the hospitals, CCPS and local pharmacies for joining forces to protect our community's health during this H1N1 pandemicflu. Current demand at Health Department vaccination clinics is 15 -20 people per day. l A i 1 A2 I H1 X11 Swine Flu ShOtS r Available 7.. Ae I�'e8e.re.g f]M'<P. -r.TTe �C Collier County Health Department 3301 Tomiami Trail E., Bldg. H Naples, FL 34112 a► Mondays (8:30 am - 4:30 pm) m► Tuesdays (8:30 am - 4:30 pm) •► Thursdays (8:30 am - 4:30 pm) a► Fridays (8:30 am - 4:30 pm) 3�C Immokalee Health Department 419 North 1st Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 m� Wednesdays (9:00 am - 4:00 pm) WHO WILL BE VACCINATED AT THESE CLINICS: (� OPEN TO EVERYONE (regardless of aye, health status or residency) FREE —No Cost! Protect Yourself! Insurance will be billed, please bring your card I Get Vaccinated For more information please call: Practice Good Personal Hygiene 239- 252 -8200, hit option 2 Stay Home if Sick CollierPrepares.org 1611,1 Non Profit Information: 1) Name of Organization 2) Address of 3) Phone number(Office) 4) Contact 5) Emergency Contact 6) Phone Number for Emergency 7) Phone Contact 24/7 if not the same as 8) Assistance in Emergencies ?, 9) Disaster Committee? 10) Do you have a COOP(Continuity of Operations) ?. 11) Type of Assistance provided normally To get a template for a Business or Family Disaster Plan, go to www.floridadisaster.org A2 1611 A2 Please help get the word outo s m G -601 Preliminary Damage Assessment Training Training course that provides basic format for conducting preliminary damage assessments. (Certificate issued at the completion of the training) DATE: March 4th TIME: 9 a.m. to approximately 1 P.M. LOCATION: South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples 34113 Training is FREE Course delivered by Florida Division of Emergency Management Who should attend: Representatives from private -non- profit agencies, deputies from the sheriff sub - stations, fire officials from the fire districts, damage assessments team members from all jurisdictions, members of homeowner associations, CERT members, etc. THIS INFORMATION IS GOOD TO KNOW IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT COUNTS AFTER A DISASTER EVENT. Registration: E -mail Rick Zyvoloski, R1ch8rdZVVoloskigCollierGov.net 1611 A? Collier County Emergency Management Department FREE FREE Spotter certification being offered twice in Collier County: The National Weather Service Miami will provide FREE Basic and Ad- vanced Skywarn training, twice. The first set of classes are held on Fri- day. February 26th and they'll be offered again on Saturday. February 27th, 2010, at South Regional Library, 8065 Lely cultural Parkway, Naples 34113. Training will be presented by the Miami National Weather Service (NWS) Office. Skywarn storm spotters are the "eyes in the field" for the National Weather Service. Register via the Library's On -Line Basic Skywarn training is straightforward ... and fun. The two hour class will be offered twice. It will begin at 10 am each day . The class includes information necessary to report weather hazards to the NWS Miami. Simple terminology for thunderstorms and tornadoes is cov- ered, and severe weather definitions are highlighted. In addition, NWS watch and warning functions are discussed. This is the Certification class. Registration Program: http,//ww%.collierpov.net/index.aspx?pa2e=1641 or E -mail your request to register to: EmergV1an,,a CollierGov.net Advanced Skywarn training will be offered each day beginning at 1:00 pm. It lasts about two hours. This class is designed to provide a deeper understanding of hazardous weather effects in South Florida by providing meteorological tools necessary to evaluate the hazardous weather envi- ronment. Some of the subjects include thunderstorm classifications, tor- nadic thunderstorm schematic, and optimum Severe Weather locations within storm cells. FAQs... What is a Storm Spotter? The Skywarn spotter program is a nationwide network of volunteers trained by the National Weather Service (NWS) to report significant weather. Anyone is welcome to participate. Must be at least 18 to be a spotter. Why Skywarn? The NWS's mission is to protect lives and property. When weather conditions are favorable for severe thunderstorms or tornadoes are expected to develop, a severe thunderstorm or tornado WATCH is issued.A Severe Thunderstorm or Tornado WARNING is issued when severe weather has been reported by a Skywarn spotter or indicated by Doppler radar. Skywarn volunteers become the NWS's and local Emergency Management's eyes and ears, helping to provide better weather watch and warning services. Who will activate Skywarn? The NWS and /or the local emergency management authorities may activate the Skywarn net whenever there is a threat of severe weather or the NWS issues a severe thunderstorm or tornado watch. Collier Board of County Commissioners 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, Fourth Floor Naples, FL 34113 Phone. 239- 252 -3600 Fax 239- 252 -6735 Email: RichardZyvoloski (a_CoIherGov.net C 16 1 JA CAC March 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes AA ryry �nu__,,�, 1 of 15 .,,.., MAR. 1,1- 2810^ County Commission" Fiala Halas Henning MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLI 4 11'0 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEpoIe Naples, Florida, January 14, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Naples City Hall, 735, 81h Street South, Naples, Florida with the following members Present: CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN John Sorey, III 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 Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist Maura Krauss, Parks and Recreation Mlsc. corres. 1 Item #: �✓ Y 16 , March 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 15 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:03 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. Burke moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions: Item VII.3 PBS &J Water Quality Report Update Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 7 -0. V. Public Comments Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, requested her comments from the December 10, 2009 CAC meeting regarding the Petition Drive be entered into the record verbatim, as they were only summarized in the minutes: "We the undersigned, support the County's goal to provide more beach access at Clam Pass Park. We oppose the current plans that would degrade this serene natural resource protection area with significant construction in undisturbed mangrove habitat, dredging out the ebb shoal, installing channel markers at- otherwise altering its shallow three bay system. " Chairman Sorey noted the minutes are "summary minutes" not a verbatim transcript and her petition and written statements were hand delivered and made part of the December 10, 2009 meeting record. Doug Finlay, Naples Resident submitted a photo of Doctors Pass Jetties and expressed concern funding priorities may delay repair of the Jetties and requested Staff monitors the condition of the Jetties. The Committee requested Staff provide an update on the status of the project at the next meeting. VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. December 10, 2009 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes subject to the following changes: Page 3, paragraph 4, line 6 -7 - from "The interest on the funds was previously allocated to the County Clerk to assist in funding his operations" to "The interest on the funds was previously not allocated to its principal, rather utilized by the County Clerk. Page 4, paragraph 5, bullet point 2 — from "utilization of 16 instruments was predicated by cost" to "utilization of 16 instruments was based on the proposals budget constraints." 1 6 1 1 CAC March 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 15 Page 4, paragraph 5, bullet point 3 — Some data collection was affected by instrument malfunction and vandalization" to "Some data collection was compromised by instrument malfunction and vandalism." Page 7, paragranh 1, line 1 — from "Peer Review will include analyization..." to "Peer Review will include analysis..." Second by Mr. Raymond Carried unanimously 7 -0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report' updated through the November 2009 Collection period. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Council reviewed the document "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category A" Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through January 5, 2010. PBS &J Water Quality Report Update Gary McAlpin reported the PBS &J Water Quality Report for Clam Bay has not been officially revised. If any revisions are undertaken, he will forward a copy to the CAC members for review. The Committee requested an update be provided at next months meeting. VIII. New Business 1. Sea Turtle Monitoring Report - Maura Kraus The Committee reviewed the Executive Summary "Share with the CAC the results of the 2009 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program within Collier County' dated January 14, 2010 and attached "Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual Report Summary - 2009, " prepared by the Parks and Recreation Department. A Slideshow was provided noting artificial lighting continues to have a major impact on nesting and related hatches. The County received a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Grant to replace lights in the City of Naples. The County continues to enforce lighting violations throughout the region. It was noted enforcement of lighting violations on Marco Island is an issue that needs to be addressed by the City of Marco Island. Survival ratios for newly hatched turtles are estimated at 1: 1000. Sneaker Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident noted the data provided shows the area from Wiggins Pass to Clam Pass Beaches has a high success rate for nesting which is a positive indicator of the bio- diversity of the Clam Bay Ecosystem. 2. Establishment of a Wiggins Pass Sub - Committee of the CAC q " 7z OR CAC March 11, 2010 t `�! VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 15 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC establish a Wiggins Pass Three - Member Subcommittee to direct Navigational Improvements, Inlet Management Plan Updates and the Critical Erosion Analysis for Barefoot Beach" dated January 14, 2010. Speakers Doug Fee, Naples Resident, noted he supports the Subcommittee, and wanted assurance the public will have opportunity to provide input during the process. The area is in a "Conservation District" and he requested clarification on how the County will ensure a proper review process under the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Chairman Sorey noted the Subcommittee will be subject to the Sunshine Law with ample opportunity for public comment. Any Subcommittee recommendations will be forwarded to the Coastal Advisory Committee for deliberations. Gary McAlpin stated any Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit applications will require a "letter of consistency" be issued by the Community and Environmental Services Division. Mr. Pires expressed concern the determinations provided in a "letter of consistency" may be the directive of Staff, as opposed to the results of public hearings garnering public input. Chairman Sorey noted the determination will be in accordance with County Policy. He requested Staff provide an update on the .status of the "letter of consistency" at the next meeting. Mr. Hendel arrived at 1: 35pm Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida requested clarification on why the updated Inlet Management Plan is being addressed under item V111.7, prior to the appointment of the Subcommittee. The Conservancy recommends the Subcommittee be formed to include a number of Stakeholders, similar to the previous Wiggins Pass Subcommittee. Gary McAlpin noted the updated Inlet Management Plan is based on a FDEP directive which indicated a new permit will not be issued for improvements proposed in Wiggins Pass unless there is an update to the Plan. Chairman Sorey appointed Mr. Moreland, Mr. Rios and Mr. Raymond to the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee with Mr. Moreland being the Chairman. 161 1 A3 CAC March 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5of 15 The Committee recommended the following changes to the Executive Summary: • In the "Title" and "Objective," change the word "direct" to "recommend." • "Objective" — last line change from "...erosion analysis for Barefoot Beach." to "...erosion analysis for Barefoot Beach to the Coastal Advisory Committee. " Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted the full Committee may form a Subcommittee comprised of members of the full Committee. She reviewed the Coastal Advisory Committee Ordinance to determine if a motion is required for the appointment of members to a Subcommittee. (.See action at conclusion of item UtL 3) Establishment of a Clam Pass Sub - Committee of the CAC Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC establish a Clam Bay Three- Member Subcommittee of the CAC to direct efforts to the development of a Master Plan for the Clam Bay Estuary" dated January 14, 2010. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, noted the Subcommittee should include Stakeholders to provide input in the process. She expressed concern documents related to the item do not recognize the areas designation as a "NRPA" (Natural Resources Protection Area) and requested any further documents reference the Designation. She recommended the existing Clam Bay Management Plan be utilized as the base document for any revised management plans. Cora Obley, supported a 3 member Committee, and endorsed Ms. Cravens's recommendation to utilize any existing information available (in developing the new Plan.) Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident, requested clarification on how the Subcommittee members will be selected? The Stakeholders should have input on their appointment. Chairman Sorey stated it is the Chairman prerogative to recommend the members of a Subcommittee. He bases the recommendation on the person's expertise and willingness to serve on the Subcommittee. Ted Rain, Pelican Bay Services Division provided comments on the Navigation Marker issue (item VII.5.a). The Chairman noted this item will be taken up later in the Agenda. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney recommended the Subcommittee members be approved via a motion by the full Committee. 161 CA arch 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6 of 15 The Committee recommended any references in the Executive Summary to the term "direct efforts" be reworded to "recommend efforts. " Chairman Sorey requested the Subcommittee define the term "Clam Bay Estuary" and develop a Mission Statement. Mr. Rios moved to appoint Mr. Burke, Mr. Pires and a member to be named later, (pending the filling of the vacancy on the Coastal Advisory Committee) to the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Mr. Pires to be Chairman. Second by Mr. Forcht. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Mr. Forcht move to appoint Afr. Moreland, Mr. Rios and Mr. Raymond to the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee, Mr. Moreland to be Chairman. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 -0. 4. Direction and Recommendations to the CAC a. Summary of December 18, 2009 BCC Direction Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review Direction to the CAC from the December 18, 2009 Board of County Commission Meeting" dated January 14, 2010. The BCC approved the following: • The Clam Bay Advisory Committee will sunset on December 31, 2009. • All work associated with Clam Bay will now come under the direction of the CAC. • The budget was approved as recommended in the executive summary. • fhe PBS &J report and the three recommendations were approved, mainly; the water quality monitoring program, additional soil sediment testing and the circulation model. • Peer review was approved as outlined in the executive summary. Gary McAlpin noted the efforts of PBS &J will continue to move forward as necessary. b. Suggestions and follow -up from Previous CBAC Board Members Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Recommendations for Mangrove Maintenance and Biological Assessment of Clam Bav for CAC Consideration" dated January 14, 2010. Former Clam Bay Advisory Group (CBAC) members John Arceri, Tahlmann Krumm and Kathy Worley, submitted ajoint memo dated January 11, 2010 to the Coastal Advisory Committee which outlined outstanding items and related recommendations based on the CBAC's work. The item was for informational purposes only. 161 '� � AC Marc 11, 2010 VIA Approval of CAC Minutes 7 of 15 Speakers Mary Johnson, Mangrove Action Group supports the recommendations contained in the memo. She expressed concern a Biological Assessment may not be completed before development of the Management Plan. In addition, the original focus of the studies was biological concerns and wildlife habitat. The focus has been diverted to water quality. Gary McAlpin noted the Biological Assessment would be completed prior to development of the Management Plan. Chairman Sorey noted the original focus of studies for the Estuary was "water quality." Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted water quality standards differ between bodies of water depending on their use. The Clam Bay System is a "NRPA" which require different water (quality) standards than waters designated "fishable /swimmable." The FDEP has never determined the water quality in the System is "impaired." The CBAC did not approve the PBS &J Report. 5. Clam Bay Background and Update a. Marker Update Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Request a recommendation and authorization from the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the Clam Bay Navigational Markers for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners" dated January 14, 2010. He noted: • Three types of markers related to the System: Navigational Markers, Regulatory Markers and Informational Signs. • Three Regulatory Agencies involved: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, US Coast Guard and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. • US Army Corp of Engineers has indicated a1998 permit issued by them requires navigational markers (in accordance with USCG standards) be installed in the System. • Navigational markers require the approval of the FDEP who issued permission by "consent by rule" twice. • On a third review, permission to install the markers was denied based on the shallow depth of the channel and a determination it is a "navigational route" as opposed to a "navigational channel" (based on information recently supplied by the County on the dredging application). • Staff is proposing two options listed below to be considered. • Staff has not formulated a recommendation for either Option. CAcv 11, 2010 1i .r.n VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 8 of 15 OPTIONS A. Since FDEP has denied the permit because the Consent by Rule does not apply, staff can provide the ruling to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicating that the permit request has been denied by FDEP and can't comply to the USACE permit condition and to please close out the USACE permit. B. Re- file for a Letter of Consent for the work. As stated above, this will require a Board of "Trustee Approval and appearance in front of the Governor and Cabinet. It would completely exhaust all avenues to come into compliance with the BCC' direction to come into compliance with the USACE permit by installing Navigational markers within Clam Bay. An email from John Arceri, former Chairman of the CBAC endorses the placement of Navigation Markers for safety and environmental reasons, and to comply with the requirements of the USACE. Staff estimates the cost to the County for "Option B" at approximately $11,000. He requested the Committee recommend either Option A or B. Speakers Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Services Division expressed concern there is misinformation on the issue. He submitted an email from Susan Blass, USACE, dated June 9, 2009 indicating "non lateral informational signs and canoe trail markers does satisfy the requirements referred to in the USACE permit." No lateral aids to navigation are required. He submitted National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration chart (#11430) indicating Clain Pass is "non navigable." Marking the System will create a liability and maintenance issue for the County as the boating public will assume the System is maintained as "navigable." Gary McAlpin noted direction from the USACE is for the County to come into compliance with the permit, and the markers to be installed in accordance with USCG regulations. The USCG has provided input on the type of markers to be installed. The "marker plan" has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The County assumes liability in this area whether markers are in place or not. Colleen Greene noted (Florida's) Sovereign Immunity Cap would apply to the liability. She could not comment on the County's further liability whether the markers are installed, or not. Y ZJ 1 161 V 1 I A9�Fil . 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 9 of 15 Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Assoc. provided a brief overview on the history on the marking of the System, as his firm implemented the conditions of the original permit. Through conversations with Agencies (FDEP, FFWCC, USACE and the USCG) the marking of a "canoe trail" met the intent of the permit. He recommended a third option be considered - requesting the USACE to accept the canoe trail marking as meeting the intent of the permit, or have the USACE modify the permit to accept the canoe trail markers. Martha Dykman, Seagate Homeowner, noted the Seagate homeowners were never notified on the placement of the canoe trail markers. Three Committees have voted to install the Navigation Markers (CBAC, CAC and the BCC). She expressed concern on the following premises: • Pelican Bay Service District has complete control of the System which is untrue. • Because the mangroves died off on the north end the system is not navigable which is untrue. • The Clam Bay System is non navigable which is untrue. • Boating hurts mangroves which is untrue. • Seagate homeowners are attempting to make the System a deep water system which is untrue. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, supports waterway safety however the groups primarily utilizing the area are swimmers, kayakers, canoeists, etc. Placing the Navigation Markers changes the dynamics of Systems use. There has never been a letter of "non compliance" (for the USACE permit) issued by the USACE to Collier County. There are no references to red and green markers in the permit or related correspondence. She recommends marking the Systems with informational signs to warn all utilizers of the System of navigational /environmental hazards. Rick Dykman, Seagate Homeowner noted over the course of time, the use of the area has increased dramatically. This has escalated the need to address safety concerns for all users in the area. He recommended proceeding with installation of navigational markers. Sara Wu, Seagate Homeowner noted that NOAA chart 911430 does not identify Clam Pass as "non navigable." The designation reported in 1982 was deleted in subsequent NOAA documents. She submitted a copy of a local notice to mariners June 16, 2009 outlining the change. The CAC voted to install the navigation markers for safety purposes and protecting underwater resources. She recommended the Committee endorse "Option B" in the Executive Summary. c �_3 CAC K�'Srch }),2010 - VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 10 of 15 Bob Naegle, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF), noted the Foundation is the "official" government for the Pelican Bay Development including 6,500 homes, the Ritz, Naples Grand, Waterside shops and Waterside Complex. The Foundation will oppose any "letter of consent" applications, etc. filed with the FDEP or associated governing body. He expressed concern on the cost estimates of $1 1,000 provided by Staff. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Homeowner expressed concern placement of the navigation markers will provide unlimited liability to the County. She recommended the CAC approve "Option A" in the Executive Summary. Jeff Klatzkow, Collier County Attorney and Pelican Bay Attorney Rich Yavanovich previously agreed the USAGE permit could be closed out without penalty. She expressed concern on the taxpayer expense proposed if "Option B" is chosen. John Domeni, noted Dr. Tomasko has always stated there can't be pristine waters in a mangrove estuary. Gary McAlpin noted: • Tara Alford, of FFWCC and Joe Embers ofthe USACE indicated the marking of a "canoe trail" does not meet the conditions for navigational markers. • Tara Alford has directed the County to remove all informational markers, as they have not been maintained. • The County is pursuing informational signage with the PBF, to be located on the Beach and in the Pass to warn individuals of the conflicts between swimmers and boaters. • The CBAC, CAC and BCC have approved the installation of navigational markers Mr. Pires noted: • Staff should consider filing for an extension of time in requesting an Administrative Hearing (considered in "Option B" as the required time to file the request may expire before any direction is given by the Board of County Commissioners.) • The cost estimate of $1 1,000 for "Option B" may be significantly underestimated (may cost approximately $40,000). • lie recommends requesting the USACF to close out the permit ( "Option A ") Gary McAlpin noted the cost estimate of approximately $11,000 for "Option B" was based on FDF.P Staff input. Mr. Burke requested clarification on how the issue of navigational markers originally came to light. 11 1 A c M.,, to 2010 I -1 Appro of CAC Minutes 11 of 15 Gary McAlpin noted the Seagate Residents informed the County the USACE permit conditions were not being met and would be filing a law suit against the County to enforce the permit. The issue was directed to Coastal Zone Management for resolution. The proposed red and green USCG standard markers are the only markers the USCG will approve and the USACE has indicated the County must install markers in compliance with the USCG standards. He reiterated Staff is not recommending either "Option," and requests direction from the Coastal Advisory Committee. Mr. Rios moved to approve Option B. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 "yes " — 2 "no. " Mr. Forcht and Mr. Pires voted "no. " Mr. Sorey moved for Staff to request an extension of time for requesting the Administrative Hearing. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Break: 3: 20pm Reconvened: 3: 35pm Water Quality Monitoring Program Pam Keyes, Environmental Specialist presented the document "Field Sampling Quality Manual" prepared by Coastal Zone Management Department — Effective date: October 2008. She provided an overview of the document which outlines quality control procedures for conducting field sample collection and measurements. Discussion occurred noting the procedures be consistent County wide to ensure coordination between any Agencies collecting data. Gary McAlpin noted efforts are being made to coordinate with the Pelican Bay Services Division as they collect data in conformance with permits issued to them. He will provide updates to the CAC on the status of the coordination. Pam Keyes noted the same protocols are being followed for data collection in the Wiggins Pass System. Speakers Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Homeowner recommended Section 9.2.4 be amended for the recipients of the Report to include Pelican Bay Services Division. She recommended amending the CAC public meeting notices to include the statement "two or more members of the Pelican Bay Service Division may be present at the meeting" The Committee recommended amending the CAC public meeting notices to include a statement two or more members of the Pelican Bay Service Division may be present at the meeting (or similar language). 161 T � �.CPC- Marcl, ,,. ,0 '�'VI -,. Approval of CAC Minutes 12 of 15 c. Toxicology and Sediment Aging Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review and Approve Clam Bay Toxicology and Sediment Aging Proposal by PBS&J' dated January 14, 2010. Mr. Hendel moved to approve the Toxicology and Sediment Aging Proposal. Second by Mr. Rios. Mr. Pires expressed concern the Clam Bay System has not been defined with sampling proposed for both Moorings Bay and Clam Bay. Gary McAlpin noted the System was identified by the CBAC with the boundary being from Wiggins Pass Drive to Seagate Road. Mr. Pires noted the PBS &J Report, Fig. 1.5, page 6 indicates the project area as Doctors Pass up to Bay Colony. Gary McAlpin noted the proposal for the "toxicology and Sediment testing specifically identifies the locations of the sampling. The costs of the sampling are in addition to the authorizations in the original Best Value Offer associated with the Water Quality Study. Motion carried 7 "yes " — 1 "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. d. Peer Review Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary (ES) "Review and approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review "dated January 14, 2010. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, noted she attended the PBSD meeting where the funding matching concept was outlined. She expressed concern the funding matching format presented at that meeting is not the same as today to the CAC. She requested a vote on the item be postponed. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida requested if the Peer Review is approved and completed, the "Peer Review" be analyzed in conjunction with other historic Reports. Studies, etc. prepared for the System. Mary Anne Womble, Pelican Bay Services Division noted the Division is interested in meeting with Collier County Staff to provide input on the individual who may be selected for the Peer Review. Gary McAlpin noted Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division will choose the individual, to be approved by the CAC and BCC. 76 1 C3,,rch 1 i, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 13 of 15 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the approach and timing for the Clam Bay Peer Review (as outlined in the Executive Summary "Review and approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review " dated January 14, 2010.) Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 -0. e. Other Clam Bay Work Items Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Status Summary of additional Clam Bay work items" dated January 14, 2010. The following update was provided: 1. 10 yr JCP Application — the Clam Pass morphology analysis task is complete and currently compiling the RAI response to FDEP and ACOE. A draft will be submitted to the County for review by end of the week. Two weeks are planned for County and stakeholder review. Anticipate submittal of the RAls to the agencies the week of February 1, 2010. 2. PBS &J will submit a scope and budget for the Clam Bay Biological Assessment for the County to review by the end of the week. 3. Jeff Tabar and Todd Demundo will be meeting with Steve Keene (CP &E) Wednesday or Thursday to define CP &E's role in the Clam Bay Estuary modeling effort and develop a detailed scope of work. He noted: • Comments in response to the RAI identified in item #1 will be posted online (Coastal Zone Management website). • The Contract for the modeling identified in item #3 will be completed at the direction of PBS &J as originally proposed. Before Committee discussions and public speakers, the Committee determined to hear Item VIII. 7 (before item V1II6) Mr. Hendel left at 4:20pm 6. FEMA Quality Justification Report Continued 7. Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Update, Critical Erosion Area Analysis for Barefoot Beach, and Engineering Report for Pass Improvements. Gary McAlpin presented the above Executive Summary for review and approval dated January 14, 2010. He noted: • The updated Plan was completed at the request of the FDEP who indicated the permit for the Wiggins Pass Improvements will not be issued unless the Plan is updated. • Staff is recommending approval for submittal of the permit application and proposed updated plan (it will take approximately 9 months to receive the permit). • Subsequent to the submittal of the permit application, the 3 member Subcommittee and the Stakeholders may continue to update the Plan 16 I 1 i March 111': 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 14 of 15 as necessary and submit any Plan addendums to FDEP while the permit is under review. • There is a possibility the Pass may require intermediate dredging before the permit is approved. Mr. Pires expressed concern the material for the item was recently received by Committee members, not allowing the time for proper review. Based on Staffs recommendation on the process, he recommended the updated Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan be labeled "Draft." Mr. Raymond left at 4.30pm Stephen Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering provided a Slideshow on the pennit application and proposed revisions to the Management Plan. Committee discussion occurred noting they had just received the hard copy of the Plan without ample time for review. In addition, the item should be addressed by the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee. Chairman Sorey directed the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee review the item prior to the next CAC meeting. Speakers Doug Fee, Naples Resident expressed concern an area on the north end of the Delnor- Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area may be subject to lease conditions (in a lease from the State of Florida to the Delnor - Wiggins State Park), possibly affecting some proposed improvements identified in the permit application. He submitted a copy of the map showing the "Approximate Location of Restriction Area. " Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted after the presentation, her concerns identified regarding updating the Inlet Management Plan under item VIIL2 have been addressed. She recommended individual (in addition to the public notice) notifications be issued to any Stakeholders regarding the meetings ofthe Wiggins Pass Subcommittee. The Committee determined items VIII. 5e, 6, 7 and item XI* be continued to the next meeting. Colleen Greene noted if no action is to be taken by the Committee on an item, or the item is not heard, the Committee is not required to hear the public speakers who registered for the item. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion A4V C March 11, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 15 of 15 Wanless review of PBS &J Report Continued XIII. Next Meeting Date February 11, 2010 — Collier County Commission Chambers There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5:05 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee 4ohn Sorey, III Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on — t as presented or as amended JFc_ a 161 1A January 28, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THFRECEIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MAR 0 5 2010 Naples, Florida January 28, 2010 oa<<<<r , ,h 5 eommsso�� LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Rooms 609 -610, 2800 N Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Robert Kaufman Lionel L'Esperance James Lavinski Tony Marino Hermano Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Waldron, Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 Misc. Comes: Date: -C) l3 I D Item x: iuLl 4 Copies to: 16 I 1 A It January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All set? I would like to call the code enforcement board of Collier County meeting to order. And before we start, actually, a couple announcements. First of all, Ed Larson has resigned as of Friday. He took a position as a magistrate for Glades and Hendry County and it would be a conflict if he was on the board, so he has resigned. And we also have a new member. If you would like to introduce yourself. MR. MARINO: Tony Marino. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Manny Ortega is not present. Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. LESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKL• Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. And there are some changes to the agenda. MS. WALDRON: Under number four, public hearings, motions, letter A, motion for extension of time, we have three additions. Number four will be Petitoles St. Jean, case CESD- 20090010557. Number five will be Agathonicos Pamboukis, case CESD- 20090011000. Number six is Emmanuel and Anna Moran, case Page 2 16 A 4 --' January 28, 2010 CESD- 200800007126. Under stipulations, we do have one stipulation. This will be item number four from hearings, Daysi Falcon, Caridad Jimenez and Barbara Jimenez, case CESD- 20090007837. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that will be heard, the stipulation will be heard at 11:00 a.m.? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Under letter C, hearings, number seven, case number 2003031014, George B. and Karen L. Delporto has been withdrawn. Under old business, number five, letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, number four, case number CESD- 20080008804, James P. and Laura S. Guerrero has been withdrawn. And we do have another addition that we would like to add under -- I guess it would be additional letter, we'll call it letter C under motion for reduction of fines /liens, emergency case. This will be Petitoles St. Jean, case CEPM- 20090018927. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further changes? MS. WALDRON: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 3 161111 A4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And if I am not mistaken, the alternate will be voting also; is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, that would be correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. So you will be a voting member today. And approval of, I guess it's November 19th, 2009 hearing. It seems so long ago. MS. WALDRON: No. No changes to the minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And we're going to start off with the public hearings, motion for extension of time, J. Peaceful, L.C., case number CELU - 20090010758. MR. PEACEFUL: Good morning. , 161 1 A4 " January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman and the Board, the county is requesting that we give J. Peaceful an extension of a 120 days. They have been working with the commissioners to try and come up with a solution for their issues on the property, and we would like to give them the time to do so. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion to approve 120 days. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UNIDENTIFIED: Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor. Aye. Motion passes. MR. PEACEFUL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could note for the record that Hermano Ortega has arrived. (Mr. Ortega is present.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're under motions. Catalina Calderon and Ofelia Dimas and Jorge Calderon, case number 2007110455. You really haven't missed much yet. Yes, we have seven full members, regular members, and he will be the seventh. If I can have the parties sworn in, please. Page 5 1 January 28, 2010 (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your name for the record, please? MR. DIMAS: My name is Raul Dimas, Jr. MR. SNOW: My name is Kitchell Snow for code enforcement. That's spelled K- I- T- C- H- E -L -L, and Snow, S- N -O -W. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need a spelling on any names? Okay, very good. You are looking for an extension of time; is that correct, sir? MR. DIMAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. And how much of an extension are you looking, again? MR. DIMAS: We had filed a letter just saying that we wanted an extension hopefully for another month, by the end of January. But the way things worked out it's going to be a little bit further than that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. DIMAS: We were able to obtain a letter from the chief saying that hopefully -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you speak up or bring the mic closer to you? MR. DIMAS: I'm sorry. We had obtained a letter from the chief saying that hopefully by the fourth and fifth that we would be able to go ahead and take care of the structure on the address that we were doing. The only thing is, weather permitting. So I mean, say another 30 days or 60 days to ensure that that's complete. MR. SNOW: Just one thought for the board. This is an unoccupied structure. It is not occupied at this particular time. Hasn't been occupied for quite some time. They've been working with the fire department to do a burn of mime 1611A4 7 January 28, 2010 the structure and they had to remove some asbestos and do some other things. The only thing I would like the consideration of the board is give them due time. And also once it's burned they are still going to have to remove some things from the property. So please take that in consideration when you are extending time. MR. DEAN: Do you have a recommendation? MR. SNOW: I would go for another 30 days after the time. It's supposed to go February 4th, I believe, that's what the date is on here. So another 30 days after that to allow time for removal of any debris that is left by the fire. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would 60 be sufficient? MR. DIMAS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion we extend the time 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. MS. RAWSON: That would be the March 25th code enforcement, you want to set it on that date? March 25th would be the following meeting after the 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you want to set it until March twenty -- instead of 60 days -- MR. KAUFMAN: I don't exactly know how many days that is. MS. RAWSON: It's more than 60 but it would be the next time it could be on the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Sounds reasonable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so if you can write up the order that it would be on the agenda for our next -- our March -- MS. RAWSON: Twenty -fifth. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: March 25th meeting. And would you like to amend your second, Mr. Dean? Page 7 MR. DEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Okay. All those in favor. A4 January 28, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: We thank the Board. MR. DIMAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one, next motion for extension of time, Israel and Delma Gallegos. I know I'm not saying that right. But 2007060101. And if you can swear in both parties -- or swear in the investigator. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hermano, you are a voting member today, too. Go ahead. Has he communicated with you that he would like an extension of time? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He was supposed to be here but he was running late, the truck wouldn't start. I guess he's not going to make it. But he did request with the letter stating that he needed an extension of time due to the fact that he doesn't have the $7,000 that 16 111 A4 F anuary 28, 2010 they are asking for the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on the letter that I have in my packet. It doesn't seem to be dated or signed. And when was it received? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It was mailed in. I -- that was not one that I faxed in so I don't know when they mailed it. MS. WALDRON: It was received before the time frame allowed for us to put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the board read the letter? MR. DEAN: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any thoughts of the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a thought. They're requesting an extension of time. I believe RQ Design may no longer be in business, so how is that going to work? MR. KAUFMAN: We don't know that. MR. ORTEGA: The board doesn't. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't see anything that tells me that things are going to change between now and 30, 60, 90 days down the road as far as acquiring additional dollars to take care of the situation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other option the board has is to leave the order as it stands and then when he does in fact get the permit, get a C.O. if that's what's needed, or certificate of completion, whichever is needed, he can come back to us and show that he was diligent in doing the work, and at that point we can reevaluate the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: When I look at the order I see it was extended six months prior to this meeting. This seems to be just getting extended and extended. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other thoughts of the board? im 161 A4 1 January 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. UESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is denied. Next one will be Mr. St. Jean. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is two cases. One is an extension of time and the other one we will be hearing as an emergency case. I'm looking for the packet myself. I remember seeing that -- let me just see where it is. Here we go. MR. DEAN: I don't know why it was at the end. MS. WALDRON: It looks like this. MR. LAVINSKL• It was in the loose -- MR. DEAN: It's not loose, with holes in it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain why you would like an -- first state your name, please. MS. ST. JEAN: My name is Marie St. Jean. Page 10 161 LA4 04 nuary 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And if you can state why you would like an extension of time, please. MS. ST. JEAN: Yes, I have a six months deferral to do it, the permit, because the financial don't let me do it in the six months. That's why I write a letter if I can have three months to do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The original order which was a stipulated agreement -- MS. ST. JEAN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- was back from June. MS. ST. JEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct? MS. ST. JEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we gave you 120 days. MS. ST. JEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then are you telling me you came in front of us one other time to extend that? MS. ST. JEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. ST. JEAN: Yes. MS. SYKORA: Excuse me -- for the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S- Y- K- O -R -A, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. No, she did not come before you to ask for an extension before. She was given the 120 days, which was up January 25th, and that's when I spoke to her and she said, please, could she have an extension. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The stipulated agreement was dated the 16th of June but then didn't come in front of us until September; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: I believe September was the date. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm looking at the stipulated agreement right now. Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: What's the county's position on this? Page 11 161 a uary 8, 2010 MS. SYKORA: Excuse me, I have a copy of the stipulation agreement. Mine has September on it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have one too. MS. SYKORA: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I was looking at the date at the very top. It's dated June 16, 2009 -- MS. SYKORA: Okay, all right -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and then I looked down and saw that it was actually - -- MS. SYKORA: I wanted to make sure you knew that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- sign date of the 24th of September. MS. SYKORA: The county has no objection to her extension. She's been through some rough times here, and it's going to cost a little bit of money because she has to re -app the permit for the screen enclosure. And so hopefully she gets it done in the three months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But there has been no application for the permit, correct? MS. SYKORA: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long does it usually take -- MS. SYKORA: She has to actually hire a contractor to do this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long does it usually take to get the permit once they apply for it? MS. SYKORA: It shouldn't be too long because it's going to be a re -app of the permit. On the old permit the notice of commencement was filed, so I'm not quite sure how that would be on a new permit if she would have to go through that again. And she has to have a spot survey, which is more money. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has that been done originally or no? MS. SYKORA: No, that was not done. And it did fail one of the permit's inspections before due to lack of putting the permit out for the Page 12 A4 -" January 28, 2010 inspector to sign, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MS. SYKORA: -- and there is a $75 fee due to that too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. You're requesting 120 days -- or, no, 90 days. MS. ST. JEAN: Twenty, 120. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MS. ST. JEAN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: three months. A hundred - twenty? Okay. Yeah, because the letter says MS. ST. JEAN: Okay. I'm going to do it on time, because that's a financial trouble but I'm going to make myself be ready for it, to do it. MR. KAUFMAN: So you think -- MS. ST. JEAN: Because I'm supposed to -- I know the pool cage to do it for me because the pool cage was already done. But they don't give me any permit for that. I don't know about it, that's why I don't have it. MR. KAUFMAN: You think 90 days is sufficient time to get that done -- MS. ST. JEAN: Yeah, I'm going to do it. Uh -huh. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion we extend the time 90 days then. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question though. Is there a permit on the screen enclosure? MS. SYKORA: There was a permit pulled when it was put up. However, the inspections in the final certificate of completion was not accomplished and then therefore it expired. So she has to get that reapplied for through a contractor and then get the inspection and a 10 -day spot -- the spot survey to show setbacks and pay the $75 fee. MR. ORTEGA: If the permit is expired was it a contractor that pulled the permit originally? Page 13 16111 A4 January 28, 2010 MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: He can re -app it but she can also pull the permit under her name if she's the homeowner. MS. SYKORA: She's not listed as the homeowner, it's her brother. MR. ORTEGA: I see. And I'm also a little bit confused with regards to the violation. One says electrical system, the other says no water to the house. MS. SYKORA: That's another case that is going to be heard. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's going to be the emergency case heard at the back of our cases. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other question I have is, since you are not the owner of this property do you have the authority to speak and accept -- MS. ST. JEAN: Yes, he was with me first time. I have it -- MS. SYKORA: He was present -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have anything in writing in that regard? MS. SYKORA: I have nothing in writing but he was at the hearing, the original hearing. I'm not sure if he signed this or not. He was present when the stipulation was signed also -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to really hear the case, and there is a motion and a second, but basically there is not much work that has to be done, it's just someone has to come out and do the survey and apply for the permit and a couple of other items. MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. SYKORA: It's not much work but it is expensive. And I'm assuming that she's -- the economy. The house is actually in lis pendens also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We have a motion and if Page 14 161 A 4 �, January 28, 2010 I'm not mistaken we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. You have 90 more days. MS. ST. JEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be Pamboukis. Try the last name. The respondent is not in? (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SMITH: For the record, Reggie Smith, Code Enforcement investigator. That's pronounced Pamboukis, I believe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Pamboukis, thank you. MR. SMITH: Mr. Pamboukis is still out of state at this time. He has requested an extension from his January 19th due date for -- by letter to Ms. Jennifer Waldron to the end of March. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This was the condo that was literally gutted out in Santa Barbara Landing, I think it's called or was that called that? MR. SMITH: Correct, yes, sir. Page 15 January 28, 2010 I understand that our next CEB is on the 25th; is that correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. SMITH: So I'll leave it up to the board to grant the extension until that time. The county has no objections. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have permits and work commenced on the -- MR. SMITH: Mr. Pamboukis has hired a licensed contractor in the name of Cuba Construction. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. SMITH: I have received an E -mail from their bookkeeper stating that they have been hired. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, that's good. MR. SMITH: A permit has been applied for, permit number 2010010710. It is still in apply status at this point. It was applied for on the 19th of January. The E -mail I received from Cuba Construction was dated the 12th of January, so he was hired or they were hired before the due date and they just, maybe they had to pull records or something like that. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we extend the time to the next scheduled -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It would be two -- MR. KAUFMAN: Was it March twenty -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Twenty -fifth. MR. KAUFMAN: Twenty -fifth, til the March 25th meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MS. WALDRON: Can I interject? I just want to point out that in this letter they are asking until the end of March to finish the remodel. If you look at the bottom. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. SMITH: Again, I'll leave that up to the board whatever you recommend. Page 16 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: discussion of the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: date say aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. 161x1' A4 January 28, 2010 Can we -- okay. Any further All those in favor of the March 25th MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SMITH: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you mention to the respondent that should he have a problem making the last two weeks, to show up at the meeting and I'm sure that the board would like to hear from him. MR. SMITH: Very good, sir, thank you. MR. DEAN: That would only be five days or something. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to skip over to stipulated agreement. MS. WALDRON: Hold on, we have got one more extension. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, you're always pulling a fast one. sir? Go ahead. MS. WALDRON: It's Manuel and Anna Moran. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, that was there, okay. I missed it. (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Looking for an extension of time, MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. Page 17 161 1 � January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Looking for 90 days? MR. MORAN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just, can you briefly -- I know you have a letter that you wrote, but can you just briefly explain why you need 90 extra days? MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. Sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: First of all, can you state your name for the record? MR. MORAN: I don't understand what you mean. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please say your name? MR. MORAN: Manuel Moran. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Okay. Can you explain why you are looking for an extension of time? MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. I spent so much time to find out the original permit for the building and after that the survey, I trespassing. The permit in my name already. And now the survey has a problem, the building is point one inch less than 75, it's 74.99. And I had to redo the new survey now. Yes, sir. And waiting for a little more time to redo the survey and finish. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the microphone closer to you, please? Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that an administrative piece of paper that needs to be filed with the county to grant that 1 /10th of an inch? MR. ORTEGA: Have you applied for a variance, did the building department request that you need a variance or suggest that you need a variance due to the encroachment? MR. MORAN: I don't understand but a word what you said. MR. ORTEGA: Because the building is encroaching into the setback area. MR. MORAN: Yeah, the building is behind the house in the backyard. But when I find out the original survey when I buy the house, and the lady on the front counter saw the survey, it's 74.99. 1611 A4 A January 28, 2010 And now I had to redo the survey. She say maybe the survey MW company make a mistake on the distance between the building and the limit. And right now I have to redo a new survey but the company doesn't have a record for the survey and they cannot use the survey that I have. MR. ORTEGA: Chairman, is this an existing residence they added an addition or -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm looking through the stipulated agreement right now. Maybe the investigator can shed light on it. MS. PEREZ: Yes, if I may add, for the record Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. From the notes of the case that I'm reading here it appears that it was a metal steel building, a shed -type, you know, a metal steel garage that was built on the property prior to this homeowner purchasing the property. So when he purchased the property and the violation was found, a permit had been obtained but it was never C.O.'d, so that's why he says that he had to go through the process of getting the permit under his name. So the permit has been reviewed and it is in a ready status pending the survey that he's talking about to see if he meets the proper setbacks. MR. KAUFMAN: So if the survey comes back and verifies that the building is encroaching by an inch or whatever, then an administrative variance needs to be provided to the county to waive that one inch. MS. PEREZ: I believe so. That would have to be the next step if there is not an error found in the original survey he had. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how long does that usually take? MS. PEREZ: I could not answer that question. MR. KAUFMAN: From personal experience it could take a Page 19 161 1 A4 " January 28, 2010 month to three months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess, if that's the case, Mr. Moran, when do you think you will have the money to have the survey done? MR. MORAN: I think this month. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This month. Okay. So if we were to give a 120 -day extension that would give him plenty of time to have the survey done, and then if there is any issues to take care of them within the 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: You think that would be sufficient time, 120 days to get everything resolved? Either it's encroaching or it's not -- MR. MORAN: Yes, I just need to redo. I just need to redo the survey and call the inspector to do the survey. MR. KAUFMAN: Or squeeze the building an inch in, whatever. MR. MORAN: I'm thinking about it. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion to extend the time 120 days. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MORAN: Thank you very much. Page 20 1611A4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have 120 days from today. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we do have another stipulation that has come in. This will be number six from hearings, Charles D. Brown, case CESD- 20090013027. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to amend the agenda? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Any further discussion? All those in favor. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Thank you. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone read it? state your names for the record, please. MR. BROWN: Charles D. Brown. MR. MORAD: Ed Morad. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. And you have agreed to this stipulated agreement? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Any questions of the Board? MR. BROWN: No, sir. Page 21 If you could 161 1A4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. Does the board have any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Jennifer, can we move on to hearings now? This next hearing will be Zona (sic) Lambert. And it's case number CESD- 200900115238. And we have three cases. Can we put these all together or should we keep them separate, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can put them together but we need three separate orders, so we need three separate motions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. (Speakers duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, would you like me to read each statement of violation then, now? Page 22 161 1 4Aary 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think that's what -- MS. WALDRON: For each case? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What with your voice, is that -- MS. WALDRON: I'll struggle through. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. As long as you are alright. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to case CESD- 20090015238, violation of ordinance, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26.13 104.5.1.4.4. Description of violation: Permit number 930000826 for a 12 -foot by 16 -foot wooden shed expired without first obtaining a Certificate of Completion. Location address where violation exists: 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples Florida 34112. Folio number 74413960006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Zonia Z. Lambert Trust, Zonia Z. Lambert Revocable Living Trust, 655 Camelia, Vero Beach, Florida 32963. Date violation first observed: September 22nd, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: Notice of violation mailed first class and certified mail return receipt requested on September 22nd, 2009. Notice was posted on property and courthouse on September 23rd, 2009. Date on which violation to be corrected: November 3rd, 2009. Date of reinspection: November 5th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. In reference to case CESD- 20090015245, violation of ordinance, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26.13 104.5.1.4.4. Description of violation: Permit 9340000827 expired without Page 23 16 I 1 ;fig 4 January 28, 2010 obtaining a Certificate of Completion. Location address where violation exists: 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio number 74413960006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Zonia Z. Lambert Trust, Zonia Z. Lambert Revocable Living Trust, 655 Camelia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963. Date violation first observed: September 22nd, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: Notice of violation was mailed first class and certified mail return receipt requested on September 22nd, 2009 and notice was posted at property and courthouse on September 23rd, 2009. Date on which violation to be corrected: November 3rd, 2009. Date of reinspection: November 5th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. And in reference to case CESD- 20090015248, violation of ordinance, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 263 104.5.1.4.4. Description of violation: Permit number 930015737 for a framed detached garage, no electric, expired on 6/14/94 without first obtaining Certificate of Completion. Location address where violation exists: 3450 Cherokee Street Naples, Florida 34112. Folio number 74413960006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Zonia Z. Lambert Trust, Zonia Z. Lambert Revocable Living Trust, 655 Camelia Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963. Date violation first observed: December 22nd, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: Notice of violation was failed first class and certified mail return receipt requested on September 22nd, 2009 and notice was posted at property Page 24 T6!,, 1 January 28, 2010 and courthouse on September 23rd, 2009. Day on by which violation to be corrected: November 3rd, 2009. Date of reinspection: November 5th, 2009. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Like to go ahead? MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. These came in, the three cases came in as complaints on September 21 st, 2009 from another department. I researched the property card, the permits. I found out all three permits were issued. They never received inspections, therefore they expired. I made numerous site visits to this property, left cards. I actually called the owners' daughter, left her numerous messages. I actually received a call back from her on January 13th. I advised her of the situation, what was going on. It's her brother that actually lives at the house. She stated that she wants nothing do with her brother and that he should just lose the house. I advised her of the violation and the possible fines and she went on to say, good, that he has been nothing but trouble. I should say I've dealt with this property numerous times, it's -- it is what it is, and that's the three cases we have for the expired permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you dealt with this property prior to this case or -- MR. KEEGAN: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we haven't had any hearings -- MR. KEEGAN: Not CEB. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KEEGAN: Code enforcement board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: When you look at the permit that was pulled in 1993 were there any inspections done or anything -- Page 25 January 28, 2010 MR. MORAD: No, sir, none of them. MR. KAUFMAN: So they pulled the permit to build it and that was the end? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this property in lis pendens by any chance? MR. MORAD: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Foreclosed? MR. KEEGAN: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I would like to make a motion that we find this, on case ending in 5238, a violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, are all the other cases very similar to this? MR. KEEGAN: Same dates, same steps, everything. MR. KAUFMAN: We have to pick each one individually to vote on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so let's -- we have a motion, if we can have a second. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: violation say aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. All those in favor of finding MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) Page 26 -1b ! 1 A4 " January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion on the CESD - 20090015245 -- MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. MR. KAUFMAN: -- that we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And on the third case. MR. KAUFMAN: On the third case -- I just got new lenses in my eyes so this is kind of an eye test for me -- ending in 15248, I would like to make a motion that we find that also in violation. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. All those in favor. Page 27 q4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation, officer? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by obtaining a valid permit and request all required inspections through to Certificate of Completion, or obtain a valid demolition, requests all required inspections through to Certificate of Completion and remove all unpermitted improvements within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank amount a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I could -- MR. KAUFMAN: Is that 81.72 on the first case? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I can interrupt. It was brought to my attention that the respondent is here now; is that correct? Are you Mr. Lambert? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, I'm Julio Lambert. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, now that he's here, we already made a motion against him, should we move forward or could we back up, what? MS. RAWSON: Well -- January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before you -- hold on a second. If I can have you sit down. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you can take the mic if it's -- is it moveable? Can you move it off the stand? MS. RAWSON: You might do this. After he says what his name is and he gets worn in, you might ask him if he admits to the violations, and then you can move on to hear what he has to say about, you know, whether or not you should fine him. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I apologize for interrupting you. If you can bring the mic to you please. And if you can swear him in? (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can state your name, please? MR. LAMBERT: My name is Julio Lambert, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Question, who is Zonia Lambert? MR. LAMBERT: Zonia is my mom. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Zonia, okay. I guess, do you have the authority to speak on your mother's behalf? MR. LAMBERT: I've got rights to the house also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is she deceased? MR. LAMBERT: No, sir, she had a stroke and she's in a nursing home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. So at this point we should -- do you admit to a violation at this property? MR. LAMBERT: Which violation are we talking about? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There are three separate violations. One violation for case number, I'll just say the last, like, five numbers: 15238 is abandoned or suspended permit Number 22 -26.13 Page 29 f 1ru � l January 18, 2010 104.5.1.4.4. And we're actually talking about each of the cases. The next case is 15245. And that violation is abandoned or suspended permit 22 -26.13 104.5.1.4.4. And then the third and last one is case number 15248, abandoned or suspended permit. And is it the same permit number? Looks like it's the same permit number. No? MR. KEEGAN: No. You were reading the ordinance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry. Violation, okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Basically there were permits pulled in 1993, they were never finished, there was no C.O. issued on -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That's the nature of the three violations. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you admit to that, I guess -- MR. LAMBERT: I'll admit that the structures haven't been finished yet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: This happened after hurricane Andrew and then my Dad died and then my mom had a stroke and money has been very, very, very tight just getting by. So they are not abandoned but they are suspended. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't want to -- we already heard the case because you weren't here. We already heard the case. We don't want to hear the case again. All I'm asking is do you admit to the violation, that they are, in fact -- the house has not been properly C.O.'d, Certificate of Occupancy has not been received, all the inspections have not been completed -- MR. KEEGAN: If I may, it's not for the house -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: It's for a garage, a carport and a shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I apologize. Page 30 16 1 1 A 11 January 28, 2010 Do you admit to those violations? MR. LAMBERT: Well, I'll admit, yes, sir, that there is work that hasn't been completed at the house yet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Now, in an abundance of caution, since he's admitted that, and you've already found violations in all three, before you decide what the order of the Board is going to be, I think I would probably let him testify. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we should reopen the hearing is what you're saying -- MS. RAWSON: I would. MR. DEAN: I'll make that motion to reopen the hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to rescind the previous motions? MS. RAWSON: No. I mean, I think you've already found violations and he's already admitted to them, so now I would let him -- I would open the hearing and let him testify before you make your order of the Board as to what to do about the fact that there are violations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? Page 31 7a at�y 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Just to let you know what we did, is in your absence we heard the cases. We found that there was a violation. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And as you walked in we were at the step where we were going to order you to do something. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that's where we suspended that process, and what we're going to do is let you -- you admitted that there are violations, in fact -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- so at this stage we're going to ask you to, I guess, basically explain why you haven't finished your permits. And then at that point we are going to make a recommendation -- not recommendation, and order is going to be made that you have a certain time frame to do -- to finish the work, basically. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then -- and then at that point, if you do not finish the work based on that time period, at that point fines will start per day. Go ahead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You covered my point, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any other board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. If you can explain, I guess, why the permits have not been received. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. Well, my father died in'94. To make it simple he died without a will so the government ended up with most of his money. It took many, many years to get the money. Page 32 161 1 A4 January 28, 2010 Then we continued to work on the house. We started working on it again and then my mom had a stroke. That's all verifiable -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what year was that? MR. LAMBERT: And that pretty much shut us down. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What year was that, that your mother had a stroke? MR. LAMBERT: Three, four years ago. And just been trying to hang on. In the last five years we paid more taxes than we've paid on the house in the last 30 years, and the house is not worth a fifth of what it's taxed at. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's something this board can't review. But -- MR. LAMBERT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE correcting the issues? What would be your time frame to MR. LAMBERT: Sir. Excuse me. I've hired an insurance adjustor, a private adjustor to try and -- because I've got a claim still outstanding with First Protective for damages to the house from Hurricane Wilma and Hurricane Daniel. And we're in the process of trying to settle this. And if you could give me until the end of this year I would have -- I give you my word everything will be complete. And right after that I'll move out of this town and you'll never see me again. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that we swore Mr. Lambert in. Did we? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, ma'am. MS. WALDRON: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a comment. In your opinion is there a life safety issue here? MR. KEEGAN: My opinion is you've got unpermitted structures Page 33 161 1 Ah 4, January 28, 2010 on a property. So I would consider that, yes. MR. ORTEGA: I understand, but -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: But these structures aren't being dwelled in, are they? MR. KEEGAN: No. MR. LAMBERT: No. MR. KEEGAN: That have never been inspected. MR. LAMBERT: Can I comment on that? MR.ORTEGA: Sure. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, they have been inspected. The carport, the contractor we hired didn't pull the final on the carport. The detached garage, it has everything, it has framing inspection, everything has been inspected, everything was done legally. The only thing, the carport didn't have a final inspection and there is a fence permit that we didn't finish because when somebody has a stroke and you don't have access to money any more that destroys your -- it destroys everything, your will to go on, too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If in fact the final permits are the only items that need to be done -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. I apologize for interrupting. The carport just needs a final. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LAMBERT: But the detached garage still need two permits. Well, it needs a -- it needs -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Two inspections. MR. LAMBERT: It needs a final framing and it needs, it needs to be stuccoed. And I don't know if you would C.O. a garage. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this may be an option. Is taking care of the -- to show goodwill, taking care of the least expensive items like the carport, if it needs just a final inspection -- the Page 34 161 January 28, 2010 final inspection, would it be based on 2010 or the LDC that is currently in place or would it be based on when the permit was originally pulled? Would it be an after the fact inspection, what -- I mean -- MR. KEEGAN: I believe it would be an after the fact because he would have to re -app -- the permit is done, the permit is expired. He would have to re -app it. And I'm sure if would be after the fact. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because what I'm thinking is if the carport is -- break this down into three increments -- and the garage needs to be restuccoed and the final needs more work, labor to finish it. If there is a way that we can maybe separate getting the work done, a certain time frame, a shorter time frame for the carport, a little bit longer, let's say, if the shed needs to be done and then the garage. MR. KEEGAN: How about -- and I'm just throwing this out at you, giving a time frame to have the permits issued. Once the permits are issued we'll give a time frame for them to be C.O.'d on each permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the buildings are in different stages of completion, is what I'm trying to get at -- MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If he shows there is goodwill being done on his part for -- I mean -- MR. ORTEGA: I don't think -- this permit, if it's a'93 permit, right? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: It's not going to be re- apped. He's going to have to do it again. It's up to the building official, obviously, which might incur, obviously you're going to have the new expenses. It might even impact impact fees. So you have all these things to consider. The code that was used in '93 obviously it's, you know -- MR. KEEGAN: Different. MR. ORTEGA: So plans would probably be redone. But again I Page 35 161 4 1 January 28, 2010 think what needs to happen is probably for him to go to the building department and have a sit down and see what his options are. I think that would be step one before he does anything -- MR. KEEGAN: Absolutely. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Lambert, I have a question of you. Is it your intent to do any of these potential items we've been discussing here or is it your intent to sell the property? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, I plan on fixing the property as soon as I get my insurance settlement from First Protective. I plan on fixing it proper and then selling it and moving out of Naples is what I want to do. But I'm going to fix the house before I do anything because I'm not going to give it away. MR. MARINO: What is the time frame on this insurance adjustment? MR. LAMBERT: Ninety days. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a suggestion, just to see if we get any nods on the board, that we take what you said, go to the building department, give you X amount of time to go to the building department, talk with them. That will also give you a certain amount of time to resolve your issues with the insurance company. And if nothing is resolved at that time come back to the board and we can see where we go from there. If that's agreeable to the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ultimately we want to see an abatement. So in that order we need to have something that definitively states that it's going to be abated, either the structure is demolished or the permits have been applied and received and a C.O. is given. But if you want to break it down, then that's fine. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: The insurance that you are talking about, when was Page 36 1 b 1 l A "" anuary 28, 2010 that claim filed? MR. LAMBERT: That claim was filed in '95, sir. MR. DEAN: So 1995. And here we are saying we're going to get done in 90 days? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, in 1995 I made a claim. It took a year to get the first check from the insurance company. They give us a good faith check. They gave us a $30,000 deposit, which we started working on the house at the time. And then they told us to please be patient, we will get back with you. I have filed eight claims. You can verify with Tallahassee where I've made formal complaints for the company not coming back to make the estimates. Because they made an estimate on the house in January of 2000, right after Charlie and Wilma. They make an estimate in January, and from the January until we got the check in July, the house had been rained on 50 times. So the estimate they made there was invalid. So they said they were going to send somebody in there to reestimate the house. Plus when they did that they didn't do the estimate on the carport or the laundry room. And, I mean -- and they were supposed to come back and do that. And I filed formal complaints with Tallahassee, and you can -- I will verify -- I will bring you the paperwork where I have sent -- I have filed formal complaints and filed formal complaints. And then they were supposed to go to mediation the beginning of last year. And then there was a problem. They didn't ever -- they never sent me the paperwork to go to mediation like they were supposed to. And then I spoke to a gentleman who knows this public adjustor where you pay him 10 percent of whatever that he gets you, and then he tells me, well, get me the estimates for the house and I will get you your money minus 10 percent. MR. DEAN: Okay. Page 37 1b! `January 28, 2010 MR. LAMBERT: And that -- the part that I have been having problems with is getting the estimates because after four and a half years nobody wants to go and give you an estimate. And I've offered the gentlemen to pay for the estimates and they still don't want to give me the estimate. So that's what took me -- but he told me within 90 days after I get the estimates, he told me that he would give me the money, because he's getting 10 percent of everything that I get so he's after that money. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MARINO: Is there enough money in this whole claim that it's going to take care of all these problems that he has with this whole case? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, there is $130,000 what we can get still. We never got any interior damage or nothing. I got $1,400 worth of damages. The couches in the house alone were worth 9,000. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think that's enough -- MR. LAMBERT: And I can verify everything that I'm telling you gentlemen right now. There is no lies or nothing coming out of my backside. MR. KAUFMAN: Investigator, have you had communication with Mr. Lambert in the past? MR. KEEGAN: In the past, yes. Not on these cases. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there -- Mr. Lambert, is there any reason why you haven't had a dialogue with the county to tell them what's going on and -- MR. LAMBERT: Sir, the only -- I've just been trying --not to make no excuses but I have just been trying to get by. I mean, the taxes on the house are five times what the house is worth. And I haven't had the funds to fix the house, because you have to pay $5,000 for a three bedroom, one bath house that's been destroyed six years ago, it's a slap in the face. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That wasn't the question he -- 16 I A4 "' January 28, 2010 MR. LAMBERT: No, sir, I haven't spoke to the gentlemen because nobody's ever said anything about the permits. But I was intending to take care of that when I got the money from the insurance company because I wasn't going to leave my house a wreck. MR. KAUFMAN: Are you aware that he had tried to contact you or your family or the trust? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, the only time we spoke to any of these gentlemen is when we seen them like two weeks ago when they spoke to my son when we were throwing a bunch of stuff away. We were clearing it, we were just tossing all old equipment and stuff for construction, and everything that we had, we were just cleaning house with it. And they came by and he gave this paperwork to my boy knotted up like this and he told me, here. He gave the paperwork to my boy and -- MR. KEEGAN: That wasn't me. MR. LAMBERT: That was two weeks ago, which told me to come to Court today. And I apologize for being late. I have not been feeling good and I really didn't want to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we heard enough. I would like to close the public hearing unless the board has any other questions. MR. ORTEGA: I still have one question. I don't think it was answered. Does this -- do these structures pose a life safety situation? MR. KEEGAN: In my opinion, yes. MR. ORTEGA: You've seen them physically? MR. KEEGAN: No. MR. ORTEGA: You have not seen the structures yourself? MR. KEEGAN: I have photos from the other departments, from the aerials. They do exist. But no, I have not physically seen them, no, sir. The carport I have seen from the outside. The two structures in Page 39 161 41 January 28, 2010 the rear of the property I have not seen. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: One final comment I would like to make. These structures can also be removed. We have a wooden shed, is one of these cases. MR. LAMBERT: No, these are not -- these are -- these structures were built to code. You would need a bulldozer to remove them and thousands of dollars to remove them, where it wouldn't cost that much to fix them. And there is no damage, there is nothing that can be damaged when the only thing that is wrong with the carport is it need a fascia finished on it, it needs a final inspection. And everything, and everything -- there is nothing hanging, there is no damage, there is nothing that you can get cut or nailed on, everything is solid built to code. And there is nothing hanging that is going to fall and injure anybody. MR. KAUFMAN: We're here to try to work out something that would be amenable to -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, and I appreciate that. MR. KAUFMAN: -- everybody involved. So my question to you is, how much time, knowing that you have an insurance claim going on, how much time would you need to where you could actually show that some progress is being made on this, these three violations? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, you said to start with the carport first. You give me 45 days, I will have it permitted and finished, the first carport. And when I get my insurance money I give you my word I'll jump on everything and it will be finished right away, just as fast as I can get it finished because I want to sell that house and be out of Naples, or at least sell it -- I'm going to fix it and rent it out where I can get out of Naples. 59--m 1611A4 $" January 28, 2010 MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman? MR. KAUFMAN: That's the carport. MR. LAMBERT: Yes. MS. WALDRON: We do have a few photos if the board would like to see them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we already heard the case and everything, so that, I think we would be rehearing the case if we were to look at the photos. Is that your -- okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, the carport is -- let me ask which -- MS. RAWSON: The 245. MR. KAUFMAN: 245? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's the second one. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess this hinges on you receiving money from the insurance company. If you don't receive money from the insurance company, all bets are off. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, if I -- I know I said 45 days. But if you'll give me 60 days. If I got to go dig ditches for nickels I will finish that carport to make -- to, I don't know how to say this, to show you my good faith that I am doing what I told you that I would do. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to propose that we do is take it case by case and go from there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what -- yes, that's -- MR. KAUFMAN: So, on the 245 case, this is the carport. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion, using your language, I'll fill in the blanks. We give you 60 days, that's what you asked for. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And should you not finish it in 60 days a fine of $200 per day be assessed. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, I'll agree to that. Page 41 1611 A4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And part of that was demolition if it's not -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, he has the option -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: -- through to Certificate of Completion on either one. This is just the 5245 case. Okay. That's my motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. So you have 60 days for that -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, I give you my word it will be done by then -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. LAMBERT: Carport. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- for 15245. The -- is it the carport? MR. KAUFMAN: Carport. MR. DEAN: Carport. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, good. Carport. And if within the 60 days it's not completed, Certificate of Page 42 6' 1 I A i,1 ' January 28, 2010 Completion, or demolished, there will be a $200 -a -day fine assessed. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: All it needs is just a final inspection, is all it needs. MR. KAUFMAN: The second case -- the second easiest for you to resolve, which would be what, the shed? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: The shed. And the shed is the 5238? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, let's -- how much time would you need to resolve the situation with the shed? MR. LAMBERT: I would like to get 45 days for that, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, do you want 45 days after the 60 days MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- is what you are asking for? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, please. MR. KAUFMAN: So from now that would be in essence 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Roughly 120. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What would be the reasoning for 120 days? MR. DEAN: Doing the carport first and then he's doing the shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Sixty days for the first one to be done. That would show us good faith et cetera, et cetera. If that's not resolved in 60 days -- MR. LAMBERT: Two hundred dollars -a -day fine, yes, sir, or tear it down. MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. Page 43 161 1 ; 14 1 January 28, 2010 On this one -- let me go to the last one -- MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- just for -- the last one, give me a time frame on that. MR. LAMBERT: Sir, that is going to cost me $5,000 to finish that. I'm hoping to get the insurance money before I start working on that. MR. KAUFMAN: So that's the longest lead time item on that one. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: But if you don't get the insurance money in the first 60 days we kind of know what the answer is going to be going forward. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. As far as the carport, I give you my word that it will be finished. And I give you my word on the 45 after the 60. And if I tell you -- if that house is not complete before the end of this year I will sign that house to you and I will move dirt-ass broke out of Naples, excuse my language. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know what the -- I omitted the Court costs. The only ones I had was the $81. Are they the same on all three cases? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: The 81.72? Okay. So I would like to make a recommendation -- or a motion that we extend 120 days on 15238 with a $200 -a -day fine after the 120 days. MR. DEAN: That's the shed? MR. KAUFMAN: That's the shed, yes. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. 161 JA4an 40 Uary 28, 2010 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KAUFMAN: Now the tough one, garage. It seems to me that in 120 days, you probably will have a pretty good idea whether you're going to get the insurance money or not. And what I would like to figure a way of doing is, to come back here, we just want the violations abated. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir, absolutely. MR. KAUFMAN: To come back here during that 120 day period to see if that's going to be resolved or not. And I'm not quite sure how we can structure that. MS. FLAGG: If I could suggest to the board, you can set a date for him to come back, give him a completion date in the order, and then he can come back under motion for extension of time and give you an update of how it's going. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that's an excellent idea. And I think 120 days, since it coincides with one of the other orders, might be the sufficient time. What I'm saying is after 120 days you come back here -- MR. LAMBERT: And show you that everything is -- MR. KAUFMAN: -- we probably have the first two abated, hopefully. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And at that time if you need an extension to IMI, 161 1 A4 *1 January 28, 2010 complete the final piece you can ask for the extension at that time. The board seeing the due diligence that you have done on the first two I'm sure would be sympathetic to extending you sufficient time to finish the project. MR. LAMBERT: I give you my word it will be done within that time limit. MR. KAUFMAN: So that's the motion I would like to make on case 5248, last four digits, that we extend the time on that to 120 days, whatever meeting date that falls in at. MS. RAWSON: That would be in May. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not to abate it but to come back and MS. FLAGG: No, what your order would state is that he needs to abate by 120 days and set the fine. And then if he is unable to do that he could request an extension of time at that point. MR. KAUFMAN: So we'll set that at 120 days, which will be the May meeting, with a fine of $200 a day, and the costs are 81.72. MS. RAWSON: Well, if he doesn't complete it within 120 days then he can come back in the May meeting. But if he completes it within 120 days then we're done. MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the other thing is, the suggestion is to keep the investigator abreast of what you are doing. Do you have all his contact information? You do, okay. So when he does call maybe a month or two to check -up and see how things are progressing, you keep an open dialogue, because that would really alleviate a lot of the issues and problems. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. Sir, all I got is one phone number that I've had for five years and they've got it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make just a suggestion, okay. 16 January 28, 2010 Now we've made a motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much for your time. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If we could take a -- come back about quarter after. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I would like to call the code enforcement board back to order. The next case will be Treasure B. and Jeff Ahlbrandt, CESD- 20090012965. And I would like to swear in the investigator. (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The respondent is not present; is that correct? MR. PAUL: No, they are not. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance, Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section Page 47 lb 1 1A4 "' January 28, 2010 10.02.06.B.1A. Description of violation: Owner enclosed porch and added a wooden shed with no permits. Location address where violation exists: 6090 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 38163480005. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Treasure B. and Jeff Ahlbrandt, 6090 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples Florida 34116. Date violation first observed: August 12th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: September 28th, 2009. Date on which violation to be corrected: October 28th, 2009. Date of reinspection: November 9th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, inspector. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD - 20090012965 dealing with violations of. owner has enclosed a porch and has a wooden shed in the rear yard of the property, and neither one has a permit. Service was given on 9/28 of '09. I would like to present case evidence and the following exhibits, B -1 through three and C -1. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- the pictures. Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just raise your hand please. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. 16v 7 A4 1 .ranuary 28, 2010 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: And as you get the pictures, you'll see Exhibit B- 1, it's from the neighboring property. It shows the back end of this home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the part that has been enclosed, is that -- MR. PAUL: It's the back part, which you'll see on B -2, it's a much closer photo. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Behind that tree -- MR. PAUL: Correct. It's behind the tree as you can see. That's supposed to be an open porch or a screened -in porch but they have enclosed it and placed windows. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to commend the county on printing on both sides of the paper. MR. PAUL: I had some printer problems this morning. And on Exhibit B -3 you'll see the wooden shed that they had built in the rear of the property. Exhibit C -1, that is the original building application that they had applied for and they had gotten for the home. As you'll see towards the middle of the page it will say there is supposed to be a porch and then it shows the square footage of the porch. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the residents? MR. PAUL: No. Every time I've gone to this residence you can N,_. anuary 28, 2010 hear the dogs inside. No one has ever come to the door. I've been there when there was even a car in the driveway but no one comes to the door. I've posted the property. I've left business cards. The business cards have been removed by someone but they never, ever called me. So I'm unfortunately not in contact with the owners. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion the violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And your recommendation? MR. PAUL: We ask that the owners pay the operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by respondents required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and additions to this residence, or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements and additions to this residence, and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Page 50 16 1 � A a anuary 28, 2010 Completion within X amount of days of this hearing or be fined X amount of dollars for each day the violation remains unabated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. If the respondents fail to abate the violation the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s' Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any safety violations, electrical in the porch, for instance? MR. PAUL: I've never been inside of the porch'cause I can't seem to get ahold of these folks. So I've never actually been inside the home. MR. KAUFMAN: And the shed, same thing? MR. LAMBERT: Same thing. MR. KAUFMAN: Did you see any evidence of wires being strung? MR. PAUL: No, I don't, not from what I can see at least. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me take a stab at it, then. I would like to make a motion that we provide 90 days for all permits to be pulled to completion, and a $200 a day fine subsequent to the 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if the permits are not pulled for demolition, because that was part of the order, correct? MR. PAUL: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. How many days to demolish? MR. KAUFMAN: Should be in the same -- MR. PAUL: Same thing -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Time period? Very good. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Page 51 161 Mary 8, 2010 MR. DEAN: Question. The 90 days, is that too long or do you think it's correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You seconded, it -- MR. DEAN: Well, I'll second it now. That's why I seconded it, so I could open it up for discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you think 90 days would be sufficient to -- MR. PAUL: I would think it would be sufficient. It gives him plenty of time and -- MR. DEAN: I think it gives them too much time. MR. MARINO: He's had too much time. MR. DEAN: You go there and there is no response. And the enclosure could be, for all we know, living quarters. And we're allowing 90 days again. I always think that's too long. To me, 30 days gets a response. MR. PAUL: I'll go with any recommendation you give me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But part of it is you have to give time for them to actually go ahead and get the permits and -- MR. DEAN: I think if you gave him five days he could walk in the door and get a permit, you know. Why give him all this time? I just think 90 days, and he has an enclosed that you can't see. And if it's living quarters and if there is electrical problems or whatever and there is a fire, I mean, to me I'd call it -- that would make him come in here sooner, I would think, if he had 30 days. He has to respond to 30 days or we move on it. But I just think you give him 90 days that's a long time. That's my opinion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you like to withdraw your second and request that the original motion -- MR. DEAN: No, no, I would like to amend the second. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if I amend the motion. MR. DEAN: No, I can amend the second. That's okay. We can vote on both. Either way you want to go. Page 52 161 1 N4 I January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken the first has to agree to any amendment. MR. DEAN: You can amend the motion then vote on it whether he does or not. But anyway, I'll refer back to the motion, that's fine. I seconded it to open it up for discussion because I think when you enclose a building and you give 90 days that's a long time. That's a long time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, would you like to amend your motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll amend my motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To? MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, next case would be Petitoles St. Jean; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: We actually are on to old business and that would be after that. Page 53 16 Lh flnUary 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's that, that's going to be under old business? MS. WALDRON: It's after the old business. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. My mistake. So we're going to old business now? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Meghan Solof£ Case number CEVR- 20090004297. The respondent is not here, I take it? (Speakers duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: That is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 3.05.08.C. Location of violation: 2328 Broadwing Court, Naples, Florida. Folio number 49460006100. Description of violation: Observed exotic vegetation on developed property built after 1992. On September 24th, 2009 the code enforcement board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR -4499, Page 2129 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the code enforcement board orders as of January 28th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following. Fines at a rate of $50 per day for the period between December 25th, 2009 to January 28th, 2010, 35 days, for the total of $1,750. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.14 have not been paid. The total amount to date is $1,836.14. MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. Page 54 1611 ^ 4nuai -28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. When was the last time that you visited the property? MS. O'FARRELL: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yesterday. And it has not been corrected. MS. O'FARRELL: Violation still exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the owner? MS. O'FARRELL: No. She won't answer the phone, she won't answer the door. I've checked. I know the house is in foreclosure but she's still living in the house. The trash was put out yesterday so I know that they are still there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to impose the fines? MR. KAUFMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. LAVINSKL• Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Do I hear a second? Any further discussion? All those in favor. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Page 55 1611A4' January 28, 2010 Next case will be Heriberto Perez, CELU- 20090007827. (Speaker duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: In reference to violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location of violation: 2081 50th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36120200000. Description of violation: Single family home converted to multi - family in an area designed for single family use. On October 22nd, 2009 the code enforcement board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR -4506, Page 2544 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the code enforcement board orders as of January 28th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following. Fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between November 22nd, 2009 to January 28th, 2010, 68 days, for the total of $17,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.71 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $17,086.71. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. The last time you visited the property? MR. PAUL: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And none of the work has been completed or they haven't converted it back to a single family home? MR. PAUL: No, they haven't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Contact with the owners? MR. PAUL: None at all. When I went to the property the other day no one was home, unfortunately, so -- they haven't called me or anything, so -- there has been no change, no permits applied for. Page 56 1611A4 " January 28, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LAVINSKL• Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. All those in favor. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be Alba Licci, CESD- 20090007768. (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the respondent is not present; is that correct? MR. PAUL: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: In reference to violation Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.1E. Location: 2395 39th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio 39890600005. Description of violation: Garage converted into living space without permits. On November 19th, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR -4516, Page 10 for Page 57 161 �A 4 anuary 28, 2010 more information. The respondent has not complied with the code enforcement board orders as of January 28th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following. Fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between November 22nd 2009 to January 28th, 2010, 68 days, for the total of $13,600. Fines continue to accrue. Fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between December 20th of 2009 to January 28th, 2010, 48 days, for the total of $8,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date $21,681.72. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think the dollar amounts may be incorrect. Order number one and three in the -- what you just read says that it's $250 a day, but number three, if they do not comply with paragraph one of the order within 48 hours then the fine shall be $200 per day. So we may have overcharged $50 per day. And is that -- do you want to look at it, make sure that I'm -- MS. WALDRON: It's actually the right total amount but the wrong amount per day. It should be $200 a day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so it is the right amount. Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Any contact with the owner? MR. BOSH: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did make contact with Mr. Brian Spaulding, who is the -- has power of attorney for the owner. And he did say the violations still remained, both violations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when was that contact made? MR. BOSA: Yesterday. Yesterday morning, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion on when it may be abated? EM 1 '� 16 Jan LA I; 2010 MR. BOSA: No, sir, none at all. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there somebody living in the house? MR. BOSA: Yes, there is, sir. MR. ORTEGA: I think it's important to better understand each of these cases, where you have situations like this, is whether the home is under lis pendens or under foreclosure also. Is this home under foreclosure? MR. BOSA: It is under lis pendens, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make the motion that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR.ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KAUFMAN: This would be one of those that comes under the edict of contacting the bank and not selling a house when there are violations on it that code enforcement has been working on to resolve. MS. FLAGG: Correct. The challenge the bank has is that if there is someone living in the home they can't address the violation for us. But once the bank takes Certificate of Title then the bank will address it before they sell the home. Page 59 161 IA 14 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be Rey and Edith Martinez, case number 2007080603. (Speakers duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.1A, 10.02.06.B.1E and 10.02.06.B.IE.i. Location of violation: 1410 Apple Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 30680880005. Description of violation: Multiple additions built onto structure without first obtaining proper permits. On April 23rd, 2009 the code enforcement board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board OR -4449, Page 2444 for more information. The respondent has complied with the code enforcement board orders as of December 23rd, 2009. The fines and costs to date are described as the following. Fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between July 25th of 2009 to September 29th of 2009, 67 days, for the total of $13,400. Operational costs of $87 have been paid. The total amount to date is $13,400. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion we abate the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before that, I have a question. The respondent has complied with the CEB order as of December 23rd, 2009 but the fine is only from July 25th through September 29th. Why is there such a discrepancy there? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It was done in two parts. He had to obtain the permit within so many days and then he had to C.O. it within a year. So that's why there are two different -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. ff- • 1 161 A 4 -, Luary 28, 2010 We have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: A motion to abate the fines. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All of those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay Do you understand what we just did? You had fines of $13,400 and we erased them, basically, so you do not have to pay any fine. And you have already paid the operational costs, so you do not owe the county anything. All right? MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You are welcome. Have a good day. I'm trying to kill a little bit of time because we have a case at 11:00 but we're going right through these. MS. WALDRON: We have the emergency case left. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, I know. Petitoles St. Jean. And once again, if you can swear the parties in? (Speakers duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to case Page 61 16 1 1 A January 28, 2010 CEPM- 20090018927, violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22 through 231, Subsections 1 and 2. Description of violation: Single family home that is being occupied without water. Location address where violation exists: 105 Doral Circle Naples, Florida 34113. Folio 54901800009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Petitoles St. Jean, 2740 Linwood Avenue, Naples, Florida 34112. Date violation first observed: December 17th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: Notice of violation posted at the property and the courthouse on December 28th, 2009. Date on by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date of reinspection: January 4th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, M- U- C -H -A, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated back in December of 2009. My department received a complaint from neighbors in regards to people living in this houses with no electricity or running water or sewer. And part of the complaint was also that they were dumping waste and washing clothes in the canal that's behind the property and -- all right, I'll go from there. So on December 17th, 2009 I made a site visit to the property and met with the property owner Mr. St. Jean and his sister, who was there at the time as well. I advised them of the complaint that was received. They did confirm to me that there is currently no water, electric to the property. They state that no one actually lives at the house but it is more used for storage. They also admitted at that time that sometimes during the day people are at the property. And I observed Page 62 1611 A4 Im January 28, 2010 furniture inside the home and there were several cars parked in the driveway. Property owner at the time stated that he would be able to get the power restored to the property shortly but because so much money was owed for the water that the water could not be turned back on at this time. And I advised that I would be back to issue a notice of violation for no water and electricity. And at that time I did confirm with public utilities that there was an outstanding water bill for approximately $1,600. December 28th, 2009, attempted to serve notice of violation with personal service to property owner at his address of record, which is 2740 Linwood Avenue, Naples. And this property is currently vacant. I talked to neighbors and they said the property had been vacant for a few months. So at that time I elected to post the notice of violation at the subject property and the courthouse and also send the notice of violation regular mail. January 4th, 2010, I made a site visit to the property and observed a vehicle in the driveway. I knocked on the door and no one answered. I checked around the side of the house and observed that the electrical meter was not moving. I talked to a neighbor at 103 Doral Circle, which is directly right next door to this property. He states that the vehicle in the driveway is associated with someone that is staying at the house. I contacted Ms. St. Jean and she states that the water and electric is still shut off. I asked her if anyone was living in the house and she said no, no one lives there but her uncle sleeps there during the day sometimes. At that point I advised her that no one could be staying at the house without utilities. She states that she can get the power turned back on but would have a hard time getting the water turned on because so much money Page 63 161 1 A4 7 January 28, 2010 is owed. I advised her at that time even if the power is restored we still couldn't have anyone staying there without water. And at that point I decided to prepare this case to send to a hearing. On January 8th, 2010 I contacted Florida Power and Light and they confirmed that the power had been restored to the property. I contacted public utilities and they confirmed that the water remains shut off due to an outstanding water bill still not being paid. January 26th, 20101 posted a notice of hearing at the property and the courthouse. And January 28th, I met with -- went to the property and Ms. St. Jean was there, and I again advised her that nobody could be staying there without water. She states they were only there for a couple of hours. I asked her if her uncle was still sleeping at the property and she said that he was not, and she said that she would be here for the hearing today. So that's where we are. The water is still shut off and it's my contention, and also to the neighbors in the area, is that there are people staying in this house, whether they might not be staying there all the time, they sometimes come and stay during the day for a few hours, sometimes maybe somebody comes there and sleeps, so -- that's where it's at. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything you would like to add? MS. ST. JEAN: Well, since my brother buy this house and he has a trouble with the neighbor, they always complain for every little thing. They said we are jugging some water, washing clothes there. He's lying, they are not doing that. And then I don't know, what can I say. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the water turned off? January 28, 2010 MS. ST. JEAN: No, I'm going to the water now if they are going to make a payment plan for us. But it too high for us to pay one time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the water currently turned off? MS. ST. JEAN: Yes, turned off. But I'm going to the water today if they going to make plan for us, payment plan, turn back on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the power has been turned back on? MS. ST. JEAN: Uh -huh. MR. UESPERANCE: I have a question. Is the sewer a public sewer or is it a septic tank? MS. ST. JEAN: I don't know, maybe he have a tank outside in the front yard. MR. MUCHA: I think they are on public -- MR. UESPERANCE: Public? MS. ST. JEAN: Probably. MR. MUCHA: And that was one of the questions I came up with, is like, when you are staying there, even if you're there for a few hours, I mean, how do you use, like, those kind of facilities, if somebody has to use the bathroom or -- MS. ST. JEAN: I always go -- I work at night. I'm the only one live there now. I always went home every day, make some cleaning, get my dress because I work at night. Always home for a couple of hours. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is anyone staying there currently? Is anyone living there? MS. ST. JEAN: No. MR. KAUFMAN: You just mentioned that you are the only one that lives there. MS. ST. JEAN: I'm only one now always go home during the day for couple hours, make some cleaning, fix some things. MR. KAUFMAN: So you have a residence someplace else? MS. ST. JEAN: Yes, I have my brother. But I was working at Page 65 16I1AA January 28, 2010 night six night, because when I was out during the day I just stopped by for a couple hours, that's it. MR. KAUFMAN: If the water is shut off I think a violation exists. And I would like to make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I would like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: recommendation? All those in favor. Aye. Motion passes. What is your MR. MUCHA: My recommendation is that the code enforcement board orders the respondent to pay all operational casts in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by. Respondent must restore the water to the property with an active valid account with Collier County Public Utilities or vacate the premises of all occupants until such time that water is restored to the property with an active valid account with Collier County Public Utilities within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank until violation is abated. Respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection L 11 A4 4" 161 3 nuary 28, 2010 to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs' Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: So this would fall under the safety and health MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- as far as immediate is concerned. And you say that you are going to be -- MS. ST. JEAN: I'm going now if they are going to make payment plan for us. Because $1,600 too high to pay at one time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make a motion, fill in the blanks. The 81.15 is the cost. Water needs to be restored within seven days or a $250 a day fine will be imposed. And during the next six days, or until the water is restored, that nobody is to inhabit that dwelling. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MARINO: I have a question. Once the water is turned on, the electricity is on, it's habitable to be lived in? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I do have another question for clarity purposes. Once you go today and you make the payment, they will restore the water? MS. ST. JEAN: I'm going to go to there, talk to them what they going to do with me for payment plan. I don't know what gonna this, I don't know what they going to tell me to do. MR. ORTEGA: Okay, that's why I asked the question. So in other words, you had no discussion with them so far with regards to a Page 67 �A4 nuary 28, 2010 payment plan? MS. ST. JEAN: I went there before, couple of times. They refused to do it. I'm going to try again. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, if the water is not turned on and no one is living in the place then there is no violation; correct? MR. MUCHA: That's correct. MR. DEAN: No, wait a minute, I misunderstand then. All dwellings in compliance with housing standards, all dwelling units, whether occupied or unoccupied, shall comply with the requirements of this section as here set forth. And that's water, right? Am I wrong? MR. MUCHA: Well, as long as it's vacated, as long as it's unoccupied. MR. DEAN: But it says whether occupied or unoccupied, so that means somebody there or not, I guess. It still says it has to have water. MR. ORTEGA: Right. It's not an abandoned home. MR. DEAN: Right. MR. UESPERANCE: It sounds like the home is occupied. I think we have a motion and a second, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We do. I'm just reading the Section 22231 that's in our package and I'm just trying to see if it says that actually the water has to be on. The first section, sanitary facilities required, it just says that it shall have a kitchen sink with a counter work space, a lavatory basin, all in working good order -- and connected to an approved and sanitary sewer system as approved. I mean, it's connected but it's just not working. MR. DEAN: Jean, how do you read that? MS. RAWSON: It sounds to me like if you are going to occupy it you are going to have to have the water on, and you could keep people from occupying it until the water is turned on. But you have 16 f J. A It January 28, 2010 an empty house that nobody occupies that doesn't have water. I don't know that that's a violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: She stipulated to the fact that the home is periodically occupied. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But what I'm trying to get at is if she can't set a payment plan and they're not willing to turn the water back on, and the house isn't occupied, then I don't want to see it be a violation. Because we've had cases that houses are unoccupied and we make sure that, you know, on different cases, not this particular issue with connections or water working or electricity, but other issues that we say you cannot have your house occupied, and -- MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think the motion addresses that portion, it just says that they shall not occupy the house if there is no water there. I think that's what's in my motion. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, if I could offer, public utilities does set up payment plans for people in this type of situation. It does require her to go and meet with them to talk about what she can pay in terms of a payment plan. And there are also multiple opportunities for assistance with the various community resources, which the investigator can get her the community resource brochure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand that there may be assistance that you could get, and you would talk to the investigator to connect you with those. MS. ST. JEAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the motion is that either the water is turned on in seven days and you then can occupy the house or if the house is not occupied the water does not have to be turned on. Is that the motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, that is the motion. MR. DEAN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Any further discussion? 16 1 A� January 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. ST. JEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand that the house cannot be occupied -- MS. ST. JEAN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- without water. MS. ST. JEAN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And you have seven days to get the water turned on if you expect to have it occupied. MS. ST. JEAN: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, I have called the interpreter's office and they are on their way. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They are on their way, huh. We have Jim Hermanez. We'll take a recess until they come. (Recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's reconvene. I would like to call the code enforcement board back to order once again. MS. FLAGG: The report for this month is, I wanted to let you know that the department -- Page 70 161 1 A4 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could you just state your name? I know we all know you but if you can -- MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, Director of Collier County Code Enforcement. This past month in December the department accepted a national achievement award for the blight prevention program at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. In addition, recently you probably saw one of the community task forces recognized, I believe it was on Wink TV. They did a vacant home sweep in conjunction with the sheriffs office, utilities. We had a lot of people participate. And one other component of the blight prevention program is having the bank abate code violations so that we don't have to utilize taxpayers' money to abate these violations. At this point, the banks have expended $1.2 million in Collier County to abate 894 code violations. The other thing we do is we monitor the department's performance every week and there's established performance measures for that. This past week the banks expended $13,140 to abate code violations and they abated 17 cases. There were 156 new cases opened this past week. There were 57 cases closed with voluntary compliance. There's a service that we now provide which is called a lien search and also a property code inspection. And we did 55 lien searches this past week. What the lien search is, is that we provide a service that the buyer of a home can contact code enforcement either by website or by phone and request whether there is any code violations on the property, whether there is any liens on the property, past code cases on the property, any fines owed on the property. And for $25 we give them a complete history of what has happened on that property. In addition we also provide property inspections, which I see Mr. Page 71 16 1 1 A, 4 January 28, 2010 Dean there is holding up the new brochure that has actually gone out. Naples area Board of Realtors has been very helpful in providing that information to the realtors. And basically it outlines both the lien search process and encouraging folks to get a property inspection before they buy a home so that they are not surprised by code cases. And just as a reminder, what transpires, what we're seeing happen is that when a homeowner is foreclosed on, and there may not be any code cases on that property but that homeowner knew that they turned a screened patio into a family room without a permit, what they are doing is they are waiting until the bank sells the property to somebody else and then they're calling in a code case on it. So to make sure that folks that are buying homes in Collier County, whether as investment or as Homesteaded property, we're providing the service to them. This information is on the code enforcement website at Colliergov.net. It outlines -- you can actually print the brochure right off the website. It outlines all the services that are being provided and what it takes to obtain the service. And every week we also look at the number of cases, the average number of cases that each investigator in the department is carrying. And last week each investigator is carrying an average of 41 cases. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much for that report. MR. DEAN: Can I add one little thing? You said something about in July of this year there would be a license, you would have to be licensed for inspections? MS. FLAGG: In July 2010 home inspectors will be required to be licensed. So when these property inspections are done, what we have placed in the brochure, we encourage folks to use private inspectors. Code enforcement also provides those inspections but we're trying to encourage folks to use the private market. And home inspectors, people have to be very specific on the type of inspection they want, not only to check whether the water faucets Page 72 �. 4 January 28, 2010 work and the toilet works but also to have them check to see if there is code violations. We did provide a training for a large group of home inspectors and told them what to look for and how to obtain the information. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That training was provided through MS. FLAGG: Code enforcement provided the training to the home inspectors at no charge -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, that NABOR -- probably four or five months ago, maybe? MS. FLAGG: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is that archived? Is that archived? MS. FLAGG: What, the training? MR.ORTEGA: Uh -huh. MS. FLAGG: No, the training was conducted at NABOR. We've offered to continue to provide that training to home inspectors. We're working very closely with NABOR, National -- or sorry, Naples Area Board of Realtors is NABOR, the acronym, and they have been extremely helpful in getting this information out to home inspectors, contractors, realtors, about these services that are being provided. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has there been a Name change for code enforcement? I heard there was a going to be a name change to code compliance. MS. FLAGG: No. There was -- I guess it's been about six or eight months ago one of the commissioners, because of the new direction of the department, was interested in changing it to code compliance. That was -- the decision of the board was to keep it code enforcement because that's where all the licenses that the investigators hold, everything is referred to as code enforcement. And as was explained, the mission statement is really what Page 73 Jf1 nlry 28, 2010 determines the leadership and the direction that the department goes. And the mission statement of the department was revised to reflect working with the community on achieving compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And -- let me see. The other request to forward cases that -- are you done with your report? MS. FLAGG: I am, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? We don't have to go over request to forward cases because that's on the consent agenda. Any other -- do we have the translator here yet? MS. WALDRON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. We're ready. This case is Falcon and Jimenez, number CESD- 20090007837. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. If you can state your names for the record, please. MS. FALCON: Daysi Falcon. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. All right, could you just -- want to -- oh, you have to read in the case. MS. RODRIGUEZ: She's reading the stipulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Daysi Falcon on behalf of herself and Caridad Jimenez and Barbara Jimenez. It's agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by, must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or Page 74 January 28, 2010 demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I did. More or less. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Any comments from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Have there been -- MR. KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: Have there been permits applied for? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not yet. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it unusual or is it just me that it's 180 days, six months? MS. RODRIGUEZ: She owned two properties side to side. She had issues on the first property and she abated them. And this is why it's -- because we opened up both at the same time so it's taken her quite a bit to finish the first property. She's starting to work on the second one. But she hadn't done any permitting or anything. She does want to leave some of the stuff that is there and wants to demo some because it's quite a bit. MR. ORTEGA: Does it pose a life safety hazard? MS. RODRIGUEZ: What's there now, they are pretty much like Page 75 16i I A4 dN January 28, 2010 sheds, so -- one of it is attached to the house but no one is living in it. She says she's going to turn them into storage rooms. So I don't see that there is a safety issue. MR. ORTEGA: Unless there is a hurricane. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Unless there is a hurricane. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to make the motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay. If you can explain to her -- just quickly, if you can explain to her that she will have 180 days to correct the violation or a $200 per day fine will be imposed. Thank you very much. MS. FALCON: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set. Any other comments? The next meeting is February 25th, 2010. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn. Page 76 not. 161 A4 January 28, 2010 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Probably (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much, folks. Mzzza Page 77 16 1 1 A 4 "` January 28, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:27 a. m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BO�IjcD GERALD- LEFEBYRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Elizabeth Brooks. as _ _ _ 161 1A ' !!--�� January 21, 2010 MAR iUD TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Fiala F` ulgqunry Commissone�s COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Hales Naples, Florida, January 21, 2010 Hennin9 Coyle t! Coletta i 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: ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, CDES Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning/Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director Page 1 Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray (Absent) Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Misc. Corres: Date: I�II (3 l D G tern # t January 21, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all — no, not please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter; I almost said that again -- please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please make the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOI —FE Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'ITI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGL1O'ITI: I of course am present. Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Woltley is absent. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we do have a quorum. The next item is Planning Commission absences -- or addenda to the agenda. I don't -- the agenda is short enough; I can't imagine having any addenda. So unless I hear any, we'll move on. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Next week, a week from today, we have our Land Development Code Phase I standards to review. And the advertisement for that meeting apparently was in error by one day, so the meeting cannot be held in a manner in which it is considered one where we vote. We can't take action. But we could meet as a workshop, do all the discussion that takes a lot of time, and then actually hold off the voting until the next regularly scheduled LDC meeting, which we have to have anyway, because we're only looking at Phase I of the stuff next week to begin with. And if that's okay with everybody, including the staff and county attorney, 1 think that's how we should proceed. What do you -- any planning commissioner members have any concerns'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that okay with Jeff -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and Nick? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at the schedule for the CC -- or for the Land Development Code, I don't see any evening meeting. Is that right or -- Page 2 1611 1q 5anuaryl, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the County Attorney's -- I mean in the past the County Attorney's Office indicated we had to have at least one or the starting meeting or some meeting starting at 5:05 in the afternoon. I don't know if that is still the case or not. Jeff, do you? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're fine on this one. I'll double check, but I think we're fine on current schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll wait to hear from you then. And while we're on this subject, Phase II of the Land Development Code changes. Hello. MR. BELLOWS: We were trying to nail down that 5:05 issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Phase II of the Land Development Code changes, do you know when we're going to get those? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I talked to John Kelly, and the book two is on its way. You'll be getting it soon. (At which time, Commissioner Wolfley and Commissioner Midney enter the boardroom) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what was passed out today, I noticed Susan passed out a hand -out, could you tell us briefly what that hand -out is in relationship to next week's meeting, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Sure. Good morning, Susan Istenes. The packet I handed out today, I had sent you an e -mail about a week and a half ago or so indicating that the memo dated December 22nd had said that staffs comments on the private amendments would be submitted to you at a later date. And also some of the relevant minutes related to some of the amendments would also be handed out. So that's what I handed out today. It's pretty self - explanatory. I hole punched it and explained where you should probably put it in your packet and what it relates to. The only thing that's not in there is the staff comments for the Immokalee amendments, and I will get those to you probably within less than a week. But you're not hearing those until February anyway. So you should be all set for next week with the information you have in those packets. And if you have any questions, feel free to call me or e-mail me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Commissioner Midney and Commissioner Wolfley have arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One small little point; had nothing to do with the data that's in the packet. But when I picked it up, I noticed God, what nice expensive bond paper this is. MS. ISTENES: I knew you were going to say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 mean, if the county --you can buy reams and reams for a third of the price of this paper, if you guys would do that. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I was -- it's just kind of the situation at hand where I'm over here now and the time frame. And I did recognize the paper is a little bit --they got a good price on it and they advised me just to go ahead and use it so I did. But yes, please don't expect it next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, it just seems -- I mean, in the private sector you would never ever do that. But okay, thank you. Now that we've talked about next week's meeting, we're going to hold it as a workshop. It will be 8:30 in this room on the 28th. Does anybody at today's meeting know they will not be here next week? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be next Thursday. Okay, then we're good to go. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES— DECEMBER 16, 2009 CRA IN IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN & VISIONING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP AND DECEMBER 17, 2009 REGULAR MEETING Page 3 n6ry 21, 20 10 Let's move on to approval of the minutes. First one -- we have two of them. First one is December 16th, the CRA in Immokalee Master Plan Envisioning Committee Workshop. Anybody have any changes or corrections to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion, Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. December 17th, our regular meeting. Are there any corrections to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ave. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT— RECAPS — JANUARY 12 2010 BCC report and recaps, January 12th. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners heard the petition for the King's Lake variance. Page 4 ►1 A 1 January 21, 2010 That was approved. And so was the conditional use for the First Haitian Baptist Church. Subject to CCPC conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. By the way, the last couple of days, or prior to last couple of days, I think the Board of County Commissioners had a lot of review of the GMPA's that we had reviewed. I don't remember how many we recommended for transmittal, but it wasn't a majority, if I'm not mistaken. Do you know how many they recommended for transmittal? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They recommended for transmittal all but one, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All but one they recommended for transmittal and we recommended I think just maybe two or three, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KLATZKOW: The one that they didn't recommend, we're going to a straw ballot on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't for transmittal, that was for referendum, right? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's -- they recommended transmittal on each of them but one. The one that they didn't recommended transmittal on, they want to have the straw ballot on to gauge the public sentiment. Then that will be coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So they didn't recommend transmittal on it, they recommended it not go to transmittal but go to a referendum and then after that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Be continued is what they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it goes through the proc -- MR. KLATZKOW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To continue it is what they did. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. So that one didn't make it. MR. CASALANGU DA: To be clear, it's not all the voters, it's a specific area, so it's not -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's the Estates. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it'sjust the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I under -- I watched them. I saw it on television. But I just wanted to -- this board to know, we are probably a little bit more conservative, thankfully so, than the political process. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT So with that in mind, the chairman's report. If you all notice, there's a new entrance to the building. And I couldn't figure out why all the guards down there were so smiley and happy today. And I thought it was over their new entrance. But after I got through, they started giggling because they said aha, we got a body scan. I said no, you don't. But anyway, it's a nice new entrance, and I want to congratulate the county, it looks like it's going to be efficient, it can take a lot of people, and hopefully we will never have a body scan down there. So with that, I'll move into the consent agenda items. Item #8A PETITION: VA- PL2009 -37, FLO TV, INC. Petition VA- PL2009 -37, FLO TV, Inc., and that's a companion item to Petition CU- 2008 -AR- 14085, FLO TV, Inc. I'd like to ask, is there any corrections needed to either of those from anybody on the Planning Commission? Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we need a motion, each one separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 5 n ` January 21, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we accept the sutmnary for VA- 2009- AR -37. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye. COMMISSIONER C:ARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark? I have to abstain, because I wasn't here for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay. No, that's line. That's one abstention. So it would be 7 -0 and one abstention, so how's that. Item #8B PETITION: CU- 2008 -AR- 14085. FLO TV, INC. Petition, CU- 2008 -AR- 14085. Any motion on that one? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTLI: 1 will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti made the motion, Mr. Schiffer seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTfL Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one abstention. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, same 7 -0 with one abstention. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ =A- 2006 -AR- 10318, MAGNOLIA POND HOLDINGS, LLC Next one is Petition PUDZA- 2006 -AR- 10318, and that's Magnolia Pond Holdings. Is there any -- Page 6 I61 1 J anuary 2 2010 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTT Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- corrections? Mr. Vigliotti's made a motion to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approve. Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLNr: Aye. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there -- one abstention. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One abstention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 7 -0 with one abstention. Item #8D PETITION: CU- PL2009 -405, COLLIER COUNTY ATM DEPARTMENT BUS (CAT) TRANSFER STATION Petition CUPL -2009 -405, the Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department. That's the C.A.T. transfer station. Are there any comments or corrections needed on that one? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Vighotti. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there an abstention? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One abstention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven to zero with one abstention. Page 7 i Ai-5-17Y211010 Item #SE PETITION: RZ- PL2009 -469 EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NO. 26 26. And the last but not least is the Petition RZPL- 2009 -469, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District No. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vighotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Two abstentions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed, so that's 6 -0 with two abstentions. Okay, thank you. That gets us through the consent agenda about as easily as you can possibly get through it. Item #9A PETITION: CPSP- 2009 -3, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (CIE) OF COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The next and only item up for today's regular advertised public hearing is Petition CPSP - 2009 -3. It's the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. And in regards to that single item, we were provided with an e -mail last night with corrections to several pages. And those pages have been handed out in yellow to every planning commissioner this monung, in case you didn't print them out last night. I think there's nine pages or eight pages there. And Corby, we'll turn it over to you. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning Department. And yes, if you printed them out at home, there are nine individual pages. If you look at your colored hand -out pages that 1 provided earlier, there's six pages, some of them simply double sided. These page change -outs coincide with two rather minor and simple changes to the five -year schedule of improvements and to the second schedule of capital improvements. The first two, the brighter yellow page changes that you have, and I believe it's in the first five -year scheduled capital improvements, Pages 20 and 21, CIE 20 and 21, Page 20 being solid waste disposal facility projects and 21 being wastewater. The first of those two, the change was simply to bring a project which had previously appeared in the second five years into the first five. And you'll see on the end page, the colored sheet, you have a project in 2010 and in 2013, just as they appear in the AUIR. The mistake was made when looking at the AUIR where one of the projects was kept in the first five years, Page 3 16 A nuary 21? 2010 and the second project was showing your second five -year schedule. And that's what was provided to you previously. On CIE Page 21, that schedule page for wastewater treatment, there's a rather wholesale change there, including the amounts, figures and scheduling. But again, this appears as it does in the AUIR and previously, it simply did not. And because those two pages are changed and modified, that affects your summary pages. So all four of your summary pages are changed and just simply reflect those earlier changes. In the second five -year schedule, there's again two pages to swap out. One of them for solid waste and the other for wastewater. Again, coinciding with moving a project from the out years into the current five -year schedule. And that's reflected in the first. And in the second amount of changes for wastewater treatment facilities coinciding with the changes and figures from the earlier schedule. And then again, you have just one summary page there that have the coinciding changes reflected. Whether you choose to actually swap those pages in or out physically at this moment, fine. Either way, we'll just follow along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, for my own part and maybe some of the other commissioners, having received that kind of information as late as we did, I had already made my notes and questions on the original sheet, so I will be working off of those. And where it's already been corrected, if you remind me, that would be helpful. It's going to be hard to go back and forth. I would hope that -- and this seems to happen often. I was hoping that next time we can try to avoid it again. But we've asked that before and it's not happened, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, do you want to make any formal presentation other than that, or do you want us to go straight into our questions? What's the easiest for -- MR. SCHMIDT: A few short comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly we come to you every year with updates and amendment recommendations to the Capital Improvement Element for the county. The five -year schedule that you have in front of you now indicates another downward trend in population, reflected through some of the information I've provided for traffic counts and school enrollment. In your summary pages, some of those school enrollment figures have been amended since those was written, so I'd like to quickly go over those. I believe it's on Page 3 of your summary. We talked about indicators, and there's a few bulleted points there, beginning with October, 2005. October 28 and October 29. In those figures, between 2000 and 2005, it should read, the school district grew by more than 9,100 students at a growth rate of three to five percent. That's a larger increase over a longer period of time -- or shorter period of time, I'm sorry. In the past four years, not three, the district has experienced a decline in enrollment as economic forces have changed. We've used the membership reports from 2005 to 2009 to illustrate those downward trends. But what we actually see is a flatter rate of growth. And that sentence really should read a flatter growth rate in the recent years, ranging from 1.18 percent in 2006 to a modest gain of just .43 percent in 2009. So not that we've seen a downward trend, but a flattening of that growth. The figures then in that third bullet point are simply adjusted to reflect that flatter growth rate, instead of a decline. hi October, 2009, counts report a total of42,882 students; 20,486 children enrolled in elementary schools, with 8,977 in middle schools and 12,594 in high schools. And in the closing paragraph for school enrollment figures, simply pointing out that overall decline has resulted in 414 fewer students since 2005. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby, could youjust give me two numbers again? First the total of 42,000 what? Page 9 Janu r 2010 MR. SCHMIDT: 882. COMMISSIONER CARON: 882. And the number of elementary? MR. SCHMIDT: 20,486. COMMISSIONER CARON: 86, thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: You're welcome. All right, then to quickly introduce what we're about to hear, you have in front of you a Capital Improvement Element, schedule of capital improvements for the first five years, fiscal years 2010 through'14. And at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners the transportation division prepared alternatives. Instead ofjust one proposal, there are three for county roads. And there are two alternatives proposed for stonnwater management systems. For roads, the alternatives reflect an anticipated 11 percent ad valorem reduction in the coming fiscal years, or a 15 percent reduction of ad valorem general funding, or a 20 percent reduction. Those changes reflected in three different transportation pages in your schedule and part of the combination of summary pages that's part of your packet. For stormwater, the two alternatives reflect an anticipated 1 I percent reduction for one of the two alternatives. And then the other, a millage rate reduction from .15 percent to .10, plus the 1 1 percent reduction. So it's a greater reduction for the second. Those two alternatives are also reflected in your pages with two alternatives for stonnwater and also part of the mix, the combination that appears in your summary pages. With that then 1 can pass this on to Mr. Feder, who can address those transportation and stonnwater figures more specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we do that, let us approach the -- let us approach this document as we have all others. So we'll work our way to Mr. Feder. And normally we take it page at a time with questions asked. And there may be some generalities that would help us better understand transportation if we got through that process first. Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to ask -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a couple of questions on the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going to start. So why don't we start then and -- well, let's move to Page 1. Every page has a lot of intense writing in it and we may have questions on those. Anybody got any questions on Page 1 ? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, 1 think we're seeing a new term which is the backlog authority, and I'm not sure -- I know what that is, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Casalanguida. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. A transportation coneurrency backlog authority is an authority that would be set up if you could not meet the level of service. The state could mandate you to go back in an area that doesn't meet the level of service and set up almost a taxing unit, similar to an MSTU, to fund that backlog. And that's what a backlog authority essentially does. It's a forced taxing unit to take care of a backlog if you don't take care of it on your own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in line with that question, does the backlog authority force those people that will be taxed for it to meet the intentions of some county staff devised long -range plan, or does it meet the practical road's on- the - ground applications? And where (sic) I mean in this, I could see it now if we went to a backlog authority but you have on there the destruction of homes in Golden Gate Estates to put in your six -lane roads, does that mean the people in Golden Gate Estates would be taxed to take down their homes to put in the roads that you believe we need that we don't? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you need to take those roads off the books, Nick. Go ahead, Brad. Page 10 16� 1A 5 January 21, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was exactly my question. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A backlog authority, if you don't meet the level of service the state would send you notice. They could say per the Florida Statute you have to form a way to fix that. They give you a certain amount of time to fix that. And one avenue would be for the county to fund a backlog. It's not a requirement to fund that backlog authority or to establish it, it's just one avenue that you have to use. And it would go through the board to be reviewed or you could provide the state a long -term fix for it as well too. So there are solutions. It's not something that's imminent or forthcoming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Give me another example of some other way it could be handled. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Increase in ad valorem millage. You know, you could generally tax all the population instead of forming a backlog authority for a certain area. COMMISSIONER CARON: But regardless, the only way to handle it is -- has to do with adding taxes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could be. Tolls, franchise fee. You'd have to find a way, a funding source to come up with the money to pay for that backlog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me understand this. The staff could come up with a solution to what they believe is the only solution to traffic in an area. And that solution could be one that the area absolutely does not want. But if we go to a backlog authority, because staff put that road system on the books as the solution, the backlog authority's only choice is to go to that scenario, the one that really -- and I -- the worst case scenario to me is the one that's going on in Golden Gate Estates. You know, I don't understand why we'd be forced into that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't be forced on (sic) it. The state would be required to fix that failure. You know, according to, you know, Florida Statute you'd have to come up with a solution to fix that. It wouldn't necessarily be a backlog authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if the backlog authority kicks in, what plan for solution do they have to follow? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. They'd have to fix the problem. If there was a failing road segment, either an alternative roadway or expand the existing roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the alternative roadways that you show through Golden Gate Estates right now is pretty horrendous. And is that what they would have to fall to, or could they go to a more practical solution like approving less to the east so we don't have the need for these roads or looking at expanding road systems that were always supposed to be expanded instead of creating new ones? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that would be a discussion in front of the board to review all those options. It wouldn't be, you know, a staff --staff would have a recommendation whether to follow the long -range transportation plan or an alternative solution, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said it would be a discussion in front of the board, but you said the board wouldn't have the ability to do this because it would now be a -- there would be a backlog authority. So would the discussion be in front of the board or the backlog authority? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, the backlog authority is an authority that's set up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the county commission, sent up to DCA, reviewed by the state. It's a taxing unit is what it is. The board would make that decision if that was the solution that we would go forward with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I know you've been patient. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Yeah, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I think the key point to be made is the plan that you're referring to first of all goes through the MPO process, of which all five commissioners are on that MPO. Then it doesn't go into our Capital Improvement Element unless approved by the board and having gone through a number of committees, including this committee. So you have projects on there that we have established to meet our established level of service, which are D and E, fairly low levels of service. All those projects have been defined previously. What is being reviewed is that we've met our concurrency. And as you've seen in our AUIR, which we've discussed previously, we've gone in a section and other approaches to not find ourselves in a deficiency that can't be addressed. One to avoid long -term concurrency, and two, not to end up in a backlog authority. This discussion is hopefully moot, because we don't plan on getting there. But it is appropriate to review all Page 11 Ja r 1, 2010 of the issues and how they transpire. If we don't meet our concurrency needs, we could be forced into long -term concurrency which means you don't have to address it today, but say somehow you'll do it in the future, which doesn't get it done. Or if that goes for a while and is not successful in getting it done, there is an ability for a requirement for you to tax yourself to get it done. But those projects are vetted, continue to be vetted, they're in a plan based on a very extensive vetting process, and you'll have more than enough opportunity -- we've got another plan coming forward to identify those projects and whether or not you feel they're appropriate for the community, and ultimately the board decides that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though the board's already decided on the corridors that are going to be bulldozed through Golden Gate Estates, the backlog authority, if it goes into effect, they could change their mind and say those are not necessary anymore? MR. FEDER: Well, first ofall, 1 don't know where I'm bulldozing, but what I will tell you is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you -- MR. FEDER: -- the board has approved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you'd like. MR. FEDER: I understand. You have a concern with a project. There is a process that has been through, was vetted over considerable time, considerable efforts and a decision of the board to keep that project in the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's three of them. Not just a project, there are three roads going through Golden Gate Estates and all three are taking out homes. So why don't we just stop talking about one, it's much broader than what you're suggesting. MR. FEDER: Okay. And what I will tell you is that that plan goes through a process. We're in plan update now through the MPO. It will come back through the board. It will have plenty of opportunities for further community involvement and vetting. The only thing that is set is a series of process. And to try and take that end result, which is the possibility of a backlog authority, and bring that today and apply it to a plan when we're meeting our plan, we've shown that to you in the AUIR, is probably not necessarily what we're here to discuss today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if this backlog authority would have to go into effect and it does tax the area in which the road corridors are needed, how does it decide what area is benefiting from the road corridors? For example, the three - quarters — MR. FEDER: Because you have a long -range plan and you have a Capital Improvement Element that you said you were going to do to meet your concurrency. Once you show that you're not meeting it, it would be established to fund the shortfall from meeting what is in your plan at that time for deficiency. But it wouldn't necessarily be in there to meet your 2030 plan in 2015. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only -- the cost for these corridors is about a billion dollars. And right now the entire -- all the taxpayers in Collier County are paying for it. I can't imagine that burden being put on the residents of Golden Gate Estates, especially when it's not for us. So that was the reason for my question. MR. FEDER: I fully understand your position and your concern. And it's been consistent throughout the process, I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't get an opportunity to challenge you on it too much, though. MR. FEDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 2 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- anybody -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Corby, in -- under the heading staff analysis, in paragraph three, you need to explain to me why the decreases in population, why these decreases may also be interpreted to mean that it will take 22 to 34 percent more time to reach the populations. MR. SCH fDT: It's another way of looking at the figures. For instance, if a target date is 2030 and we know that there'll be another 50,000 people here at that time, with old projections, and that rate of growth goes down, that decrease means more than one tlmig. It means that there will be fewer than 50,000 people here on that date, as a Page 12 1611 A5 Janua 21, 2010 projection, or that number, or that number of people, those additional 50,000 people, are actually taking longer to be citizens, to be part of the count. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but where's the correlation that if the population drops 22 percent it's going to take 22 percent more time to make it up? MR. SCITMIDT: It's not a one -to -one correlation, it's a loose correlation, just to use as a thought. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because that -- I have some serious questions about using that as a real figure. I mean, I'm not sure what the basis for it is, other than if you want to have something, let's throw that number out there. "That's why I was trying to understand the basis for it. MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. And we've I believe used it in some of our comprehensive plan amendment proposal recommendations as well, with simply having an expectation of a certain population being there to create demand for a commercial -- new commercial development, for instance. And we expect those populations to be in those locations soon. They won't be there that soon any longer as those rates decrease. Exactly how much longer we will take to reach those numbers, we don't know. But loosely, it's about we can just make that relationship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a question about a sentence in the third paragraph from the bottom. It said, however, staff is concerned that when the economy rebounds the vacant residential units are occupied, there will be an instantaneous demand. It will be obviously a demand based on how fast the sales of these empty units comeback. But aren't we already built to the standards or to the levels of service to accept that demand that's already there? I mean, not that's already there, but occupied? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe so, yes_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The way it was written, it appeared like it was something of a concern when in actuality the reason we don't have more capital improvements needed right now is because they're already built ahead enough for items that we aren't utilizing to their full extent right now. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. I think it's written more not to put out a concern but to highlight an opportunity that we can react quickly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, let me add to that quickly for the record. I know coming from my background on roads, that's not necessarily true. You don't necessarily have the capacity to be able to have all those units that are vacant right now come on -line. And one of the problems is determining what that vacancy rate is. It's hard to do through electric hookups, through HOA's. In some instances it's as high as 50 percent. I know in some of the Estates roads we've traveled, they're 50 percent. So when those roads come back on -- those units come back on -line, you may not have the capacity and facilities in terms of roads to handle that vacancy rate that you right now think you have the capacity for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why were they approved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of those are considered the backlog that we just discussed. Some of those units were already on the books before we started this program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Soto the --and I know some projects that had predicted sales of seven or eight or 900 units per year, and you had to keep that on the books. But in actuality those predictions are probably dropped down to a tenth of what they were. And based on -- I don't know if you've read the most recent economic forecast by the University of South Florida -- University of Florida, but they're predicting the slowdown is to gradually come up but it's going to be very gradual. So we could have a long, long time before we get to that point where we're saturated with everything that's been built or planned in the way it was before. I'm just -- I know that you had planned so far ahead based on what was on the books. You may not have gotten 100 percent completed, but you got significantly completed in your road systems. There's been huge improvements in our road systems across the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say in certain areas that's true, and I would say in other areas that's not true. So it's not -- by location, that's a true statement. By certain other areas that's not going to happen. When those units come back on -line, you're going to see a -- you're going to see congestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, is that what you were going to -- he's taken your thunder? Page 13 January 21, 2010 MR. FEDER: No, but 1 think he's appropriately handled it. The key issue is that what we do in transportation concutrency and setting up the real -time is we're looking at what is the actual traffic count on each roadway segment today. We also factor in what we call vested trips; things have been approved but haven't yet occurred but they're soon to occur over time. So they sort of get dropped off the books, because those -- that absorption rate is assumed in there. So when I do my background traffic, I don't want to double count it, I'm saying it's in my background traffic. But in reality, if it's a vacant unit then it isn't there. But you are correct, Mr. Chairman, that in fact we do and did have some ghost trips that we've been trying to deal with, get them off the books if they're not going to get built. So that's a counter - reading measure. But on the balance I think the statement generally is correct, I don't know if I'd say, instantaneous, generally instantaneous or quicker than development might have brought it on board. With those vacant units, if they come at any decent rate of growth, if it's nice and slow and steady, probably not an issue. And I think that's what the projections are. But it'sjust alerting the fact that those aren't considered right now in the process. They do have the county reading balance, as you noted, but on the balance there are more vacant units, although we don't have a great hit on exactly what, that could well come on the system that aren't accounted for in everything we're doing concurrency management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know nobody can for sure know what's going to go on in the future, but in reading that report it did really strongly suggest that we're going to have a much more progressive manner in which we build up again to our absorptions in this area. And it went county by county, basically. MR. FEDER: Smart growth would be nice, but I haven't seen it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that? MR. FEDER: Smart growth would be nice. I haven't seen it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yealn. But if it occurs and we do find that instead of selling 5,000 units a year county -wide we sell 1,500 or 2,000 and it's more maintained growth, with the monies that your department still spends every year with what amounts you do have out of ad valorem and other revenues, can you keep up with any level of -- what is your level of growth that you can keep up with? MR. FEDER: At the end of today's discussion you'll have a feel for that. We -- the last, with the capital program, and that may not be a true statement in another week. Our program has been cut significantly. We're being asked to make more cuts. Other than my impact fees, which have nosedived from 68 to 13 last year, and we projected about the same and running right now at about eight or nine, gas tax, which I'm having to pull over into maintenance, expanded maintenance requirements and operation, there's very little to our capital program. So that's why this note is important to know those things out there. Not to change the direction of where we're going from fiscal realities, but to be aware and hopefully not replicate the past where we decide a job done, things are level, they're slow, we don't need to do anything. We spent seven years disputing the theory that if we don't build it they won't come. And then [ paid a premium, the community paid a premium, to get at least some body parts out of that hole. And I agree with you, some parts are out of there, I'm not sure all of them are. And hopefully we'll weather this storm, keep a level program. I don't see 1 I active major projects at one time in our future. At least I hope I don't. If we do, then we dismally allowed it to go backwards on ourselves again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you thought of, and maybe you've done this, have you ever looked at this from a back door approach? Instead of saying here's what we can do next year, convert that to this is what we can do and this is the number of units it will take care of on a yearly basis, so that we know how we're getting into trouble based on the total sales and absorptions of either foreclosed units or new units throughout the county? Is there a way to -- have we looked at it that way? MR. FEDER: We are trying to look at some of that. And on a broader scale you can, but you have to go further out and do it broader. And ['11 tell you why. And Nick, and even in his new position working along with me, we're trying to do a mobility master plan; not just simply do a long -range transportation plan that as you pointed out identifies needs, then I take my revenues and decide they don't meet anyway near that price tag. So then I do a cost feasible, and then 1 walk away and the gap in there is left as, oh, well. And that's been the process. Page 14 16 I Jdary 2lfllfl We're trying to combine those two issues of what do I change in the inputs or what can I work with the inputs to do that. Here's the problem with not trying to do a big picture and further out is that, as Nick pointed out, my issues are segment by segment. My concurrency issues are by segment, they're not just area wide. So area wide I would tell you that we have pretty much pulled out of that big hole that was developed in the Nineties segment by segment. We have not necessarily done that in areas. And do I have a little bit of extra capacity, especially vacancy rates down in some areas? Because you don't build it for today's need, you build it for out. It does tend to fill up, though, the minute you do it, because you can't put the whole system in at one time. And so whatever you put in gets utilized pretty quickly. But in answer to your question, we're trying to look at that in a mobility master plan, but it has to be looked at in a broader picture a little further out segment by segment. It's pretty difficult to do that, although we do that with our concurrency management. But there are variables that we have difficulty factoring in, like vacancy rates and other issues which generate this whole discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you do that — if you were to do it, wouldn't you be able to break it down through your TAZ areas, or not? MR. FEDER: Probably not on TAZs. It's really segment by segment. Because the TA7, is assuming general trips in an area. And I've got areas where one would think I can do it, you can get from the node to a place, but then I've got canals and other things that don't allow connection and other issues of the sort. So I really need to do it by segment by segment. But your point's still well taken. And I think that's things that we're trying to get to, but I don't want to mislead you, so I'm trying to give you some of the I guess conditions on it or the assumptions that I have to make and put into it so that nobody assumes that I can do exactly what you're saying, although that would be ideal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you were to start working it towards what's permittable on a total basis and then when each project were to come in and that project actually had an impact that was positive on the vehicle miles traveled and you could show thus it would have an increase in what would be permittable -- MR. FEDER: And in our processes, one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --based on projects present, it may help us better understand why something is or is not needed in an area. MR. FEDER: And in our processes, one by one as we go through things, I think we do some of that. But you're right, unless we get into a rate of growth and a consumptive use permit and tertiary effects is basically what you're talking about. But I think there's movements towards that, there's some hinitations, but there's some real opportunities there, especially now that I'm not so far backlogged that it becomes moot to even discuss the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Questions on up to Page 3 then. Anybody have anything up to Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question, Corby. It's on the second paragraph on the bottom on Page 3, and it's talking about interdepartmental transfers. These transactions represent changes to land inventory in the corresponding value of land holdings. And obviously the one that comes to mind occasionally are the ones that the park departments do with transportation. And I notice in our AUIR that transportation correctly so showed a reduction in their costs per unit. And that cost per unit in the AUIR was based on road cost, construction cost and right -of -way. But yet I had a concern with Parks and Rec. during the discussion, because they would not lower their cost per unit. Their cost per acre was what it was in the high side of the best peak of season, when we know that land has been devalued substantially. So when these inter - department transfers go back and forth, does the transfer happen at the rate that parks is using or at the rate that the transportation department actually knows it to be out there if they were to buy that land? And if it -- and that's going to depend. And then how does your book reflect that in the AUIR in gain or loss of value between the departments? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I'll let someone involved in those transactions answer that question. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'll have Mr. Feder -- I don't think there are any interdepartmental transfers with transportation for parks land right now. Page 15 January 21, 2010 MR. FEDER: Yeah, we do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're using Randall Curve as one of them. And I -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a potential, but that has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --around a regional park. MR. WILLIAMS: Just to answer, I know this has been an ongoing issue. Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director. I know the transactions you're talking are in the out years. I don't know that that changes your point of view. I think that -- and throughout the process with AUIR you've been very clear that our unit cost that we associate with the transactions seems inflated, seems not real. I'm sorry that we don't have Amy Patterson here today to talk about that and where we have arrived at that. I know that part of what we've tried to communicate, though, is that that unit cost, it is a placeholder. It doesn't reflect the market cost, the amount of money that we would pay for an acre, per se. And what our level of service is depended on is acres per 1,000 people. I don't know, though, to answer your question about how it reflects in the CIE and with Corby, you know, those differences in the cost associated with transportation's reflecting a more accurate market cost than ours, you know, reflecting this other how that affects that, so I'm not sure I can answer that question, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there is a sig -- there could be a significant change in value between the two departments. And I'm wondering what happens to it, who takes the laws, where does it go, how does the hit come down. And I -- with that statement in this staff report, it made me wonder how you would do it, so -- unfortunately some of this stuff gets read. I don't know how to -- I know you don't have an answer. If you -- and Norm or Corby, if you guys figure that out and could let me know, just e -mail me a response. I'm just curious how your departments handle those inter - transfers valuation -wise. MR. FEDER: I'll go to Barry to see which ones are being considered and we'll try to get the answer to your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And wasn't Randall Curve already done? MR. FEDER: I'm going to defer to Barry. Randall Curve is part of the old I believe it's Avatar Holdings. That curve area was being looked at and established and allowed for government use, including possibly transportation and the school board for bus bond. Because Parks and Rec wanted to take the old bus barn on Oil Well and wanted to get some of the utilities property below the future plant out in that area. The idea being that we would then put a -- although it's not in any of my plans and I don't have it funded, a maintenance facility on a portion of that Randall Curve, that the school board would take a portion of it and relinquish their 20 acres on Oil Well. And to my knowledge none of that has quite been worked out with the school board. And on our end we don't have the money to buy the land at this time, so I'm not sure where that one stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had -- part of that Oil Well transaction, though, I thought was for a drainage facility for the Oil Well expansion. The parks or school board had some swap going on where they were going to have a maintenance facility along Oil Well, and now it's being suggested as a change of use in Golden Gate Estates off of DeSoto on an Avatar piece that was put up. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and just to reiterate, and Norm is saying something, in what we presented in this cycle of the AUIR, that had been consistently the plan where we were talking about this, this land swap. The 47 acres related to Randall curve, you know, we were looking for land on the other side of Immokalee Road. It was better suited for a park, and so we didn't want that Randall Curve land. And so what Norm is talking about, we know when we present the next AUIR that that whole transaction, that's going to be re- characterized. We're hearing that that Randall Curve, that land swap, that there's some question about that now. So that's going to change when you see the AUIR in the next year, the next cycle, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have any concerns about this, blame Corby, he put it in there as an example, so -- MR. WII.LIAMS: We usually do blame Corby, if we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else up to Page 39 If not, we'll go on to Page 4. Page 16 A5 . January 21, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one on the hibernated facilities of water. Or actually it's water treatment facilities. It says they're 100 percent designed and can be reactivated, permitted and constructed in four to five years. Then it says, the hibernated wastewater reclamation facilities are 100 percent designed in the same terms. I do enough active work in the I guess construction development field to know that there isn't a single plan I draw this month that's going to be any good six months from now because the codes will change. If it isn't building codes it's fire codes, if it isn't fire codes it's the science or the safety. And example, right now in the codes in countries like Haiti that built to hurricane standards will certainly change to be building to earthquake standards. So how do we know that this 100 percent design is going to be that ready when four or five years down the road we probably won't be operating under the same science or codes that we're operating under today? MR. SCHMIDT: These entries are entered into the staff report at the request of those departments, so I'll let them answer. MR. BEALS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nathan Beals, Public Utilities, Planning and Project Management. When it comes to the northeast water treatment plant and water reclamation facilities, those are 100 percent designed currently, as noted. And they are in hibernation ready and we are current -- we will be continuing to review the plans to make sure they're concurrent with then codes each year to keep them consistent until the time is needed in the northeast area when the plants -- to build them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your design contracts for these plants, were they done in such a manner that the design is kept up to date, or we pay extra as we keep them alive each year? MR. BEALS: I believe there's a small consulting fee annually to maintain those plans, yes_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Commissioners. Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. Yes, indeed, we are reviewing those plans on a yearly basis. And yes, we do have some money set aside in order to keep those plans as fresh as possible. We realize of course that the longer this goes, the more the regulations will change, the more the technology will change and the more money will be required in order to bring those up to date. But there is no way for us to avoid that. And for us to be able to react quickly, we need to make sure that those plans are kept as fresh, as greenfield, as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was the purpose of my question. Because it didn't say that in this document and I was trying to make sure that we had it covered. So thank you, appreciate it, Phil. Okay, signature page. We shouldn't have anything on that. We've got to move into the appendix. Staff support, Appendix A. Page 1. Are there any questions on Page 1? This is the one starting with the road projects. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, second paragraph from the bottom you talk about the different scenarios. And alternative number two would require a certain reduction in the gas tax. What do you mean by that? MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Mr. Feder address that. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. We were asked to come up with some options, as you know, in presenting our AUIR to you, to the Productivity Committee and then back to the board. They wanted some options presented to them. Basically what that says is I don't have enough ad valorem that is non debt service structured. Once I get past 11 percent to just take the ad valorem totally out of capital, I then have to take the ad valorem out of my operating. And I'll go through all this in my presentation of the alternatives. But essentially then what I would do is take some gas tax out of my capital program to then fund those operatings (sic) at the same level so that my backlog of deferred maintenance doesn't get greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think since we have started on the appendix, and the first one up is the road projects, it would probably be a good time for you to go through your presentation on the various scenarios so we -- Page 17 January 21, 2010 that might avoid a series of questions that at least I know 1 have, so -- MR. FEDER: Be happy to do so, sir. I've got too many pieces of paper with changes and items here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FEDER: I'm sure you do as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. MR. FEDER: What I've put up on the overhead is hopefully something that we'll go through I'm sure page by page and item by item, which is fine. But I'm trying to give something that will help put it into perspective. When we're asked to look at alternatives, what we looked at is that while I have ad valorem, the bulk of it that I have in capital, and if you can read that hopefully on your prompters and hopefully the audience can see it there. In my capital program I do havejust over 18 and a half million dollars. But 14.6 ofthat is dedicated to repayment of debt service. So that leaves really about 3.9 that I have in ad valorem specifically in my capital program that is non -debt service relate. And if you'll afford me the opportunity, I'll digress just briefly. But that debt service was established when I came here in 2000. And we had declared a transportation emergency because we hadn't built anything in years and created a big backlog. We went out and tried to get a halfpenny of sales tax. Unfortunately at the time we neither had a list of projects, any track record of success nor necessarily a sun - setting or re- upping provision in it. And to say the least, it didn't do well. I think it's probably, from referendums, one that failed the most, miserably of any that I've seen. With that in trend, we then had to figure out, how are we going to address that backlog. Because while the board, who basically came on about the same time that I did, made a strong commitment, growth pays for growth, and that impact fees pay for future growth, and impact fees hadn't been updated for seven years, from 1993, I believe it is, to 2000. We couldn't increase the impact fees and use the growth -pays- for -growth until we showed that we had funded and had a plan to meet the backlog. So with the failure of the sales tax we went out and bonded the gas tax, which gave us about two - thirds of what we needed to meet the cost of the backlog. And that was in two increments, a little over 100 tnillion each. And then the rest of it was coming as ad valorem rather than general obligation pay as you go ad valorem proceeds back in the hey -day of increased assessed values and the ability to do that. The 14.6 you see here is totally the debt service payment. It does not include -- a portion of that 3.9 is actually that portion of the additional dollars beyond the payback of the dedication of gas tax for the bond repayment. Which it got reduced a couple of times, the last couple of years we reduced budget. Because it was close to 10 million. You probably saw figures in the past about 24 million. Well, it got reduced a little bit each year, three percent, seven percent and the like as we went down the budget on ad valorem. But also it got changed this year because rather than having that 10 million come to me, it also always included some of that turn-back of interest that came particularly from the clerk's office. So we were a major generator of that interest, because you commit a project day one, you don't pay it out over about two and a half years or plus. So that money moves from year to year, but you've encumbered all of it and you have to have it thereto payoff that contract. And we were in a very aggressive program. So all we got was the 10. That's what we needed to cover the backlog beyond the debt service. That got dwindled down a little bit, as I noted. And then this year, about three point something on it, 171 get you the exact figure, 1.9 and 1.7, so about 3.6., our interest coming back. And therefore our ad valorem, that 10 million, which came to about nine, down to about eight, was no longer provided to us because we're getting it back as part of interest, including impact fee interest, which I can't use as ad valorem. So in the past it was coming to the general fund. 1 was getting 10, then slight reductions beyond the debt service. Now with the interest coming back, most of that being impact fee interest; I'm down to about 3.9 that is coming beyond the debt service. So that's what this is showing you. So the answer to your question that you had a nunute ago is as you look at this, if you look at a reduction -- and that's the key point in what I'm presenting in the three concepts in roads today. I'm not presenting a concept of 11, 15 or 20 simply on my capital program ad valorem, but on overall division ad valorem. So if you look at it beyond the capital program, I've got 7.9 in general fund, and I've got a total of about 20.3 Page IS 61 1A wary 211,, 2010 in 111, or the unincorporated general fund 111. And the total that I get in ad valorem for all of my operations is 32 million a year. That is for capital and for all of our operation activities. And so what we did in the 11, 15 and 20 percent alternate options that the board asked us to bring back is we looked at that reduction against that total number of 32 million plus that I get in total ad valorem, whether it be the general fund or the unincorporated general fund. And as is pointed out in the prior comment, at 11 percent if I've gotten capital of 3.9 and 11 percent reduction of that total comes out to be 3.5, I can handle that out of my capital as a straight ad valorem reduction. Once I get past 11 percent, I guess 12 and a half, I haven't done the exact math. But if I go to 15, that's where the demand is for 4.8 million to be reduced. I can take 3.9 of that out of the capital, but then I have to go into my operations and maintenance to get the balance. And what I'm saying to the question that was posed is I then am going to take gas tax out of my capital to replenish my operating and maintenance so it's not reduced. And I'll go into that in a second. If I go to 20, obviously the same situation. I've only got 3.9 in my capital ad valorem. So 1 need to then recoup the rest of that 6.4 in gas taxes out of my capital to replace it from where I take it out of my operation and maintenance ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what you're -- now that you've explained that paragraph, you're not really reducing the gas taxes, you're reducing the way they're used in a certain element. MR. FEDER: I'm reducing them to my capital program, because of course it's the Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: So what I'm trying to show you is in these scenarios I'm dealing not only with what is typically in the Capital Improvement Element, which is our capital projects and budgeting, but also in my overall budget in a time of shortage of ad valorem revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the general fund 001, that's where you dump the gas tax revenue. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said earlier that you bonded a percentage of the tax --gas tax revenue. Does general fund 001 represent all the gas tax revenue or is that just gas tax and other revenues? MR. FEDER: It's gas tax and ad valorem that comes in as my total in 313. It includes 001 and gas tax. So when I show you a gas tax in 313 in my budget, it has ad valorem, as you see about 3.9, as well as 14.6 of debt service, as well as gas tax proceeds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you bonded 100 percent of the gas tax revenues? MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the gas tax revenues have been reduced. Even by your own numbers we're losing gas tax revenues. But I've assumed that when you bonded that you locked the bonds in at an interest rate that equaled the gas tax revenues at the 100 percent level that you were taking them at. MR. FEDER: Yes. And I also pledged the backup of ad valorem, and that's why I'm talking about the ad valorem here. And the 14.6 is ad valorem that is helping pay back that debt service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much of the negative and the gas tax debt service is reimbursed by the ad valorem? MR. FEDER: The ad valorem that we're getting, the 14.61 mentioned for debt service, is covering the full debt service. Because what we did is level that out, we took the bonds. So the money I'm getting in ad valorem is covering that. That leaves me the gas tax revenues to then be able to do my program. And as we discussed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm mixed up again. MR. FEDER: -- and I got Xeroxed, I apologize, it does show a lien to the side here, which is probably appropriate with all the graph. But it got moved on the page some. But basically if you remember this when we were talking, that red was my impact fee revenue stream. Used to be my highest revenue stream. As of last year it was 13 million on my lowest revenue source. You see the gas taxes in the lower end here, in the blue, and as you point out, it's going down a little bit. You see the ad valorem in the green, and that's going to soon change appreciably from our discussions. But that includes in that number the assumption of the debt service and the interest revenue. Because in the past it didn't Page 19 January 21, 2010 ~ come to us in that way, it came always just in ad valorem to the division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you carry the liabilities for the impact fees that have been paid but not yet utilized by the certificates of-- COAs? You have a 50 percent deposit, more or less, put at the time of development order issuance. MR. FEDER: They're out there in asphalt today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're out there --so we've already --we've already pledged the remaining impact fees that will come in at the time of building permit issuance, even though we don't know when that is? MR. FEDER: No, we have not pledged them. We only utilize them as we receive them. Transportation has done no borrowing against its impact fee revenue. So the 50 percent that's provided up- front, which is not reimbursable, that has already been used in projects. Obviously 1 carry a little hit of money in impact fee forward, but generally speaking, the answer to your question is, as the impact fee revenues are generated and received, projects have consumed that funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the -- if you have 100 percent of an impact fee due -- required for an improvement in order to meet the level of service, you get 50 percent of it in and you go out and complete the road because you got the 50 percent you needed as a deposit. Then how is that other 50 percent when it does come in at building permit issuance applied if the road's already built? MR. FEDER: I wish it would apply. Right now we're not getting the second 50 percent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 know -- MR. FEDER: -- and that's why that impact tee stream, when I was getting the 50 percent, when it was going up there, it was utilized in improvements, there was an assumption that the other 50 percent would be coming. Therefore, the ability to have a more aggressive capital improvement program, which you have seen has gone down in the last two or three years and as you're going to see today is pretty much beyond this year one project in the five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if you've already built the road with the 50 percent, you got the other 50 percent coming say three years from now when they finally come in for a building permit. MR. FEDER: If that happens -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The road's built, where does that money go? How is -- MR. FEDER: Well, first ofall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it used at that point'? MR. FEDER: -- we're waiting for that to happen. As you know, we went to the board. The industry itself worked with us very strong on that issue of 50 percent. And that's how we were able to make a lot of the progress we did. What -- the industry now is suffering some hard times and what we did is try to respond to that. We've now made it the other 50 percent can be paid 10 percent a year over five years. Even with that, a lot of the development just isn't moving and a lot of those monies aren't coming in. When and if they come in, they'll be part of our revenue stream and we'll be able to respond to projects that we've taken off of our capital improvement program in lieu of them being available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bond out the additional 50 percent you didn't get? MR. FEDER: No, we did not. We did no bonding of our impact fees. Transportation only bonded its gas tax. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the ad valorem revenues that are needed to carry us when the impact fee revenue has been down, is that considered a loan to your department, paid back possibly by these revenues that come in from these -- MR. FEDER: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- out of the impact fees that should have been paid? MR. FEDER: No, it is not. Again, we did not bond on our impact fees, which is a lot of what the loans are, coming from ad valorem to cover the debt services not being met today specifically. And that's why I went through the explanation of that debt service, we had a situation where we had a huge backlog, somewhat created because we hadn't increased our impact fees from'93 to 2000. Many other issues. But nonetheless, a huge backlog. To then go at that consistent with growth pays for growth, we had to show that that backlog was funded and Page 20 16! January 21, 2010 is being funded before we could then bring the impact fees up to the point of where we could charge growth pays for growth, which of course changes over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, and this is a five -year window we're looking at in the CIE. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If within the five years I expect that we are going to see some turnaround in those other 50 percent impact fees that are out there. We're going to see some of that start to come back in. If that was seen as a -- when it comes in as a pay -back to a loan from the ad valorem to cover it while that was out -- MR. FEDER: Again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be a different situation than if we didn't look at it. MR. FEDER: Again, you need to understand, the only ad valorem that I'm getting that's addressing debt service is for gas tax for what was a developed backlog. I cannot use impact fees to pay back that loan or else I never covered the backlog and I used people's impact fee to cover the backlog, and I can't do that legally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the backlog that has been created -- and I'm sorry if 1 -- the rest of you guys. If the backlog that was created was created because you didn't have all the impact fees you needed to to put the program in that the impact fees were justifiably could have been spent for, for example, if you got 100 percent of the impact fee instead of 50 percent, you could have spent the whole 100 percent for that item. MR. FEDER: I can't go retroactively back. The fact that you can set an impact fee not greater than what it actually costs you, but areas do set it, unlike our area since 2000 has set it at what it cost them. You can set the -- the board could set it at half of what the cost was. They can't then go back later and say that was a bad decision so I'm going to double it now and therefore cover what I didn't cover during that time because I only got half the impact fees I should have. Because then you're having impact fees for new growth that comes in and pays it, paying for a backlog for prior decisions. You cannot do that. Legally the law restricts it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you could not bond -- you did not bond impact fees. MR. FEDER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you bond impact fees if you had wanted to in the past? MR. FEDER: Yeah, as a matter of fact, I could have taken out a $10 million general loan that didn't go against any of my funds, but we decided not to do that, based on what you see right in front of you here that says my income stream probably couldn't pay it back. So we tried to be very fiscally responsible in the transportation budget. MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is you could not have bonded just based on impact fees alone, there would have had to have been an ad valorem guarantee to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where -- MR. FEDER: You couldn't bond for the backlog. Could you bond impact fees is what I was answering -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: -- for new capacity construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: Yes, you could. We have not and we are not because right now that 13 million is tracking about eight or nine million, based on the first quarter this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at the ad valorem money that you use for new construction now that would normally have been paid out of impact fees as a loan against those future impact fees or like a bond that -- MR. FEDER: Again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the impact fees come back and reimburse the general fund which helps keep our taxes down in the long run? MR. C'ASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, let me add a couple things that -- in the equation. Because the impact fee is a complicated item. You get credits in your impact fee calculation for gas tax and ad valorem. When you start making some decisions or discussions or recommendations you're making, that affects the impact fee rate. So when you start saying you're going to get no ad valorem support towards the road for the backlog, growth pays for growth, going forward your impact fee would go even higher when you start pulling ad valorem support out of the impact fee calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm saying not to pull it out, maintain it at the level we have, and if that's been an acceptable level or close to that based on the times. But any additional that has to be put in to cover what would Page 21 +tN �� q anuary 2 , 2010 have normally been above and beyond for impact fee, based on impact fee revenue being slacked off right now, use that as a bond on a loan against the future impact fees so that when they do come in we get it back into the general fund and we can keep our taxes down. MR. FEDER: Again -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would affect the rate, sir. That would affect the rate, if you start doing it that way. It would -- MR. FEDER: It would, one, affect the rate. And two, if it's used on anything that was backlogged as opposed to new growth, I can't do that legally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who sets -- you said it would affect the rate. Who in the county deals with that rate the most? Is it Amy? MR. FEDER: Our methodology, Amy. But what I can tell you is what Nick just said is the case, you're required in an impact fee to give a credit against other taxes that that new development will pay. So if you've got a gas tax, which we do, I have to give a credit for that. If I use ad valorem to construct projects, I have to give a credit for that. And it's a credit based on what they would pay over time. So your impact fee goes down. When I was asked, how do I get my impact fee to go down, I said pass a halfpenny sales tax. Because you've got Hillsborough standing up there saying gee, we have low impact fees. Why? They have the halfpenny sales tax, they have to lower their impact fees, because it's a huge credit. MR. CASALANGUMA: Commissioner, to add to that, your impact fee is generalized throughout the county from the urban folks who drive a certain distance to the rural folks who drive twice as far. When we did the impact fee study, we did bring that up to the commissioners that said folks east of 951 drive twice as far, therefore they should be paying more in an impact fee, or that should raise the overall impact fee in general. And one of the commissioners' discussion was they want to have an average impact fee. So you're partly subsidizing that need to build roads through the ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that, Nick. Somehow the difference or the incremental piece that I'm trying to sort to pull out of this mess isn't being made clear, and I may need to do more research before I can discuss it further with you. Because what you're saying -- I understand what you're saying. I don't think it's hitting the point I'm trying to ask. And maybe I'm not clear enough, because I don't understand the question. MR. FEDER: I would say if you want to try and ask the question again, because I'm trying to understand it. Otherwise, I assure you, Chairman, I'd be happy to sit down with you and make sure at one point or another both of us do get to understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've been very forthright in all of our discussions, so I'll make a point to get with you. I can -- MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- belabor this thing for hours and it probably won't get any clearer than it is right now, so -- MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, I apologize on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, did you -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, 1 understand your point. I mean, we do tIrs with other impact fees where from -- you call it bonding, but what we're really doing is an internal accounting mechanism where we're sort of internally loaning impact fees that aren't coming in against ad valorems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and see -- MR KLATZKOW: And that's what you're getting at. You're not getting at going out there for true bonding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. FEDER: No, but understand the point of the matter is, that is done in other areas where they bonded their impact fee, their future stream -- or committed. I won't say bonded. MR. KLATZKOW: Committed. MR. FEDER: Committed their future impact stream to do some projects. We did not do that. And that's the point I'm trying to make, that therefore I'm not paying back with ad valorem any impact fee activity. Now. I know you're looking at do I have a way to say when I didn't collect full impact fees or is there a way to try to take some of that against future impact fee revenue? And I'm telling you right now, we have such low impact Page 22 16 9' January 21, 2010 fee revenue, so volatile, that we're playing very conservative on that. We didn't take the 10 million in commercial paper loan because we didn't know how we'd pay that back. And hopefully in subsequence, and that's why we do this every year, obviously what we did in 11, we just flattened that out of cost. Am I hoping -- in general we did. You got some minor modifications. Am I hoping that there will be a recovery soon? But as we discussed, I thought that maybe a year or two ago. Now I'm wondering if it's a year or two out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, did you finish with what you wanted to kind of get into with us so we can --we should ask our questions. How do you want to approach the rest of-- MR. FEDER: The only thing I'll tell you is go to your questions. The different proposals and what projects moves and issues, basically come off this. But what I need you to understand is the 11, 15 and 20 are coming off of the total ad valorem, whether it's general fund or unincorporated, to the division. And to the question you had as explanations where I have to -- after about 12 percent where I have to say that I don't have enough ad valorem, unless it's debt service, to take it out of capital, I am then taking out of my operation maintenance, taking gas taxes that were in capital, moving it to operations and maintenance. And the other thing I wanted to add is I know I brought to this board for three successive AUIRs to the County Commissioners the sort of sounding the alarm that we built all that, we've got to maintain it, we built it, we've got to maintain it. Oh, my God, now it's getting older, it has to be maintained today. I'm at that point on portions of what we built in this expansion system. So alls I'm saying is I've got to maintain operations of maintenance at least at the same level. And that's going to mean that I'm going to have an increasing backlog of deferred maintenance. But if 1 lower it, I'mjust going to extrapolate that to more deferred maintenance. So I'm saying I've got to try to hold that one solid, even at the expense of the capital program, not only ad valorem, but in this case gas tax, which would be required to make these purge reductions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, were going to have to take a break here soon, but I want to finish up Page 1 of appendix A. And I had a couple more questions. You talk about in the second to the bottom paragraph the expanded infrastructure for traffic operations and the advancing age of our bridges. Further budget cuts to operation and maintenance would not allow sufficient investment to safely maintain the capital inventory that currently exists, nor address the increased demand for maintenance. I have two questions about that. Do you have a list of the condition of all the bridges in the -- MR. FEDER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the county? Can you send that to me? MR. FEDER: Be happy to. And it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would you mind -- MR. FEDER: -- gets updated every two years and some projects annually. Actually, the state inspects all bridges, but I'd be happy to provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once I get that list, at some point would you mind if I contacted you about a couple particular bridges and went to look at them? I wanted to understand what you think is a serious maintenance defect so I understand how bad the bridges are. MR. FEDER: By all means. And I can show you some pictures that both of us probably don't want to see. But I'd be happy to do that, and we go through any bridge and you'd have the condition ratings. Again, the state does the process. We go out and inspect it ourselves to reaffirm in cases we question it, ask the state to come back and reevaluate. And then we do have a list. So it's not one that wejust wait for their list and take it carte blanche, but generally the inspection process state -wide is done by the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you also note the increased demand for maintenance. We've had across - the -board reduction in traffic on our roads because of the economy. You've acknowledged that in various documents that we've got in front of us. And we've also had new roads open up where old roads had been over -- let's say overstressed. That should prolong the maintenance time in some areas, because you're reducing traffic on the roads. How is that reflected percentage -wise in your operations and maintenance funding'? MR. FEDER: Okay, first of all, I have a graphic, but I won't make you see another graphic here. Looking at Page 23 ki January 21, 2010 both resources of employees and manpower, but also lane miles taken on, traffic ops, new signals and issues taken on. On the balance. While you do build a new road, and that's why, for about 10 years that I've been here -- not quite, but it feels like more -- that I've been here, in actuality we were benefited by a very aggressive construction program. Because while it's under construction, that contractor is responsible for the operations and maintenance of that corridor. And once they're finished with it, it's all brand new. Now, the traffic ops demand quite often adding a new signal and issues comes on right away, but it's also less of a maintenance issue initially. The paving and some of the other issues take a little longer because it's brand new. So paving, we did 400 lane miles. Of that, about 140 were reconditioning or restructuring of existing miles, and the other 160 was new miles added. So 140 riles I wasn't maintaining. But I added 160 onto the system over the 10 years that's starting to come forward. You've got some segments of Livingston (hat are now over that basic seven years, and that's not a reason to do it. We do pavement condition ratings and evaluate them on their actual pavement condition. But you look at it, and if you come driving down Livingston at about Pine Ridge, if you've seen what's happening at that intersection and in some of the other areas and also my pavement markers or rpm, deflectors or delineators and some of the striping, those issues are coming forward now. So what I'm trying to point out is we added considerably. "fake landscape. I got the advantage of being given last year 1.8 million to do three additional segments. They look beautiful. 1 did not get any maintenance dollars. And that's why I said, do not give me the capital, because I'm struggling on the maintenance I already have. So what I'm telling you is I've got to get the focus to maintenance and ops and commitment to the monies that we've expended in this county, and we need to maintain it. And I would like to build some more, but there's not going to be a lot of that coming unless the revenue stream Ijust showed you before changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think we had a rather lengthy discussion of that during the AUIR process -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- about it. Because it was stated somewhere that the roads are supposed to be repaved every eight years, or whatever — MR. FEDER: Not supposed to, it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and we asked at the time weren't there differences, because we're here in Florida and we don't have the same stresses as some national number. And Norm explained at the time that we are stretching those even beyond. I mean, we're more than doubled that to begin with, and we're stretching even beyond that. MR. FEDER: We are. And again, that is just a rule of thumb, just as an idea if you're trying to setup an asset management program. But we don't do anything other than go through our inventories of pavement condition, and we're not going to pave a road unless it needs to be paved, and none before its time. Sometimes after its time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does this paper in front of us represent all of the revenue stream coming into transportation? MR. FEDER: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you put the red light -- MR. FEDER: Other than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- payment on right turn on red? MR. FEDER: Well, actually, I don't get anything out of red light cameras. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right on red light cameras, I'm wondering where all that money goes, besides the people in Arizona. MR. FEDER: What I will tell you is most of it is paying for the cameras and the operation of that. You've got 62.50 is your initial ticket; 57 of that is going to the cameras, the equipment, the processing and all the issues. The balance is going into an account that the board is going to have to decide how to use. Our recommendation was ambulances and other issues related to the nature of the activity. But it wasn't a money generator. There's a little bit of money accumulated when it's at 125. The board wanted to make it clear that this was not a money issue but a safety issue. Page 24 1611A5 January 21, 2010 We can all debate it, right turn on red, gee, why are you doing it? Specifically I'm trying to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as the motorist. And beyond that, it's the law. So we can go into that one for a few hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we could — I could right write a book on everything going -- MR. FEDER: But it is not a money generator. And what is being generated is going into a fund which isn't growing rapidly because it's so little difference between the two costs, the expenses versus revenue. But eventually that will come, and I'm sure the public will get input and the board will make a decision how to use those funds. Hopefully on something productive here in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when we get back, let's start on Page 2 of the appendix, and we won't -- and I think roads will come back up when we get into the supplemental sheet, so we'll be back at 10 after 10:00. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. During the break I had a moment to talk to the County Attorney about a possibility of today's outcome. We have a lot of data that's being given to us this morning and a lot of responses to a lot of our questions, and they will have an impact on how we interpret this document. And it's all to the betterment. 'The more we understand it and the clearer we understand it, the much better it will be to make a better decision. However, I think it would be helpful if we went through all of our questions, got all the information we could out of staff today, came back and then continued this meeting and a decision on the CIE till Thursday morning of next week, prior to the beginning of our discussion on the Land Development Code. And if we could do that, that would give us a chance to digest everything that's been handed out late today that we're being presented with today and the answers to our questions. Because the outcome of this decision, even though it's a recommendation, sometimes they carry weight when they go to the Board of County Commissioners. And with that in mind, I would rather see us understand this and have time to think about the facts. So if anybody on the Planning Commission doesn't have an objection to this, I would like to proceed under that scenario. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, is there any problem from your department's perspective? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Do you want to not take action on the items that were not changed? Do you want to continue those to the 28th as well too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going -- I thought we'd take action on the entire CIE on — MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- next Thursday morning at 8:30 in this room. Bulk of the discussion, the bulk of the input, and thankfully there's no more changes, because this is supposed to be the last day anyway, are all in our hands and we've received them all this morning, we can go back after what we've learned today, restudy this and come back with a more concise, hopefully more accurate understanding of it with a better decision next Thursday. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't see a problem if the County Attorney doesn't have a problem. The only thing I would ask is maybe by the end of today you have a feeling for what kind of staff you want here, myself, if Mr. Feder or, you know, utilities, just so we can let them know and be prepared to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate that. I'm going to try to ask everything I have today. I don't see why I won't get through it. And with that we left off on appendix A, number two. We had finished with the first page, which was all roads and transportation. Is there anything from the transpor -- well, anything on the second page at all that anybody has a question on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question on a Parks and Rec issue, Barry. And you probably knew this was coming. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talk about the scheduled project for future improvements of an ATV park. That was one of the removed items from your process. Why did you remove it? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure I follow your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the second paragraph it says two park and recreation projects were removed from the scheduled capital improvements as follows: The scheduled project for future improvements of an ATV park Page 25 P� January 21 2010 and a scheduled project for future purchases of land programming for park expansion for Bayview Park. Now, I understand the Bayview Park one. That was discussed at the AUIR. But what did you remove the future improvements for the ATV park for, and what park was that that you removed them? MR. WILLIAMS: I see that now. And where it says and describes for future purchases, that wasn't based -- the plan is still in our AUIR for recognizing 625 acres for the commitment South Florida Water Management owes Collier County to provide them an ATV park. So that commitment still stands. My only comment may be, and 1 may need Corby to help with that, is that is land -- that again was a land transfer. That wasn't going to be any money out from Parks and Rec for that — for the purchase. So I don't know that's what that reference is or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, it doesn't say that, it says the scheduled project for future, and it uses the words improvements. Improvements are not land. So what improvements that you have in that were taken out for the ATV park? And I'm just wondering why you made that decision. I'm not criticizing it, I'm only trying to understand why you made the decision. MR. WILLIAMS: And again, for us, I mean, capital improvement would refer to the purchase of land and would not include facilities. So it may be that that was taken out as far as facility improvements on the land itself. I really can't speak to that comment, I really need Corby I guess to help me a little with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Corby, what have you removed from Parks and Ree's department's budget? MR. WILLIAMS: Can I blame you all the time? MR. SCHMIDT: Previously in the CIE it was those improvements that were being funded. And the improvements themselves are not being funded any longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What improvements? Can you be more specific? To what part? MR. SCHMIDT: Which would have been the improvements to an ATV park at a somewhat vague location to myself. I'm not -- I don't know specifically where that would have been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the 625 acres had been secured, there were improvements figured to go on the 625 acres. And since it's not secured, you have not utilized -- that money's not being utilized in the next five years; is that what you're trying to say? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That was all I was trying to get to. And I'm assuming if in the -- that means you don't expect to find the land for the ATV park in the next five years, so it's at least five years out'? MR. WILLIAMS: I would tell you I'm familiar with South Florida Water Management's attempts to find land. They still are stipulating that the Lake Trafford site is viable, although there's still a question about that. And there is litigation concerning that. So as far as South Florida Water Management meeting the commitment, we know that we've looked at a variety of properties with them and haven't found a suitable site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's interesting the tinring of that issue dropping off the Parks and Rec budget. But the approval of the GMPA for the ATV site from that -- that Miami's putting in out at the old airstrip, so -- kind of predictable. Anybody have other questions on Page 2? If not, we'll move to Page 3. Anybody have any -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, under potable water projects, the Orangetree facility or the RO expansion, which is 2012 and which is 2023? And I ask that because if you flip to Page 4 it looks like Orangetree is coming on board in 2012, according to the last line. But 1 don't know if that's the entire thing or -- are we incorporating Orangetree into county facilities in 2012 or 2023? MR. SCHMIDT: I know that's being done, but I'll let them answer the question as to the timing. MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, Public Utilities. That is correct, Orangetree is still projected to be taken over in 2012 for us to manage. And we will maintain it as a separate system until it requires interconnection to maintain level of service. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But for that same facility, if you look on Page 4, the very last line under sewer and wastewater projects, it says certain water reclamation facilities were affected by deferred demand so as not to require incorporation of Orangetree facilities into the county system until fiscal year 2012. Right? So it is '12 for Page 26 161 1 A 5January 21, 2010 everything, and it's the reverse osmosis that's not going to be needed until 2023, right? MR. BEALS: Correct. I believe that might be a typo from Corby, but that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Corby. Oh, boy, below the belt, Corby. I'll tell you, he's going to get you good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby, that's okay, it's just a reversal. MR. SCHMIDT: As I recall, this was cut and pasted directly from someone. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it just should be reversed, that's all. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. Potable water projects. Do you keep a chart by month, by day, by year, by whatever basis for the water pressures that you provide through your system? MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioners, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Engineering. The operation departments do keep those records, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they on a spreadsheet, a electronic format, something that I could take a look at? MR. GRAMATGES: I really couldn't tell you, at that point in time. But anything that is data could be put on a spreadsheet. I would communicate with them as to your interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm not asking them to create something that takes time and manpower to do that. I'm trying to find something already available. If there is something already available or if there is not, would you e -mail me and let me know? And I'd like to know where it's at so I can take a look at it. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. And specifically what are you looking for, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water pressures that we maintain out of our -- as the supply out of our facilities, out of our potable water facilities. MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how they fluctuate indifferent seasons of the year and things like that, if they do. MR. GRAMATGES: They don't fluctuate. We keep a continuous pressure, discharge pressure, from the high service pumps. So we do not vary them by season or by time of the day or time of the week. It's steady. So I do not know if that data is going to look very interesting, if it does indeed exist. But I will certainly talk to Mr. Mattausch, the director of potable water, and ask him if that information is available and we'll forward -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can just stop by and take a look at it, if you don't mind. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of what I look at is not very interesting, so it wouldn't -- who knows, it might be the most enlightening thing I've ever seen. MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- and then I have question of stormwater management. And Norm, there's two things. I know we deferred the watershed study, but it's currently underway in CDES. Who in CDES is doing the watershed study? MR. FEDER: I'll defer to Nick, but Robert Wiley and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mack Hatcher and Robert Wiley are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they coordinating that with the FEMA study? Because the FEMA study, it would seem to me, especially in the topography and the LIDAR and all the other elements that were used there to show FEMA, while we did not have flowways, would certainly help with the watershed study. Is that -- are they all working together with the same data? MR. CASALANGUTDA: They are working together with the same data, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had on that. I saw it as a -- make sure it was coordinated. No other questions, we'll move to Page 4. Anybody have questions on Page 4? Page 27 January 21, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes care of the text of the appendix. And we start getting into a series o£charts, which certainly spell out different ways of reducing monies here at the county. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: One item to mention. Because of the changes that were recent, those that were handouts and e -mails yesterday, on page -- or on the final page for solid waste disposal facilities the first paragraph that begins with pursuant to the landfill operating agreement, that paragraph ends with a sentence which reads, landfill cells previously scheduled to be constructed and so on, just strike that last sentence. Those are the projects at landfill, solid waste that have been rescheduled to match the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That goes on to the next page, right? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way through the word respectively, okay. MR. SCI IMIDT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up would be an I I by 17 page that was folded up in our document. And it says CIE changes from 2009 to 2010. And it's a road system -- I guess items that would be impacted by the different percentages of change in the reductions that are being considered. Does anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, the most obvious question to me, and it would come up on some of the pages afterwards: Your choices of reductions in roads. The one, for example, you have 60168, we don't need the Vanderbilt Beach -- well, we never needed the Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor. You all have sold everybody that we do. But we need it even less than we didn't need it before because Big Cypress is on indefinite hold, the economy in the Estates like everywhere else in the county has slowed down. We have a lot of vacancies, and people aren't moving in as fast. Why do we need to spend any money on that corridor now? MR. FEDER: Okay, first of all, this is shown as a reduction, and we are reducing what is only and has only been for the last couple of years a right -of -way phase for the Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor. We'll continue probably to disagree respectfully about the need for that corridor, but nonetheless, we do agree that that has slowed down in some of its demand with growth out in the Estates. Big Cypress wasn't the impetus to begin with. But nonetheless, we are purchasing. We did a study. We needed to define a corridor, rather than hold many people hostage. We defined a corridor. Then folks know where it's going to end up in the future. The need for another east -west was a concern. And we had some whole takes as both of us unfortunately were facing. Those 19 of the 21 have been acquired. Everybody that's worked with us on a reasonable offer. And I think we've made people very whole. We're working through the other two. We are now buying along the corridor, again, no condemnation, only on negotiated settlements. And we told people, prices are down now, we'll offer you a fair price based on current market. If you want to work with us and have us acquire that partial take or whatever, we'll work with you on it. If you want to wait, you can wait. And so we reduced the dollar significantly for the right -of -way phase. At one time a couple years back when that impact fee stream was nation high, we had the construction out to Wilson. That's no longer and hasn't been for the last couple of years in our program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm -- let's pretend it's not necessarily Vanderbilt Beach Road in the location that I personally disagree with. Let's just say it's any new road. Let's say it's one through the middle of Pelican Bay. MR. FEDER: My fight-of-way costs are the lowest they're ever going to be right now. I don't have pending construction, so I'm not going into condemnation and forcing people at a low time, but where I can negotiate settlements on any of the corridors that I need right -of -way. Additionally, the nature of the process is about eight years. What you do not want to do that I faced when I came here, is to take and not put anything in the pipelines when you go to turn on the spigot when actual monies come and demand is here and everybody agrees with that, that a project can come out, but rather has to wait five, six, seven years after that demand is identified to actually do a project. Page 28 16145 5 Janijary 21, 2010 So what we did is we had a program, comes out for our long -range transportation plan, approved by the MPO, by the board, through all the committees, and we've pared that down overtime as the revenue stream has been pared down. I didn't say as the needs got pared down, but as the revenue stream got pared down, and to a degree the needs more recently as well. So in answer to your question, this is a reduction in the right -of -way. The right -of -way is the only phase we have in there, and the right -of -way is on negotiated settlements, not on condemnation. As is true on Golden Gate Boulevard, which I wish I had the construction in. I already have a deficiency there, but 1 don't because of funding and others of like yolk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purchases you're making on Vanderbilt Beach Road, since that is the one that's in the budget, you could make those at any time in the future. MR. FEDER: Again, if we don't have a negotiated settlement, people coming to us and asking that we settle with them, then we will be doing it in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, Norm, in a personal budget at your home when you run up against a decrease in income, you simply can't spend on things that aren't absolute necessities. And it would seem to me that the roads that are in place that need to be maintained, that need to be improved, that are deficient in a level of service are -- should take priority over ones far down in the future. MR. FEDER: Oh, I agree. And we tried to do that. But when that one's a necessity, let's take construction of Golden Gate Boulevard, at some $40 million, it's hard to address that necessity in lieu of one million here or two million there on items that you're mentioning. I think the other analogy, as you said with your home, I've got a leak in my roof. I can either attend to it now or l can wait until it gets bigger, or I could wait until eventually I'm going to replace the whole roof. So again, we're only doing it on where we can negotiate, and we're trying to negotiate in good faith. There's no condemnation, and the dollars are reduced, acknowledging that now that I'm in a lower market, although it's a great time to get the right -of -way, less people are coming forward to negotiate, because they realize the market's down. But some are, because they need to move out, they need to resolve issues, whatever their reasons be. And those we are trying to provide some funding to be able to work with them. They didn't ask to be taken, as you point out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The leak in an existing roof is maintenance. Anyway, under -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just to that. Then if you look at this chart, if you're looking at reducing your AUIR by 1 I percent so that just for that line item the Vanderbilt ROW is 18 -nine. If you reduce your budget by 15 percent, why are you still keeping it at 18.9, and why, if you're going all the way down to 20, does it demand 20 million? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Comm ssioner, let me add to this. I was part of that project. First of all, for the record, you absolutely need that facility in your long -range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what I'm asking. MR. FEDER: I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But I'll put that on the record, because Commissioner Strain put that on the record that you don't need a long parameter, that you do need it. For the record. Second is your GMP says you will acquire right -of -way and plan for future roadways. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what I'm asking either. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But you're asking -- we've reduced it. And right now what the plan is is to lower the budget to acquire that right -of -way but to still maintain some level of advanced right -of -way. And that's a project that's shown as a need. So you're asking should we reduce it proportionately per each one of those reductions, in other words, reduce it further. MR. FEDER: Commissioner Caron, what you're asking, the answer to that is the difference, the major difference between the 11 and 15 is that Santa Barbara, which was in the fifth year, an 11 percent reduction, goes out of the program. That's the section north of where we just recently built, from basically just north of Golden Gate or Copper Leaf up to Green Boulevard, that goes out. What you had in the program at 11 percent was some savings of dollars where there's nothing in anyone of these three scenarios. It wasn't before in years two and three. There were some dollars saved up in two, three and four to be able to do work in five. In this case our four goes out to five, as you'll see at the end, and the fifth year project, which is Santa Barbara, goes out. Page 29 n r ' January 21, 2010 So the answer to your question is, I reduced what was the carry- forward to be able to keep Santa Barbara in, because I can't afford to keep it in as I reduce my percentages greater. So I've reduced the right -of -way there on Vanderbilt, but the real difference between my I 1 and 15 is what you don't see is the dollars that gets carried forward to the next year and then gets carried to the next year to be able to have had in my 1 1 percent reduction Santa Barbara in the fifth year and lost it unfortunately in the 15 percent reduction. COMMISSIONER CARON: What is in the current AUIR for right -of -way purchase on Vanderbilt Beach, Collier to Wilson? Amount of money. MR. FEDER: You have out of a total right now, 1'd have to get the exact number, because I don't want to mislead you, but I think you're about over the five years about seven or eight million. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven or eight. MR. FEDER: Yeah. And I'll see if I can get that number for you before we leave this discussion. Actually, if you look at -- let me go and bring your attention to the item on -- they've changed pages on me, but on CIE 16-11. As you look on Vanderbilt Beach Road, Collier to Wilson, 12 million, seven. And that goes down in the other, but it's 12 million, seven, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if currently it's 12 million and you're going to reduce it by 11 percent -- MR. FEDER: Only the ad valorem portion. Now, remember, when I'm doing my capital I'm keeping all my impact fees, because I can only use it on capital. And I'm keeping some of my gas tax. Some of it I'm moving over to operating. So this is only a reduction in the ad valorem. Or in essence in the capital, a little bit of reduction in gas tax as well. So I think that maybe part of your question as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we sort of need to know that breakout. I mean, otherwise again math doesn't work. MR. FEDER: I gave you the breakout in the chart. Can you pull this back up again? For the 11 percent, it's all ad valorem. When it comes to the 15 percent, it is all of that ad valorem plus about 800, which was mentioned before, thousand, of gas taxes. And then of course it becomes the difference between that --I'm not looking in front of me now, but 3.9 and six, four, if 1 remember correctly, on the 20 percent is gas tax. So you have that information, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, the -- you're saying under say the 1 I percent and it carries over to the 15 and then it increases even more on the 20 percent. But in that corridor you're taking out right -of -way of 18,900,000 in purchases. But I thought you just said there's only 12 million to begin with. How did you get to the additional six? MR. FEDER: That's not 18 million. "frees? What's that number? On the reduction on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those better not be in thousands. That's -- 1 mean, on our sheet? 18,900? But I mean, I'm assuming -- MR. FEDER: You're going off of -- not this sheet, you're going off of the original AULR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going off what's in our CIE. MR. FEDER: No, you're going off of what was in the budget in the AUIR on that reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's included in our CIE, Norm. MR. FEDER: Yeah. From last year's CIE to this year's CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, now we don't have the right document in the CIE? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR, CASALANGUIDA: You're asking the question from CIE to AUIR or CIE to CIE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm asking on this 11 by 17 foldout -- MR. FEDER: CIE to CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- under 1 I percent under the 60168 category, you say right -of -way, FY'10 to'14, reduced by -- and it says 18,900. Although I thought it was in millions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in trillions. MR. FEDER: It's in millions, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's 18 million, say $19 million but we're only needing 12 million, how do you reduce it by 19? That's what I'm asking. Page 30 161 1A5 January 21, 2010 MR. CASALANGUIDA: And what I -- MR. FEDER: No, 12 million is what is left in the 11 percent reduction. You had at one time over 30 million in right -of -way in the full corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was her question, what was the corridor's fight -of -way. MR. FEDER: I'm song, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the full -- MR. FEDER: 30 million was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the full right -of -way of that -- MR. FEDER: Full right -of -way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --corridor. MR. FEDER: -- previously in the corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Cherie'. Norm, you and I got to break when we talk, because she can't type when both of us talk. So in the total corridor you have 30 million, and of the 30 million you're taking out 18 -nine, leaving about 12 million. MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're still going to make 12 million in purchases. How do you decide which purchase of the 12 million you make? MR. FEDER: Again, that's 12 million over five years. And the answer to that one right now, as I told you, is as people come forward. Now, the only thing we emphasized, and still only by agreement or negotiation, were the whole takes. None of it is anticipated here in this money as condemnation. And you'll see the monies over five years working with people on negotiated settlements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why did you decide 12 million was the magic number and not five tr Ilion? MR. FEDER: Well, we have an overall need for 30 to acquire the full right -of -way in the corridors, the estimate. And again, a right -of -way estimate at one time or another. But it had gone down a little bit. And again, the requirements to cut to 11 percent, we made a major emphasis to cut it out of fight -of -way. We cut more than half of it out of that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have appraisals or land purchase estimates by your department reflecting the 30 million? MR. FEDER: We have estimates, and that's what came to the 30 million. But again, of course we work with the property owners, they get a chance for an appraisal and we work through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know the date of that 30 million estimate? MR. FEDER: I can get it for you, but I believe that that was when we moved on the corridor, and it's been adjusted since, based on general property values in the area, which have gone down, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the reduction from 30 million to 12 million really reflects a reduction in the market price. MR. FEDER: No, it's beyond the market price drop, but there has been a huge drop in the market_ Because that 30 million was recent, too. The market hasn't dropped just this last six months or last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you can get me that breakdown? MR. FEDER: I will. And I'll get Kevin Hendricks, when you come over, we'll have that information for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. CASALANGUIDA: To add to that, the CIE from last year, the four years, were approximately $30 million. The reduction is from CIE to CIE of 18.9 million. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I'm trying to understand how the reduction occurred. It didn't come out of the fact that we're just not going to purchase the property -- MR. FEDER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but come out of the fact the market's reduced, just like your budget's for lane miles reduced. So you really didn't make a reduction -- MR. FEDER: But we'll give you the specific information. Page 31 fl January 21, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The market option -- we're talking over one another again. Please wait until I finish so she can keep it straight for us, Norm. What I'm seeing is that because the market dropped in value, you simply dropped your numbers in value, which is what we should have expected done from the get -go. Now I'm wondering how much meat you're really taking off the bone here. And that's why I want to know when your appraisals or market studies were done and then what the curTent assessed values of those properties are, by example, the tax assessor, now. And that will tell us how we got to this number and see if you really did take any meat off the bone, more or less. MR. FEDER: And we'll be happy to do that, Commissioner. And I point out to you that if you look back at prior AUIRs and CIGMs, I think you'll see when we originally came in this corridor was almost 60 million plus in right -of -way as the estimate. It came down as property values came down, and now it's coming down based on cuts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFFR: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing. What seems unfair, because I think what Norm is saying, at least what I'm hearing, is that he wants to keep some money in the budget to A, take advantage of anybody that wants to sell, because the values are low he can get it while he can get it cheaper. And second, there are people that know this is coming that don't want to wait around till Norm has money, they want to actually cash out as soon as they can to move on with their life from that property. So is there something that's unfair about this or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not even the subject. I'liat's not where I was going. Where I was trying to go is that we're told that we're going to reduce the right -of way expenditures by 18 -nine because we're just not going to make so many over these years, but in reality we're not going to reduce it, the markets reduced it. And so there is no -- there has been no reduction really from a hard cost factor of deferring anything. It's been reduced by the price to purchase. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what I heard is that he's reducing the amount of money he wants in these early years, because he doesn't want to buy out the whole corridor right now, but he does want funds to take advantage of A, good price, and B, help people move on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll get that data. But point of interest, from last year's CIE to this years CIE, that reduction of I8 -nine is much more than the reduction in the market price. And we'll get you that data to prove that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to seethe data and then that's fine. That's what I -- MR. FEDER: And we'll show you the original estimates, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the 11 by 17 sheet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your pathways under funded, what do those lines mean under operation improvements? Does that mean you've done that or -- because you've run it across the board, so -- MR. FEDER: Again, it's just a note to you. Because while it's not part of the Capital Improvement Element itself, we have other activities and other programs we're trying to tell you the impacts have been there. In the case of resurfacing, we actually added a little bit of money because of what's coning on to us. We pulled some money out of the pathways, along with our capital program, and it's just giving you the true picture, full picture. Because not everything is captured under major capital projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no questions further on that page, we can start moving into the tables. Let's just take the first three tables of the road projects that Norm's up there for, and we'll get rid of those to begin with. And that is the I I percent, the 15 percent and the 20 percent. Are there any questions from those tables by the members of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, your contingency figure? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under the 11 percent reduction, the total is four million. Under the 15, it jumps to I I million. And to 13 million under the 20 percent. Why are these figures going up as opposed to going Page 32 16 1 1 A SJanuary�1, 2010 down? Because the goal here is to reduce the amount of expenditure. MR. FEDER: Understood. What I'll tell you, first of all, it's a percentage. And you've got a reduced item. But the dollars are going up because the first year you're funded only at about a 1.2 percent revenue, and the provision is typically to be at five percent. Now, we're not there as a county. And I think you're going to hear an awful lot in the budget discussions of concern about how low we are on revenues. Additionally, I'll tell you I've got -- let me make sure I got the right figure said. But I've got some significant dollars out in -- close off of litigation on projects, which right now we feel very comfortable in our position, but nonetheless we have to litigate that situation because we've had those lawsuits. And we have to provide at least about 10 percent of the figure to be able to hire the counsel and the expert witnesses required. And so we're looking at that and any potential settlements out of that, that we've got to have some level of reserves. And I can tell you right now, that barely would hit one of the four. But we're positioning ourselves with what is a normal --or trying to go to a normal level of reserves in a bit of a normal situation where I have contention out there for litigation on three projects and one developer contribution agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norm, and this is going to be on the revenue source, the developer contributions. First of all, it shows nothing in the latter two years. So of all the contributions that we've arranged, there is nothing due past a three -year period; is that right? MR. FEDER: As it stands right now, again, those are the only ones we've got, and we've got committed. We didn't want to put anything -- obviously we've done some over the years, but I hope that that generally would continue, yes. But if I don't have it set up, I don't have it in here. Same with grants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And have we been moving some of these dates? I mean, as the economy got slower, are we allowing people later and later dates for these commitments? MR. FEDER: No, all these are structured on commitments. The main one you have in here is 41/95 1, which as you're aware took a number of times to get it to the right size to move. But it's moving. And some of the dollars are here and the others are committed, along with some additional SIGP from the state and some resurfacing for 951 south in the state. But these are commitments that we feel are in hand and are solid and that's why we put them in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on those three pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, I need to go back and figure out where you started from. Under your adopted version, 11 percent, you have a total road expenditure -- road project totals of 329,000. And that reflects an 11 percent reduction from what number? MR. FEDER: From today's FY ' 10 approved budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that relate to the AUIR? MR. FEDER: It relates to the AUIR which is generally just incapacity, and the CIE, which is incapacity, just as I note on the table. We are working with an ad valorem reduction. We also had to reduce our program and consistently reduce it on impact fees, as volatile as they've been in going down. And somewhat on gas tax, but that's been more stable. So in answer to your question, what we did is we took our FY'10 budget, I look at my impact fees in that best estimate, so that's how I build it every time. And it's changed, even from last AUIR a little bit. Because you remember we had reduced it. Now you see it a little bit further reduced. And I may not make that this year, okay. And we said that what we're really dealing with in the 11, 15 and 20 is the ad valorem. And the request to us was to reduce the ad valorem coming to transportation, not simply to capital. If you only wanted to make it capital, although that was defined in some of the discussions, I have only 3.9 other than the debt service to provide. That would only meet the 11, not the 15 and 20. So in answer to your question, it comes from the revenue stream estimates from the prior CIE as well. The base for the 11, 15 and 20 is the ad valorem that's in my FY'10 budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a question, since you were the one who put the CIE together, and your comprehensive planning department I guess has certain standards in the way these documents get assembled. Are we supposed to have any ability to track from the AUIR to the CIE? The reason -- some of the Page 33 January 21, 2010 departments and utilities did it with their corrected sheets, which I had caught earlier this week. They went back and used the AUIR values where they had used a duplicative value from potable water to sewer, they came back and corrected that in their changes. Now they meet their values in the AUIR, as do I believe some of the other departments. But if you go back to the AUIR and try to correlate what transportation's numbers are, I can't get there. How is that possible? How is that -- is that how the CIE is supposed to be formatted? MR. SCHMIDT: Part of that answer is in a previous year we did some comparisons from the CIE back to the AUIR. Not only is it more confusing and less useful, but we did not provide a CIE to CIE comparison, we stuck to that only this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But see, here's the problem I have. They're looking at 11 percent reduction to get to 329. 1 can't get to the number unless I back into it from a doc -- I can't get to a number from an approved document that went through the land planning agency as we're called. MR. FEDER: That -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us -- wait a minute, Norm. That gets us to a number that 11 percent less of is 329. Because that number would have to be 370,260,000. 1 can't find it anywhere in the land planning reviews that we did. So I'm wondering what 1 missed or if I have a document that we changed and I just don't know it. MR. FEDER: And understood. To try and provide some clarification, first of all, from AUIR to CIE we've changed the impact fees and we've reduced them further. We reduced them in the AUIR. Also in the AUIR the reason I'm standing here before you with H, , 15 and 20, as opposed to a CIE that looks an awful lot like my AUIR, is this board, along with the Planning Commission (sic) and then concurred by the board, they wanted to see options for further reduction in ad valorem coming to transportation. The inference was that I could get it all out of capital. What I'm telling you, I can, but I was asked to look at that. So I'm honestly trying to give an 11, 15 and 20 and what it would do to the overall transportation division to reduce that much of one of my revenue streams. And that's the difficulty, because the number isn't simply 11 percent, 15 and 20, because my impact fees have been reduced whether I'm going I 1 percent, 15 or 20 reduction in ad valorem. And my gas tax has been generally stable. So in answer to your question, I'd look more like my AUIR if I wasn't coming in with these alternatives from modification to ad valorem stream. But 1 am, and that's fine. But I understand your concern. That's why we went back to the CIE, so that they could see exactly what they're changing. And so you've got three income streams, one stable, one's reduced because of what we're experiencing, which are the impact fees, and the other one that's given up as three different options as to how it might go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this board and the Productivity Cotmmittee and then eventually the BCC spends a lot of time on the AUIR. MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it has no meaning because afterwards at any point the values in the AUIR could be just reestablished and the CIE is built off whatever numbers are -- come up with after that point, I'm wondering how we show the coordination that it's been through the right processes that statute requires and that we as the LPA are supposed to review. Because the last document I reviewed, and I pull up on line what you currently have in the AUIR, it doesn't get to a number that if you'd pull 1 I percent off of comes to your number and then the subsequent numbers you provide. That's important because Pd like to know where you're really starting your I 1 percent from. What -- where did you start? Did you start at a higher number, lower number than was approved? I can't find that. MR. FEDER: Okay, the 11, 15 and 20 is (sic) on ad valorem is simply from my FY'10 ad valorem budget and carrying that out. The impacts fees in my AUIR was a best shot in time of where my impact fees are likely to be, which was a definite decrease. And guess what? It's further decreased even the CIE a little bit further. Because I said I may not make eight or nine this year, okay? So -- but I'm a little bit higher than what I assumed here, because this has got printed a while ago. So there is a change. I think the key to what you're asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the AUIR is meant to look at -- you said you were Page 34 16 I 1 `"'1 January 21, 2010 going to maintain a certain level of service with what you're providing for infrastructure in the county. Did you do that? And the AUIR is a judgment of that and saying if you didn't do it in areas, how are you going to make that happen or where are you going to emphasize when you go in your next Capital Improvement Element to make it happen? Generally we came to you and said we have. And what I'm telling you is and what we're doing with further cuts generally keeps us still in compliant (sic) with concurrency relative to DCA, and that's the role of the AUIR. It is not necessarily the Capital Improvement Element nor the budget relative to the fiscal numbers, but it is intended with the revenue streams I have, have I met and am I likely to stay meeting my concurrency. And that's what the role of that was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you actually improved upon the expenditures you were going to do in the AUIR. I'm not saying at all that's a bad thing. It's fine, it's great. I'm just wondering from a methodology process, especially when I thought and I'm sure others thought that the AUIR was a prelude to the budget process. And if such, maybe I need a document that I can tie your beginning number to and I don't have it now because this board didn't review it. MR. FEDER: And I understand your concern. Because remember what 1 told you in the first place, I'm not taking it all out of (sic). I expected some level of reduction in ad valorem as well as impact fees, which are further reduced again now here. But what I am doing now is I'm saying I'm going to pull -- 1 have to pull some of that out of my operating budget for the ad valorem, so I'm doing that to keep my operating level. But again, the answer to your question, as best I can give it to you is obviously we use the AUIR. That is an emphasis, a part in time in how we look at it. That was looked at, we looked at the revenue streams we did on that basis of saying have we met, can we meet concurrency. We had to modify the impact fees down a little bit based on what's occurring. And then I got asked as part of that process, you've got to try to come up with some further scenarios beyond what you might have expected as a little bit of reduction in your capital ad valorem to come up with potentially the 11, but not only that, 15 and 20, and that's what we're trying to do. And the I I is even beyond I think what we're expecting at this time. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you could -- and in the array of things I've asked for, if you could also provide me with -- MR. FEDER: With all those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whatever was the adopted or approved version of the document that you started with in order to get your 11 percent beginning, that -- MR. FEDER: The way the adjustments were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would solve my concern and give me the document I need to sink my teeth into. MR. FEDER: Yeah, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's -- MR. FEDER: But they're never going to be totally in synch. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's really important, because you need -- we need to be able to do the math. I did the same thing apparently that Commissioner Strain did in trying to back into these numbers and find out where they came from. And I went back to last year's CIE, I went back to the AUIR, both versions of the AUIR this year, because we knew it had been -- so somehow we've got to have a basis. And a couple of years ago we had to footnote some things on the AUIR because it was impossible to get to where you needed to do the math. And maybe it just needs to be footnoted here as to what you're starting with, I don't know. But something needs -- MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to try to do that. There's a couple of other things, just to help on this, and I think you're asking us to do that and we will. Is first of all before when we discussed this with you under the AUIR we were looking at the ad valorem coming to us before the decision was made on the interest. And that interest comes back with impact fees that no longer could I work with in that manner, so there's a change there. Unfortunately what you're asking for is a stagnant situation. But I think you're also asking me in a non - stagnant at the very least to show you where the changes and why they're occurring, and we'll be happy to try to Page 35 '3hnuary 21, 2010 do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, you have to -- you had to have a stagnant number to begin with. That's all I'm saying. And I think Commissioner Caron -- I tried to get to the AUIR number. And when I realized you didn't use that number, that left a big hole in my analysis, which is another reason I wanted to delay final approval for a week so I could go back and run the numbers that you will now provide. And I'm sure others will want to do that, so MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to. As 1 said, the gas tax is about the same. The impact fees assume down some. And the ad valorem is changed, both by the scenarios and by the fact that now it's coming to me as interest return, a major portion of it rather than gas tax. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Norm, I understand the moving target here and that things change on a daily basis, if not more frequently. But A, there does have to be some starting point. And B, even if it's changed from one month to the next, it's sort of ballpark. I mean, if I had come to any number that I could have backtracked to and come close to where you were coming, 1 would have said okay, this is changingjust because we know it's a moving target. But that was not at all the case. MR. FEDER: We will take a couple in succession and go through and look at the changes and then tell you COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. MR. FEDER: -- why in the basis both budget AUIR and CIE. But I would venture to say, you take that in most areas you're going to see it, but probably transportation's a little more volatile in the way of how those numbers have been changing on us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, did you want to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because you looked like you're anxious to say something. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can provide a little clarification as to what happens. When you have your AUIR, it's that planning tool, that snapshot in time. As you develop from your AUIR to CIE, you solidify a little bit more. Then what happens, you go into the budget cycle. And then that budget cycle resets everything. It almost truths everything up. So we had this discussion last year, whether you wanted to see a CIE to CIE comparison, a CIE to AUIR comparison. The truth is, what you really need to understand is it really needs to be a CIE to budget comparison. And if we have those documents -- because it's all -- these are all proposed numbers until the board makes the final budget decision. And then we prepare the documents next year, we're working off those solid numbers but now going into planning again for the following year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not often we have to have multiple tables provided showing incremental reductions. And this is one of those odd years. So in order for us to understand better how the arithmetic was handled, it helps to have a starting point. And that was the messing key here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. MR. FEDER: And we'd be happy to do that. The other thing I'll point out is FY '10 doesn't change because it's budgeted. So really those changes in numbers are occurring over a four -year period. But we'll work that all out with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next chart is on Page 17, it's 000 everything. And 1 don't know if we have a question about all those zeros. Barry, that's the easiest chart I think of the whole package. So -- and the next page is Page 18, it's another chart for the stormwater. By the way, these charts are all summarized on the summary page we'll eventually get to. That may be easier to ask questions from for all of us too, so -- and then the next one is -- MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Regarding your Pages 181 I .R and 1811, I believe in the staff report staff made a statement that the decision to reduce those -- or that millage rate from .15 to .10 was a matter of fact. It is not. That decision has not yet been made. And it is yet to be made during budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Corby. Page 36 16 I 1 A5: January 21, 2010 By the way, on Page 18, and I found this in another part of the document, you've got the Freedom Park in there, water quality monitoring and exotic vegetation control. You're going to spend a half million dollars on that. Does that have to be -- is that a requirement or is that just a nice thing to have? Exotic vegetation has probably been there forever. But is this a maintenance of something that's already been removed so it won't come back or is it removing new exotics? MR. FEDER: It's a maintenance, monitoring and documentation. It's required, particularly because we got the Florida Communities Trust grant to help pay right -of -way and construction of the Freedom Park itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on then, if nobody has any other questions, with Pages 18.11 and Page 19. Any questions there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20 is one of the pages that I believe changed in the yellow. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess this is a solid waste question. The Waste Management has a contract with us to build the cells as needed in exchange for the tipping fees. Why do we carry numbers on our books for the cell construction then? MR. SCHMIDT: Just a moment. MR. GRAMATGES: Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I can research it and give it to you later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had one question. Yeah, you recently approved the -- and the commission approved the reclamation center. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should that be showing up here somewhere? MR. GRAMATGES: No, that's not being shown in here. That is going to be a process that is likely going to take longer than this period that you have here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we won't be spending any money for five years on that. MR. GRAMATGES: That's the expectation. And then of course as you know we update this every year. It may change. But at this point in time that's the way it's being seen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil, the latest document you passed out, or Corby passed out on your behalf this morning increased the number that is in the original document Ijust read off, from 3.4 to 6.8. So when you respond to me, if you use that most recent one, that will be more effective. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, doesn't the chart just show that the $6.82 million is going toward the various cells, but it's coming from the tipping fees below, so it's just a -- it's more of a paperwork thing, not a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's part of --the way the preface in the staff report read, that the cell construction was part of the W --Waste Management contract, and they obtain the tipping fees. Does that go through our books or does that -- or they handle that? And so if they handle it, then why are we showing it on our books? That was my question. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, and unfortunately I can't give you a straight answer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was just responding to Ms. Caron as to -- she wondered why I asked the question. MR. GRAMATGES: But we certainly keep track of those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 37 ?, January 21, 2010 MR. GRAMATGES: Those tipping fees pay Waste Management and Waste Management takes care of the upkeep and any development within the landfill. As to why they're shown in here, I can't really tell you. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you don't know whether the dollars come through the county first and -- MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we collect the tipping fees at the scale. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, there you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that, but the construction is done by Waste Management. MR. GRAMATGES: It's done by Waste Management with tipping fee funds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I don't know why we show a construction cost when we don't know what that is, because Waste Management does it. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we do know what the construction cost is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they just have -- MR. GRAMATGES: Because we need to approve that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we know they're going to be equal to the tipping fees we're going to collect in 2012. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, for the purpose of this document, all we're showing is that we have enough tipping fees to pay for the cost of the development. And that's the reason why the nutnbers match. The tipping fees and the cost of the project is not necessarily the same year to year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're showing the tipping fees to cover that one project, then why aren't we showing the tipping fees for every year in covering -- then they cover whatever projects occur, like the operations in the landfill. You just --you singled out one operation of the Waste Management contract to show a cost and revenue stream here for, and I wonder why you didn't do it for all of them, because we have tipping fees every year for five years. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. Typically what we do is we choose larger projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do have your tipping fee schedules to show us -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, the answer may or may not answer your question is that this is simply capital improvements, and part of the tipping fees go for the operation of the landfill as well. So the numbers, I mean, the numbers change from time to time, depending on the tipping fees coming in. And once again, what we're trying to do here is balance the cost of the capital improvements with the funds that are available to pay for that cost. And that's the reason why they net out. But you're right, I mean, I don't have a direct answer to you as to why the numbers are not prepared in any different way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you supply with me --or if everybody else wants it too, a copy of the tipping fee revenue stream that has occurred over the last few years, and what you're projecting for the future? MR. GRAMATGES: I will have to talk to our operative -- the operations director and propose that, yes, indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should bejust a number where you say in 2007 we collected this much to'08. And that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'djust like to see how we're handling that money because -- and what size stream it is. Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: I certainly will carry that through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we left off on -- Page 21 is where we'd be next. Anybody have any questions on Page 21 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the summary page is Page 22, Exhibit A. Anybody have any questions on Page 22? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that we get into a series of tables going for the five years beyond the first five Page 38 161 1 A J nuary 010 years. And Corby, can you explain why those were in this CIE? I thought the CIE was a five -year window. MR. SCHMIDT: It is, but one of the appendices that are included in the Capital Improvement Elements each year are the out -years or the second five -year schedule of improvements. That is not a financially feasible schedule. Those are not comm tted -- necessarily funding. They can be projected or uncommitted. It's just a general projection of projects in out years that are scheduled. The full 10 years is a requirement of statute. If you do not have long -term concurrency, and we do not, we must provide a five -year schedule and we also must provide a second five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't see it as a bad thing. I was just curious as to -- because basically the CIE is done every year, and so a 10 -year -- the second five years is probably the most subject to change as we solidify every year as we go on. So from my perspective I didn't see a need to spend a lot of time on that one, and 1 had not. MR. SCHMIDT: And there is none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any further questions of the Planning Commission on the overall CIE at this point before we continue to the next meeting to finish our decisions on it after we had time to adjust to the information that was passed out today and responded to today'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, is that a request for a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your support, okay. Well, with that, I think -- Corby, unless you have some other comments, I believe we've finished up with our review and questions at this time until we continue. MR. SCHMIDT: I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then make sure we have no other business. I don't believe there is any. With none being heard, is there a motion to continue this to 8:30 in the morning at this location next Thursday, which is the 28th? MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, I do have one more item, Mr. Chairman. Some direction as to what staff you would prefer to be here in a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation for sure. I can't -- and at least someone from utilities. Other than that, my questions, if I have any, will be in response to the information those two departments provide. So there may be minor questions, but that's the only thing I could think of at this point. It shouldn't be a very lengthy discussion. MR. SCHMIDT: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody else fine with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, do you want to make sure you clarify any questions you have? I know you want a right -of -way comparison towards -- for Vanderbilt, the bridge information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a -- I'd like to see a bridge report. I'd ask for a water -- access to the water pressure tested reports for the -- or exit pressures. The breakdown from -- or how we got to the 30 million estimated right -of -way acquisition to Vanderbilt Beach extension. And where that lies today, taking into consideration the current values, assessed values of the properties. The -- how the transportation department -- where they started with in their numbers. We had a lengthy discussion about we don't have anything to tie the 1 l percent to. And then the last thing is the cell -- the tipping fee schedule, the revenue stream for at least a few years back and where it is projected to go in the future. I would suggest say for 2005 on. That way we see how the economy has affected the tipping fees and then how that fits with the projections in the future. Those are the five things that I think need to be sent to us in time for us to have reviewed by next Thursday's morning. And we should be able to finish this up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that may help too, I know we talked -- you have provided all the data for the reductions in transportation. Is transportation recommending anyone of those, other than just the obvious, that you'd rather spend -- you want to spend as much as you possibly can. Not necessarily bad, but that's -- most departments want to spend their entire budgets, if they can. But your level of comfort with those percentages would Page 39 J nuary`21, 2010 be important to know. MR. FEDER: Again, I need to follow which is being developed to the board direction on budget guidance and policy. There is an emphasis to one, try to maintain operations and maintenance, even as capital goes down. This responds to that. Two, across the board I believe five percent, so therefore there's going to have to be an effort to pull additional budget to allow that to happen. So 1 believe that part of my response in 15 and 20 is going to be a way to be responsive to that. And so what I'm telling you is I'm not recommending, I'm working with everybody to see how we get the budget done. Obviously I don't feel I'm fully funded in operation and maintenance today. And the capital is going to have some significant reductions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not, Mr. Vigliotti, did you still make a motion to continue to next week like we discussed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, 1 have one other item, just before you close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like this commission to start to consider if you could over the break, before we meet next week, if you'd like the staff to pursue providing you some information on combining the AUIR and the CIE into one document that you can review. It's a level of service document and a capital improvement document. If that's something you'd like to get some background information on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comeback on that is what hasjust occurred. If the AUIR is not the static -- is not the fixed document that's going to be dependent upon the CIE's budget, then you cannot do that, because in the case of the AUIR versus transportation that we've seen today, Norm couldn't have done what you're now suggesting, because his number would have been inaccurate in the adoption process of the CIE because they wouldn't have had it by then, right? MR. FEDER: It all matters issue in time. What's being proposed is if we're going to try and work with the AUIR as a budgeting document, which is mainly the CIE and then the real one is the budget where it gets chewed up, then putting the two together makes a lot of sense. The question is when in time. Because then you're going to ask me why does my CIE /AUIR look so different than my budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I don't think we're objecting necessarily, Norm, to -- MR. FEDER: No, you need to know the basis for the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- their being different. We've just got to understand where to start from in order to figure out how you got there. MR. FEDER: Understood. And I'm going to try to provide that to you. Butjoining the two, it depends when we're doing it. It might make a lot of sense rather than having three where the numbers are changing for issues over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as we have the most accurate, I think that's the way we ought to be looking at it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we'll discuss it next week and -- as part of follow up. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it would be a matter of moving the timing for it. Because we did the AUIR back in the fall. The budget comes in between. The CIE comes after that. It just -- you know, we'd have to coordinate a time that would make sense if you're going to combine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We give you a -- my idea of asking you this question is to say if you're interested in us providing you some analysis in what the pitfalls would be and giving you some ideas, we can do that. Your AUIR is supposed to be a snapshot of level of service. And your CIE drives your budget. So if we combine those two together and the time is appropriate, I think it might save you all a lot of questions and staff a lot of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing is, Nick, every time that you and your department have to respond to a question of analysis for us, someone in your department's going to have to take the time to do it, and you're extremely shorthanded right now. From my personal review, as long as I know where you start, I don't care when you come out with the CIE. Page 40 vvyy Jdnuary 2�', 2010 As long as when you do, saying okay, we had the AUIR but here's where we're starting for purposes of the CIE. Then I wouldn't have even got into the issue of comparison, because it would have been known ahead of time. So I don't need you to spend more time on anything like you're suggesting when we don't have the resources, or we may not have. But if everybody -- unless someone here wants you to, I don't know if we need to go forward with that analysis. MR. CASALANGUfDA: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, any more items for discussion today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, do you still have that motion kind of handy in your back pocket? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I was going to say no, but let's go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion to continue by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is it seconded by someone? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We carry. See you next Thursday, 8:30. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:36 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSSI'O�N_ l�t�l/V' V MARK TRAIN Chairman These minutes approved by the board on — I $ as presented ✓ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 41 16 I 1 A January 2010 MAR 10 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED CIE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING OF THE owd.foa#NC00 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 28, 2010 Rime Halal Henning Coyle COletta :#zz:: 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: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert V igliotti David J. Wolfley (Absent) Date'_ _- item item Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney "'='s to. Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator, CDES Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning & Land Development Susan Istenes, LDC Management, Comprehensive Planning Page 1 161 �, A5 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to a special meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Thursday, January 28th. If you'd all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we have the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTLI: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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 VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting will be next Thursday. Does anybody on this panel here today know if they're not going to be here next Thursday? (No response.) Item #4A ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS — CONTINUATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT (CIE) HEARING FROM JANUARY 21,20 10 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have the pre- agendas come out. We're going to have several items, so it would probably be another lengthy day. Nothing like today's going to be, though. I thought I'd take a moment to explain today's process. Last week we had a meeting on the CIE, Capital Improvement Element, of the comprehensive plan. And it really is a document that involves the budgeting process in Collier County. It's required to be heard by the Planning Commission, sitting as a land planning agency. We had to continue it to today for some further information. That information for the most part has been gathered, so we're going to start the meeting out by spending some time trying to finish up on that issue. When that's over with, we'll move into the Land Development Code amendments, of which there's two or three packages. The first one is the one we'll be focusing on today. But I doubt if we'll even get through it before the Page 2 1 January 28 010 entire day's over with. It's rather lengthy. But in that package are four private Land Development Code amendments. And then we get into the more general amendments put forth by county staff. The private amendments are one for a C-5 commercial surgical manufacturing plant. Another one is for Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay. The third one is for a change in the industrial zoning districts. And the last one is a density standards and housing change. Those four will be the first thing up after we discuss the CIE. So I'm not sure what the time table is for those of you sitting in the audience, but I wanted to at least give you that much of a heads up. I expect that the CIE part of it will probably take the first hour of the meeting, and then those other ones, I can't tell you how long they'll take. They might be lengthy. There's a lot of issues and a lot of language issues on every single amendment. So I have a feeling it's going to be a very long and slow process today. But it's one that's necessary, because we find that if we miss something on an LDC amendment, it comes back to haunt us later on in ways we never anticipated. So we will move carefully and we will move slowly today. With that in mind, I wanted to also note that over the last few months especially there's been changes in county staff. A lot of the staff that worked on these amendments may not be here today. And a lot of the staff that would normally organize these amendments may not be here today. And so those that are left are doing the best they can to fill in. So I ask for patience with — from us on the Planning Commission and from the members of the public who are going to speak. The staff is doing the best they can under the circumstances, and wejust will have to ferret it out ourselves and work with them as best we can. And the other item is, this is a special meeting, but because of an advertising glitch for the Land Development Code part of it, we will not be taking action today. We'll be holding off action until the next advertised meeting for Land Development Code amendments. So today we'll be doing all the discussion and making notes of our positions. And then by the time it comes up to vote it will probably be the next LDC cycle meeting. Which is when, Ray, do you know? MR. BELLOWS: It's scheduled for February 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 26th? MR. BELLOWS: That's a Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we discuss today involving the Land Development Code will actually be voted on on February 26th. But today's meeting will hopefully have the meat of the discussion and the pros and cons and all the stuff put on the table. Okay, with that having been said we'll move right into -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you want to make an announcement about the Value Adjustment Board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, thank you, yes. This short-term memory's having a problem here today. The Value Adjustment Board was originally scheduled for this room. It has been moved to the second floor at 9:00. So anybody involving the Value Adjustment Board, it's on the second floor at 9:00. Okay, with that we'll move into the CIE. And before we go too far, I'd like to apologize to Norm Feder and Phil Gramatges. I had told them at the last meeting that I would try and get together with them to go over some of these issues. There are other priorities in life and unfortunately I just could not squeeze it in in the few days we had, and I will -- I'm sorry, I've got to ask all my questions here today. But that's the process we'll have to follow. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. Each of you received an e -mail late last week with the updates to the staff report that followed your discussions at the previous meeting. Only one change has been made since that time that I'd like to point out. In your edited staff report on Page 3 of the appendix in a paragraph that begins with: On June 22nd, 2004, the sentence ending that paragraph has been stricken entirely. It was a sentence that read: The program was modified by action of the BCC in 2009. And it goes on. And there was no good language to indicate that in a different way. And that is not the case. There was no action taken by the BCC in 2009, so it was best to simply strike that sentence. Otherwise, all the changes in this document were as you discussed them last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Corby, or you want us to go right into -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'd like you to go right into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right into, huh? Page 3 January 28, 2016 There's been several packets of information sent out to us in response to the questions we asked last week. I had posed many of those questions, and I don't mind starting out the discussion, but I don't want to take that from anybody else that may have a more prominent question to start off. Does anybody have a general question they'd like to ask? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Corby, we have a packet from transportation, so I guess maybe Norm and i are going to have our discussion now. The first page of the packet is titled transportation division, fiscal basis for CIE FY '10 to FY '14. I'd like to start with that page, Norm. MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second paragraph on that page in the middle you have a statement: Rather than reductions are applied only to ad valorem for the entire transportation division based on the adopted 2010 budget. Can you tell me what you mean by that? MR. FEDER: Yes. Can you get the -- yes, Mr. Chairman. As was detailed in our last meeting, when we were asked by the Board of County Commissioners when they adopted the 2009 AUIR to come back with some alternatives in the Capital Improvement Element, specifically they asked us to look at ways, as did the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee reviewing the AUIR, to try and reduce transportation's use of ad valorem taxes. What we have done in these examples to bring to the board for their discussion is evaluate 11, 15 and 20 percent reductions in the division's overall ad valorem. Not just in the capital program, which is predominantly what you see in the AUIR of the Capital Improvement Element, but in our overall budget. So every dollar that I get in ad valorem, whether it be general fund or be the unincorporated MSTD, known as Fund 111, is identified. And beyond the debt service we have then taken an 11, 15 and 20 percent. And so the question you had is what was the basis for that? The basis is the 2010 adopted budget. Have I answered your question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And the reason I asked the question, I had pulled copies of the budget from the website. MR. FEDER: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- unfortunately I have them in a different order than what we're going to have in the conversation, so give me a second here to find the right sheet. In the FY 2010 current budget for the transportation department, you had 60,188,200. That was just pulled -- I pulled that from the website last night. I have it here in case you want to see it. The problem is I still can't correlate — and I know that 60 million is one of five years. I can't correlate that 60 million to any of the sheets that you provided me. The attachment D, the approved AUIR update for 2009 was 79 million, 676. And the 11 percent ad valorem reduction actually increased your department to 89 million, 091. But the budget that was approved is 60 million, 188. And I just can't figure out how to bring those together. MR. FEDER: Well, again, I have no idea what you pulled out on the budget. I can tell you -- I can tell you -- was that the approved budget, the adopted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the website as the approved budget. It says approved budget for 2010, so I grabbed it. But I -- you know, if this isn't it, I don't know how to find what is. And I'd be glad to put this on the screen, if you'd like. MR. FEDER: Yeah, if you would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, this is where my problems started occurring in the last meeting. I cannot -- I can't find your starting point for the reductions that you've been telling us you're including. I have no doubt that you include a reduction, but some number that you started with, I can't get to. MR. FEDER: The reason I pulled that up is you're looking at a number that's our total budget. But you're also looking at what the different funding sources are. What I am attaching, the 11, 15 and 20 percent, is solely to all of my budget, capital and operating, that is funded by 001, which is general fund, or 1 11, which is the unincorporated general fund. Here you've got transfers in and out, you've got gas taxes and other issues in there. So you've got a lot more Page 4 161 P1 I Jer(nary 281010 than just purely what is ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your reductions, you're looking at a five -year CIE and you're looking at 353 million, which was the approved AUIR. That was reduced to -- by 11 percent down to 329. But of course if you multiply 353 times 11 percent, you don't get to 329. MR. FEDER: Of course not. Because again the 11 percent is only on the ad valorem portion. My impact fees will remain the same from the AUIR with one exception. In 2012 I didn't go up to 15, 1 stayed at the 12 -five for another year, given the way the economy is going, and the gas tax revenues are in there as well. So again, like I said, it is not as simple as taking the AUIR and subtracting 11 percent, 15 percent or 20 percent. It is -- and I'll go back to the other sheet. What I presented specifically -- excuse me. What I presented specifically at the last meeting, which is a look at the ad valorem, which I was asked to reduce, reducing my impact fees makes no sense, other than the fact that they're doing it on their own, because I have to use it for transportation capital. Reducing my gas tax, which can only be used for transportation and operating, it's doing it on its own. But again, not the issue. The issue was can you and how can you reduce ad valorem property tax, both general fund and unincorporated MSTD. And that's what these numbers are talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to reduce your overall department's operating cost, not -- I shouldn't say operating cost in a sense of the budget, but the overall cost for your department, whether they're capital or operating -- by 11 percent, you would then have a greater reduction in percentage cost than just the 11 percent affected by ad valorem; is that a fair statement? MR. FEDER: Of course. I have other funding sources, impact fees and gas taxes. So if you reduce 11 percent of those, obviously that's going to be greater than just reducing 11 percent of one of the funding sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm looking at reducing the I 1 percent of the costs that those have to reimburse. And the reason I'm getting at that is you could then use that money to supplement where you're reducing your ad valorem if your whole entire department was reduced, instead ofjust the ad valorem funded portions of it. MR. FEDER: If I understand what you just said tome, and make sure I do, that if I were to reduce all three funding sources, and let me go back to that in a second, that obviously that's a bigger reduction than the 11 percent. That's true. I'm not understanding the second part of your question. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: Actually, I'm focusing on funding sources when I mean expenditures. I don't care in this big pot where you spend the money from, I'm more concerned in how much money you spend. Are we seeing an 11 percent reduction in the spending cost overall for the department or just those costs to drive the ad valorem tax down? MR. FEDER: You're seeing an 11 percent reduction under the 11 percent in only the ad valorem, which results in an overall reduction but not at 11 percent. Because why would I reduce my impact fees and my operating? And 11 percent is considered a little bit higher than the current reduction in assessed value, 15 percent and 20 even more. So yes, obviously you could tell me either reduce 50 percent of your ad valorem or reduce I 1 percent of your overall budget, take it out of ad valorem, which might become, I don't know, I don't have the numbers, bear with me, 30, 40 percent. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: Well, if you reduced other portions of your expenditures that were funded by say impact fees and things like that and those fees could be used somewhere else, I know impact fees happen to be a more restrictive use. But still they could use it to, I would assume, take care of some of the bonds that they -- for the new construction. MR. FEDER: No. There are no bonds. Transportation did not bond its impact fees. There are no impact fee bonds. The only thing I have, as we reviewed last meeting, was when I came here in 2000 and the sales tax didn't pass, there was a large backlog we had developed over the years, and we disproved the theory that if you don't build they don't come. Huge backlog. That backlog had shown to be funded for impact fees which would not been updated from '93 to 2000 to have been brought to the board's standard of growth pays for growth. And we had a lot of fun in those issues and we actually worked very well with the industry who even went further and worked with us on 50 percent up front and 50 percent within three years to try and address the needs. Page 5 Jailuary 28, 2010 But I had to be able to show that in fact those impact fees were on new growth paying its way, not making up for the deficits of the past. And so the monies that you're saying that I have in debt service, that was basically gas tax bonded and ad valorem dollars provided to help pay the debt. So that portion is in there, that 14.6 million, as it got leveled off is in there. What I'm then doing is using additional ad valorem, which made up the rest of that deficit, because the two bond issues in gas tax raised just over 200 million. The initial backlog deficit was well over $250 million. So the difference was being done by ad valorem. Since then we backed off. As we discussed, it's no longer -- 24 million is now not almost 10 million over what I had to make up that backlog, it's been reduced as each successive reduction in ad valorem has come about. And here we propose an even further reduction in ad valorem to the division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the percentages that we're looking at for the reduction aren't a reduction in the overall department, it's purely for the funded portion that's ad valorem. MR. FEDER: Correct. And that's what 1 was asked to do by the board, find some way to pull out your commitment to ad valorem. Because again, gas taxes can only be used in transportation, and impact fees, transportation impact fees can only be used in transportation for capital expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know, just out of curiosity, why they weren't interested in knowing what you could do as an overall percentage reduction for your department? MR. FEDER: I have to ask the question of what we're trying to accomplish here. I'm offering up to the board, and the board -- and this board can make any recommendation it wants to the Board of County Commissioners, but the board wanted to address the reduced assessed values. But in reality, transportation, because it still had some capital program, was asked to take a strong burden of that, and even in the budget guidance is taking a significant portion of that so that we don't have to address that as hard across the board. But I will tell you that I hope we're not venturing on job one becoming job done and venturing where we did in the early Nineties, that we no longer have to do anything anymore in transportation. Because that is not the answer, that is the one that got us to very high costs, very high impact over the last nine years, and at least some body parts out of the hole. So I don't understand the basis of the question when in reality impact fees and gas taxes can only be used. And what I've been asked to do is reduce my level. And I've offered up three options, and there are any options that can be made, to reduce the ad valorem portion of my budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question simply -- well, you have a reduction in gas tax and you have a reduction in impact fees, so you're automatically reducing your expenditures in those two categories, aren't you? MR. FEDER: Already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the -- trying to do what we did in the past, you sound like the utility department; when they all want to make a point they always throw up the failure of the North Naples plant for the sewage overflow. 1 don't care about the past. We're not here to mimic the past, and no one's -- MR. FEDER: I hope not, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- trying to do that, Norm, so I don't think that's a valid part of your argument. Page 12 of your package you sent out, the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You show that in Phase I and the 1/15/2010 budget you have $30 million. And then in Phase II you have 16. And down below you have expenditures to date of 13 million. Which did it come out of, the 30 or the 16, the 13 million? MR. FEDER: Predominantly it came out of the 30, but not entirely, because we had some whole takes in Phase 11. As I noted previously, our first concentration was on the 21 whole takes. I believe I'm correct, and I've got staff here, that about 19 of those 21 have been acquired. And the hots (phonetic) are being acquired. But nevertheless, the first emphasis was on those whole takes and then we're going under a negotiation process with willing sellers that we can come to a reasonable but making them whole deal, and we brought those to the board over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You started out in 2007 with a Phase I of 37 million, and then in 2010 you ended up with 30 million. is that seven million part of that 13 that was expended'? Page 6 161 ,...,y 2T, 2010 MR. FEDER: No. There's a little bit in there and it's also -- what you're seeing in the 37 to the 30 is simply the overall estimate of phases. The 13 is showing you what we spent so far to come to what we have remaining, when the two are added. But you asked the question, and that is: How has the value in our estimate of costs changed over time. And that's what the first is showing you. Of all the parcels we had to acquire, in 2007 our estimate of cost to acquire was 37 -eight and 28 -three for a total of 66 -two. Now, we've had some reductions in values. And that's what's reflected in each year. And then we do the valuation before we go through the process. And that's brought that 66 down to 47-three- And again, I need to caution you, when we're acquiring right -of -way for transportation, it is not the same as buying the two and a half acre lot out in the Estates. I can't go out and say I want a two and a half acre lot, get five or six different people to compete together and I choose the best priced one. I am out there designing, getting permitted and specifically telling property owner "X" I need a portion of their property. I then have to pay seven stanwiges (phonetic), because I can't buy the whole property. So it's not -- and I've got administrative processes I have to do. I have to pay for attorneys and other issues that are fixed costs. So it is not always purely an issue of if property values have gone down 50 percent my cost of right -of -way acquisition don't follow exactly suit. But this shows you what the cost was. So in answer to your question, the current estimate for both phases is 47. I've already acquired 13. Now, some of that I acquired when it was a little higher, some a little lower, so I can't give you an exact one- for -one. But nonetheless, of the overall cost I've acquired 13, so 1 took that off the 47. That leaves 33 still required. We've got 12 in the budget, which was based on the question that you had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the 18 -nine that you're saving then, is you'rejust going to reduce the 30 million that you could have potentially purchased, used in 2010 for purchase or right -of -way down to only -- to max it out at around 12 million; is that right? MR. FEDER: We're going -- we still have 12 million, but that still doesn't buy all the right -of -way, based on our current estimates, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. I just wanted to understand how you got -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the 12 million. On your bridge list that you've provided -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have two columns that I'm interested in. One says sufficiency rating, the other says health rating. And they're quite different. What is the significance of each column? MR. FEDER: I'm going to ask Gary Putaansuu, who works with our design and bridges. But essentially they've changed the process, but they equate in many respects to what was the former labels, which was structural rating, which is the actual worthiness of the structure and its soundness, and then to what's called a functional obsolescence, which is whether or not it meets current design and safety standards, does it have a breakdown lane guardrails of a certain height and the like. Gary, can you elaborate any further on that? MR. PUTAANSUU: Yeah, my name's Gary Putaansuu. I'm Principal Project Manager in Transportation, Engineering, Construction Management, and I have responsibility for the bridge program. The sufficiency rating is a rating that -- okay, I guess to begin with, FDOT inspects all the bridges. They look at half of our bridges every year. In a two -year period they go through looking at all of them and they give us inspection reports. Over the past — in the past the sufficiency rating was the only rating they used. Health index didn't -- they didn't have that health rating. That's a new one that when that interstate bridge collapsed, federal highways looked at how the bridges -- it all comes kind of down from the federal highways. That's why all the inspections of all bridges are being done. Their instruction -- they evaluate it and they came up with I think kind of a thing that was lacking in the efficiency rating and that they needed to look at the bridges a different way and that there were certain elements that failed on -- in that catastrophe. And so they came up with the health index -- or the health rating. So now we kind of have both -- well, not Page 7 F January 28, 2010 kind of, we have both numbers. And for me in particular, I mean, you get into the numbers and things, but for me when I look at the whole listing, the numbers are an indicator of -- that I've got an issue, that I need to look further at that bridge. And when I look at the inspection reports that have gone on our existing bridges -- well, for one, our existing bridges, more than half were built in the 1960's or earlier. So they're getting on 50 years old. This is our -- we're in a climate here, we have a high salt sort ofthing. Corrosion of steel and things is really a big -- you know, so we have to be concerned about preserving the life of these structures and making sure that we don't have a catastrophe with them. When I look at the reports, regardless of all the numbers, and 1 see the photos and we do have bridges that do have exposed steel, we do have bridges that do have some exposed strain, and we need to look further into how -- you know, what needs to be done in each bridge. And in some cases it mayjust be more of a cosmetic or protection, you know, go in and preserve what we've got there. In other cases we've got bridges that were designed on an earlier standard, the decks may not be thick enough to support a rail that meets today's standard. Rails are an issue. So we can't just do a cosmetic repair. At some point we've got to look at what's the best thing to do, do we repair or do we in some cases have to go in and replace. And a certain amount of them are going to. We already found that with Chokoloskee when we got into it that, you know, the deck's too thin to really put the rail we want. Now we've got to look at in the future replacing that bridge. And that's a -- the other part of that is that while there may not be a lot of people out there, it's the only way back and forth, so those bridges are really important. So, you know, what I see in looking at the photos is that we need to look at -- I've got a list of 23 bridges. We need to go out right away and, you know, find out the extent of the needs on each one of those. And I've projected, based on what we've learned in the last couple of years getting into this, what -- from my experience there what the range of expenses are on them. We'll only know when we get in --really get into looking at them, just to see how extensive conditions are. And the other thing that we're into is channels. Let's -- the Goodland Bridge, for instance, we're up doing some rail repair and deck things on that -- or, you know, on the structure of a -- navigation -wise, we're really in poor shape. We're going through that bridge a little over a half a million dollars. But also following up on that was that we have about a million dollars of channel repair that we need to do down in the channel to protect the foundations for that bridge. And a great share of these bridges I see evidence from the photos and inspections that we need to be looking at what's going on in these foundations and protecting them. So here again, you know, it's going to be each site when we go out. But main -- we need to real -- you know, a year from now I guess I can tell you in better detail once we know more about all the different, you know, the ones. We were going to go about it five bridges at a time, and then we've decided no, let's take a look at all of them that we know about, assess them, and then we move forward and repair what needs to be repaired, and look at -- what I do want to avoid is repairing something that I really have to, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tear down. MR. PUTAANSUU: Tear -- yeah, I need to replace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple other peripheral questions, though. You have -- some of these are listed as drainage canals. What are you doing in a drainage canal under bridge maintenance? Is it -- because I -- for example, you've got Immokalee Road drainage canal, you've got the Ted Kersey Road drainage canal. Several like that. What is that kind of work? MR. PUTAANSUU: Well, basically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it bridge work? Let's put it that way. MR. PUTAANSUU: Well, yeah. Our roads cross -- we've got a network of canals out there. And let's take Immokalee Road for instance — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, just tell me, is that the bridge crossing for the drainage canals? MR. PUTAANSUU: Yeah, that's where we're at. We've got bridges across canals, and yeah, that's a great share of work, and bridges are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, most of them have the word bridge or something like that in it. And I just was questioning, because we've have a stormwater drainage expense fund or capital -- MR. PUTAANSUU: Yeah -- Page 8 16! 1 anuary 2$,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- improvement fund, and those should be there. MR. PUTAANSUU: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question I have is, is this supposed to be strictly for repair and maintenance of bridges, since this is under that section of your budget? MR. PUTAANSUU: Basically that's what we want to do primarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the -- on the sixth one down on the five -year program you have number one Estates at 23rd Avenue Bridge, and it's shown at a value that reflects the new construction cost. And I'm just wondering, is that a new bridge or is that an old bridge, or how is -- why is that on your five -year program? It's 2. -- almost 2.3 million. MR. PUTAANSUU: Okay, 23rd, in order to -- there's only one -- the river on -- or the bridge on White, in order to replace it we have to take it out, and it's the only way in and out of there. And the 23rd connection, besides being on that Horizon Study, is one that we would need in order that traffic back in that area can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The justification of it I'm not questioning. MR. PUTAANSUU: But yeah, that's what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just questioning the allocation of it, not the justification of it. If it's new construction, wouldn't we want to be looking at impact fees instead of an operating budget or maintenance budget to put that under? MR. FEDER: Again, impact fees is adding new capacity, not necessarily -- in other words, new lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: So if I'm not going to widen that bridge and adding new lanes, it wouldn't fall under impact fee capability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't -- on the 23rd Avenue one it's not a new bridge, it's an existing bridge? MR. FEDER: There is an existing bridge there today and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's shaking his head no. MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Jay Ahmad, Director of Transportation Engineer. The White Bridge is one of the bridges on the FDOT that is (sic) received very low score and indicates that it needs rehabilitation or replacement. We have looked at it. It does look like it needs replacement. In order to replace that bridge while under construction, the only alternative to having traffic, an MOT, maintenance traffic, to that area is to build a new bridge. And you're correct, that would be a new bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then again, back to impact fees. It would -- I don't know, why couldn't you put that under an impact fee cost instead of a maintenance cost? MR. FEDER: We could on a new bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my point. So that's something that you could look at adjusting? MR. FEDER: Yes, you could. But again, I need to make the point, there is only impact fees and a portion of gas tax remaining once you get past 11 percent reduction within the capital program. So you're replacing one dollar for another. In other words, it would be gas tax or impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the largest area for permitting in Collier County for quite some time in the heydey was Golden Gate Estates. And it would seem that if a bridge is needed out of impact fees, they certainly were generated from that area, so -- MR. FEDER: And there's a lot being spent in that area, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll try to finish up. I haven't got too many more. Recycling. I see Dan's here today. That means Phil got tired of trying to answer his questions last time. Dan, how are you doing? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Planning Commissioners. Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that you wrote the report in response to the questions about the tipping fees? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, one of the bullets you put on there, it says the recycled materials do not go Page 9 n January 28, 2010 into the landfill and therefore no tipping fees are derived from those recycling streams. Well, Waste Management doesn't seem like a nonprofit organization. So how do they get paid then? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department Director. Waste Management gets paid based on the tonnage that comes across the scale. Part of a life of site landfill operating agreement. They receive a percentage of the tonnage for the buried material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But what about the recycling material, how do they get paid for that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: As part of our collections agreement, it's a comprehensive inclusive agreement whereas part of the rate they're responsible for taking those recyclables and sending them to their MRF to be recycled, so it's part of that contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the more recycling we have which brings the other solid waste down, the tipping fees theoretically then would go up to offset the loss of the weight that would have to be paid for the tipping fees for the other solid waste that is now recycled? MR. RODRIGUEZ,: Not necessarily. The more that we recycle, the less goes to the landfill. The less we bury, the less we pay Waste Management on the disposal side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I also notice that under your landfill you progressively have gone down in your fees, revenues. And I think it was mentioned in here that it's due to the recycling effort? And it started going down in 2007. That's when our population started dropping, too. Didn't that have something to do with it as well? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The economic decline had some portion of it. But the majority of it has to do with recycling. The single stream cart program rolled out in 2005, and we currently have an 80 percent participation rate of citizens in Collier County that use recycling, and therefore the residential side has decreased substantially. And as well as with the implementation in 2005 of the mandatory commercial recycling ordinance, your commercial businesses are also recycling more and more and every year that amount continues to increase, bringing value back to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, basically your department wasn't into this CIE for money issues, but you had one that led me to all these questions, and that was the revenue stream, you have an LIT, landfill tipping fees, and you show a revenue and an expenditure of 3.4 million. What is that about? If it's all going to Waste Management, what are we running it through our books for? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's a very good question, thank you. That's a good question. There's two separate tables. We have a contract with Waste Management for life of site. Irrespective of how much revenue they receive from us, they are required to build the cells for expansion. So if the tonnage decreases, they earn less revenue. We have longer life of the landfill, so they need to construct less. It's their responsibility to develop a recovery fund to build those cells as part of that agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 3.4 million is their recovery fund -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that we're holding for them? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it on our books? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. You tell me Pm probably right, that's a good question. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, we were asked to put that in there two years ago. We were asked to put that in there as part of a CIE so that we're similar to other departments. But really that's not our CIE program. That's Waste Management's program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- okay, that's a good question. Does that mean we can take it off our books? I don't know why we'd want to show something that isn't necessarily supposed to be there, nor is it run through Collier County's processes. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. We put that number there because we were requested to put that number there in 2007. Should this committee recommend to the board that we should not report those numbers in the future, we certainly will support that. We did not report it before 2007. And we were asked, I don't remember if it was this committee or the Page 10 161 1 -5Januar}„28,2010 Productivity Committee who asked that we put those numbers in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we can be assured from our viewpoint that number does not flow through the county's book, it's not money the county's having to account for, it was just a holding value that somebody decided they wanted to see on the books; is that a -- MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just adds to the confusion of our overall budget. So I for one would certainly like to see that removed, and I'd like to see that bridge program for the new construction straightened out. And with those two issues, that kind of sums up most of my concern, so thank you. And I have one more question of Norm that I have to ask. 'Thank you, Phil and Dan. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just briefly on that issue, and while we wouldn't necessarily -- maybe a memo item on our books, although I agree it shouldn't be there, per se, but you do have some means that you record the information inasmuch as it's almost essentially being treated as an escrow. So you are nevertheless accumulating that information or you are in some fashion putting it in some book, are you not? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're not actually. What we do is we manage the contract with Waste Management. There's language in the contract that requires them to provide to us and the Florida Department of Environment Protection a scheduled construction schedule. And as part of the AUIR and it's also in our contract, they have to have permitted built cell capacity for two years on -site and 10 years of permitted capacity. So that's our check and balance to ensure they're in compliance of having those -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And it's in your interest to know that -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- they continue to fund that in anticipation. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But you receive that as a report rather than having it in a book. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no one remembers, though, and no one can state for us why it was requested of you to put that three million or whatever the figure might be into our CIE. MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, we were — Phil Gramatges, again. We were not told as to the reason. And I believe that the reason that was given is for clarity purposes. I would disagree that it clarifies matters, but that's only my personal opinion. And that's the reason why we say that it is confusing and we certainly would support your recommendation to take it out of that report. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. And Norm, I have one other question. MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The bridge operations and maintenance, that is an ad valorem cost? MR. FEDER: The bridge operations and maintenance portion of it is ad valorem. Most of it is gas tax. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year you were asked to reduce your ad valorem budget by 11 percent. Do you know why 1 1 percent was arrived at? MR. FEDER: We were asked to try and identify a millage neutral and a further cut. At the time that we developed this we were told it was initially 15, then we were told 11, now they're talking about 10, but nonetheless we did 11 because that's what we were told at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I ex -- I know that -- I kind of knew the answer, but I wanted to understand from you that it matched what I was thinking in that we expected or if we did have a certain estimated cut in ad valorem taxes last year and every department was supposedly trying to match that or -- MR. FEDER: It's actually for the upcoming year, but yes, an expected cut based on reduced assessed values. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you expect the cut the upcoming year that this budget's being set up for to be more severe or less severe than last year's? MR. FEDER: Again, we're confusing matters here. Last year we had a cut basis. This one is probably a little less severe. And right now it's projected about 10 percent. Page I I January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norm, a quick one. In the new bridge, would the total cost of the bridge be allowed to impact fees or do you prorate it for existing use? MR. FEDER: The total amount of the bridge, because it's brand new in added capacity and we can make that adjustment. It's a matter of it won't change overall funding but it will allow us to make that adjustment, if that's the desire of this group. We did commit the bridge funds, as you're well aware -- I mean the impact fees -- in those districts to the Oil Well/Ave Maria agreement that we're just going under construction. That's the only caveat I'll place to that. But we should have sufficient impact fees in that district to allow that bridge to be covered by impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, you know, the question kind of is, you can build a new bridge totally out of impact fees. In other words, you don't have -- MR. FEDER: Well, you're adding new capacity, which you would be on any of the lanes you're building on a new bridge. Of course you didn't have that capacity previously. You could argue a little bit beyond that, but we would stay to only the bridge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, the last thing in your particular department's percentages, when you move from 11 percent to 15 percent, to get to the 15 percent two things seem to have occurred: That you've taken the Santa Boulevard (sic) Copper Leaf to Green expansion and put it off till FY '14, and that removes 17 million, 800. Is that a fair statement for the first -- MR. FEDER: I believe you may have moved it well beyond that. But yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says FY'l4 -- MR. FEDER: '14 initially, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you took some of that 17 -eight that was saved by moving that beyond and increased the reserves that used to be underfunded by the 11 percent by a negative 1.2 to now make it a positive of four percent. You're almost over five percent increase in funding of your reserve. So we didn't lose the full 17 -eight from your budget. We lose the portion of it that wasn't funded to the reserves; is that correct? MR. FEDER: You balance the program. The 17 -eight could no longer be afforded, but there were dollars and those were distributed into the reserves, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only difference between the 11 and 15 percent that I can see. MR. FEDER: That is the primary difference, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Is there any other comments from the Planning Commission? Any other questions? (No response.) CH M AIRAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any members of the public that wish to speak on this exciting CIE budget? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw everybody was totally absorbed in this thing. Ray, there's no other staff information reports? MR. BELLOWS: No other reports and no one has registered to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I will be looking for a motion from the Planning Commission on this item. I'll be glad to suggest one. I would suggest as a motion that we remove the tipping fee notation in the budget amount, since it is not something that needs to run through the county's books. That the new bridge that's listed in the operations and maintenance section of the road and bridge be transferred to another funding source through either impact fees or gas tax, whatever the normal source is. And that the values that Norm has presented, that we use the 15 percent column instead of the 1 I or 20 percent. Page 12 1611 January 28, 2010 Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll make that in the form of a motion if there's a second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you enlighten us why you would like to use the 15 rather than the 11? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just explained to Norm that very answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, would you help me, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go to your book that was originally passed out, we originally had an 11 percent column that provided certain listings that were already cut to provide the 11 percent deduct. Then we had the columns under 15 percent that provided cuts to 15 percent. There were only two changes in the cuts, one of which actually was a betterment. It increased the reserves so that Norm has a reserve now that's substantial, and it decre — or put off a construction area at Santa Barbara Boulevard that I drive constantly and I'm not seeing that as needed as -- I would have to agree with Norm, it certainly could be put off. Those are the only two changes from 11 to 15 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I didn't see a problem with them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. And I want to thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion and second. Is there any further 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 MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and we're 8 -0. Corby, thank you. And I certainly appreciate all of staffs time and especially transportation's input. And the utilities, and Phil and Dan, thank you for your patience here for two meetings. Very much appreciated. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Item #4B LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the item that everybody has been waiting for. We'll get into the Land Development Code amendments. And the first one up today is -- and Susan, do you want any preliminary statements or comments that you'd like to make? MS. ISTENES: Please, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MS. ISTENES: 1 just have a quick question. Does all of the commission members have a copy of the agenda Page 13 January 28, 2010 I e- mailed you? If not, I have copies here. Because then 1 would like to distribute -- or leave the rest out for the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I passed out copies to everyone this morning. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Then I'll go ahead and leave these on this back table for members of the public. And that's all I have at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm switching books. Okay, David Weeks did an analysis on the first item up on our agenda today. Unfortunately it was handed out a few minutes ago. Now, there's two things that have to occur. We ought to be given the ability to read it and the applicant ought to be given the ability to continue his item to one of our next meetings if they want time to respond to it. So before we decide how fast we've got to read this, let's ask the applicant's representative what they would like to do in the matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. It's a little scary that we're of the same mindset this early in the morning, because I was going to request a continuance so that we could answer questions raised by this memo between now and -- my understanding would be February 26th, because I think you're coming back again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd be first up on February 26th. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be great. If we can have that courtesy, I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem. "These are too important to just miss anything. And I would honestly like the time to read David's memo, because his comments are very carefully written by him. So that would give us all time to read them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. So the very first item, which is the medical surgical item on 2.03.03 E.1 is delayed until the 26th of February. Tor, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a comment in general on these amendments coming up, and it's a question to Jeff Klatzkow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As you know, my wife and her daughter are trustees of some residential property which is involved with county litigation that pertains to the following issues and LDC amendments on this agenda. They are, number one, definition of corridor through and interior lots on Page 80. Excuse me, Page 80. Front yard setback court (sic) through acre method of measurement, which is on Page 83. A rewrite section of the lot line adjustment on Page 193. My question to Jeff is should I recuse myself from either discussing or voting on any of these LDC amendments? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. I so do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Tor, when we get to those and we ask for the vote, just note that you're abstaining. There is a form I believe that you need to fill out, but we won't be voting today anyway, so none of it will apply. to today. But on the 26th of February you need to have those forms tilled out. MR. KLATZKOW: If you vote on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- we can't vote on them today. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: if we vote on them at all. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, good point. Because I certainly have my issues. Thank you, Tor. Anybody else have any general comments before we go into the next item, which is 2.03.07.L? MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: May I? Page 14 16 1 A 5 1' January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ISTENES: In light of what just happened with Rich's amendment, I did want to make you aware, and I had discussed this with you earlier, I do have another draft copy of a memo from David Weeks relative to the industrial zoning district's Anthony Pires' private application. It does not -- it reaches the same conclusions I did in the memo you already have. So I just wanted to make you aware of that. I have copies, I can certainly hand them out to you. They still have draft written all over them. And I did ask for one without draft and I did not get one, but at this point they're public record and I don't think they're going to change. It's pretty benign. But I'd be happy to hand it out to you, but I just wanted to make you aware of the same situation with that. It's just a little bit different in that it doesn't change or doesn't modify or isn't that different from my conclusion that you already received a couple weeks ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is a new document — MS. ISTENES: Correct -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by a new staff member. And the applicant for that will have the same courtesy offered to him as Mr. Yovanovich's was just received. Tony? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would you like to do in regards to this? MR. PIRES: I'd like to have it continued. I've not even seen that draft memo yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know how picky you are with words. So I'm sure you'll look at every single word of it. So with that we'll just bring you up as the second item up on the February 26th meeting. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that moves us faster today. Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. White called me yesterday and graciously offered to allow me to go back -to -back with my two petitions so I wouldn't have to wait. So is it possible for me to jump in front and deal with the timeshare issue prior to getting into the Vanderbilt Beach overlay? It doesn't matter -- I mean, I appreciated him making that gesture. So if that's possible, I'd love to do it. If not, 1 understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get to the microphone, please. MR. WHITE: Good morning. Patrick White for the record. Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you just heard Richard. MR. WHITE: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems with that? MR. WHITE: None at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's fine. Susan, are there any additional hidden drafted magic documents that we need to have on the next two? MS. ISTENES: Not that I'm aware of And if you would just work from your agenda. John put together a really easy agenda to follow, so you'll be starting on Page 69 with this amendment. Of your book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if everybody will turn to Page 69. And it maybe easier said than done. Okay, everybody on the Page 69? Richard, are you making the presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. With me today also is Bob Duane, who can answer any other questions you may have that I can't answer regarding our proposed LDC amendment. What we're trying to address is an issue that has come up over the last few years regarding timeshares. Page 15 5 January 28, 2010 The way your code treats a timeshare is it treats it as a land use, when in reality a timeshare is a form of property ownership. It is not a land use. Just like a condominium is not a land use, it is a form of ownership. You don't regulate multi - family based upon whether it's a condominium form of ownership versus it's owned by just one entity. So we've run into confusion when a property owner wants to develop a hotel or a transient use with the timeshare form of ownership, because under the RT zoning district the timeshare is treated as a use and it's actually treated as a multi - family use for purposes of density or intensity. So the amendment you have in front of you today is to clarify and address the ownership issue related to timeshare versus the zoning type of use that it's commonly treated as right now under the RT zoning district. So the amendments are -- there's a couple -- it's a little confusing because the definitions of timeshare that are in your code are in the old LDC. They didn't come forward. So we're trying to revise the old definitions that you find in your old LDC. And in that timeshare it's referred to as a dwelling unit which connotes residential. So we would either like to just strike the definitions of timeshare or simply reference the statutory definitions of timeshare. And that's one amendment. The second amendment is to the footnotes to clarify that ifyour use is a transient use, hotel or motel, it can be a timeshare form of ownership and you would be entitled to 26 units per acre. And you would have to meet the dimensional standards for a hotel /motel unit. And I noticed one typo in the staff report. The actual unit sizes are 300 square feet to 500 square feet. And that's on Page 2 of the item number two. So we are operating, we'll meet the same unit size requirements for hotel and motel units, the same operational requirements for hotel units, we just simply want to be able to have the ownership be a timeshare form of ownership. If you read my memo that went along with it, the statutes are pretty clear, you can't regulate timeshare as a land use, it's a form of ownership. And that's all we're trying to do is clarify those provisions within the Land Development Code. We don't have any objections to the staff recommended changes and clarifications in the memo. And with that, I'll answer any questions you would have regarding the purposes of these amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we normally take these documents sentence and page at a -- actually page at a time, so I'm assuming we'll approach it that way. Unless someone tells me they strongly object, that's how we'll do that. But if there's any general questions before we get into the page -by -page analysis, I'd sure like to hear them now. Then we'll get into the page by page. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The language that did not carry forward, do you have a copy of that language to put up there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, is it not -- do you not have -- MS. ISTENES: This -- Ray's putting it up on the visualizer. This is from 91 -102, the three definitions that did not make it into 04 -41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted it to be up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple general questions. First of all, is there anybody from transportation in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you ask that someone from transportation be available? Are they -- do you know why they're not here? MR. BELLOWS: They were here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they were. Then before we -- since I can't get that answer, I have another one. You're asking for density. MR. YOVANOViCH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want 26 units per acre. Page 16 January 28, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking to recognize that timeshare is an ownership interest, it's not a land use. I already have the right to do 26 hotel and motel units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you want them as timeshare units. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to be able to own them as timeshare. I don't -- I'm not asking for any additional density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So timeshare itself wouldn't carry the connotation of 26 units, they'd be allowed. You're saying you want them to be allowed to utilize timeshare and hotels that have the 26 -unit density_ MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, right. And if we operate it as a multi - family use, then the timeshare would only be allowed to have the 16 units. So I'm not asking for any changes in the density, I'm just asking that timeshare not be referred to as a use, i.e., multi- family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my last question, before we get into the page by page, you're not obviously doing this out of the goodness of your heart. Who's your client, or where is this to be located? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this particular project is for -- it's in Port ofthe Islands and for Sunstream is the client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that facility currently run under this manner? I mean, is there -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a timeshare currently — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a timeshare down there now? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- no. It's not a timeshare currently. And it would actually -- it would apply to probably some new units that would be constructed out that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, and without transportation here yet, I guess we'll go into the very first page, which is Page 69. Does anybody have any comments on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than I think Susan's memo was -- I had made a note about the same point. We don't normally in our definitions reference a Florida statute. We put the definition in there. So I think we're going to need to see the definition as it would have to appear in our document. And the reason it's important that we see it is because a lot of times in Florida statute, one sentence refers to another statute. And before you get done you're going through a chain of statutes. And so I'd like to see a succinct definition that is intended to be used for these three as it would be put in our code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think the simpler approach, if it's acceptable to the Planning Commission, is to delete from the code the definitions of timeshare and then simply rely on the statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe by the end of the discussion that's something that we should -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I think you'll see that they're rather lengthy. And now do you -- if those definitions change in the statute, do we now go back and amend the LDC every time there's a statutory change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one way or the other, the way it's presented doesn't work, I don't believe, so -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is you have a problem with the way our code always read in defining timeshare. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Because it says an interest in a dwelling. And a dwelling is a residential concept, it's not a hotel /motel. And I didn't want someone to now go back and say timeshare can only be in the residential context because the word dwelling is in the definition. I just wanted to eliminate the potential ambiguity that that creates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you operate a timeshare? Don't they generally operate on a week minimum? MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be a tran -- that's a transient type use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would then be using a hotel as a week stay -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for someone. So you're looking at 52 clients per hotel room instead -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 52 owners, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of365, say. MR. YOVANOVICH: Potentially. I mean, you don't know. I mean, most people are multi stays at a hotel Page 17 t January 28;-�o10 unit anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I was just -- yes. The answer to your question is yes, we would be a tran -- we'd still have to be transient. We'd still have to have the same characteristics and operate like a hotel and a motel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other general -- any questions on Page 69? If not, let's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, let's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: —just go back to these definitions. If you took the word dwelling out of where it says timeshare estates. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you have a problem with the definition as it sits? MR. YOVANOVICH: Any interest in what would we say? Airy interest -- I think that either delete it altogether or I'll come back to you and show you what the actual definitions are in the statute. I'd like there to be consistency between the statutory regulatory scheme and the Land Development Code. And that's why I simply thought it would be better to reference the statute definitions. If you want to put them in there verbatim, we can do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so it would be a problem for you if it said any interest in a unit under which the exclusive right of use, ownership blah, blah, blah? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, because if you look at the statutory definition, it actually gets into and clearly says that it can be a hoteEmotel unit. There's a laundry list of -- for example that I think would make it clearer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: My preference would go with the existing statutory definitions of these things so that were consistent with the Florida statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But would you have a preference whether they are in or out of our code? MR. KLATZKOW: I prefer them out of the code, because the legislation from time to time's going to tinker with those definitions. And this way we'll always he consistent with the Florida statutory framework. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And 1 notice transportation's here. And Norm, I didn't mean for you to have to be here, because I thought Nick would be here all day. MR. KLATZKOW: He's no longer transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that, but he's the one that -- MR. KLATZKOW: I keep telling him, it's not yourjob anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, with Nick when he's here, I've always got to make one comment to get him fired up. And Nick, we don't need the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, we do, on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I knew you were going to do that. Okay. Norm, I only had a small question. From an ITT traffic engineering viewpoint the density and the calculations and how you look at hotels, residential, motels, multi - family, single - family, does timeshare connotate any different calculation or special calculation, just like a residential might in another category? MR. FEDER: Hotel/motel is basically what's applied for a timeshare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they do fall under — that's the worst case scenario and they do fall under that. MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my question. Sorry to drag you back here for that. I thought Nick was going to give us the courtesy of hanging around here for a little bit, but -- MR. FEDER: I always love the opportunity to be here, Chairman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, in the definitions could you put the word transient into that definition? Page 18 1611 A5 January 28, 2010 I notice they don't. Some of the state statutes do have it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, see, the problem, Commissioner Schiffer, with that is you can have a timeshare that's a multi- family use. So it can't be -- that's why when you look in the footnotes we were very clear to say a timeshare that's operated like a hotel gets 26, and staff wanted to clarify that timeshares that are operated as multi - family get 16. So that's -- I think that's the better place to put it is in the footnotes than in the definitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The word transient? MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, I was once in this business. There are several different types of models for timeshares. Some of them are no more different than a hotel. I mean, Marriott for example has part of their rooms might be timeshare, part of their rooms might be regular hotels, and they'll do this basically to create, you know, an equity in their property. And the hotel itself will sell off the rooms various days, and then they'll broker it to resell it to others when people don't want to do it. Other models, more that people will come for a month at a time. It's many, many different models. So I really would suggest you go with the state on this. Because if you try to define what it is right now, it's an ever - changing business and we'd be constantly amending it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than just get the word transient in there, I'd be happy. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it's in the footnote. Footnote number three, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? Mr_ Murray, I thought I heard you say something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, maybe I did and I don't know it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's no problem. I didn't want to miss anybody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may have hrrmp'd or something, who knows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I guess the consensus is we do not include a definition, we fall to Florida statute, is that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was agreeing to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Pages 70 and 71? These are the tables in which the timeshare reference would be added. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I notice this is in the Vanderbilt Beach RT, which you know is coming up for discussion next. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is in the general RT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See Page 71? Is that the same as the issues that we got discussing the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Unfortunately I don't have Page 71, but I'm happy to look over here. I have a page but it's not by that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure if there's a conflict with anything else we're reviewing today -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It is -- it's a general change to all the RT zonings within Collier County. So there's the -- you have the VBRTO and then you have other areas that are RT that are not within the VBRTO. So yes, it applies to both sections. Although I was not engaged to deal with that particular issue, but it's a general revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So if your intent is to have this apply everywhere, have you had any discussions with the Vanderbilt property owners? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. My intent is to clarify the code that's incorrectly referring to this as a land use instead of a form of ownership. I'm not trying to change any of the land use characteristics anywhere in Collier County, I'm just trying to clarify the ownership issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 72. Anybody have any questions on Page 72? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and first of all, you can look at three. This is I guess where you want Page 19 January 28, 2010 to put transient in. It's not in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right, Mr. Schiffer. I thought hotel and motel, since that is a transient use, took care of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but here's where we want to be careful. We don't want somebody to use this to bend the rules to get something else. And the other question I'm having, can we reference the LDC section that establishes the square footage? In other words, you want to put in there meets the standards for hotels and motels, but that could - -just so that it's clear what we mean by that, that it's the size of the unit. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's within the RT zoning. I believe itself has the unit size standard. But I don't have an objection to doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if staff's comfortable that -- in other words, we don't want this to apply to -- because some timeshares are rather large, or essentially, like you say, multi- family. And we don't want this bent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, 1 don't know offhand which section that is. But I don't have an objection to a cross-reference- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, the standards for the hotel and motel I know have certain sizing limitations. And if this lang -- would this language tie them to that sizing to resolve Brad's concern? MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, that was my understanding. Certainly if you need further clarification, although Ray tells me it is in the RT zoning district already, so -- but there's certainly no objection, if you want to clarify it even further. It just makes it easier for people to understand it. COMMISSIONER CARON_ It's usually easier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you could word a clarification of that issue for that footnote, that would take care of that issue. MS. ISTENES: And that was footnote number -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three. MS. ISTENES: -- three. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think some of the other ones it might -- four has the similar wording. I just don't want somebody to say, you know, we meet the towel standards for -- you know, that sort. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's true, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Page 72? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we have a supplemental information, which is Page 73 and 74. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 75 is the existing language or the ones that's on the board in front of us. And 76 is some more information about language. Then we get into Susan's memo. I don't know if it's in your book or not, but Susan had provided a memo of about four pages in length -- three, actually. Richard, have you received her memo? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objections to her recommendations? MR. YOVANOVICH: The only clarification was to item number two, the unit sizes range from 300 to 500 feet, not 200 to 500 feet. MS. ISTENES: Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. And no, other than that, no, we don't object to her recommendations and conclusions, based upon our discussions about how we're going to deal with the definitions. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ISTENES: I do have another issue that kind of-- when researching timeshares, which is kind of a broad, Page 20 16115 anuary 28, 2010 as Jeffpointed out, very broad and confusing and ever - changing business. The one thing I recognized that the code doesn't address that we may want to put in here again for clarification, again just so everybody understands what's counted in density and what isn't, is this notion of lock -off units. And I don't know if you're familiar with that. But I guess what happens is there's a unit and there's the ability to lock off a portion of it. And they can range anywhere from studios to one - bedroom to two- bedroom. And unfortunately I should have probably printed out a floor plan, because when I was researching it they did show some examples of some floor plans. But if you can imagine perhaps a studio apartment that's attached to a timeshare unit and it actually has a small kitchen area and its own bathroom and bedroom and living space. And the question I would have is how would you account for that in the density? I looked up Lee County, and they actually had a provision in there. And I believe I took this from them. And they actually had a dwelling unit count, depending on the type of lock -off unit. And I can certainly put this up there and you can see what I'm talking about. But studios were counted as .1 dwelling units, one - bedrooms were .25. And I'm not suggesting that's the -- you know, the density count for that. I am just suggesting that we may want to put something or recognize that in the code so that it's clear how you count the density for those types of units, should they be developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with you. And we run into this in other categories too. If you've got a timeshare unit with a kitchen and bathroom, and of course an area for just general living, that's a unit. If you have a studio and it has a separate or additional kitchen facilities and bathroom plus an area to live in, wouldn't that be another unit in itself? MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, from our perspective, yes. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I think that needs to be -- MS. ISTENES: — my point is it probably just needs to be clarified in the code. And that's just my suggestion. So I throw that out there for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I mean, 1 thought it was a given, but I guess you're right, nothing is a given anymore. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you're regulated by keys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, here's what happens is like the example she has, you could have a foyer that you go into with a key. Then there's two doors off that foyer. One is just to a bedroom, or atypical hotel room. And the other one is to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Another unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a typical hotel room with a kitchen. So that could be a two- bedroom unit or one. But wouldn't our 500 feet kind of capture them, that they can't get bigger than that? MS. ISTENES: I don't know, honestly, Commissioner. I'm just -- I'm not that familiar with timeshares and how they're set up. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask you -- MS. ISTENES: -- like I said, they're always changing. So that was just a concern I wanted to raise. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many units would that be what I described? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one? MS. ISTENES: It sounds like it would be two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be rented to two separate people. So it should probably be two. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think what you'll find, is like I said, there will be two separate actual hotel keys. You'll have a key to get in and then the other family will need their own key. I don't think you're intending that if you have a hotel room that has a bedroom door that has the regular house lock on it to call that a unit. I think you're talking about when you can have multiple families in it and they have their own hotel key and they can lock themselves off -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- from the other unit. That I would agree, based on hotel keys would be two units. The first scenario where you just may have a door to have your kids sleep on the couch and you have privacy in your own room would not be two units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it could not be rented as two. Page 21 16iL January 28, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, I think that's a legitimate concern that ought to be addressed. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think Susan brought up a valid point. We should clarify it. We should look at it. I for one didn't even know about it. So if you can provide the information, that's good. I'djust -- I'd like to know about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the same thing happened in a lot of condos where they create guest suites on the lower floors and they try not to count them as density. But they are. That's where additional people stay and it has an impact, just like a unit does because people are living in them. So I certainly think this ought to be addressed. And when it comes back for final vote and review, that's one of the changes I think you should bring back with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope I won't slow down the process, because that may be something that you really want to put in a totally different definition. That may be something you want to put in a general regulation applicable to hotels and motels and not just RT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may be, but for now we want to catch the one that's coming before us. So let's just get it in this one so we don't miss this, and then if we have to expand it to other parts of the code, let's just do so. MR. KLATZKOW: Has this been an issue in hotels and motels? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I honestly don't know. But I can tell you -- MR. KLATZKOW: Because if it's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in condominiums it's done routinely. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying, if it's not an issue in hotels and motels -- because every time we make a change we get unintended consequences. If we have issues, existing issues, we should deal with them. If we don't have existing issues, you're going to be creating them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but we're creating a new form here. MR. KLATZKOW: You're just treating timeshare like a hotel. t know what a unit is. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is --I'm not asking you to change any of the unit standards. I'm not -- I'm staying at the three to 500 square feet. I'm not asking you to change how you would deal with lock -off units; I'm not asking you to change anything, I'm just asking you to recognize that timeshare is not a land use, it's a form of ownership. I'm just --I'm not asking for any changes to the code as far as the standards go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Code needs changed, can do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. If you need to deal with that issue, if it's an issue, I'd rather it wind its way through the normal process than maybe being attached to something and slow -- confuse things even further. Because timeshare is a confusing topic, as recognized by your own code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this particular project came in next -- after this was approved, say six months down the road, and they have these lock -off units in it, how would you look at it? How would staff look at it? MS. ISTENES: Exactly as I described, as a separate unit. I think -- and to get to Jeffs point, 1 mean, we haven't had any problems with hotel and motel. And I agree, I mean, why kind of mix up. When you start getting into these short-term and long -term rentals, our code -- and timeshares, our code is in my opinion kind of weak. So I wasn't trying to throw a monkey wrench into Rich's process, it was just something I recognized that we may want to address simply for clarification purposes in case a site plan comes in and staff doesn't know how to apply it or the public has a certain expectation and, you know, staffs opinion or application of the code at the time of site plan review doesn't meet with that expectation. That's my only intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then at this point let's sum up the changes that we need on this in order to vote on it next time. We're looking at removing the definitions and correcting the footnotes that were discussed. Is there any other issues that need to be fixed before it comes back to us for a vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're done for that one, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, we — Page 22 1 b 1 JanuAar 8, 2010 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, you were saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there's speakers? Okay, just a second. Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you were saying you're going to remove the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're really not going to remove -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your speaker. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me. I want to be clear. You're not removing, you're removing the old definitions. Aren't you going to reduce it down to those three that we now have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're not going to keep these in here at all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not needed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: State law. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I understand they're state law. But I thought I heard our County Attorney saying it was -- we should go by that. That's why I raised the question. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll refer to state law. We'll put in a quick clause saying -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that these -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's necessary. MR. KLATZKOW: -- definitions cease -- yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to refer to state law in a definition for timeshare in the definition section of the LDC, then you're going to have to bring it back next meeting for us to see. MR. YOVANOVICH: You already -- it was part of my application. You should have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's right here. Whatever is going -- if Jeff is going to have something in our definitions concerning timeshares, it's got to get brought back to us next time. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, actually, it's going -- if you go look at Page 69 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you go to Page 69, sir, my recommendation is to use that language but then say as amended from time to time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if that's legal advice, I can still vote no on it, because I don't see the -- I don't like our code cluttered up with references to other statutes. And next thing you know we'll have Florida Administration Code and all kinds of code references in there, and that's just not going to help a member of staff trying to do their job. It's going to be cumbersome and difficult. So I guess you have instruction, Susan, to bring back the -- leave the definition section in and we'll just deal with it at the next meeting. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: When is the next meeting that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 26th. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is when you'll actually vote on this particular one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're going to do all the ones we're talking about today right up first on February 26th and vote on those -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then go into the rest of the ones we haven't dealt with after today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Page 23 i b January 28, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, did you also mention any of the changes that Susan made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we have a speaker too, so we've got to address the public speakers. And after every single one of these, I will try to remember to ask for public speakers. If you don't register, it's not that big of a deal, you still can speak. I've just got to remember to ask you. So sometimes we get wrapped up up here and I forget. Susan or Ray, just tap me on the shoul --just yell at me, but remind me to ask the public, please. And with that, Ray, would you call any registered speakers? And after the registered speakers, I'll ask for any member of the public that would like to speak on this issue. MR. BELLOWS: We have one speaker. Kathleen Robbins. MS. ROBBINS: Good morning. I'm Kathleen Robbins and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. And 1 asked to speak on this issue, because this completely was a surprise to us. The many references in this proposal to the VBRTO, the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay, was a surprise. Maybe perhaps you are aware, maybe not, that we have an issue with a timeshare within our overlay right now that we're trying to work through. And to us it seems that we're being sandbagged or blindsided by this. We'd like some more time to study this and to talk and find out why there are specific references to the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay in this. Seems like it's just narrowed in on our overlay. Even though Mr. Yovanovich did say it was all RT overlays, there's specific reference to ours in there. So we would appreciate, while we use the time between now and the end of February, to study this and find out why this change is being made. If it's being made for existing timeshare, I have a problem with that. For new time shares, you know, we'll do what we are going to do. But to change an existing timeshare, the definition of it seems, as Mr. Klatzkow said, maybe fraught with unintended consequences that we're very concerned about. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have -- 1 mean, you have a month basically that this is really going to be voted on. So I would suspect that's time that you could get together with your group and see if you have any concerns. But ifyou do have concerns and they're -- could you be very specific as to what they are and why they are, so we know -- we can relate it to what's being presented here today. MS. ROBBINS: Yes, the concern we have specifically on the one instance on our overlay is that there -- now what's basically been considered for many, many years as a residential environment, they are trying to add commercial uses to it, which is specifically prohibited by our overlay. So if you change the definition, now that opens it up to allow commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what's being suggested is the definition will be as state law dictates. And you, I, nobody in this county can change that. So were stuck with it. So you might want to look at what the definition is, and if you don't like it, you need to tell your state representatives, because there's nothing we can do about it because it's already state law and we can't supersede state law. MS_ ROBBINS: I understand that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Does anybody else wish to talk on this specific item before we move into the next one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, 1 think we have enough instruction to go forward on that one. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Number six of my memo on -- it's 76.C, Page 76.C. I just want to make sure the Planning Commission -- I know Rich said he was okay with my recommendations, I just wanted feedback from the Planning Commission relative to number six. And number five actually, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, number five talks about a related amendment. Does that mean at this time frame or sometime in the future? MS. ISTENES: This time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can slip that in? MS. ISTENES: I'll make sure I can. If I can't, it will be next time. Page 24 161 1 ` °5 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me -- so the audience understands what this is about, staff recommends a related amendment to delete timeshare facilities as a permitted use in an RT zoning district to eliminate the reference to and regulation by a form of ownership. Now, that's not saying you're not going to allow timeshare, you just don't see the need to state it because it's a form of ownership, not a use; is that right'? MS. ISTENES: Correct. And I --kind of based on our discussions, and I might look to Jeff for some advice on this too, we're talking about regulating by a form of use. But if leaving it in the RT is more consistent with Florida statutes and the intent, I'm open. But I just wanted some direction on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think it provides confusion if it's taken out, rather than what does it hurt if it's left in? MS. ISTENES: Yes, honestly. Based on our discussions, yes, I'm kind of getting that feeling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no -- I would rather see it left in. And obviously, as the lady just spoke, they know then what this all means. And I would hate to see a timeshare pop up say in Vanderbilt Beach that -- and they come back and say wait a minute, your code doesn't say you can do timeshare. Next thing you know, we've got a bigger problem. It's either -- black and white is a lot better than -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- nothing at all. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From Susan's staff report then we would eliminate number five as a possibility and strike that from being -- and sup -- implement it into the ordinance. And number six, Susan, what is it you're ref-- you're referring to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's the lock -out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the lock -out issue? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looks like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, what is specifically number six referring to in the language of the amendment? MS. ISTENES: I guess what I --well, what I am saying here is just simply to treat them as hotels and motels. And I think we had that discussion. I think Rich was in agreement with it. And that's kind of what I'm asking, are you inclined to treat them as hotel and motel. Essentially, I mean, he's suggesting that they are. And I agree with that. I mean, it's a transient use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: They are ifthey meet the criteria. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not if they've been established already as residential essentially multi- family timeshares. They are not. They don't follow necessarily the motel -- hotel /motel criteria. MS. ISTENES: So you all -- and let me just get it in my head. You want to keep a distinction between residential and nonresidential. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think we have to because we have some that already are established. I don't see how we get around that. MR. BELLOWS: That also would help with the density issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how do you keep the transient connotation of a timeshare out of it if it's in a residential area? MS. ISTENES: You don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- MS. ISTENES: That's kind of my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're -- but see, now a timeshare becomes a use, not an ownership -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it actually has a physically different manner in which it operates than a multi - family unit does. Page 25 41 January 28, 2010 MS. ISTENES: And that was kind of the point of number six, and it's related to number five. That's what I'm asking. That's why it gets real confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it already is confusing, so we need to clear it up, because we do not want to proceed with something that's going to give us unintended consequences. So -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe the timeshare was listed in the RT, residential tourist area, to allow — to specifically note the difference between the RT district and say an RMF -16 zoning district where you would not allow timeshares. So I think that was created for the purposes of making it clear that in the RT district if you have a condominium type building you can conduct timeshares. Where that would not be allowed in the RMF -16. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You -- okay, see, that makes my point. You can't have a transient use in a residential zoning district. The form of ownership doesn't matter, you can't have a transient use. You can have 52 people on a deed in a residential home, multi- family unit. There's nothing that says you can't have multiple parties on that deed. You just can't run it like a hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I'm saying, that's why we need to -- that's why the timeshare is confusing, is people were saying timeshare connotes "X ". Either a multi - family use or a hotel use. It's an ownership, like a condominium is an ownership. 1 have to meet the character -- in the RZ zoning district where I can have a hotel, 1 have to meet the unit size and the operational, including towel size requirements of a hotel, or I am then multi- family and I'm capped at 16. That's why I'm saying, I'm not changing any of the uses. I'm just saying, look, you have this reference to a timeshare as if it's a use. It's not. MS. ISTENES: But on the flip side of that, would you not then have to list timeshare as a permitted use in RMF -16? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Because again, that's --do you list condominium as an allowed use in RMF -16? MS. ISTENES: I understand that. But if we're not regulating by form of ownership, I have no reason to list condominium. If we're regulating by the form of the use and you're saying you can have timeshare in RMF -16 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I could have -- MS. ISTENES: — it just has to meet a certain density requirement, then should it not be listed as a permitted use. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, Susan, what I'm saying is, take -- timeshare is not a use, it's an ownership. If 1 build a multi - family building in the RT zoning district at 16 units per acre, and I operate it like a hotel, I'm okay because I have 26 units. I'm allowed to do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I can have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, now. If you do it as a multi - family unit in the RT zoning and you operate it as a timeshare, instead of getting -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I operate it as a hotel or I operating it as multiple family. Those are your two choices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if you operate it as multi- family, what density would you be looking at? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I operate it as multi - family, I'm capped at 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, how I own it doesn't matter, it's how I operate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the difference in an operation that has the same number of people going in and out of it whether it's called a multi- family or a hotel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- if I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this a commercial enterprise that's part of the hotel that wouldn't be part of the multi - family? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's step aside. Let's say my single - family home, which is zoned RSF -1, if 1 rent that out on a weekly basis, that's probably a transient use, correct? If I -- well, is it? I don't know. 1 mean, transient is -- what does transient mean? Okay, that's what the issue is. I've got to operate it as a transient use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff? Page 26 16 11 • ` wary 22010 MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I thought this was the simplest amendment he had. Honest to God. Because in my mind a timeshare is no different than a hotel, period, okay? You can't have a timeshare in a residential area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Period. You can't be renting out your house on a weekly basis in a residential area, period. Okay, this doesn't change anything in the code. Where you can have hotels, you can have time shares. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can own it as a timeshare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where you cannot have hotels, you cannot have timeshares. A timeshare is a commercial use, not a residential use. COMMISSIONER CARON: But Jeff, that's not the case here in this -- in Collier County. Because we do have some time shares that are not operated, nor were they ever intended to operate as a hotel or a motel. There are others that we have that were specifically set up to -- with criteria to operate as hotel/motel. MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to need to -- the staffs going to have to sit down with the petitioner here and come back. COMMISSIONER CARON: He doesn't have a problem. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, apparently staff does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, staff brought up a good point. And I think, Susan, between now and the 26th of February, you need to ferret this thing out. We're only going to get into more confusing discussion here today on the matter. Would you look at it hard and come back with a recommendation on the 26th? MS.ISTENES: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any question on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's take a break until 10:20, 15- minute break for the court reporter. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on — we're back from break, and I'm a minute late. Last time that will happen. ** *Well, we left off with an enlightening discussion on timeshares, and we're moving on to an even more enlightening discussion on subsection 2.03.07L, which is the Vanderbilt Beach RT Overlay. MS. ISTENES: That's on Page 34 of your package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starts on Page 34. And when we get done with presentations, that's where we'll start our discussion. Mr. White, it's all yours. MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Patrick White representing the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. I'm with the Naples office and law firm of Porter, Wright, and a registered lobbyist. I have some clarifying magic language, based upon some minor changes sought by the DSAC when we met with them for the third time earlier this month. I'm going to distribute those. They're in red as to the changes. They are, as I said, minor, and they pertain only to the desire on the part of DSAC to have various words capitalized. And for the purposes of consistency, I added the word site. I don't have the page references readily available, but I will put them into the record momentarily. I'm just going to hand these out to you all. They have previously been provided to staff and the County Attorney's Office. And Susan, thank you. The specific changes that are being sought as part of this amendment arise largely from the experiences that the community has gone through since the original adoption of the overlay. Some of you are probably aware of the contentious nature of the adoption of the original regulations. It had a hard fought history. We are proposing a series of modifications that I would like to just generally like to give an overview and history on, and then address the staff comments in the report that you were provided. We've done our best, since you received those a week ago, to be able to respond to them. But key among them from your perspective sitting as the LPA is the notion that staff, as proposed, is of the opinion that they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So hopefully when we get around to the brass tacks of voting on the 26th of February, that won't have changed. Page 27 January 28, 2010 Moving forward from there, what I have put upon the sideboard here is just an expanded view of what is in the overlay already. I do have a copy I can put on the visualizer, if that will help. What I've essentially just done is identify the parcels to which the overlay itself applies and to which these amendments would pertain. Let me first address where the changes are, if you'd like me to, Mr. Chairman. As I said, they were pretty minor. But 1 can put them on the record, if you desire. They were particular to capitalizing the words Site Development Plan and Site Improvement Plan to reflect a degree of distinction that was desired by the DSAC. Hearing no comments, Mr. Chairman, let me go ahead -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought you were just doing it as you just spoke, so go right ahead. There's only two -- looks like there's a couple of small ones, Patrick. Go ahead and state them for the record, if you -- MR. WHITE: I believe you'll find them on Page 37, under 5.1). And the other is on -- I believe its Page 39. To add the word site. Under the vested rights provision. I think I gave away my last copy of the color coded ones. I thought I had extras. MS. ISTENES: I gave them all out. MR. WI IITE: Really? I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, that would be 5.D. And as indicated, with respect to the vested rights provision, your Page 37, I believe, is what I said. I apologize, Page 39. At this point, knowing that there was litigation involving some ofthe development that took place during and after the adoption of the original overlay, in a settlement agreement that was reached there was an understanding on the part of the proponents of the overlay, a citizens group essentially amalgamated into an association known as the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, the petitioner here, that had a set of expectations as to how subsequent development would occur. Specifically as to setbacks and other issues. A more recent project, Morava Bay, has in fact brought to light that the intent of this particular set of provisions in this overlay were not being adequately addressed by the code as written. The purpose largely of today's regulation changes is to address those concerns, both with respect to in part that particular project, but also other development activities that have come to light in terms of multi -slip dock facilities. So for those reasons, to further both the purpose and intent, there are minor changes to text proposed in L.1, which is the section as I indicated, for purpose and intent. And although I know you'd prefer, Mr. Chairman, that if I could identify them by page, if 1 can, because of the relative few number of pages, actually use the code sites, it would help my dialogue going forward with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: So I'm going to try and just stick to the code, so to speak. The purpose and intent obviously is to talk about a geographically distinct area, even though there are the three separate portions of it that are RT. It in and of itself is an overlay that has a very distinct geographical feel to it. And the concerns about -- in the history of its development, canyonization, loss of view of the Gulf and other issues are ones that drove this community to seek and have approved this overlay. So you find that there are not only the provisions in purpose and intent, but the idea that there are some suggested standards both as to the 2001 community character plan that is encouraged, as well as a series of four figures at the end of the regulation that look to open space relationships and view plans. What we're proposing to do is to slightly modify the standards, as well as hear the procedures, in particular, notice the procedures. And when we met with the DSAC, which we did three different times, there were a series of different members present. We addressed many of the issues that staff has comments about in great detail with a, I think, very active and productive dialogue with the DSAC members. I expect we'll have the same today. The point of it is that looking to purpose and intent, we're proposing some minor text changes that to my knowledge the staff has only one suggestion, but otherwise agrees to. And as to their staff comment on that, we would agree with their proposed suggestion to add the phrase to the end of L.I the words: And the Gulf of Mexico. So we would be in agreement with them on that point. Again, looking to L.2_ applicability, we're proposing again some clarification both to reflect that the Page 28 1611A5 January 28, 2010 regulations and procedures apply, not only to development but redevelopment within the overlay. And I believe that staff has no comment on that. And I would take that to be acquiescing to the proposed changes. The geographic boundaries remain unchanged. And although there was discussion about the figures under LA, some from the DSAC thought that they should be removed. We're not proposing one way or the other, but it may come up as a topic of discussion. Under five, L.5, we'll begin to have I think some conversation after I make my comments about these in particular. We note that under 5.A, permitted uses, number -- small letter iv does indicate timeshare facilities. So I would suggest that to the extent Mr. Yovanovich's prior amendment has some final outcome, that this provision may be affected as well. In looking at staffs review comments, their number three, they had a concern about removing the ability to have a multi -slip docking facility of greater than 10 slips as a use permitted by right. Under 5.13iii, small iii. My position is that we are not looking to drastically alter any aspect of the use allowances here. And I will make my arguments as to why we don't believe that's true, but let me begin by saying that if this body doesn't agree with that argument and more so looks to what the staffs position is as to those changes, then I'll have some further recommendation as to text changes that may be needed. As you heard, there was a dialogue in the last discussion about types of ownership. I start from the perspective that what we have in the code today as to uses accessory to permitted under iii are private docks and boat houses. There isn't a place where that is defined. Similarly, under c immediately below, again in iii, you have the phrase noncommercial boat launching facilities. We're proposing under each of those b and 3 -- b and c, excuse me, iii to make some text changes. Were not proposing, as I said, to drastically alter. When you look at what the underlying RT zoning district does as to these specific types of uses, meaning private docks, boat houses and noncommercial boat launching facilities, there really isn't any difference in RT as to those. You have essentially a circumstance where the noncommercial boat launch is already a conditional use, and in the same fashion it is seen that the private docks and boat houses are accessory as well. There is in my opinion an ambiguity and lack of clarity in not only these provisions in the RT overlay but in many of the underlying -- excuse me, any of the neighboring and other zoning districts throughout the county as to these two specific points. We're not looking to make suggestions in that regard, but I would point out for example that if you look at the other zoning district that has a large Gulf of Mexico waterfront presence, the RSF -3 district, in that district you have a circumstances where it is clearly indicated in the code that for multiple dock facilities, they are treated as a conditional use. Regardless of the number of those slips, whether it's 10, more than 10, less than 10. It's two or more. So the point is that although there's a reference that it's subject to 5.03.06, as staff indicates in subsequent comments below there is a missing cross- reference as well to the marina provision to the extent that in a particular zoning district where there are multiple slips of 10 or more, there's no reference to the provision of I believe it is 5.5.2. So seeing that there is some disconnect in the threads already, we simply were looking to clarify those as to how they would apply in the overlay as to the distinction we see between what are essentially multi - family as opposed to multi -slip. And those that are for private that would in particular be more so applicable to anything in RT that was developed as single - family or to duplex. The point being when you get to that three or more slips, you should, in our opinion, be looking at that both as to the Manatee Protection Plan to some degree, but more so you should be treating them as differing types of uses, whether they are permitted or conditional. We've gone ahead and clarified from our point of view that for a multi -slip docking facility -- and let me just say now that as to the staff comments about the numbering of more than 10 versus 10 or more, we're in agreement with them and would readily adjust these provisions to harmonize with those in 5.5.2 that talk about under the Manatee Protection Plan 10 or more. So stepping over that, if you look directly to what 5.5.2 talks about, it is in fact standards that are applicable for all multi -slip docking facilities with 10 or more. And they -- under 5.05.02.D, one through three make specific reference not to multi -slip but to multi - family facilities in talking about the distinction between the various types of sites one would be entitled to construct, meaning preferred as opposed to moderate development as opposed to a Page 29 January 28, 201 protected site under the table for rating that is found elsewhere in 5.5.2 for marinas and multi -slip docking facilities of 10 or more slips. So that is the fundamental thread of why 1 think when we're talking about a multi - family type of a use we're simply saying that if there's 10 or more of those, then kind of like the RSF -3 district, you should in fact go for a conditional use. The notion being that there's a strong parallel between the undefined term noncommercial boat launching facility and the idea of 10 or more slips in terns of what the impacts would be. And that is again paralleled in the Manatee protection provisions in 5.05.02. I know it's a lot of code. It is a very detailed analysis. It is one, though, that is suggestive of why we're not coming to the conclusion on our part that we're looking to modify the existing structure and essentially delete an existing use. There is no strike - through language in 5.biii for private docks and boathouses. We're simply indicating that as to the correct citation to both 5.0.36 and 5.0.52, which is missing in all the rest of the code, that so long as the notice is provided that we'll soon talk about in D below, for all multi -slip facilities with or without a boathouse, those are still going to be a lot. As long as the notice is provided. We create a distinction for what 1'll now going forward refer to as 10 or more in the notion being similar to RSF -3 you should have in conditional use application. Given that there's a degree of difference between the arguments and the background for these changes and the ones that will follow, if you'd prefer, Mr. Chairman, to have the dialogue and questions asked about it now, I'm happy to address it. If you want to do it at the end of the presentation, either way, it's certainly one that's more to your convenience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you finish with your presentation, we're going to approach it a sentence at a time, page by page, like we always do. MR. WHITE: Fair enough. Thank you. Then let me move forward to what may be, certainly has been in terms of the discussion thus far with DSAC and EAC, the greatest degree of dialogue and modification to the various drafts of these provisions. What you see before you is essentially a synthesis of those provisions and agreement on the part of applicant to a simplified single form of notice. The original proposal sought to have mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet. That was supported by the EAC. It originally was modified, our first dialogue with the DSAC, to 300 feet. In subsequent discussions after we had gone to the EAC, there was an agreement to remove all of those mailed notices and simply go forward with believing it was a still viable means of giving notice to the community that simply one mailed notice to the association upon any Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan application pertaining in part or whole to the VBRTO, when those are submitted, there should be a corresponding notice to the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association or its successor or assign. This was intended to be a very brief and simple notification that is just a synopsis of what the application requests and should be prepared by the applicant so as not to burden the staff. A particular concern these days. The applicant is also responsible to document and provide evidence of mailing the notice as a kind of check box item for the staffs review comments to go forward. In other words, for the application to be considered complete and under review by staff, they would have to demonstrate that the notice was proper and that evidence of that mailing was made. Very similar to other standards that applicants readily know how to comply with and that are not burdensome to the staff. We understand that in the staff comments there is not an agreement with that position. In fact, staff recommends that the requirement to provide notification by the applicant being considered simply as a courtesy the applicant's willing to provide, but that any errors or omissions with requirement, either on the part of the county or the applicant or even the recipients won't delay the review process nor automatically cause the county's recipients, nor -- excuse me, or the recipient shall not delay the review process, nor shall it automatically cause the county's determination of approval to be in error or invalid. I'd suggest to you that that is a major departure from the way that the staff conducts business today. The idea that an applicant wouldn't be responsible for meeting the code requirement f think is the type of precedent that we certainly want to avoid in this county. And I would point you not only to staffs comment and our response to it under number seven of their comments, but also under their more general comments, additional comments number four that you find at the bottom of the document. We're not able to agree with this last phrase about errors or omissions, regardless essentially of who Page 30 16115 January 28, 2010 makes them, having no accountability. That would seem to be really gutting the provision to the degree that, well, perhaps it shouldn't even exist. In number four of the additional comments, staff proposes alternate language that says, the failure to provide proper or correct notice by the applicant or the county shall not cause a delay to the review of a site plan application nor cause a change in status to an already approved site plan. As I indicated, that's an unprecedented precedent. And the idea that staff and an applicant would not be accountable for what could potentially be their own intentional acts, in particular on the part of an applicant, is a circumstance that really is addressed quite easily by the straightforward notice requirements we've put forward. Giving an applicant a pass on any review requirement is not consistent with government's root for its authority to adopt land development regulations that arise from the police powers, and won't promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents or citizens in this overlay. The next set of comments training to staffs number eight — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had about a half an hour. In fact, in two minutes it will be a half an hour. Are you going to be getting to a conclusion here soon so we can discuss it? Because we have I'm sure audience participation_ And I'm sure we're all going to have a lot of questions, and I don't want to spend all day on this one amendment. So t need to know what your time frame is, if you don't mind. I'm not asking you to stop, I'm just suggesting that can we get to a point -- MR. WHITE: I am merely responding to what were a series of detailed comments provided by your staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And I -- MR. WHITE: And I want you to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just to give you a heads up, we got a copy of that. MR. WHITE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: So did 1, a week ago. And I'm merely responding to those so you'll have an appreciation of our position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my intention is not to stop you from having everything you need on record, so proceed. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next set of concerns I think focus largely around the provisions that we're proposing with respect to L.6, small letter c, dealing with yard requirements. Again, the staff was very concerned about some aspects of that in an effort to try to shorten the dialogue as much as possible from my end. Suffice it to say that the concerns that the staff have we feel are ones that if you adopt their position it again effectively guts these provisions that we're recommending go forward. These are the ones that in particular deal with what were from the association's perspective unintended consequences in the subsequent development application. In particular what we're looking to do is to simply remove a series of what are, from a design standards perspective in the code, exemptions and exclusions, so that those exemptions and exclusions wouldn't apply in the overlay. Our rationale for that is that to do so furthers the purpose and intent as to view corridors, visual access to the Gulf, the concerns about canyonization, all of which were documented in part of the original planning study. Staff expressed a concern that as to the amendments there wasn't a bolstering planning study. I'd submit to you that the need for a study is supplanted by the direct experience that the residents have had that have raised these concerns and brought these proposed changes to you for your consideration. Those being again the yard requirements. Number eight of their concerns dealt with the clarification of required yards being based on building zoned height. Staff indicates that in L.6, again, C, small ii and iii pertaining to front side year yards where the word zoned is underlined and being added, that they have no concern with that, that it clarifies the current practice. It's difficult for me, therefore, to understand in 6.13, the immediately following section that deals with maximum height, where the current text is very confusing, and it in fact is perhaps internally in conflict and reads as existing today, that the height of the building is measured according to building, actual height of and building, height. Which to me suggests something other than actual, which only could be zoned height. Page 31 January 28, 2010 Those are the only two definitions we have. We've got A and we've got Z, actual or zoned. What we're simply putting under maximum height is to clarify as it says up above under C.1 through 3, that it is zoned building height. I think my clients may agree that if we're going to go along with the staff suggestion, that it ought to be actually may be. But I'm sure we'll have a dialogue about that. The next area of concern deals with distances between structures requirement that's in 6.f, small f, the distance between structures. Staff makes note of the fact that there isn't a -- any provision for the separation between I believe it's principal and accessory. We in fact are not proposing any changes as to the relationship between principals and accessory, and that's why they're not referenced in any way. Again, you have a circumstance like those pertaining to multi -slip docks and marinas where there's an interplay between these provisions and others in the LDC. Here we think that we have adequately analyzed and come to the conclusions about the interplay to not have the concerns. We went through this in painstaking detail in front of the DSAC, and after some modifications back and forth of the text you now see it, it was agreed that this in fact best met the intent of this overlay, as well as most clearly expressed how to reach those desired changes. There are obviously details that the staff has in their comments that if we get into the dialogue 1 can respond to. I'm just doing my best to hit the tops of the waves. The -- I think text- - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Patrick, it might be more effective to -- MR. WHITE: I've just got one more, and then I'll be happy to take your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. As to the vested rights provisions, we're simply looking to clarify those. And I believe staff had no comments on that. I'm sorry to interrupt, but 1 just wanted to wrap up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm sure we're going to have some comment from staff on all this. And before we do, 1 want to ask anybody if they have any general questions of Mr. White while he's up here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah,] -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes and no, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's going to be hard to figure out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's right, that's what I'm struggling with. 1 guess I first have to ask, is it our common practice to send notice to any organization or individuals in the Site Development Plan level? MR. WHITE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are you asking? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I -- well, I was asking it of Ray, because of the fact that I needed to get that as a predicate for anything else I'm going to ask. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. White is correct, we do not currently send -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- notice on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is a new baby. And I wanted to verify that, that I'm not going off on a tangent. You made a comment that -- now, this is to you, Mr. White -- made a comment that the petitioner, for lack of a better word at the moment, would create the notice and then have staff verify its acceptability. Does that put staff into a position of question as to what is appropriate, inasmuch as we don't make notice at the current time? Are you looking for a standardized form or notice, again, something that may not in any way be standard? MR. WHITE: We're as private petitioners for this amendment not trying to step too greatly into the staffs ability to write administrative code procedures. We're simply in the LDC proposing a set of what I guess I would call simple and straightforward check box standards. The staff routinely generate notices for more complex matters than site improvement or development plans when they do zoning changes for PUDs and other far more complicated Growth Management Plan notices. This is simply a mailed notice that let's the association essentially know where and what. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I understand that part of it. And I certainly have no objection to Page 32 161 1A5 January 28, 2010 people receiving notice. I'm certainly -- you know, that's nice. But -- we're drilling down, as they like to say these days. But I thought I heard you say that you were only interested in having that notice go to the association. And if that's true, don't we run into a snag should A, they never receive it or B, having received it not act upon it and members of their association who are ignorant of that notice then are in a position where they object or have problems, that we will actually be creating? Why would we not -- if we're going to send notice, why would we not want to have it go to all the members of the association? I recognize fully there's an expense associated with that, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about its viability, why. MR. WHITE: We believe that from the original position that the petitioners have taken about requirement for mailed notice that this is effectively a good middle ground where there is one notice required. The association then has, as to its membership and its decision - making internally, the responsibility to disseminate that information. It is not a responsibility of the applicant or the county. And so as to any, quote, failure, it is on the association to address those internally. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what is the remedy to any individual or individuals within that association who because they never were made aware of such a notice and of such an event, what is the remedy against the county or their remedy with whomever? I realize they can be angry with the association executive. That won't get them where they want to go if it's a fait accompli. So what does that get us? MR. WHITE: If I could --I don't know that they have a remedy other than the courts. And I would not want to opine as to whether they would have standing or not. That would be a matter of a completely different hypothetical and a set of facts that aren't before us. But suffice it to say that it is essentially as between that particular association member /resident and its association as to not providing notice. There isn't the need for any greater remedy against the county than what exists already in terms of the ability to have standing and bring suit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate -- MR. WHITE: I don't think it changes the contours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you recited a number of activities where they were all subject to hearings where notice is appropriate, and this is something that's a nuance. It may very well be appropriate, but I think that's going to be part of this dialogue. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. And I hope I helped to address your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other general questions before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just one. The areas that are being changed are just those areas in yellow there or green on our sheet in front of us; is that correct? MR. WHITE: That is, as I understand it, the geographic scope of the VBRTO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The residents association, are they primary people who live in that green area or that yellow area? MR. WHITE: I do not have any information about the distribution of memberships, but I would believe that they have sufficient number of members within those areas to not only have the kind of grassroots understanding of what has happened in those areas, but also the notion, as I mentioned before, the kind of requisite root to bring these requirements forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, just simple yes or no. You -- MR. WHITE: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. WHITE: Maybe one of the speakers -- CHAII2MAN STRAIN: No, that's -- MR. WHITE: -- could address -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fine, we're going to have all the speakers. I'll ask the questions as I need the answers. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. Page 33 4 Jadu9r 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your organization -- because you are actually -- and I take strong objection to your characterization of these as minor. They are significantly major. You are changing setbacks, you are changing processes, you are changing heights. You are doing a lot of things that change the abilities of people to use their property. Now, I don't doubt at all that there are a lot of problems in Vanderbilt Beach. And 1 have personally tried to help many times the residents up there. But I want to make sure that everybody is on the same level playing field. Do you have notifications of mailers that you sent to the various property owners within those RT districts whose property rights you'd be changing by this procedure you're processing here today? MR. WHITE: There's no code requirement to do so that I'm aware of, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the same thing that your very organization is instituting this for, because you don't believe you've gotten proper -- or notification on things. I think that's an interesting twist here, because there are a lot of people in those areas -- I don't mind everything being fairly discussed, stakeholder meetings, people and owners in those green areas being notified that their property rights are being modified or attempted to be and having meetings to discuss it and then coming here with a consensus with all the people that want to participate here. I'm not sure that happened in this case, and what you just testified to verified that for me. MR. WHITE: I'm not under oath so I'm not testifying, but suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are members here who I believe can address the fact that indeed there were dialogues with landowners that did appear to have concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- MR. WHITE: There was a general notice provided, as there are for all LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any of your comments to me today or to this board purposely misleading? MR. WHITE: Of course not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'm going to consider it as truthful as testimony. Thank you. Any other general questions before we ask for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I see you standing behind there. Do you have any comments you want to make before we go into our page -by -page discussion on this? MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments this morning. I appreciate you recognizing what we're under and what we're trying to accomplish here today and the rest of these LDC amendments. We've been tasked to do something different, which is treat Community Development as a business. We recognize we have customers, we recognize we have shareholders. We are tracking our time almost in 15- minute intervals at this point in time in projects and what we do. And I've worked with Patrick in the past, many times on projects when he was a county employee. On Page 1, you note that they say fiscal and operational impacts and they write none. I would argue that that's not true. I would argue that putting out notice as he's recommending here brings the phones up, brings concern up. Which may be rightly so. The residents may have questions they're entitled to be answered to. But it is a fiscal and operational impact. And it's significant. And it's not consistent with what we do anyplace else in the county. And so i want to put on the record that when you look at section S.D, it does have an impact on what we do. And we have no problems being accountable. That's what our job is, to be accountable. If we make mistakes, we're accountable. And I don't think Susan's recommendations or comments about errors and omissions was to note that we should not be accountable for what we do. But providing notice is a good thing on land use changes. On administrative procedures, I don't think it is. I think it sets a whole new precedent on what we do. 1 have no problem with an applicant coming in and putting an application and a resident asking us questions. But when notice goes out, people that don't understand the process start calling us. And that means someone's got to take that call and courteously respond to them. And that's a significant amount of time. And my question is, based -- we're a fee -based company. Who pays for it? Do you pay for it, does the Page 34 16 f 1 A 5 wary 28, 2010 applicant pay for it? There are fiscal and operational impacts that go with this amendment, and you should be aware of that. I'll let Susan or Ray address the other components of this. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I would also like to point out that the purpose and intent of the public notice requirements for rezones, variances and conditional uses is to engender a cooperative effort in the review process, not only with the petitioner but with the adjacent residences. We hold neighborhood information meetings, we have professional staff who are trained to deal with the public. They're the principal planners, basically. And the result is the concerns that arise during, say, a rezone process can be addressed by staff, brought to the Planning Commission for review and comment. When you're dealing with an administrative process, everything's already been worked out and is established in the code. And what is the purpose of notice? We can't change the code. And when we don't have fees that cover the time to go into all the detail, explain every step of the process but, you know, certainly understand the need to be open in our process. But anybody can come in and look at plans when they come in, but — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And were going to go through this and start asking questions, but general questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, Ray, but obviously their concern is over an incident where they weren't aware plans were being reviewed and they had some problems with the project once it was built. And once it was built, it's too late. So they're trying to head that off at the path. Why are we making that sound so sinister here? MR. BELLOWS: My understand is — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, send them a letter. MR. BELLOWS: -- you have code requirements. And if the buildings are meeting code, what can staff do to change that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe if people reviewed the plans of the building in question prior to construction, they might have some discussions as to whether it is meeting code and they're looking for the benefit of that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Schiffer, I agree with you. That's absolutely beneficial if that happens. Our fee base does not -- our structure, the way we're set up, if it increase in activity because of an application goes up, our fees would go up (sic). Note that in the application. Note that on Page 1, fiscal and operational impact, increased staff time to respond -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But we're talking about a stamp here, you know. I mean, and maybe a half hour to write a letter. Or maybe an e -mail or maybe something simple. Alls they just wanted was the ability to come down and look at something that was being done prior to it going so far where their input left everybody where there's really nothing you can do. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm okay with that. And we did a time - tracking study so when an application comes in and puts something in, we track how much time a planner spends on that so we can charge the appropriate fee. So when -- you have a Site Development Plan and we say that takes an average of eight hours. Now, you can imagine if this was a county -wide adopted process. Because if you're doing it in this area it probably should be done county -wide because it's consistent to everybody. When SDP is filed, notice would go out, the phones would start ringing, people would ask for copies and come down and want to spend time with us. That's okay. It's just someone's got to pay for that. And it should be noted that that's going to cost some time and staff effort. I'm okay with what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here's the problem I have. We live in a republic, these are the people, these are the citizens. They have a staff. And now you're saying they can't get the access they need to their government, their ownership of government because of the administrative staff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me be clear. Because we traveled yesterday to Miami -Dade County and we saw how they do that. They're fee -based as well too. I'm being very clear that says if you want to do that, and that's the wish of this Planning Commission and the Page 35 January 28, 20 10 wish of the board, budget for it. Say we need to set aside some funds -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think if you established a reasonable fee where they could sign up and they would pay per notice, I'm sure that something like that, they would -- you know, the citizens will pay for the staff that works for them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That -- I'm all for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that shouldn't be an excuse not to do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how would someone pay, for example, the Moraya Bay Club? 1 have seen the reams and volumes written about the issues that occurred there. And I'm not saying who's right or wrong, because there are issues. But who paid for that'? Is that all the taxpayers of Collier County? Because that's the process that's going to occur every time a notification is out, because you really have to educate people how to read blueprints, how to understand the code, how to understand the level of service standards and everything else that every application involves that's already addressed in the rezone process and in the GMP process. And I'm not saying they don't have a right to it. But I think the point is if you do it for one, you've got to do it for all. And if you do it for all, what burden on the taxpayers of this county are we going to put on them, and when do we want to put that on them? And I think that's what it boils down to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And also, how long would the process remain open for questions, critiques and all the other that follows? Would you have a time frame that -- I mean, the Site Development Plan needs to go forward because it's already been approved, some portion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Murray, you raised a good point, because it meets our codes. Our time criteria for review is to approve it within say 30 days or 45 days, whatever it is. And yet you're going to have people that will say I don't agree with that code, 1 want it to stop. And you'll have that argument that goes forward as well too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So does that become a BZA issue or what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It -- no, it would be approved. And then it would become a civil or board action; it would come to the board as a petition and say we disagree with how staff approved the item, even though they approved it per the code. MS. ISTENES: Nick, they could file an appeal to the staff decision, and essentially it would proceed that way and then on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that could ultimately be a process that could extend and extend and extend. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, to Mr. Schiffer's comments, I agree with you, you have every right to review it, and it may be helpful. You've got to define it, you've got to quantify it and you've got to budget for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, maybe the point you made about the volume of effort, anxiety and time wasted post - construction could have been avoided. And it could have been -- you know, the issues were narrowed down to a few and they were issues that could have been discussed and they were issues that could have been resolved and even in an appeals process within the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Brad, here's what happens: Staff reviews something and they have a history dealing with the code and they have a consistency in the way they deal with the code. They have a finding. And now it's put to question by another review done privately with people who don't have the same background or understanding of the way the codes are interpreted. They contact staff, which takes time. They don't like the results there, they contact their political people involved. And the next thing you know, it gets into a process that is not professionally done through the evaluation of staff but it becomes challenged through a process I don't believe is going to be defensible if you were to tell an owner no on something that consistently have previously been addressed and approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But as mentioned earlier, staff does have the ability. In other words, if the staff has made a commitment and a decision, the citizens do have a way in which they can appeal that decision Page 36 1 b 1 1 A 5 Janua� 28, 2010 through the commission. That's the track this thing should take. It shouldn't be a bunch of people running around complaining, having meetings, having meetings that are useless, having meetings that are useful. You know, it should be done and it should be narrowed in a process. That process has a fee attached to it. And the citizens should have a right to I think analyze staffs decision and appeal it ifthey don't agree with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, you've been trying to say something. MR. KLATZKOW: As I hear this discussion, you have two policy issues in front you. The first one is raised by Nick over here, and that's a cost issue. The cost should not becoming out of fees, okay, because the fees are based on a certain process. The costs are going to have to come out of ad valorems. Somebody's going to have to calculate what these expected costs are going to be and put it in the fiscal impact, because there is a fiscal impact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay? That doesn't mean we can't do that, okay? And the second issue is do you want to just limit this procedure to this one area of the county, or is it appropriate to allow everybody within the county to have the same ability to review these site development plans? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, once upon a time site development plans went through this board and there was a public process. We can do this as a little time element to it, as a cost element, but we can do this. But the two questions: How much is it going to cost, and we need a fiscal impact for that because it can't come out of fees, it's got to come out of ad valorems. And the second issue, do you want it localized or do you want it county -wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the problem with the localizing -- first of all, it isn't -- if we do it in one segment of the community, to be fair to the taxpayers who will be paying the burden to cant' that segment, it ought to be the same in all segments of the community. That's right -- what I think is a fair standard from the get -go. Then what do you do? How many organizations in Golden Gate Estates do you want to notify? We've got plenty. How many do you want to notify in every community in this county? Which ones do you take in and which ones do you not? If I form an organization with my neighbor, I want to be notified. So where do we draw the line? I mean, we've got to have a system that works. And I'm worried that were going to get into a system that's going to be more radically broken than anything we've even dreamed of right now. And Ms. Caron actually was next and then Mr. Vigliotti. Did you still want to say something, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Oh, I sure do. Right now if I want to come down and review site development plans, I make a phone call and somebody puts the plans in a room and I'm able to review them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing about that will change with this. If I want -- if I don't agree with those, my option is to take it to the Board of County Commissioners and try to get them to initiate some action for me. That doesn't change with anything that we're talking about here. So the only thing that's --the big issue here is some staff time. If I want-- if I look at these plans and I say I don't really understand this or I don't see where in the code whatever is happening, how it applies and I want to speak to Ray Bellows who heads that department or is the planner on that piece of business -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what is the problem -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: None at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: — with charging a fee for that? I mean, why is it a big deal, if I want an hour of his time, to charge 50 bucks for the hour? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at all, ma'am. It would be at the board's discretion, your discretion to recommend that to the board and we would staff appropriately and be able to provide that service. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's really not this big overarching issue that has to -- you know, that's going to just bring down the county here if we allow people to have a better understanding of what is happening in their neighborhoods. We should want that. We should want them to understand and to know. We should want that for our people, wherever in this county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, myjob, my task is to make sure we provide you the best service possible, and that it's fee based and accounts for everything we do and it's transparent. I have no problem with what you're Page 37 January 28, 2010 saying. And what you suggest is fine by me, if that's the way this board and the next board wants to go, the Board of County Commissioners, we would do a fiscal analysis and we would say typically you get so many or fee -based service where you come in and sit down and meet with the planner. That's not my issue. My issue is that he says fiscal and operational impacts, none. And I think it's significant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just don't think it's significant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I have a couple of major concerns. One is the cost, two is the notification that Mark brought up. How many people are you going to notify? Who are you going to notify and what happens if you miss some of them? MR. KLATZKOW: We do notify when we have rezonings. I mean, we do have parameters as to who gets the mailings and whatever. You can do the same thing. You can create a process here if you think a process is necessary. It's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My concern is the cost. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I agree. That's part of the policy decision whether or not the cost outweighs the benefits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, on the website is there any place that the citizens can go and see what SDPs are being processed? MS. ISTENES: Not currently. And, I mean, that's kind of an idea that, you know, might gain some footing if you think sometime in the future, Nick, you might have some GIS maps available where when applications come in there's a highlighted area or some information. But right now you don't have that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, remember the lesson that we were told, the major lesson was transparency. So if the SDP process is transparent to the citizens, we don't even need to have this conversation, the citizens can monitor their own neighborhood. Every neighborhood can monitor their own neighborhood and it's -- if we have transparency into your process, then these kind ofthings won't happen. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I'm nonpartisan. 1 agree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's free. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not free. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, somebody -- yes, it is free, Nick, because if you have a software system that is tracking SDPs that the citizens can look at, it's free. It's your tracking system that we can peak in -- it's the transparency that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we heard yesterday. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will tell you, and I'll do the same presentation 1 do the Board of County Commissioners in about two months, and I will tell you what's free and not free. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR_ CASALANGUIDA: I will tell you everything we do has a cost to implement, to maintain and to manage. And I will be fiscally prudent and explain it to everybody so it's clear. I will do whatever this board or the next board, Board of County Commissioners, directs me to. But there is a cost that goes with that. And when you find out and we do our business review, you'll see that everything we do has a cost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one of the points here is proper organization, especially with the computer, that the transparency is essentially a by- product, a free by- product. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would be the case here, the neighborhood could watch it, they see something coming up that flags them, they can start paying attention. And they can -- it doesn't cost anything. Maybe the fiscal is right with the right operational software. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- Nick, right now if somebody comes, you've indicated that somebody will sit down and try to explain some things to them, and there's a cost associated with that. But you're basically — MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's built into it. Page 38 1 6 1 1 A5 uary 28, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- accepting that cost. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's built into it right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I understand. That's good, that's fine. But if this is legitimized in this fashion, this becomes a procedure and people will exercise it to the extent that they will. In either case, what satisfactions can you provide to any individual if in fact they come, they look at a plan, they say oh, I don't like that and you say, well, it's being built to code. What satisfactions can you provide them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Non, sir, other than just to show them where the code is and explain to them how the code was adopted and what it means. That's the best we can do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm trying to understand, the association were to get the information, they would either retain it, dispense it, dispense it to whomever, or even circulate it widely to the community. And then members of the community would come in one after the other seeking to understand what's going on and disagree with certain things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As one of the commissioners said, there might be a benefit where they'd find problems that someone didn't see. No one's -- you know, human nature, you might miss something. That's the benefit I would see. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, we always want to do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm not talking about that. I think Commissioner Strain brought up the fact that now that somebody -- if it's already in the code, the only alternative that they may see or you may say to them, we have an administrative appeal. But if they're cynical they're not going to want to go to that, so the next thing to do is to go to their political person. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just trying to see a resolution that can be gained from this that does benefit. I completely agree that the community needs to understand what's going on there, if it wants to pay attention. But I want to make sure that it is used in a fashion that does in fact provide that and not result in unnecessary work and unnecessary activity, especially when the matter has already been deemed to be concluded. That's all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think including this in this amendment, as the Chairman and other folks have pointed out, has broader implications of fairness throughout the county, and as I've noted to you, has operational and fiscal impacts. And it should be documented so you have a clear review of it, you understand it and you know what you're voting on. There's a lot more to be discussed than just putting it in one section of an LDC amendment for one overlay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate it_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, just out of curiosity, the way this was presented was the areas that are in yellow were where the impacts are going to go. But actually if you look at this procedure paragraph, for SIPS or SDPs. It would be everywhere on that map that isn't zoned single - family. All of your commercial to the south, all of your multi - family, all of the other places that are there, including modifications to any of the facilities that are there now. If someone wants to put a new enclosure around their trash bin or move it, that's an SIP_ It has to be notified and then all that. So you'd be talking a much broader area than just the yellow on that plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1 believe that's the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if -- Mr. White's shaking his head no. That's fine. I mean, I think we're going to be disagreeing a bit as we go through these pages. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, except that there is a definition to the overlay, so -- MR. WHITE: That's it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that's what it would apply to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm looking at the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: --from this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the definition then of the overlay is what? The picture that's in this VBRTO -1, this is not the overlay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Page 39 January 28. 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the yellow? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's up there in yellow. MR. WHITE: Just the yellow is the RT overlay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's right. MR. WHITE: So the only place an SIP or SDP notification would be required would be for any application within those geographically confined areas, which as I indicated is pretty much the corridor along Gulfshore Drive which, 1 would submit, is geographically distinct, sufficiently so, that this board, meaning the County Commission, adopted the overlay in the first place. We're looking to further the purpose of the overlay and to further what this Commission, the DSAC, the EAC, the Board of County Commissioners all do in its efforts to bring transparency. Everything from a GMP to a zoning to a conditional use to a variance you have a process, including neighborhood information meetings, where people are made aware. And they have an opportunity to identify issues and to work within the process to resolve them. That is the intent and goal of the applicant here. There's been a lot put on the record today about interference, about uninformed, about not being compensated. I suggest to you Commissioners that if there has been all of this time that has taken up on staffs part, where's the documentation of it? If there is a fiscal impact and they're tracking their time, certainly they could have brought it forward and indicated what it is. My goal here would be simply to say going forward -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, you gave your presentation. We really need to move forward. You're making it almost impossible for us to ask a question because we get a dissertation as a response. Please try to limit your -- MR. WHITE: I'm simply trying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Patrick, you've said all these things, we've heard them. I understand what you're going to say. If you could just get more succinct, we could move faster through this. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I did not say anything about the staff and fiscal and operational, and I think it's key to understand that if the staff has a concern and objection, we asked. They saw these things for months and they never objected to it until today. Now, if they have a concern and they can document it going forward, what I would suggest is that that provides the basis for a fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm sorry, Mr. White, I know you're being erstwhile in doing yourjob for other people that have hired you to do yourjob, but I mean, just common sense says that if the staff have been assigned work activities and they're in the performance of their work and they have to digress to take care of other activities that they haven't had to take care of before, there is undoubtedly a fiscal impact. I think it's inferred and it's strongly inferred. And I'm not going to argue any further on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've still got to move through the document. Is there any other questions from the Planning Commission on general issues at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's start on Page 34. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we going to use Mr. White's iterations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My notes are on my original. 1 don't -- haven't even read Mr. White's. There's only two changes to that anyway, so Pd just as soon we kept to our original. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments on Page 349 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question was just the phrasing of the word assure reasonable use and access. I'm not exactly sure what that means, for who, the necessity, and the importance of those phrases. MS. ISfENES: Just on -- Susan Istenes. It's really just part of the purpose and intent, which are really broad statements anyway. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Scope issues. MS. ISTENES: -- my recommendation is I wouldn't worry about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Page 40 161 1 A5 ;,nary 28, 20] 0 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But since the overlay's been in place for all this time, that Ian uage wasn't there, there's -- was no problem with it, and nobody ever suggested it before, I'm just -- I'm not sure whthe purpose is. MS. ISTENES: My read was it was more of clarification over essentially -- I mean, if you look at Moraya Bay, for example, one of the points there in that whole process was to provide some more public access to the Gulf of Mexico, and that's kind of the context I read it in. 1 mean, that being an example of a project that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But in point of fact, that was a separate zoning issue. This talks about the prevention of the canyon -like effect. And access to the lagoon has nothing to do with that, with preventing the canyon effect on Gulfshore Drive. MS. ISTENES: I don't necessarily disagree with you, Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just don't see that it shows any purpose, and it kind of gets away from the overlay's actual intent, which was to prevent — protect light and air movements and to prevent the canyonization of Gulfshore Drive. MS. ISTENES: I guess I was more looking at it as is that necessarily a bad thing, access to Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico for a public purpose. And that was kind of the view I took. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, 1 don't think that there's necessarily any problem. However, Mr. Strain's all concerned about taking away people's rights. Well, I don't know whether we take away anybody's right with that language, so I say why change what's already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I am concerned about taking away people's rights. And I haven't voiced my expression on this one yet, but I will when I get to my turn. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just real quick. This is a private amendment. And the intent of the changes, I'd like to hear from the petitioner or the applicant what is intended by these changes, rather than staff. Staff has reviewed these things, but it is a private amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hey, Ray? MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman? The intent is as I indicated when I began my presentation. It refers to the changes that are sought under the provisions five for development criteria pertaining to private docks, boathouses and the multi -slip dock facilities. That's the reasonable use that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the applicant, do you want that change in your language? MR. WHITE: We're proposing it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WHITE: It in essence makes no difference as to the real concerns. And if you prefer to strike it, that's fine. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, do you prefer to have it or not? COMMISSIONER CARON: He just said they did. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what he said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You -- MR. WHITE: We would have no objection if it's stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any objection if you left it in? MR. WHITE: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. We're going real fast here today. Thank you. Okay, anybody else have any questions on Page 34? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. You referred to the word -- you add the word and procedures. That's all going to center around this SDP review. So I'm going to reserve certainly my comments on that, pending when we get to the page with the SDP review. Also, towards the end under applicability, the word procedures again pops up. But you also have all Page 41 A5 January 28, 2010 development or redevelopment. What do you consider development, Mr. White, since you were the one that wrote this? MR. WHITE: As defined in the code and in Section 380.04 of the Florida Statutes, I think it's all development orders and development permits, but as limited in these provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you consider redevelopment? MR. WHITE: The same thing on a site that had prior development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me in the code where redevelopment is defined? MR. WHITE: It is not defined, and that is why it is not in bold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neither is development in bold. MR. WHITE: That's -- maybe it should be. Because I believe it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, under development, what do you consider redevelopment? MR. WHITE: As 1'd indicated, it's any site where there have been prior development and there is going to be a further development on that site, either by removal and replacement or some addition or some modification to existing. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: Do you consider reconstruction redevelopment? MR. WHITE: If a development permit is required, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you consider alteration of the size or material change and the external appearance of a structure on land to be redevelopment? MR. WHITE: Potentially so, again, if a development permit is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what in the definition of the word development that's already defined in our code is not included in your perception of what redevelopment is? Because we have a -- what I just read to you was one of six items defined — or seven items defined in our code as development. So if it's already included in development, why do we need to add the word redevelopment? It's undefined and it makes it very concerning as to what someone's intention is there. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if you read the existing text, all you have is, these regulations shall apply to the overlay district. The point is is that they in fact apply to the activities that take place within the district, which are development and redevelopment. That's the complete set of what those activities could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But again, I don't know what redevelopment is. I know what development is. It's defined. And I just read to you that under development we include what seems to be redevelopment. So why do we need to say redevelopment and redevelopment? MR. WHITE: I'd be happy to remove the suggested text of or redevelopment, sir. Happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any objections to that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 35. Anybody have any questions on Page 35? There weren't any changes, so -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36? Anybody have any questions on Page 36? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the same issues that I brought up on number five up on top, the word procedures and the reference to redevelopment and the non - bolding of the word development. Under b.iii, and the reference to private docks and boathouses, it references the SDP process, which is on the next page when we get to that. My concerns with that will have an impact on b.iii. And under the last one, c, we have a in, says noncommercial boat launching facilities and multi -slip docking facilities for greater than 10 slips. That is by right -- is that a by right issue now, Susan or Ray, do you know? And is it we're converting it to conditional use or is it -- how is this -- is this just a whole new conditional use without a basis for any kind of right or provision at this time? MS. ISTENES: In this district I read it as a new process for multi -slip docking facilities for greater than 10 slips. I hope I'm answering your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 1 think you are. And what you said in your change is that it would be 10 or greater. Is that -- Page 42 l6t 1 �5 j, 28, 2010 MS. ISTENES: That was my recommended change, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know the average standing width of a lot in the residential section of Vanderbilt Beach? MR. BELLOWS: Depends on what the site is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, any one of the fingers. They're all standard size. I'm just wondering how 10 slips equates to the distance that a typical lot would get. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not part of the RT district, the finger -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. It has nothing to do with it. But if the people in those homes, for the amount of space they have, have a right to a boat, then it would seem the slips that they're saying are limited, depending on the length of shoreline those people own in the RT district, should have some equal right comparable to those to the same amount of boat slips. And I'm just wondering if that break point — how we justify the break point being 10, that's all. Had nothing to do with whether it was an RT or not. MS. ISTENES: Well, the RSF would be 80; I think is normally 80. I'm just guessing. I'm pretty sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what is the slip -- is it one slip for how many feet of shoreline now, do you recall, for noncommercial? It's in our Manatee Protection Plan. MS. ISTENES: Not offhand. I could look -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten per 100, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, one per every 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One per every 10 feet. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: It depends upon the type of classification you get, whether it's preferred, moderate or protected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: It's 18 per 100 if preferred, it's 10 per 100 moderate, and one per 100 for protected under 5.05.2.D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Page 36? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Page 37. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're going to jump on D, so I'll stay away from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to jump on it_ I said all I'm going to say and I will not support it, so that's where it's going to lie, so — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I will ask a small question. Pat, were you interested in insubstantial changes being notified, too? MR. WHITE: To the extent they're SIPS, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Down on c -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: — these are yard requirements. And by definition a yard requirement is that any structure higher than 30 feet (sic) is not allowed. So why are we worried about ramps or parking garages and stuff like that? I know we have an issue with it. But the point is that by straight definition of a yard, a yard is not a setback, that what the code wants is from 30 inches up everything could clear. So what are you going to achieve with all these additional wording here? MR. WHITE: The goal, Mr. Schiffer, is to remove what are the exemptions and exclusions in the cited LDC provisions for a variety of different kinds of projections that otherwise penetrate into the view space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But are those projections in setbacks or are they projections in yards? Page 43 January 28, 2010 MR. WHITE: They are both the same in that application, where the yard effectively creates the distance that the face of the building otherwise has to be set back from the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: They're essentially equivalent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think we're going to talk about that later in this booklet. But they're -- historically they're not equivalent. But the -- so what you're concerned about is -- and you're putting parking ramps because there is a parking ramp that is essentially in the yard and a violation. But would this not actually give the impression that prior to this it was allowed? MR. WHITE: I'd ask staff to comment on that. I'm not in agreement with what occurred, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A structure that supports vehicles is not a driveway, and it is greater than 30 inches. So I'm -- the concern I have is I think because of the fact that when they did this they used the word yard instead of the word setback. They were really intending to have a clear area. You adding that to me makes it look like prior to that it was allowed, and 1 don't think that's the case. And I don't think any -- you know, we have a definition of what a yard is. All of this is redundant. You're not allowed to build any structure greater than 30 inches in that yard. MR. WHITE: If you look at the site provisions in 4.02.01.1), four through eight and 10, those in fact are a series of exemptions and exclusions that allow encroachments. That's the staffs word, into the yard space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it uses the word yard, not setback? MR. WHITE: I'm not sure where you're referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know. and 1 had a checkmark here that I was going to look it up and I didn't. My terminal's down or I would have looked it up in your presentation. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need those sections? I have them here, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you could grab one quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, here it is right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does it use yards or setbacks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll make sure he reads it himself, that way -- MR. WHITE: One of the things we did in working with the DSAC was compile a list of all of those provisions to which there was the potential for application. And what table 2.1 refers to is the table of minimum yard requirements, parenthesis, setbacks, closed parenthesis, for base zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They do use the word yard, okay. I think staff brought up a point that you can end up with some really boring looking buildings if you're not careful with this. I mean, some of these are very minor, they're cornices that are 12 inches, there's -- you know, they don't really intend to be that obtrusive. MR. WHITE: My suggestion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They certainly aren't occupiable areas and stuff, so -- MR. WHITE: My suggestion would be that to one of those creative types of architects they simply would have to recede, and as you'd indicated originally, stay clear of the yard. They could put all of those architectural embellishments that they would like on any of the facades to any degree they would feel comfortable and could be otherwise approved under the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so what you're saying, if you want those embellishments, pull your building back. MR. WHITE: Just a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's a statement. The -- when you do this you say, you know, the yard requirements are as follows, and then you put a comma and you start except for all -- and you start listing a whole bunch of things. And when you come out of the parenthesis you have another comma. Essentially what you've described is everything. Do you really need that between the commas? MR. WHITE: You mean between the parentheses? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe even, are as follows. In other words, why don't you just make the statement that the provisions of 4.02 or 1.D, whatever, are not required -- are not applicable. In other words, what you're defining is essentially every building you could think of, right? Page 44 161 1 A 5 January 28, 2010 MR. WHITE: I think the yard requirements likewise apply to all buildings and structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I'm saying, isn't -- I mean, the point of that paragraph is essentially that you don't want the provisions for the exceptions to apply. MR. WHITE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in that paragraph you try to define everything so if somebody comes up with something that's not in your definition, that may mean that they're allowed to be in a yard, and we don't want that. MR. WHITE: The point of the parenthetical is in an effort to identify as desired by the DSAC what some of those applicable circumstances might be. Looking not to capture all of them, but certainly giving anyone who's an applicant a better idea of how they would apply these provisions to a potential SDP or SIP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what it's stating, you know, it's all buildings, you know, whether principal or not. And then you do clarify parking ramps. But, you know, the parking ramp problem is not that it's a building, it's that it's a structure greater than 30 inches. So you're eliminating structures and other things. I mean, theoretically I could put a barbecue out in the front yard and stuff like that. In other words, the point is do you really need to define what's not allowed in the yard, since nothing is allowed in the yard? MR. WHITE: Other than looking to eliminate the exclusions and exemptions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. WHITE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I would just kind of look at the wording of that and just say you want to exclude all the exceptions. Because what I'm saying is that I could come up with a structure that's not what you define, and there may be the impression that I can put that in the yard. MR. WHITE: I would simply indicate that the text that exists presently doesn't have any of that initial header that's all underlined, and all it talks about are the building heights, not structure heights. So I think that there's a rational basis for staffs determination with regard to a parking driveway or ramp, that that may be it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, it's a minimum yard requirement. We have a definition of yard. A yard is nothing -- no structure greater than 30 inches. MR. WHITE: I would just say that for the purposes of these three types of yards, that where it says building I think that it's understood and generally applied that structure, any over 30 inches, would likewise be considered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But when you do go, as follows, that's a precise term. And that means if I can wiggle between those words, I can do it. I just think it's dangerous. MR. WHITE: What you see is because of what DSAC desired. And if you have a different preference here, we would certainly be glad to change the text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just maybe think about that. I'm done, thank you. MR. WHITE: We'll simplify it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Mr. White, Commissioner Schiffer asked you about notice for the SIP, and the question -- you responded something to the effect of if it's for an insubstantial change, no. I think we need to understand what that really will mean relative to this, because I think the genesis of this is persons who think that what somebody thinks is an insubstantial change to be potentially a substantial change. If you're going to provide notice, wouldn't you want to have notice to everybody for all of the issues that you're seeking to gain some insights into? MR. WHITE: We can go back and look at the distinction that the code provides between insubstantial and substantial and give you a better position on it. But my answer was, and it may not have been a complete one, but as to all SDP's and SlPs, I think it may be worth having the insubstantial changes, provide notice for as well. Because that's all this is. This isn't about a review process. There's no provision in here that deals with giving anyone additional rights or changing any of the process. It's simply sending a letter in a checkbox item on the staff sufficiency review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, who makes the judgment about the insubstantial change? That would be the next -- Page 45 � a , January 28, 2010 MR. WHITE: The code does, in terms ofthe staff applying it as they review a petition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The code allows for it to be determined by somebody. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When does that happen where? I mean, in this process that you'd like to see go forward. MR. WHITE: There are a set of what the insubstantial changes are for an SDP and SIP. They are defined in the LDC. And the staff routinely makes that call. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, routinely. See, I was a unaware that that was a routine matter. But you were willing to drop it on the insubstantial change -- MR. WHITE: No, correcting you for the record that my point was that it should be SIPS and SDPs, regardless of whether insubstantial or not. I only said SIPS, but I should have said SDPs and SIPS. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I may have misheard you, but I could have sworn you said that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we -- I do not think we're going to finish up this particular amendment of the LDC before lunch. And I feel very strongly that we won't be able to, because it's 15 minutes away. So why don't we go ahead and take lunch now and come -- while the line's not too bad downstairs and come back at 12:45 and resume on Page 37. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wonderful. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell me when you're ready, Cherie'. You're all set to -- well, you had your hand in your ear, so I wasn't sure your fingers were ready. Okay, before we went to lunch we left off still discussing the Vanderbilt Beach overlay. And we are missing some of our Planning Commission members, but we will still have to proceed. We left off on Page 37. And were looking for any further questions from the Planning Commission on the language on Page 37. Anybody here have any further questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just not sure whether Brad was done or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's done. Did you have any questions you wanted to ask? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. And it has to do with 6.c under the minimum yards. In the patens that says specifically including ramps for parking facilities, I had a note about this. And then Susan gave us her report the other day with questions about whether it could be interpreted to just mean parking facilities. And so my suggestion is just that you end that patens after ramps and take out for parking facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I really think Patrick should look at taking out most ofthat stuff. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's describing stuff that shouldn't he there. And you're right, the danger is, you know, what if somebody had a food service delivery ramp, so that's allowed? In other words, when he starts defining things he starts running the risk of somebody being able to interpret what he doesn't define to be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Klatzkow has an interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Are what we getting at is the Moraya Bay ramp? Is that the intent here? COMMISSIONER CARON: To prevent it from happening -- MR. KLATZKOW: Prevent it from happening again. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- again, 1 think that's pretty much, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Then maybe we can just redraft this language so that it just hits that particular issue rather than spilling over to other potential issues. Just a suggestion. If that's the intent of it. MR. WHITE: It certainly is, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, to a very large degree. It also, as I had indicated in my initial presentation, was in part responding to the DSAC's desire to have a bit more specificity put in. Page 46 16; IA5 Janua8, 2010 We're fine to retract from it and make it as simple as possible. And the goal is more so to address the exceptions and exemptions specifically as the request from Mr. Schiffer that we would agree to implement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'd just like to get back to the whole issue of how we read our code to begin with. If we allow something in this overlay or if we allow it in the code, it's allowed. If it's not mentioned there, then it's not allowed. That's the way we read our code. And we keep drifting off from that because everybody wants to read it the way they want to read it. But let's have this discussion here. Is that not correct, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record. Yes, the code is a prescriptive code. Now, I will tell you over time that has been chipped away, and I think — and I'll just offer my own opinion on it based on observation. Your LDC does not -- you cannot feasibly address every situation with every piece of land, with every structure, with every circumstance in an LDC. You never will be able to do that. That's why you have professional staff that interpret and apply the LDC. I think over time perhaps there was some disagreement or unhappiness with some of those interpretations, and consequently I think people started adding lists of prohibited uses, for example. And you'll even see that in PUDs. And that, you know, comes about for a variety of reasons. But that's I think one of the ones I've observed that may be the reason for that. But yes, it is generally structured as a prescriptive code, meaning if it's permitted, it's listed; if it's not permitted, it's not. When you're talking about land uses. And same with development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, just, you know, you give the impression that there's secret parts of the code that nobody would even know about unless they knew of these interpretations. For example, yard is very clear in the code that it's no structure above 30 inches. And then the last sentence even states, with the exception of walls and fences. So wouldn't that mean no structures above 30 inches? Are some structures allowed in front yards -- or in yards above 30 inches from the ground'? MS. ISTENES: I've had people put landscape features in front yards and other people claim that it's a structure. I can't answer that question. It's really a matter of interpretation based on the facts presented at the time, Commissioner, and what the code says. I mean, you're asking a really broad question that just can't be answered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But like Jeff said and that triggered the neighbors, it is the Moraya Bay ramp that everybody's worried about. That was interpreted -- it had to be interpreted that that was allowed. That's definitely higher than 30 inches, definitely a structure. It's not a driveway going up a mound of earth, it's a ramp structure. MS. ISTENES: It was interpreted that way. And the setbacks were applied that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this isn't setbacks, this is in the yard. Setbacks and yards are two different creatures. MS. ISTENES: I understand that. But in some cases they overlap. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it was interpreted -- MS. ISTENES: I could rereview the plans, because I'm not sure what you're -- exactly what you're getting at. But my recollection is that's how the staff applied it. They looked at it as a structure and then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the staff of Collier County interprets a ramp structure as allowable in a yard. Essentially if it's greater than 30 inches, any ramp structure is allowed. And the reason I bring it up — I don't want to belabor that point, but I'm saying, if there are a lot of things that are allowed, as a design professional, you know, how are we supposed to know it? And as a citizen, how are they supposed to have a predictable code? If I'm designing a building today, can 1 put a ramp in a yard? I guess I can. Because I have examples of staff interpretation. But it doesn't meet the definition in the LDC. MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm not sure what the question is at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I guess -- MS. ISTENES: There's a lot of hypotheticals, which is difficult for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The simplest question, is there a lot of things allowed that are contrary to the way the LDC reads? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's like asking her what kind of mistakes do you make and can you tell us now what they're going to be. I'm not sure, Brad, that's a good direction to go in the question that you're trying -- Page 47 161 1 January 28, 2010 maybe if we stick to what Jeff was suggesting, why don't we try defining what the problem is more closely and see instead of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the other parts of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem in what Patrick's writing is that there is a reliance that the word yard means what the word yard means in the code. When Donna asked the question, she got the impression that there's an interpretation, so the words in the code aren't enough. 1 think that -- first of all, 1 think that if staff does make an interpretation, they should make that aware to everybody. And, you know, in the code it should be -- the code should be changed to include that from that point on. MS. ISTENES: We do. On our website there's things called staff clarifications, and we've posted all ofthose up on the website so that the public is aware, for consistency purposes, how we've applied the code in various situations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've actually never seen that. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, and some of them do end up as LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go look for that. I've never seen that. So a design professional would be able to go to that site and he will find that a ramp is allowed in the yard. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, the -- what normally happens is if there are questions during the design process, staff has asked questions, sometimes it's through a zoning verification letter, but we work with different design professionals as part of the review process to clarify code requirements. So it's not necessarily you're having an architect trying to guess or figure out the code. They call staff and we work with the zoning manager or director at the time and we get those answers, if there's a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the code should be predictable and consistent to everybody. MR. BELLOWS: As much as we can. And that's what we're trying to do today, 1 guess. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, Mark, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But let's get back to the reason that we're here on this. Obviously the people in the Vanderbilt Beach overlay perceive that their intent -- they wrote this, this is an overlay -- their overlay is not being followed to their intent. They are trying to close loopholes and problems. So instead ofjust saying, well, that's not the right language, let's craft some language that solves the problem that have been coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is a private application, so it's Mr. White or the people that need to craft it, not staff. I think that's been part of the problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. But certainly since staff worked on the overlay with the Vanderbilt people to begin with, they have some input, and they're the ones that are going to end up interpreting it. So we need to know that what they're going to interpret is the intent of what the overlay stands for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so if Patrick could craft some language that follows along with the thoughts and concerns of some of the commission members here and send it in as part of their review package, then I think that will exactly happen the way Ms. Caron is suggesting. MS. ISTENES: Did you read number three of my additional comments in my memo? Because that gets to your point, and it does deal specifically with this language of ramps and the possibility of there being a misinterpretation or misapplication, or quite frankly, I'm not sure what was intended or what it means so -- it was meant for a discussion item really rather than a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Talking about number eight on Page 3, right? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, number three on -- it would be 43.E, and it would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 5. MS. ISTENES: Of Page 43 in the handwriting. And then under additional comments, it's number three, and there's a lengthy discussion about ramps and setbacks and what have you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. 1 can ask a -- well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, ask your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My points are going to the same thing. And I'm piling on myself But you do in there define that that ramp was a structure. And the reason I think it's important is because that's why the Page 48 161 1 A5 January 28, 2010 neighbors are all here. They had a get - together, they had to pay money, they had to buy lawyers to do something that maybe to my mind wasn't even necessary. But here you're stating that it's not a driveway. Driveway is on top of ground. It is a structure. So how do they protect themselves in the future? And I'd like it to be worded in such a way that it doesn't make it appear it was allowed prior to this wording too. Does (sic) the words here protect themselves? MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I don't mean any disrespect, but in staffs opinion the site plan was approved according to code. So I can't really have any lengthy discussion or debate with you about that, because I disagree. And I've been through that for months through e -mail and through meetings and conversations. I'm trying to understand what the issue is, and I think what I understand is they don't like the ramp for whatever reason and they don't want it I don't know. And that's kind of why my comment was made and the writing is please explain what they're intending to try to do. Because the issue of whether it was allowed or not allowed or whatever in staffs mind is done. And so I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we know you agree with it -- MS. ISTENES: -- how productive a discussion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's built_ So somebody must have agreed with it. All the way down to the guy placing concrete agreed with it. But the question is, could they do -- would the wording that Patrick proposed, can — and you and the staff was back in that same situation on another project with the same conditions, I'm trying to make the hypothetical work here, would the interpretation be the same? MS. ISTENES: I don't know. I don't know what he's trying -- attempting to preclude here, because what I thought the issue was is not how this is written to protect the desire not to have a ramp, I guess. He needs to answer that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The issue is that there's a wording in the code that a yard, anything above 30 structures -- above 30 inches in a yard is not allowed. He's trying to come up with words that would keep structures that are higher than 30 inches out of the yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why doesn't he just say that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've been saying it every which way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but why doesn't this paragraph just throw that in then, anything that's considered a structure over 30 inches will not be allowed in the yard. Then you've got the point you want to make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not saying everybody agrees with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the definition of yard. Why does he have to say that? You know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, obviously somebody's got to say something, because this isn't working the way it is. MR. WHITE: We'll be happy to take that approach and replicate what is essentially the definition in yard. We'll simplify it as much as possible. I'm certainly willing to work with staff to try to do that and bring you back a work product that we both could support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we could talk a lot about it here today, but something needs to happen between you and some e -mails back and forth, I assume, with Susan to get to a point where you're both on the same page as to what it means. MR. WHITE: Well, part of the difficulty is the way that a yard is defined and then the way that the table for, quote, yards and setbacks exist. And then complicating that is what's on top of it in the overlay itself_ As to those particular yard requirements, one of which adds the word zoned that doesn't otherwise exist in the tables or as part of the definition ofyard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I can -- Patrick, that's because building height in the past has been the zoned building height. We added the actual -- again, it's really for this association who is fired of having things blossom taller than they imagined, so we came up with a definition that's a height from the center line of a road, the average center line of a road. Page 49 161 1 January 28, 2010 So somebody -- and Frank Halas was the one that wanted to be able to stand in a road and know how tall this building's going to be built without any wizardry, and hopefully ending using the word tippy -top. That didn't happen. But anyway, the -- so, you know, in the prior code building height was always zoned building height. I think any time nobody defines which one, it should always default back to zoned building height. MR. WHITE: That's why we proposed it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other question on — MR. WHITE: We will clarify 16. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 37, any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 forgot we were doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I said I forgot we were doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any questions, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, I'm glad to go back to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple on 37. On this -- maybe not questions as much as 6.0 being what it is really doing. You are eliminating the right for various protrusions into the side and front -- any setback, really. You have right now the sections of 4.02.01.D, four through eight and 10 that you referred to include sills, awnings, air conditioning, chimney, bay windows, pilasters, fire escapes, stairways, balconies, roof overhangs, eaves and gutters, just to name a few. Well, some of those have protrusions up to five feet. And what this would do is say basically if you want to use -- if you have a building with a balcony, your setback is measured from the outer edge of the balcony. And if so, you've actually increased the side yard setbacks by five feet. Is that a fair analysis or not? MR. WHITE: I think the practical application of it is that is the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So setbacks in Vanderbilt Beach overlay will be greater than they are for the standards typical to which they were. Again, I go back to the impacts that this would have. Has anybody done an impact analysis or understanding of what this means to the buildings in the RT district, both that are there or that may have to be rebuilt? Because in a rebuild process, if you've got a narrow lot and you've now taken additional space off the lot that you had been utilizing for decades, what does that mean to you? How much space you use, how much property rights have been consulted with them. How many of these people have sat in a room and had a stakeholders meeting where everybody talked about it? MR. WHITE: I know that there have been meetings with various property owners who did have concerns that we're aware of The provisions of the LDC and the Code of Laws as to build -back and other provisions of nonconformities are ones that would have to be addressed on a case -by -case basis. I can't tell you what the outcome would be. But generally speaking, in terms of build -back, if there's still the same yard that was there before all around in terms of the lot, we're talking about a circumstance where a lot of times you've eroded what would be the rear yard because it's on the Gulf. I think that what was there before as nonconforming may have the potential to be rebuilt. It depends upon the degree of damage. So I understand your point, Mr. Chairman, and it's a valid one. Because what the code has done is create a set of design standards and then created exemptions and exclusions. We're simply saying those exemptions and exclusions, because of what the purpose and intent of this overlay district is, should not be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last item on here is maximum height, 75 feet. I notice you struck out the reference to actual height. I just want to make sure that a building in the RT zoning district here still has the ability to utilize the definition of actual height. Meaning your zoned height is what it is. And that's the height you use for the measurement of your setbacks, or your yards. But if someone builds a building 75 feet high, by this language are you trying to eliminate their ability to include the normal appurtenances they use on the top of a building that are part of the actual height? MR. WHITE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a building -- this will then have no impact on any of the buildings up there at this point; is that fair to say? MR. WHITE: So long as they're otherwise compliant with the zoned height, no. Page 50 16 I r, `91 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sothis is a clarification that the actual height isn't being eliminated, it's just being defined -- you're just making sure zoned height is what it says it is. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it would probably be wise to label that as zoned height right from the beginning, as opposed to saying maximum height. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because what we've done is we have created two different things. And one is a zoned height. And that's what petitioners get. The actual height comes after that, once they add appurtenances and whatever. So I would think it would just be clearer if everybody realized it's not the maximum height, it's the zoned height. And then your actual or maximum height — MR. BELLOWS: I agree with you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is higher than that. MR. BELLOWS: -- that is the correct definition of maximum zoned height. And then when you deal with actual height you're talking about those other things that the code allows you to be exempt from measuring building height. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it will say maximum zoned height right there from the get -go. And then — MR. WHITE: That's perfectly acceptable. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- nobody will be -- MR. WHITE: That was the intent of the clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to Page 38. Does anybody have any questions on Page 38? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the issue on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was mumbling to myself. Unfortunately I start doing that. Apologize. I guess we should probably talk about timeshare there again. You brought that up, Mr. White. You want to -- I think you indicated you might want to wait until the other issue was resolved? Looks like you might be coming back with this anyway. MR. WHITE: We're certainly going to have to interplay with that applicant and petitioner to best understand how to handle what may be nonconforming as a result of the adoption of whatever that final form of that regulation is. And work with the association as well to find that proper balance. But I think the thing here is that it says timeshare facilities. And that's where some of the confusion's come in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine for me. MR. WHITE: You're regulating a use based on what essentially is a structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Am I understanding this right, that if you have a principal building and then let's say a pool house as an accessory building on your property, you're suggesting that the provisions of a -- as we discussed in the prior one for your setbacks are actually going to be increased because you can't have -- even internally to your site you can't have the sills and gutters and other things protruding into the separation between the structures? MR. WHITE: Again, yes, we are looking to remove those exemptions and exclusions in 4.02.01.1), as enumerated. So what the effect on setbacks, I couldn't hazard a guess. It would depend upon what was anticipated to be put within the building cube, the area of-- or the space rather that allows you to build in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what is this aiming at? I mean, what brought this up? You guys specifically must have a problem that decided that the distance between structures internal to a site is a problem to you. What -- give me an example of what it is was your problem. I'm trying to understand this. MR. WHITE: The notion that to some degree a parking ramp could be considered either accessory or principal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so this goes back to the same parking ramp. Page 51 January 28, 2010 MR. WHITE: Parking garage, parking ramp. There are provisions in the code that talk about what happens if they're connected versus not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Does this include balconies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. They're taking balconies out as an allowable protrusion into yards, right, so that means you're pushing the buildings -- MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, that's what section -- balconies fall under number seven of the area that's referenced as four through eight. MR. WHITE: And 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions on Page 38? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ijust again want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- say, this is definitely going to boost Bow House and International Style Design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That means flat walls with windows poked in it. No decoration whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering why that's a positive for you all. MR. WHITE: That is one potential design solution. And as I indicated earlier, an architect is free to have all of those embellishments, it just has to be a smaller overall area of the building so that it doesn't include into those spaces. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the reason I'm not really protesting this like I should is that the -- when we get to the illustrations, which are lame, but we'll get to them, the buildings aren't supposed to go from setback to setback. So essentially the designer should have the ability to be positioning his building such that he has room for those options and they're not right up against the setback, they're not in the view corridors that were very important to this neighborhood. They'll exist because the buildings won't go setback to setback. They're not allowed to, according to the illustrations. MR. WHITE: One of the things I think that may help in everyone's understanding of this is to recognize that it's intended to mostly operate from the point of view of Gulfshore Drive looking both east and west through what are the side yards. But because there is a desire to reduce the massing overall from the community's perspective, they are treated equally in this version of the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Susan and Ray, does this language in F change any of the way you would have been looking at things on -- I mean, I understand about the ramp. From your review analysis, do you see anything here that would be modified on an on -site attempt to do anything but address this ramp issue? I'm just trying to figure out all the variables that this could apply to, and it's kind of hard to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It sure is. MS. ISTENES: I did comment about that in my thing. Maybe this is another one where Patrick and I should probably discuss and make sure we're on the same page as to what the intent is and what's drafted here. Because I don't think it is. But Pm not -- it's j ust a feeling at this point. And I'm not sure I can answer. I think Ray has a little bit of input too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the next month that transpires, could you have those conversations? That would be helpful. I certainly -- and it would be nice from the perspective of this board to understand how this works. I mean, it's fun -- it's interesting to see it in writing. But I can't -- everybody's got to have an objective as to why they changed this, and I'm just trying to figure out what it is -- how it's supposed to apply when it's in the field. And I can't picture that right now. MS. ISTENES: Well, 1 think you're certainly asking Mr. White, which is totally appropriate for him to explain the intent and what he thinks the changes are going to do. But I did do a pretty thorough analysis of this. So if you get an opportunity just to rereview it, I know you've got a lot on your plates, that might help as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on 38? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to 39. Questions on --one paragraph on the top under vested rights. Page 52 161 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have a question. You took out a lengthy sentence about a date on the moratorium and all that. I think you probably took it out because you probably feel it doesn't apply anymore; is that right? MR. WHITE: Legally it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was one building that it did apply to on the north end of the -- or to the former Vanderbilt Inn or whatever that was up there, which is now Moraya Bay. If you take that out, does that change their ability to be considered a build -back of any type, or is there any negative to them in that manner? MR. WHITE: This is not intended in any way to alter what rights that he would have had and may still have under the build -back provisions. It simply recognizes that the moratorium is moribund, it's dead, it's over. And what it does is essentially say that to the extent that there are nonconformities, it's drawing a line in the sand with whatever it is that these regulations are when they're adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what it does is -- MR. WHITE: Which is the general rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it seems to give that building -- and I'm not trying to defend that building at all, I'm simply trying to make sure that everything is fair. It seems to lock that building's zoning or rules in at a time certain, prior to the overlay. By taking that out, if they had to do a build -back, would they then come under the overlay or would they come under the prior to the overlay language that's being struck? MR. WHITE: Well, I'm not familiar with all the facts, but if I understand what you're relating before about the prior building having essentially been removed, there are no rights with respect to that. The rights of the existing structure are the ones that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care about the Vanderbilt Inn, it's down. I'm talking about Moraya Bay. That language came under a provision that was exempt basically from the current language of the Vanderbilt Beach — MR. WHITE: Because that's the time that its application was deemed to be complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you take that language out telling everybody that that's the case and they have to build back, under what rules do they build back by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't they build back under the settlement from the Burt Harris? I mean, which were pretty specific. We -- they came before us, we all negotiated, the Commissioners negotiated, so they have their own little rules, and I'm sure that's what they would want to build back to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be your understanding, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Generally so. But please understand that much of how you apply build -back depends upon primarily two factors: How much of any of the lot was lost, and the degree to which the building itself was damaged. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know -- MR. WHITE: -- without making certain assumptions, I really can't honestly and fully answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The building's completely gone, the lot's down to the level it was at when nature put it there 100 billion years ago. What does that mean for this property's rights? I mean, you can -- you know what I'm trying to get at. I want to make sure that we're not taking someone's rights away that were given to them by that sentence. Maybe they shouldn't have gotten it in the first place, I don't know. I just want to make sure we're not infringing on anything. Because the last thing we need is a lawsuit by saying we took something away we shouldn't have. That's the only reason I brought it up. And if Mr. Klatzkow's not able to comment on it, because I know he hasn't been following all this, then — MR. KLATZKOW: No, I've been following it. I -- MR. WHITE: I think the answer is, if I may, Jeff, just -- and feel free, just so I can respond to Mark — Commissioner, I think the answer is they get to build back what they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeff? Page 53 Jan u& 5 20104 MR. KLATZKOW: Why do we need to make a change? MR. WHITE: Quite honestly, as I said to the DSAC, if you don't want a change, that's okay with me. It was intended to help clarify and make it easier for staff to apply going forward. I'm glad that it's illuminated an issue or a series of issues that there's a dialogue about so that anybody who's out there as a property owner knows what may be in store for them. MR. KLATZKOW: So that there's no substantive reason for the than -- in other words, there's no substantive reason for the change? Is there any substantive reason for the change? MR. WHITE: Not relative to my client's specific interest. MR. KLATZKOW: Then don't change -- MR. WHITE: If you want to leave it as is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I would suggest don't tamper with it. Why mess with something and cause trouble we don't know where it could go. And that's kind of where I'm trying to understand some of the other ones that I've asked you and Susan to work out the language on, because I can't tell where they're going to go. MR. WHITE: I can't tell you that there's any greater clarity or assuredness the way it exists today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move onto page --and then we have --let's do two of these pages, 40 and 41, does anybody -- nothing seems to appear to be changed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry. First of all, and I'd like Ray and Susan to focus on this. This was something that failed I think on the Moraya Bay. The intent of figure one on Page 40. And I'm not a big fan of these exhibits. First of all, they show two different kind of sites and then they say desirable and undesirable. So this is a pathetic document right here, and we really should fix it. But the intent of it was is that the building wasn't supposed to go from setback to setback. Moraya Bay went from setback to setback. So what failed on this document to get that point across? MS. ISTENES: Moraya Bay was regulated under a settlement agreement, Commissioner. So that -- those were the regulations that were applied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I've read it carefully. And setbacks were established. In other words, you had to be so far from a property line. But there was nothing in that settlement agreement that said you had to go from property line to property line. What was said, what should have governed, I think is this document that's -- essentially what the figure's trying to portray is that you don't go from property line to property line. So the point is that's the reason for this document. The settlement agreement did establish a setback from a side property line, but it did not again state that you had to eat up both sides. So what kind of a graphic here would have staff interpret that? MS. ISTENES: I'm not a fan of these graphics either. 1 mean, they're not -- they are desirable and undesirable, which says nothing to me. We'd like it to be that way, however you view it. I mean, there's no -- you know, I don't -- I could tell you I view it five different ways than you do. My preference, you know, unless there's something that I'm missing -- Patrick, chime in, it's been a little while since I've looked at the diagrams — that either take them out or don't mess with them. Are you changing them? MR. WHITE: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are these diagrams supposed to be looked at as a restrictive issue? Because you're telling people in one case that they've got a setback envelope they've got to build within, and in this case you're saying they can't? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What this diagram was intended to do, if I recall from back in the hearings, and, you know, maybe these guys got ripped off and should get their money back for the involvement in the hearings, but was that they did not want a building to go from side to side. In other words, eat up the full setback width of the site. Obviously doing a drawing with two different shaped sites didn't help, you know. But the point is they wanted the mass of the building broken up so that it was not going to be one big monster, and they got one big monster. So how do we change this document to prevent them from getting that again'? MR. WHITE: Any change that you may consider, I think you have to make in light of what's stated in LA, Page 54 16'1Ar January 28, 2010 which is the figure's language right underneath the kind of graphic demonstrating the bounds of the VBRTO. That language we didn't propose any changes to. We didn't propose any changes to the figures. Because if you read this, it says variations from these figures which nonetheless adhere to the provisions of this section are permitted. Now, I think my clients would argue that whatever those variations were, specifically including exemptions and exclusions that were allowed to penetrate into the yard, into the setback, that this wasn't followed. So it is probably not viewed as being mandatory from staffs perspective. So there's two ways it obviously can go. My view is that to further the purpose and intent it should be something that is made more strongly as a requirement. I mean, it says it, you should adhere to the provisions of this section. And gives you the idea that you should look to the community character plan as a guide for future. Please don't yell at me for reading this quote, Mr. Chairman, but for future development and redevelopment in the overlay district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Patrick, what kind of drawing should be hereto --the intent was they wanted the view corridor protected. One way to do that was side setback, one way is to break up buildings and all. This document is failing to prevent that, as evidenced by a building built under it. MR. WHITE: If it would have said at the bottom instead of undesirable, not permitted. I think there would have been a stronger case that staff would have applied it in a manner that settlement agreement or not there wasn't going to be a maxing of the buildable cube. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has your client- - MR. WHITE: You wouldn't have filled the space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has your client expressed a concern over the fact that buildings are being built from setback to setback? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. I mean, I think that's largely to the extent of looking to remove those exemptions and exclusions and deal with some of the separation distances is what it is that their concerns have been and why they in the first place sought to have the overlay enacted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I think you have to do something to alter this drawing to make it achieve what it's supposed to achieve or do some verbiage in other areas to do that. Because, you know, as much as I -- you know, I could say to Susan it shouldn't have gone setback to setback, the drawing I'd have to show her is this drawing to prove it. And she wins. MR. WHITE: You know, Mr. Schiffer, if you look at figure four, it again says undesirable. And if you look at where the view plains touch the tops of the various buildings that are illustrated there, you know, there's an argument that says that you could make some penetrations. So rather than try to use these figures that aren't being applied, we went to the specifics of the code in the design standards and sought to eliminate those exemptions. Because that was the thing that is offensive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then show me where in lieu of that illustration, which would be great. Because these illustrations are useless to them. In lieu of that illustration, where do you set up the situation where they can't go full width of the site? MR. WHITE: One of the ways to do that is elimination of the exemptions and exclusions. The other is through the principal and accessory structures. I think that my client's going to have to live with the notion that there may be one massive building, notwithstanding the fact that that's not desirable under these figures, so long as they're proposing it has to be shrunk back to take away those exclusions and exemptions, that addresses presently their concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying, by measuring to the edge of the balconies and any other goodies on a building, that's going to push the building back -- MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or get rid of people using, you know, decorative elements. But that's going to push the building back enough that you feel will protect what the intent of that drawing was? MR. WHITE: And I think they're willing to see how that plays out going forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 40 and 41? (No response.) Page 55 �Y r� January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 42 and 43? Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a comment about all the drawings. I don't even know why they're here, they make no sense. None of them are sized the same. And it's like desirable, undesirable. Is this a wish list? MR. WHITE: Notwithstanding what LA says about the figures and how to apply them, they have essentially not been -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL It doesn't say. It's just a wish list. MR. WHITE: -- figured in, to make a bad pun, in the staffs analysis of site and building permit review. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL I just can't see them being in there at all. MR. WHITE: And as I had said to the DSAC, I have no problem if they're taken out. But on the other hand, if they're going to stay in, maybe it makes sense to have that policy discussion about whether they should be made mandatory in some fashion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interestingly enough, if you look at the view plain on Pages 42 and 43, none of the things that you're considering have changed to reduce the side yards or change in the side yards have any impact on the view plains they were desiring to have. So why are you asking for them? MR. WHITE: If you look at the ones that are desirable, figure three -- 1 apologize, I again don't have the pagination you're referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, here, I'll put it on the overhead, if you'd like. MR. WHITE: They are set back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, MR. WHITE: They don't max the cube. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are set back, but you could easily put balconies much more than the code allows in any one of those buildings and still preserve that view plain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's -- MR. WHITE: You'll note that there is nowhere on this document anything that demonstrates where the yards are. So there was more work required to make these things have utility, so we just left them alone. There's nothing on there, Mr. Chairman, that tells you where the setback or the yard lines are, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't matter. If you look at the bottom of the V to the top of the V, the concern for the view plain was from top to bottom expanding as it gets toward the top. Well, no matter what configuration you use, especially in a building like the one shown here, you're not going to impinge on that balcony or on the setback things you're concerned about. So I'm just --I mean, I'm not --I know these drawings aren't what we're hanging our hat on, but it's interesting the drawings with the intent of the buildings contradict what you're trying to do here today. MR. WHITE: I don't believe that's the case, again because you cannot draw that conclusion because you don't have the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't matter. MS.ISTFNES: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, the one thing, they do show buildings that would be considered international style, square little buildings with the — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go, international buildings is what we need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is what's coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: I understand your point, Mr. Chairman. I just don't know how to make it better with these regulations. We chose to leave them alone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that, I guess we've exhausted our discussion at this point with the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I forgot one quick thing. And I'm sorry, I did this, I was having too much fun on the yard. Page 56 161 1 Jalry 28, 2010 Back on 37 you discussed that you're excluding accessory buildings used for essential services such as utilities. Are you meaning government utilities or are you meaning I can put an electrical -- my meter room out in the middle ofthe yard? MR. WHITE: It's more the latter. That was a concern that was raised at DSAC, the point being we weren't going to look to have those exemptions and exclusions removed. Fine for those. Most of them are smaller, they don't have much mass, and it's that type of essential service, utilities. Maybe somebody has a pool pump, those kind of things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the fire pump room, the meter room could be rather large. I mean -- but, you know, that's -- I don't think -- and I think again back to Moraya Bay there was a concern that there's elements of that building poking out into the yard that are, you know, utility buildings that are not meeting the setbacks. But anyway, I think you're going to have to go back and really focus on that. I don't think that paragraph at all should be there with the ins and outs that are going to get you in trouble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we get into public speakers. And Ray -- by the way, everybody that wants to speak, if you have not registered, I'm still going to give you the opportunity to come up anyway. So let's start with the registered speakers first. MR. BELLOWS: Susan Snyder. MR. ELM: Bill Eline. She assigned her time to me. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. Bill Eline is the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It means you get two minutes. Just kidding. MR. ELINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't --we're not very formal with the time. We just ask just to be succinct is all. MR. WHITE: Does that include travel time, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ELINE: My name is William Eline. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. And I've been in this overlay thing since they built the -- Mr. Allen built -- what's the name of that thing, Joe? The Bellagio. So we -- I want to go quickly on this. The first test of that was Moraya Bay. And I watched Morava Bay from the bottom floor. And the bottom floor I immediately saw the setbacks were not registered with the Clerk of Courts. I went to the County Commissioner, he told me to talk to the planning department. I said 1 wouldn't. I said, you talk to them and tell us what's happened. We finally ended up -- and Donna Caron was nice enough to come, County Attorney, Mr. Halas and the County Manager, county planning department. We had a meeting. You couldn't believe the meeting, because nobody knew who approved all of the administrative variances. So we made a very simple request: First of all, give us the minutes of the public meeting that took the building to 35 feet. We have never received that. We asked for a copy of all the variances and who approved it. That was in May. This is almost first of February. I have not received them. With that said, I love the candor of today's meeting. We've got to find away to work together. We've got to get these land development things so we know what to expect and the people that work in the planning department know what they have to do. Coming back to your point, Mark, we'd be very willing to pay a fee to go down and ask a question and get an answer. And I think we should do that. It has two purposes: If we really want to know, we should be willing to pay for it, and if the fee's high enough, we'll get rid of all these stupid questions. Now, let me talk just a second and I'll be done about the Vanderbilt Residents Association. We're about 1,000 members. We have a board of directors. We have a manager of our zoning, many of you know, is Bruce Burkhard. When we get a notice, we put out our newsletters, or we put out flash information to all members on the computer. A reminder. And then we advise them that the zoning manager will go down to the county, will Page 57 January 28, 2010 investigate and will report to the people. And that's what we do. Our only hope is that we can get the planning department people to exercise our land development codes, our boat dock codes and the other things. Up to today, since 1990 -- gosh, I'm getting old, this is 2010 -- we have never accomplished that. And to date our associations are all taxpayers, I believe we're in the top five zones in the county, we have spent $175,000 on lawyers trying to get answers. And I think that's ridiculous. We ought to be able to get together, get a clearer document. The fellow who wants to build this building, he knows what it says, builds his building and everybody's happy. So I hope -- I'd like to tender this meeting today, and we'll have our counsel meet with the planning department and comeback with the clearest words hopefully they both can find. And then I think we'll get out of a lot of trouble. And we thank you very much for all the time you've given us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Joe Connolly. MR. CONNOLLY: I'm Joe Connolly and I live at 10633 Gulfshore Drive, five buildings south of the Moraya Bay. And I have been on Gulfshore Drive now for about 12 or 14 years, I can't remember. I have been through the Manatee Resort approved by the planning department saying it was a condo/hotel, and therefore they got hotel zoning. Put a coffee pot in the desk in the lobby they said and you got a hotel. So they got the hotel zoning. Then they were found they were wrong. But the planning department approved it. Then they put an addition onto LaPlaya and they put a big tower out in front approved by the planning department. We called on that, that's not right. Finally the LaPlaya agreed to tear the damn tower down, and they did. Then we went through the Bellagio thing and through a court case. In the court case we lost here, we appealed. They said you went about it the wrong way, but you were right in what you were getting and they reversed so that the zoning that the planning department approved for the Bellagio was not right. We then go to do the overlay to try to protect ourselves and our neighborhood. And as Bill said, we spent a fortune. And we have yet to get anything. And I want you to know that, you know, we have absolutely no faith in the credibility of the planning department. I heard Susan say they chip away and chip away and chip away. They do chip away and chip away and chip away. Not in favor of the taxpayer. You know, we're the ones that's paying for all this. They're taking care of somebody else. And we have no faith in them. And unless they can try to reestablish -- I mean, look, a balcony is a balcony. They say no, it's not. If it's -- it doesn't have a roof on it. Well, look at Moraya Bay and it's nothing but a balcony surrounding the whole damn building, which they approved. But they're not balconies. The ramp, that's a joke. They knew exactly what they were approving, and they knew they shouldn't have been, or either they're not the professionals they claim to be. So if in the future we can try to get back and have some credibility in a department that's supposed to be working for the taxpayers rather than somebody else, I think we'd all be better off. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Timothy Hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're shuffling a lot of paper there. We got rid of all -- my goodness. MR. BELLOWS: No, some ofthose were called already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. HALL: Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Hall. I'm with the firm of Turrell, Hall and Associates. We're a marine and environmental consulting firm here in Naples. And I am here speaking on behalf of my firm, but I'm not representing any clients specifically. And I guess the easiest way to do this is just to go through the document like Mr. Strain said, page by page. I'm here really to speak specifically on the issues associated with the addition of the boat dock comments into this, not so much the building heights or whatever else has been discussed. And Nick -- Ms. Caron and you guys already went into the physical and operational impacts, so I won't go into that. the purpose and intent on Page 34 of this original document was to prevent the canyon -like effect. And they are with this trying to change that purpose to also include reasonable use and access to Vanderbilt Lagoon. I think the Page 58 161 I January 28, 2010 county already has standards in place with the boat dock extension requirements and the Manatee Protection Plan and section -- on marinas and boat docks, 5.03.06. All of those are also designed to do the same thing, and this seems to be a duplication of efforts there. And then going to Page 36, number five, I think there's kind of a language thing with me, and that where it says shall apply the development and redevelopment of all uses within this overlay district. And it seems to me if you're going to put in the words development and redevelopment, then you need to take out of all uses. Because otherwise you're talking about development of uses and the uses are already established further down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which number are you on? MR. HALL: I'm on number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, five's the whole page. MR. HALL: I'm sorry, the very first sentence of number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: It says the following standards shall apply to the development and redevelopment of all uses in this overlay district. It seems to me like those uses are already established, so you're talking about the actual development, not the changes or anything of uses. It's just kind of a language thing. It goes back to high school stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, how many years back was that now? MR. HALL: It was a while. COMMISSIONER CARON: Come on, Tim, you can't remember that far back. MR. HALL: Item b.three or b.iii, there's some language added, so long as notice is provided for as required in D below for all multi -slip docking facilities with or without a boathouse. And when I go to Item D, that seems to apply to every site improvement or development plan. So I don't understand why you would specifically notice the multi -slip docking facilities too. Because unless I'm mistaken, even a single - family dock has to do a Site Improvement Plan or development plan for the dock, so that would already include -- be included in D. It doesn't seem like it needs to be addressed again there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact that it's there, if D were to survive, it wouldn't hurt, it's just redundant. MR. HAIL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: Yeah, and I just didn't understand why it was in there. And then going back to the kind of that page overall where it talks about accessory uses and conditional uses, right now as a permitted accessory use you're allowed docks, private docks as allowed by the Manatee Protection Plan, which is kind of outlined in 5.05.02. And what this is doing is taking that allowed use, if you're -- if the Manatee Protection Plan allows your site to have 10 slips or 12 slips or 20 slips or whatever it is, you're taking that use that is right now allowed and making it now conditional. And to me that is a taking of what is currently allowed based on that. And then you guys had some earlier discussions about the Manatee Protection Plan, why it was in -- or 5.05.02, why it's mentioned in b.iii under private docks and boathouses and why it was not mentioned in c.iii. And the reason for that is because noncommercial boat launching facilities are basically dry storage facilities and boat ramps, and those are either allowed or not allowed in that Manatee Protection Plan, 5.05.02. They're not really subject to it in terms of the size or anything else. It's either they're allowed or not allowed, based on the ranking of the site, whether it's preferred, moderate or protected. So I think that's why that wasn't included there. And if you bring down this multi -slip docking facility, then what that does, the 5.05.02 tells you how many of those slips would be allowed. So, you know, if -- that's why that wasn't in there previously, it's included under marinas and all. And I guess my biggest issue is that moving the multi -slip docking facility down to a conditional use doesn't make sense to me, because all of these other uses, conditional uses, are relative to what's going on on the uplands. And again, specific to the boat dock stuff, marinas require an upland support facilities, you know, specific to the marina. It's usually ship stores or fuel facilities, that kind of thing. Noncommercial bought - launching facilities, boat ramps, they require either buildings or parking lots associated with those. The yacht clubs require the clubhouse and so forth. Whereas the multi -slip docking facilities are dependent Page 59 A5 nuary 28, 2010 upon residential use. And if the residential use is already allowed, then those docking facilities associated with that are simply accessory, they're not conditional. You don't have to change the upland use to allow those docks to be there. So I think the way that it is written currently, private docks and boathouses should apply to all slips, not to just nine and under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: Then my last comments were going to Page 39 where it was talking about vested rights. And this was a very -- I guess a lot of legalese in there and it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But what I was concerned about there is if this does go through, you have changed a use. There are existing facilities out there that have more than 10 boat slips. And my concern is that the vesting doesn't address those. Currently they're an accessory use. If somebody goes in to try to modify their docks or something like that as an accessory use, it's allowed. But if that's not vested and somebody came in to try to modify their docking facility, it seems to me then it's possible an interpretation could be made that those are now conditional use for the new facility and they'd have to go through additional permitting and additional process to — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice -- MR. HALL: -- maintain the use that they already have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you weren't -- you may have missed part of the meeting. That was all -- all that's -- 13's not going to be changed. MR. HALL: Okay. If that is not changed, then 1 think it is -- I think it's still an issue if you do change the -- if you do move the dock facilities down there, because most of this talks about -- it doesn't talk about existing uses, it talks about applications. And so it would still be a concern of mine that you've taken a use that was allowed as accessory and made it conditional and not vested the projects that are already in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that paragraph's going to go back like it was from the last discussion that we had. MR. HALL: Okay. And then I think that's the majority of my comments. And I'd be happy to answer any questions if you didn't understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would a -- in your c.iii, would a resorts boating facilities, docking facilities, is that a commercial, or how would you treat that? MR. HALL: A resort? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. HALL: Like associated with a hotel, it's usually going to be a commercial use, because the -- it's associated with what the upland development use is. So if the hotel is commercial, then the docking facility from the state's standpoint will usually be viewed as commercial as well. Or if it's set up as private ownership of the slips, then that would most likely be some kind of a club where on the hotel facilities there'd be a clubhouse or dockmasters building associated with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, more commercial then? Because you wanted to move the greater than 10 up to the private. So the private would only be for multi - family units? MR. HALL: And that -- yeah, that -- correct, that goes with multi - family. If it's a commercial marina or a private yacht club, those are already included under the conditional use category. So it would just be really the private multi - family facilities that would stay in the accessory use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I'im. Next speaker, Ray'? MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard and I'm a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association Board. And I just really want to add a few comments to give you a little bit more background, I guess, according to some of the questions that I heard had come up. Unfortunately I wasn't here for part of the morning session. Bill E1ine has already alluded to the fact that the residents association, Vanderbilt Residents Association, represents roughly 1,000 households in the Vanderbilt Beach area. It was originally set up by Mr. Conners, the Page 60 16/1 g ar Januy 28, 2010 developer. When he completed the development, he actually formed an association. So it's an association just like you would find in any gated community in the area. We represent everybody in the area and we try to do a good job in supporting the neighborhood in its appearance and also to try and protect the investments of everybody that lives in the area. The VBRTO came about quite a few years ago because we had a problem with development that's already been alluded to by Joe Connolly in terms of the Manatee development and also the Bellagio. And then it looked like there was something else looming on the Horizon in redevelopment areas, which proved to be the case, and that was the Vanderbilt Inn site, which eventually became the Moraya Bay development. And what we found was going on in the area and what prompted the establishment of the overlay was that development pressures were just trying to change the character of the neighborhood, the ambiance of the neighborhood that we lived in and potentially hurt residential values. Essentially although this is considered a residential tourist area, and we recognize that, it's primarily residential and with a few spottings of commercial development in this overlay area, such as LaPlaya and now of course the Moraya Bay in a sense. So what we ended up doing was saying that the Land Development Code isn't exactly working for us. And how can we go about tightening things up and making the Land Development Code and the county responsible to our needs, the needs that we perceived in our neighborhood? And we ended up actually getting into essentially a battle with the county who resisted most of what we were trying to do, it seemed. We ended up having to hire a city planner, very well recognized city planner from the Fort Myers area. We had two attorneys working with us. And we even were forced to hire an economist to the counter an economist the county brought in to say that what we were proposing was too costly for the county. And we essentially proved that that wasn't the case, I think. Eventually we did get the R'I'O passed. And the idea was that we wanted to cut down particularly on -- in Vanderbilt -- or on Gulfshore Drive, rather, on the canyonization effect that was developing with the high buildings that were coming up in redevelopment. So one of the things we tried to do was limit the height of the building. We also tried to increase setbacks to the point where we would approve the view and light situation along that corridor so that again it didn't contribute to this canyonization effect. And a lot of people think that that's all we were trying to achieve with this overlay, which really isn't the case. There was more that we were trying to achieve. And mainly our thrust was to take back and gain some control over what happened in our neighborhood so that it wasn't just crammed down our throats by developers and then seconded by the planning department, which we felt had been the case. So some of the other things that we tried to do was we tried to put things in like conditional uses for things like a beach club so that you can'tjust put a beach club, build a building and then also add a beach club. We needed a say in it. And marinas, we wanted to have a say so that somebody who at their present building site, their Site Development Plan showed two little docks, so somebody didn't turn that two little docks into a full -scale marina, which we ended up dealing with with the LaPlaya case. And also we specifically put timeshares in as a restriction, a different use from hotels and motels. And again, that went back to the fact that what we were trying to do was preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The timeshares that are there now are all residential timeshares, they're not commercial, they don't have any aspect of a hotel or motel. They for instance require a minimum of a week's stay and sometimes more than that. It's not a daily turnover like in a hotel and a motel. And we want to keep it that way so that we don't over - commercialize the beach and turn the beach into another Fort Myers Beach. So those were some of the aims of the overlay that we were trying to establish, basically to get a little bit more control over our neighborhood. Setbacks. Brad has talked about setbacks a little bit. And this building truly was at Moraya Bay built setback to setback. One of the things in the settlement debate is our side was working with the developer. The developer was trying to get a taller building than what was permitted. And we -- our side came up with a concept that what if we lowered the building but -- or allowed you to have a couple more stories of building, gave you more height to the Page 61 iA January 28, 2010 building than the 75 feet and the overlay but in return we'd like to see the setbacks brought in to accommodate more view for air and light and perhaps a view of the water. And that's what we ended up doing. On the sides they brought the setbacks, increased the setbacks to 52 feet, which was desirable and very nice. But what happened was and why we're back here for amendments is that the systems continually gamed. And what happened was they built to the 52 feet and then they stuck balconies out overhanging into the side yard setback. Well, that's okay if it's just a true balcony. But it turns out that these balconies that they put on weren't -- did not meet the definition of balconies according to the LDC. So we continually try to tweak the overlay and try to improve it. And the whole idea is not to make life more difficult for the developers, for the planning department. Were trying to just protect and preserve our neighborhood as we know it. And that's basically my pitch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins. MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: She had to leave. MR. BELLOWS: David Galloway? MR. GALLOWAY: My comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir? Yeah, you have to come up to the mic if you're going to speak, otherwise we can't get it on transcript. MR. GALLOWAY: David Galloway at 9051 Gulfshore Drive. My comments are going to mirror those of some of the members ofthe VBRA, so I'd like to -- but thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Mick Moore. MR. MOORE: Good afternoon, members of the Commission. My name is Mick Moore and my family has owned and operated the Vanderbilt Beach Resort for over 40 years. We're a small hotel on Vanderbilt Beach. And as I learn every time I look at the V BRTO, we are the undesirable diagram on Page 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of place do you run? MR. MOORE: It's never nice to be undesirable. So today I'm speaking for all the other undesirables out there. The original hotel was built in 1951 and at that time we were one of the only properties on the beach. Our family bought it in 1968, and I don't think it's an unfair statement to say that many people who now live on Vanderbilt Beach stayed at our place at one time or another or had guests stay there. I'm here today to let you know that even though we are members of the VBRA, the VBRA does not represent us or speak for us today in advocating for these changes. We are opposed to these changes because we believe that these changes constitute over - regulation that's going to cause more harm than good to the community. In essence what they are is an over - reaction to one developer's actions, the Moraya Bay project. And I can understand the problems that the other residents have had with that project. 1 understand their frustration and that they are upset. But the regulations that they are proposing are going to cause consequences for all of those other properties on the beach, including ours. They're going to cause its great difficulties if we have to repair or build back our properties in the event of a casualty event. And I don't believe that most of the property owners in this area understand exactly what these are going to do. As Mr. Klatzkow said, as even Kathleen Robbins said, there are going to be unintended consequences. Are they worth it? No. In our view they're not. They're going to cause a lot of problems. Now, even though we were members of the VBRA, we weren't notified of the proposed changes. We had to file a public records request with the county because we heard a rumor that the county was going to be proposing changes to the LDC and we wanted to find out what was going on. Once we received the regulations from the county and we knew that they were being prepared by the VBRA, the VBRA did contact us and we had a meeting with members of the board. And they wanted to know what our Page 62 I b 11 A s 5 %Q r January 28, 2010 concerns were. And we told them what our concerns were. They're essentially the same concerns that we're expressing today. Now, I'm not aware of whether the VBRA has had meetings similar to the ones they had with me with all of the other property owners up and down the beach that will be affected. Because what I'm about to say with our objections may be similar objections that those property owners have. I don't know, I can't speak for them. In our view, the regulation is unnecessary and it's a second bite at the apple. We've already been through probably the most mind - numbing regulatory sessions that I've ever been in when the VBRA was established. Hours and hours of stakeholder meetings that make this meeting this morning look like nothing. And after all that, with all of the involvement of the VBRA and then the whole lawsuit with Moraya Bay that thankfully we're not involved in -- I don't want to be involved in a fight between VBRA and the developer -- after all of that we're coming back to go over these things again. Now, unnecessary changes, I could care less if the}' don't hurt anybody, but these changes have the capacity to hurt property owners, because they are going to significantly change the code. Not just clarify the code, significantly change it. And it will likely make numerous properties nonconforming all up and down the beach. In particular balconies. We have balconies on our property. Balconies along the beach, as every property owner know, require repair constantly. They spall, they start to fall apart, you have to repair them, you have to replace them. And that's going to be affected by this. Has there been a study to see what all of the other property owners think of this, how that's going to affect their balconies? There are balconies up and down the whole beach. If we have a casualty event -- and we have a small property. If we have a casualty event and we have to rebuild, are we going to be able to rebuild our property? Mr. White said I believe there is a strong potential. Well, that's not good enough for me, a strong potential. This puts us in a position where we may lose our business. And we keep our mouth shut, we run our business, we're good neighbors, but when something like this comes up, we have to speak, and that's why we're here today. This is the first time I've ever been in front of the Planning Commission. Balconies is an issue. This distance between principal structures and accessory structures, I'm not sure I completely understand it. But I know that we have a pool, we have a utility building, we have tennis courts, we have all of these things that may be affected. We may not be able to rebuild these things the way they are today. Our next door neighbors have a chickee hut, a pool, you know, things like that. I'm sure they do all up and down the beach. How is this going to affect that? I simply don't know. The burden should be on the VBRA to establish that they're not going to negatively affect the property owners in their current state. I don't think they've done that today. The benefits of these restrictions which are targeted towards a specific incident that happened with the ramp -- and again, that's not my fight, that's between the VBRA and the developer -- they're spilling over to the rest of the beach. And we're going to have to live with the consequences long after that fight is forgotten. And I told the VBRA members when we met with them, that's what we're concerned about. We've got to live with this. My daughter, who might be the fourth generation running the hotel, she's going to have to live with it. And she's going to say, dad, how did you let this happen? Why do I have to deal with this? I'm going to say that's the way it is. These restrictions are going to take away property rights that we currently have. It's hard enough to run a business in this economy right now. We need to be able to be flexible and adept to changing conditions. This is going to shackle us and prevent us from doing that. So I urge you, please, we don't need more regulation, we've been through this. 1 understand the frustration, but there's got to be another way to handle issues of interpretation of code with the county staff other than passing broad - blanket regulations that are going to affect all sorts of people who don't know they're going to be affected, and they're going to have negative consequences for years and years and years that we can't even understand or comprehend today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speak, Michael J. Moore. MR. MICHAEL MOORE: Good afternoon. I'll be brief, as everybody looks like they're ready to get out of Page 63 January 28, 2010 here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here for hours, so don't worry. MR. MICHAEL MOORE: My name is Michael Moore and I'm the second generation with the Vanderbilt Beach Resort. And there's really nothing new I'm going to add, I'm just going to reaffirm what my son said, that we've been property owners there for 42 years. The original hotel was the only thing on the beach in 1951. And I heard mention that it's mostly a residential area. Well, the first five structures on that beach were all hotels. You had Seaside, which was built in 1960; you have LaPlaya, 1969; you have Vanderbilt Inn and you have King's Crown. If you look back, there were very few residences on the beach, if none. I again do not see any need for further regulations. We went through this process with the comprehensive review and establishment of the VBTR overlay. That lasted probably a year and a half. We had many stakeholders meeting. We were not in favor of the changes then. Some probably turned out to be okay. But this isjust an over, overkill, and I vote that -- I just appeal to you that this is not necessary. And I'll keep it at that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Do you have more speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, wejust had a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'm going to call for general speakers. But if you have more listed. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Georgia Hiller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Georgia Hiller, candidate for county commission, second district. I came here today intending merely to listen. But after listening, what I heard shocked me. Patrick White made his presentation in a very mild manner, soft- spoken way, and he started off as follows. He said: Commissioners, what I'm speaking about here today are minor changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. 'This is a regulatory sledgehammer. This will amount to not one, but potentially multiple Burt Harris actions. I'm very concerned. Patrick White went on to say that the objective ofthis regulation is to avoid canyonization. And then he turns to discussion about taking of boat slips. He says this regulation will not drastically alter use allowances here. It does. Then he goes on to say this is a mere clarification of vested rights. It isn't. It's the elimination of vested rights. Following that there was a discussion about notice. And Ray Bellows made an excellent point. He said, what we're talking about are administrative actions, not rezones. We have procedural due process in place for the code. We have notice and hearing. And I agree with the gentleman who's sitting over there with the glasses, Mr. Connolly, I believe it is, who made the point that we do have a code in place that does need to be respected by staff. But the bottom line is this over - regulation, this overreaching, this law that will ultimately result in uncompensated takings does not achieve that. About the notice issues, the requirement that's being proposed says notice should be given to the VBRA. It does not propose what the VBRA should do, nor does it recognize that the VBRA is not representative of all the residents. They do have a large membership, 1,000 is a large number, but it's not all the residents, nor is it all the potentially adversely affected residents. You can't single out one association and include all the other affected citizens. You can't single out one neighborhood. With respect to due process, specifically procedural due process, this overlay is not unique and different from how procedural due process applies to all other communities, an excellent point made by Commissioner Murray. And then there was discussion about setbacks. The setbacks are clearly stated in writing. Diagrams are not controlling. There are rules of interpretation. Having setbacks of setbacks means that we just are redefining the setbacks and making narrower -- we're allowing -- we are permitting less use of the property than was previously allowed. If that's what's intended, that will deprive people of their vested property rights. But what concerns me the most are two issues that I heard here today. One was what I just heard Mick Moore say, that he only found out about this as a result of a rumor and then making a public records request. Page 64 1611A5 I nuary 28, 2010 There has been no public vetting among the adversely affected members of the community. That's the very issue where why we're here today, because we have a group who believes they did not have the right to information as it was being processed through the channels. And yet what's happening today is exactly the same thing to the people who would be adversely affected by these property owners. I encourage you, Commissioners, to please insist that there be formal public vetting of this before any ruling is made by your board. And then there's no fiscal impact analysis. Nick Casalanguida stood up here today and he told you that there has been no quantification of the impact of this regulation. It is absolutely essential -- I was delighted to hear what he said. We in fact have two new sheriffs in town. We have the big kahuna, Leo Oches, and we have Nick, who's the new head of CDES. And 1 hope that under their leadership we will not have the issues that Mr. Connolly has identified. Many ofthe staffare gone today. We have new leadership. The bottom line is very simple. This is a perfect example of over- regulation. This is a perfect example of something that will lead to bigger government and more unnecessary spending. I encourage you to weigh the risks against the benefits very carefully and consider that our county cannot withstand the cost and the legal burden of multiple Burt Harris actions. I thank you very much today for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, did you have anymore registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody from the audience that would like to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We cannot take a vote today on anything, but I did make notes as I went along as some suggestions to staff as to how we may proceed by the time we finally get to the conclusion of this, hopefully whenever that can happen. And I think as Mr. Eline, who wanted desperately to try to find away to work things out. And I respect that. And I think through that process we ought to consider some of the following: That's that Patrick and Susan communicate on the couple of paragraphs that were unclear as to how their application was to unfold. I think that's critical. I think from Nick's perspective the citizens from Vanderbilt Beach expressed a desire to pay for any costs that may result from the inclusion of their process through a notification of an SIP or SDP. If they're willing to pay for it, we may want to look and see what those costs are, to see if there can be an analysis made in some way to establish that, if that's at all possible. And I'm not saying I agree with all these, I'm trying to find a space to compromise. And I'm thinking if we get more information, maybe a space will be there. The idea of a stakeholder meeting, I brought that up in the very beginning. And to be honest with you, without a stakeholders meeting, as far as I'm concerned this is a fruitless attempt. Because we have -- and I'm not speaking for the whole board, but I can tell you, this board has provided itself on making sure that people were involved, that everybody got the word out. We sent the preserves standard back a year ago because there weren't stakeholder meetings. So I feel personally I can't see this one go forward without the appropriate meetings to involve the people and notification of those people. And I don't mean by a newsletter. If there's a member and if they get it, I mean notification of those people who own properties in the RT district who are going to be affected by this. To me that's critical. And that's what I think was the process the original Vanderbilt Beach overlay that was vetted so thoroughly with the community. This one has the same impact in a lot of ways. It is going to change the regulations. And if it is, then it needs to be vetted in the same manner. I think that the process needs to be looked at by our County Attorney's Office for any kind of Burt Harris impacts it may have because of the setbacks and because of going from a permitted use to a conditional use, and if those have any impacts from a potential Burt Harris claim. And then last -- and these are all mine. And the Planning Commission, when I get done, feel free to jump in. We have this dock issue. Well, everybody that has a lot on the water up there right now has a dock or gets the right to have a dock. And I think that by a lineal footage is how we ought to look at those dock situations and see if 10 is the Page 65 > > ' `Ja ..,y 28, 010 magic number or it's a different number. But if someone owns a whole length of waterway then they got a right to so many docks equal to the people in those residential units that have rights. So I'm not sure if 10 is the right number even to restrict them on to begin with. So I think that needs to be looked at. And those are my notes. And honestly, between now and the 26th, I don't know if all that can get done. But I don't have a level of comfort with this at all without some of those issues being addressed. So as far as the rest of the Planning Commission, does anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I couldn't agree with you more. I think this whole thing is -- from start to finish doesn't make sense, too confusing, too many possible problems we can cause by this. I just can't make any sense of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I could agree with you more if you said more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm song. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, your lack of comfort that you emphasize, is it enough in your mind that we could handle that action today, take a vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, today isn't a meeting that was advertised appropriately, so we couldn't take a vote today even if we were ready to. But as Mr. Eline had expressed, he'd love to see us go to that effort to try to get a cooperative balance. And I'm willing to do that if we can bring everybody into the fold and the property owners out there and they -- they work out something where it works where some of this language may not be a problem and some of it might have to be scrapped. But I think if we're willing -- if we can go to that effort by next meeting or whenever, we ought to give it a try. So we can't vote this meeting, Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is the use of this effort worth all the effort to do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've still got to hear this issue at our next meeting anyway. And if the community — the applicant wants to go to the effort to get it accomplished by then to secure those votes that such action would need, then that's up to them. We're still going to vote on it next meeting, regardless. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and 1 don't want to minimize what the intent of the neighbors here is. They really have a legitimate concern and they've gone through a lot of effort and expense to do that. And it appears to me what they're trying to do is design in safety factors because they don't have the trust with the staff. Joe Connolly said it perfectly. So the problem just isn't getting a bunch of neighbors together to make everybody happy or to do things that protect, you know, the dimensions of buildings. The problem is the neighbors have lost face with the staff. And how do you determine that? In other words, were these interpretations good? If Susan insists they're really good, then Patrick has to write code to back it off so that he doesn't get what's being built out there. What if there was a problem with the decisions and all of this is totally unnecessary? So I think it's not just getting neighbors together, it's trying to really figure out what happened and give the neighbors the confidence. You know, you can say there's a new sheriff in town, but if the boss is the same as the old boss, then it may be still a problem. There was a problem. This is trying to patch a problem. if it turned out to be where it's denying people rights, then maybe that's a mistake. But there is something we have to check out and give confidence to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the direction that I've provided you provide some method to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because getting all the neighbors together to talk about it, what are they going to do? They're going to say well, should that ramp have been there or not? If the ramp should never have been there, then we can all go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I wasn't speaking at all about -- I could care less about that ramp at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But this meeting is not about the ramp. This meeting is about the language that they want to put in place for whatever reasons. And the ramp may be the reason, but the language has Page 66 6 y Jahuary 28, 2010 to be analyzed and accepted and understood by everybody in the community, including the property owners who are impacted by it. That's what I'm concerned about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, everybody has to understand what's going on. And I definitely think people shouldn't be in the blind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SC14IFFER: But the point of the matter is that the issues, the ramp, the overhangs and the setbacks and stuff like that is what's offended the neighbors, which they thought they had in their overlay. So if something wasn't done right, then the neighbors shouldn't have to go through this. And 1 don't know how that's going to be worked out with neighbor talking to neighbor. I think we have to, you know, maybe talk to the new sheriff and see if some of these things may not have been looked at properly, and then give them confidence that what the code says, it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, did you have some comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that as opposed to neighbors talking to neighbors just for the sake of conversation, I think there's a different level of involvement when you have a stakeholders meeting. And stakeholder meetings are always a good thing. Whether this puts these amendments back a cycle or into a later cycle, that may be. The people at Vanderbilt Beach in the overlay have serious, serious issues, and they should not be ignored or made light of or be put down. They worked very hard and paid a lot of money to get their overlay in place to begin with. What they wanted all along was for people to pay attention to that overlay. If everything that's happened in the meantime is 100 percent correct, then they have to be able to correct those problems. Let's all figure out a way for them to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any comments? MR. ELINE: Question from the floor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Eline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eline, sure, come on up, sir. MR. ELINE: A very simple question. Do we need to come back February 26th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if you can resolve the --and I think Ms. Caron kind of alluded to it. If you need more time than this cycle to get this work done, then you need to take the time to get it done or I think you'll have a bard time succeeding -- MR. ELINE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the process. MR. ELINE: I agree. I just want to make sure we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your representative or you guys can notify staff that you want to delay your -- MR. ELINE: We'll try to find the stakeholders. Two showed up. I met with them. They never came back with — I don't mind that. We'll get that stakeholders meeting, we'll get the people together, and when we're prepared, we'll come back to you, and that will give us time with your staff. And I don't know if anybody's building a new condominium on Vanderbilt Beach right now, so I'd like to get this done right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would very much appreciate that. And please keep staff in the loop as to your timing and we'll be in -- MR. EUNE: Oh, you bet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good shape. Thank you. MR. ELINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I think we are finished with this issue. We'll take a 15- minute break and come back at 2:35 to resume. MR. WHITE: Thank you for your time, Commissioners. (Recess.) (At which time, Commissioner Vigliotti is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, we're back in business. 2:35 and welcome everyone back from the break. And Mr. Vigliotti had to leave and Paul's here somewhere. Okay. Page 67 Armary 28, 2010 This is the regulated wellfields. They start on Page 1, they go through Page 9. 1 want to thank Ray and Paul for their presentation. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on Pages 1 through I believe it's 9 -- or 10. Anybody have any questions? Paul, do you have any? Anybody? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll try and work some up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than Ave Maria has the prettiest shape. MR. SMITH: I like the Mickey Mouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question. MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the significance of where the well -field -- the new cones of influence, I guess for better words, the STW ones. What is the significance of mapping those out for property use? MR. SMITH: The significance of mapping them out is it better designates it when it's overlayed on the zoning map. And then they could refer back to the land development code, section 3.06, pertaining to any land use regulations that they are planning on having. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name? MR. SMITH: I apologize. For the record, Ray Smith, Director of the Collier County Pollution Control Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these are basically all remodeled sites, with the exception of Ave Maria. That's a new one, right? MR. SMITH: That's a brand new one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And has that been coordinated with the people in Ave Maria? MR. SMITH: What we do is we contact all the utilities that are responsible for their wellfields, we gather information to find out if there's been any updates. Those updates regarding number of wells, additional wells, wells coming off -line or pump rate changes are all factored into the model. Before we do that, we confirm with them that in fact the data we're putting into the model is accurate, they confirm back that it is, and then we move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions about Pages I through 9? Actually, 10_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah,justone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess we haven't determined yet on the Ave Maria site where the well -field areas are yet, right? Blank relative to -- on the Ave Maria site there's no well -field. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. It looks like an eagle. MR. SMITH: Yes, it looks like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8. MR. SMITH: -- number eight, if you look at Page 8, it will present the illustration — COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that is the Ave Maria. Never mind. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. And I think you were looking at Page 10 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was, and that's where I was thinking it was. MR. SMITH: -- where it's just simply a language change that adds the Ave Maria utility company well -field to the language of the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank vou. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was oversight. I didn't see it up there at the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no other questions. I think next time we come we'll probably have a very intense debate about how to vote for these. But appreciate your time and you've sat here patiently all day. So we're done. MR. SMITH: And thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Next one is 10.02.06.i. It's to change the requirement for annual vehicle on the beach, VOB, permits to a one -time permit. Steve Lenberger. Steve, are you coming up? Good. Page 68 l6i 1 5anuary8, 2010 MS.ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 229. MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. Steven Lenberger for the record. We've had some reorganization in our department, so our -- several departments were combined recently. So I'm currently in the Department of Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services. The amendment here is the vehicle on the beach permits amendment. This was before you last year. You asked for a couple of changes. And I've included those changes. And I can briefly go through the major things you had asked for. They weren't very many. If you d like, I can do that line -by -line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather we just take it page at a time and when those come up, go ahead and highlight them to us and we'll find out ifwe have any questions. That will just move two things forward at one time. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, does anybody have any question on Page 229? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 230? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 231. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, the only concern I have is the virtue of a year -to -year permit is that does give you the ability to control if somebody's not in compliance or something, you have the ability to take away that permit. Do you still have that ability and everything, no issue here? MR. LENBERGER: I understand. In other words, as far as enforcement and taking away a permit. I'd have to look. There are -- there's a violation section in the back, and I believe it talks about the penalties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as long as you could -- you know, obviously they're not really doing anything every year to prove that they meet -- they comply. So you would catch them not complying and you would then -- MR. LENBERGER: I see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- take away the permit for that -- MR. LENBERGER: Let me double check that for next meeting. I'll take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Page 231? Steve? MR. LENBERGER: The changes you wanted were on line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ones highlighted, right? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. I don't know if the highlight came out, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's gray, so I think -- MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll just -- if we have any questions about them, we'll just express them. Everything in gray is what was changed. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 232? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 233? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Cherie', I bet you like this discussion, don't you? 234? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 235? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which has no changes. And 236, again which has no changes. (No response.) Page 69 7'" January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on this issue remaining? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, looks like just that one little cleanup question when you come back and we'll be ready to vote on that one. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, the next one that was scheduled was the 5.05.02 MPP shoreline calculations, but there's been numerous requests to extend that when other people can be here. So if you don't mind, Steve, we're going to just wait and hold that one till the 26th. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *And then the next one would be Nick — oh, Amy, I'm sorry. I thought the big kahuna was going to come up and talk to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's Leo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, he's the little kahuna. Talking about height. Okay, Amy, it's all yours. We're on Page l 1, everyone. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager from Community Development. The amendment that's before you is to bring the provisions of the Land Development Code into alignment with the changes to the impact fees that were made by the Board of County Commissioners last March. This is with respect to the up -front payments of transportation impact fees. If you want me to go further into it, I can explain the old program and the new program, or if it's easierjust to go with the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to figure out. Does everybody want an explanation or we just work by page by page? Does that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page by page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- work for everybody? Okay. Amy, it's easier this way, so let's start on Page 11. Any questions with the opening statements on Page 1 I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's move to page 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Amy, one thing is, as you're breaking these things up into different payments, if the impact fee increases along the line, what happens to that? You know, for example, I pay, you know, my percentage down and then my next lump there was a change in between. MS. PATTERSON: Nothing happens to the timed payments, meaning the 20 percent down and the subsequent payments. The true up comes at building permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: So that's how we do that. Because there may be a number of rate changes up and down during the lifetime of one of these projects. So when the final building --the building permit is issued, that's when we do the final calculation of their impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's also the final payment" MS. PATTERSON: That's the final payment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you -- so any changes, part ofthat's done -- okay. So it's not like somebody could pay ahead and avoid an increase? MS. PATTERSON : They can't lock down. The final lock -clown for a rate on an individual building permit is building permit application. But we set these payments up so that they weren't having to estimate changes every year. So the payments related to the LDC are set payments, and the final true up coming then at building permit issuance for the individual units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there's no futures market. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Page 12? Page 70 161 7 Janua58, 20 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to Page 13. No questions on Page 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, on the iii, the last part of it it says -- it's talking about the security. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a term of four years in an amount equal to the 20 percent payment. Now, you're going to get 20 percent upfront, the first 20 percent. Then they still owe 80 percent. But you're only asking for security for a 20 percent payment? MS. PATTERSON: The way that the board agreed to do this with the input of the development community is they put 20 percent down, that's the first payment, plus 20 percent security that's carried to the last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they have -- they're still 80 percent extended, meaning they're still 80 percent out there unpaid. MS. PATTERSON: Uh -huh. VICE - CHAIRMAN KELLY: How did -- why did we only accept 20 percent security? MS. PATTERSON: That was what the board agreed on. We didn't request -- prior to this change we had 50 percent down and 50 percent in three years. There was no security requirement. So this was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PATTERSON: -- negotiated with the development community and the board agreed. As an acceptable -- they were trying to find ways to make this easier for the development community to get their up -front money -- to put their up -front money down. Because we had a lot of people that were unable -- a lot of developments that were unable to make their second payment in the three years, or people that couldn't come up with the 50 percent in the first year. So this was a way to try to spread those payments out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So say they put in one or two payments. Say they put in two. They're 40 percent paid, 60 percent out. They have a 20 percent security. They stop at the 40 percent mark. Does that mean the security gives us the balance of the 20 percent? What happens to their abilities to use those COs that were not fully paid for then? Do theyjust lose everything, or how does that work? MS. PATTERSON: They would -- we would bring them to the board and the board would decide if they want to revoke the COA. But again, they couldn't build more than we've collected money for, because they couldn't get their building permits issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd apply the 40 percent as far as it could go as the 100 percent of those COAs that would be part of that. Say you had 10 COAs and with 40 percent of 10 of them paid, that's really four paid in full. MS. PATTERSON: Well, it's one certificate for a certain number of units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PATTERSON: And then there's a credit mechanism that's applied. So there's a portion of the first year's money that's applied to those building permits as they come in. And then they pay the difference. Once they've expired or spent the first year's money.. they're paying 100 percent of the impact fees on -- so if they accelerated their development and built a whole bunch of things in the first year, they're paying impact fees. Once they reach that 20 percent, they're paying impact fees in full on units that they built outside of what they had anticipated building by this five -year payment plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, once they start building. I understand that. MS. PATTERSON: If they didn't build enough, it's no loss to us because they -- we haven't issued building permits. So the thing that's in question here is that -- the available capacity on the roadways, which is why we would bring them back to the Board of County Commissioners and they could revoke their certificate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 20 percent security stays -- rides along all the way to the end. MS. PATTERSON: Unless they were to default, and then we would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PATTERSON: -- come to the board and ask them what they wanted to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where 5.13 comes into play. The matter will be referred to the BCC for review. Absent the board finding exceptional circumstances, a temporary CO will be revoked, is that -- Page 71 January 28,2010 MS. PATTERSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a definition of what exceptional circumstances are so we don't get the board having -- being approached with all kind of exceptional circumstances? Because what a lot of people may think are exceptional may not be exceptional. MR. KLATZKOW: It's board prerogative. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means it's political. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a political board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I was trying to be factual. MR. KLATZKOW_ I don't mean this in a -- it's board prerogative. If they find that there are exceptional circumstances, exceptional circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Boy. Okay, and the last one I have is on vi about the middle of the sentence where the capital — the bolded word developments. It says, that have secured a three -year certificate has expired in order to extend vesting -- Senate Bill 360, when it extended development orders, would these be considered extended as well under that Senate Bill? MS. PATTERSON: That was not, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's go to Page 14. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on Page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 169 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question on number two, Amy. The added sentence COAs can expire. But the impact fees paid ride with the property, is that right? MS. PATTERSON: They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you pay up your impact fees to get your COA. MS. PATTERSON: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your COA expires, but the property still gets the credit of all the paid impact fees. MS. PATTERSON: 'They would still -- yes, they get -- the credit runs with the land, but they would still have to come in and reapply to make sure that there was adequate capacity to handle the traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they already paid their impact fees, aren't we obligated to guarantee that they have adequate capacity? Otherwise, don't we have to refund the impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: Well, they haven't paid 100 percent of their impact fees, they've paid a portion of their impact fees, so -- unless they've paid in perpetuity and they've secured their vest tipping. Which ones they've paid 100 percent of their transportation impact fees, then their certificate doesn't expire, it will run in perpetuity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they pay 100 percent, it will always be there, no matter what. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the problem Nick has got there looming over all the foreclosed homes that have already paid up and all the lots that have already paid up that are going to come on -line one of these days, surprisingly. MS. PATTERSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on 16? If not, let's move to 17. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Page 179 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 18? Well, 18's got no changes. How about 18 and 19? Page 72 A 5 1611 � January 28, 20] 0 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for that matter, how about the rest of the -- that takes us to the end of that particular item. Anybody have any questions on 10.02.07.C, any further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Amy, looks like we're set to go on the 26th. MS. PATTERSON: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *And this one -- the next one is definitions, dwelling, multi - family. It's 1.08.02. And the person presenting it is blank. MS. ISTENES: That would be me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be you, huh? Okay, we're on Page 77. MS. ISTENES: Yes. This is essentially restoring the definitions, dwelling, multi - family, from the old Code 91 -102. And there are changes. And Catherine did draft this, so I'm -- my recollection is the changes, and I hope that came out on yours -- were highlighted I think in gray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything in mine in gray, to be honest with you. Mine's just all black and white. MS. ISTENES: What I will point out here is also ifyou look on Page 78, items C and D, you have discussion about timeshare, estate facilities and transient lodging. We would have to of course kind of evaluate that in light of our discussion this morning. So we'll -- my -- unless you have questions or comments, I would just submit to you that we would be looking at that for next time to make sure we're consistent with what we're doing in the private amendment and our discussions with Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have -- I made some notes on that, but that's the second page. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we had some discussion with the County Attorney's Office, and under -- on Page 77, change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: He would like after 91 -102, put a comma, as amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up in the change area up in the top, 91 -102, as amended. Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a thrilling change. MR. BELLOWS: Well, we wanted to get it correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Page 77? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the definition of dwelling, multi - family, you use a phrase within a single conventional building. What's a conventional building? And I wouldn't want to be accused of doing one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one without balconies you were talking about earlier. MS. ISTENES: Actually, to answer your question, I was trying to think of a non - conventional building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those are the ones I do. MS. ISTENES: So anything you worked on. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but anyway, conventional, I don't think that helps. I mean, building code, everybody knows what building means. So that might get you in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem where I think it would run into, and maybe the reason you were trying to look for something is the new hybrid that we heard about where you have a town home with a lot line the same as the common party wall. And so you -- I think they were done up in -- off of 951 where we have four units as a building, but they're each fee simple. And so by this definition if we don't put something in there, that would be a problem because it would be considered a multi- family dwelling, and I'm not sure -- they're not sold that way and they're not condominium. I don't even know if they're under condos. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even if they were townhouses, a four -unit townhouse, by the state attorney, Page 73 January 28, 2010 we use this in the building code a lot, is the deemed at three or more is a multi - family. So the building code would certainly consider it. This thing looks like it would consider it, it's three or more. MS. ISTENES: Correct, we would consider it that way as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would be. MS. ISTENES: Yes, it is multi - family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, had they, let's say, built a fire wall and split it in half, it would be essentially two units and two buildings that do touch each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like a duplex? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, duplex would be fine all by itself. But in other words, there is ways -- the word building can be -- in other words, something larger could be separated with fire walls. But certainly nothing above each other or more than three. But the building code is clear, three or more is a multi- family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we're suggesting drop the word conventional. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: And that's fine. It's somewhat meaningless at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the second sentence read kind of funny: For purposes of deterrnining whether a lot is in multi - family dwelling use. Wouldn't it be a lot for multi - family use? MS. ISTENES: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything on 77? Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 78? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On the -- this phrase servants quarters, it sounds kind of antiquated. Aren't people employees now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MS. ISTENES: We can make that change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let's do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Employee quarters. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have heard stories about Immokalee, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that particular one, you know, if you've got a guesthouse and you have employee quarters and you have all the fixture units attached to the plumbing system and you've got the power attached to the unit and you've got air conditioning and you've got a parking space for someone who's going to use it, why don't we consider it a dwelling unit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's part of the dwelling unit. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I don't know if I have an answer for that off the top of my head, to be honest with you, in the case of multi- family. MR. KLATZKOW: Because they're servant quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we don't count them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because they're servants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm concerned about is it has the same impact as -- because it's occupied. MS. ISTENES: And that same theory carries forward with like guesthouses in the Estates, for example_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: So it is somewhat inconsistent here, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but wouldn't we want to try to -- since we're writing the code, wouldn't we want to try to make it consistent? So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the commission's dealt with the issue of being able to count guesthouses, servants quarter and, quote, the Fonzie apartment which is, you know, above the garage as a dwelling unit for affordable housing, and they've never accepted that, and I know that from the Affordable Housing Commission, to allow to count that for affordable housing. So we might want to check and make sure it's not Page 74 161 1..&5 201 contrary. MS. ISTENES: Well, my only concern would be you have an awful lot of developments out there who possibly could have used this and not counted that as a dwelling unit and already developed their structure and then we run into the nonconforming issues again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, so I'm still trying to understand why if we have a house, I don't care if a guest is in it or an employee is in it, if they're living in it and they're occupying it, it has an impact on our systems, why don't we count it? MS. ISTENES: It's intended to be temporary, not a permanent facility. And I think that's the distinction that's made between -- whether or not in reality it operates that way, I think there is definitely an impact. Whether it's 100 percent impact or 50 percent impact or whatever, you know, there is an impact, no doubt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we do have a minimum standard for what would be considered a dwelling unit. If it meets the standards of a dwelling unit, meaning it's got a kitchen and a bathroom and whatever else it has, I really think we ought to be calling them units and counting them in for level — because we could have a whole pile of ghost density out there in a way that's not encountered then. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to do that, plus impact fees. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think some of that may fall under the definition of dwelling unit and family, where a dwelling unit talks about one family, and that's where the guesthouse is really for either a relative or a guest on a temporary basis, and that's why we haven't traditionally counted them as separate dwelling units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, isn't a guesthouse limited to six -month occupancy? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's part of the definition. I can look it up again. But it is pretty restrictive as to not a rental unit, in other words. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, I think you could easily correct that by saying -- you know, doing guesthouses temporary quarters. But I don't know that that solves it for employees, because those are not temporary. MR. BELLOWS: I agree, that is a little different situation. I don't think we've had a lot of research into how that might impact. But it's something to consider. C14AH MAN STRAIN: But we really ought to think about counting them. I mean, they have an impact on us. And if you start seeing guesthouses pop up as more of a common thing, we're going to have more impact. In Golden Gate Estates, for example, you build a guesthouse, you've got twice the amount of septic, you've got driveways to wont' about, you've got wells to worry about, you've got everything to wont' about. So I don't know why you wouldn't count them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIItMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm sure there's a reason for it. Go ahead, Ray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let's be careful, because on the Affordable Housing Commission one of the suggestions to increase our affordable housing units was to allow us to use those, and the commission turned that down. So we don't want to be contrary to their direction. In other words, those are not units to be counted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that got to do with -- I'm sorry, I missed the point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, a lot of people --the reality is these people rent these things all year. Whether they take their -- pack their bags, walk around the house every six months, I don't know. But those are not allowable units to count as affordable housing. And most of them certainly are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but if they do just what you said, that's more reason why they should be counted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not saying it's good or bad. I think it is good. But the point is the commissioners I don't -- haven't accepted that as being good. And I think we should just check the minutes of when the Affordable Housing presented that before them. Page 75 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, what the commissioners do is political. What we do is more -- I'm -- Paul, and then -- or Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: My thought -- my understanding was all we were doing was putting back into the code what was inadvertently lost. Am I correct? MS. ISTENES: You're correct. And Catherine did make a couple minor changes just to make it read better. And I apologize, I didn't study up on this one too much. And I know you're not voting today, so I'll be sure I'm studied up on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would you find out -- if there's a good reason not to count it, I'd sure like to know it. It doesn't make a lot of sense. MS. ISTENES: Sure. Yeah, I was going to suggest that. And then even if you still feel that should be forwarded to the commission for their consideration, of course we'll do that. So I'll be happy to just provide you more info. next time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, wouldn't you automatically be taking properties that are allowed to have a guesthouse to making them allowed to have two dwelling units on the site, 1 mean doubling the density? I mean, that will make some people happy, some people sad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not saying allow guesthouses. I'm saying if someone has the right to put one in, it be counted, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the Estates, all the homes in the Estates the size of those lots are allowed essentially, right? So that would mean all lots in the Estates are allowed two units. MS. ISTENES: No, this is only for multiple family right now. You're discussing this multi - family, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way they do these on the highrises, they have caretaker residences and stuff like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, okay, okay, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul'? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would it be similar to the situation with migrant farmworkers in Immokalee that are only there maybe four to six months of the year? Are they counted as a separate dwelling unit, those migrant units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MS. ISTENES: They've got their own regular -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As farmworker housing. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, they've got their own set of standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got their own classification. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Development Code has a separate section dealing with migrant housing, so it's treated in a different manner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is it less than one EDU, or -- MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to look that up. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sony. MS. ISTENES: 1 can look it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, one thing, 1 was confused, I was considering on single - family lots. So that stuff] was telling you about affordable housing, never mind. MS. ISTENES: Okay, thank you. I'll scratch that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C we talk about multi - family dwelling in which units are available for rental. Is that now with your review against the timeshare language? You're going to look at that and see how it fits with that? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: C and D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- okay, that's what my next circling was. Because that one actually talks about where the units can be permitted too. And that would factor into what Page 76 16 t A 5 anuary 28, 2010 we talked about earlier this morning. Okay, so that one's going to take some more research before it comes back. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next one is on page -- next page, 79. Any questions on -- that's just a one pager. Any questions on Page 79? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just why is there no such thing as a minor subdivision, just out of curiosity. Just evolved out of the code, or -- MS. ISTENES: Let's see. John put this one together. Stan isn't here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, Stan's there, he just -- MS. ISTENES: Oh, he is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he's been quiet. MS. ISTENES: Do you have an answer? I'm -- I can answer what I know, but maybe you know more. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't have an answer? MS. ISTENES: We just don't have --it's no longer used, that's what -- MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is we have a definition for a term that's nowhere else in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need the definition. MR. KLATZKOW: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your understanding is different than that next time, let us know. Otherwise we'll just wait and vote on it next time around. Okay, Page 80. I'm sure, Brad, you're going to have something to say about this. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: This is going to be joyous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is one of Brad's long discussions. Hi, Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Stan Chrzanowski with the Engineering Department. This is a result of recent problems that we've had with how to define what is actually a comer lot based on the definition that appeared in the Land Development Code up to this point, which said that you had to take the line drawn from both side lot lines where they met the road and draw them to the point that is the farthest from the rear lot corner. And instead of using the center of the arc, by having it the point that's the farthest from the rear lot comer, if those two side lot lines are at different lengths it puts that point in a different location on the arc rather than the center of the arc. Drawing that becomes a problem in coordinate geometry that's beyond many of the people enforcing this ordinance. The last one that came in like this took me an evening just to write the Excel program and figure it out. I'm sure a licensed surveyor can do it a lot quicker, because they have the software. But our front desk doesn't. We've simplified the definition to include just the center line of the roads. It's how it started and that's what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. First of all, we don't see the old definition here. Is there one in the code? MS. ISTENES: Well -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The old definition was in part of the code that didn't make it into the new code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But according to the attorney, we have to use the old parts of the code that were not readopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first one really. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, that's what I was going to say, you're really kind of talking about two amendments at once here, if you look at Page 80 and 81. And then if you go to 83, continuing Stan's kind of more in discussion about Page 77 January 28, 2010 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A little ahead ofmyselt? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, just the method upon which you measure front setback on a cul -de -sac lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so these are comer lots. One question, and I guess it was taken out. Why do we need a definition of a corner lot, Stan? Because first of all, any lot that's on a street is considered a front setback and everything. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because corner lots -- and I should let the zoning department handle this. Corner lots have different— they have two side setbacks and two front setbacks. 1 should let them explain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: He's correct. They're regulated differently. And essentially it's two fronts and two sides, no rear when you're on a corner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But they're on two separate streets, there's always going to be two front lots and two side lots. MS. ISTENES: And there's regulations that — right, there's regulations that address that too. MR. KLATZKOW: So however it is, any residence on -- that borders two streets -- MS. ISTENES: Has two fronts. MR. KLATZKOW: -- has two fronts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. No matter what. MR. KLATZKOW: No matter what. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whether it's -- you know, whether it's a through lot, whether it's a comer lot. Any lot line touching the street's got to have a front setback. Not all towns have that, we have that. But that's good. Okay. I mean, so I could see why they took it out. There's -- MS. ISTENES: Right, that doesn't meet the definition of a corner lot, obviously. But it still shares the same regulation as far as applying setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, these are good if they, you know, make it happy. And I think the illustration on Page 82 makes it clear that that 135 feet you are not a comer lot then, you're -- essentially you have a bent front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one thing that seems to be missing is a street -- a cul -de -sac street. This works for comer lots where you have two different streets. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The same would apply. It would be the 135- degree angle where the two -- center of road where the road center lines join. Whether it's a cul -de -sac coming off or -- MS. ISTENES: A true 90- degree. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- or a true 90- degree, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any lot situated at the junction of and abutting to form a corner lot on two or more intersecting streets. In order to have a corner lot, that's the first sentence. How do you do that on a -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --cul-de-sac? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because it's a continuous turn. It's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then you can't have a comer lot on a cul -de -sac? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not in the manner in which the code would allow it before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, back up that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, the center line of the cul -de -sac, on a curved cul -de -sac or a straight cul -de -sac, the center line of it continues through the property line in front of the house. There is no 135- degree angle. At the very most you have a curved street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So someone, if you were to call a lot on a cul -de -sac a corner lot, you really -- you're saying you can't do that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not anymore you won't be able to do that, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not anymore, meaning -- Page 78 16I 1 h January 28,010 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Meaning under the old definition, based on the front property line, you could actually have a comer lot on a cul -de -sac. But under this new definition you will not be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think Brad's question is relevant, where's the old language that -- do you have a copy of that with you so we can compare it? MS. ISTENES: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: My impression was this was the old language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: l thought -- MS. ISTENES: I've got the old code downstairs, I can go get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by the 26th I think it would be relevant to have it. MS. ISTENES: I'll make sure you're -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just include it in the new handout that we've got that shows the two definitions. I remember parts of the old definition. That's why I thought the one on top looked like that old definition, because it referenced the same degrees that I had recalled. But that's -- if it isn't the same one, then I sure would like to see what the different -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it references the same degree, but the old definition was based on the front lot line of the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And the new definition is based on the center line of the road in front of the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKL And I can draw a very nice graphic for the next time, if you'd -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKL -- like. It would make it very clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think in order -- if a cul -de -sac is or is not going to be considered a comer lot, we need to make -- I think that statement would help in here. There's a lot of cul -de -sacs in this county. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I apologize, this is confusing. Because it implies we're putting back the old code but then we're changing it. So this — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, this is very confusing. Let me clean that up a little bit and make sure it's clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's one major difference. This is essentially stating that it's two intersecting streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, obviously you couldn't consider a cul -de -sac two intersecting streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is one of the big differences. But that -- I don't have that written that way in the old code. I remember the degrees are right, because we did opine apparently somewhere down the road that comer lots can be on cul -de -sacs, and this would -- he's saying now this would not allow that. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you a question, though. If it's a single road that makes a 90- degree turn, not two intersecting streets, wouldn't that then also be allowed to be a comer lot? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, that would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where would -- but we have two streets. Maybe we could work that so — if that's important. I'm not even -- 1 could see why you took it out, because I can't see why it's important to be a comer lot. Your setbacks are going to be the same. MR. CHRZANOWSKL If you have two roads, then its the intersection of the center line of those two roads. And if those roads make a90 or a 135 or a 150 or a 70, it's still -- you have two roads and you have the center line of the two roads and where they cross. The definition still applies, even if it's a single road making a bend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's the def — that's the concern. If it's a single road then it's not two Page 79 N� r� 5 January 28, 2010 roads. Maybe we need to throw something in there that says a single road making a bend of so many degrees will establish a -- will create a comer lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Less than 135. MR. CHRZANOWSKE If it's a single road you have two center lines, two straight center lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but you don't have two intersecting streets. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not by Peggy Jerrold's definition of a street, if it has the same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you know where I'm getting at. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I see your point. I'm trying not to see it, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But 1 can tell you, you don't want to go to that battle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here it is, you're going down Stan Way and you -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Making a left onto Stan Way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- make a greater than 135 - degree turn, you're still on Stan Way and there's no other intersecting street. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you get the drift, we probably need a little bit of elaboration on the definition. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I can bring back some graphics and we can work on the wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that one's coining back on the 26th with some changes. Everybody fine with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go on to 83. Page 83 is the defmition for, boy, another Brad definition, cul -de -sac lots with arc method of measurement. Stan, you want to say anything before Brad takes oft? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, there are some lots in subdivisions, not residential but commercial subdivisions, where the lot actually takes up half of the cul -de -sac. By the cord definition you go from comer to corner. The cord goes right through the middle of 100 and something foot cul -de -sac. And the setback is based off the cord. And it would almost allow you to build a building out into the street if you went off the setback. What this does is it makes every building in Collier County measure the distance from the arc, which is the circular part, rather than the cord, which is the straight line that connects two points on the arc. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's one thing. First of all, setback has always been measured to the property line. So anyone trying to figure out the setback on any shape lot offsets that -- the dimension of the setback. So no one ever did -- by definition of the setback, we never were able to use the cord method. The -- I think one problem we have is we have setback and we have yard. And we're treating those -- we're interchanging those two words and they don't mean the same to me. Ray, do they mean the same to you, setback and yard? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the definition of setback refers to a build -out line from the property line. The definition of yard is a little bit different, it talks about acquired open space in front of the building line forward. I think they're related, but they're a little slightly different. I think they're meant to address two different things. And the LDC does have a definition of setbacks, and that's what we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And it is the minimum distance. So this is doing nothing more than what we always had. But, for example, like -- and I guess the best example is up north, I grew up in a town that had a lot of townhouses with little porches on the front. The setback of the building was measured from the property line to the face of the building. And you were allowed in front of the setback a bunch of items, steps, stoops, porches and things like that. And then the yard was the area you had to keep clear. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the code has a provision or section of the code that deals with exceptions to yards where they allow for balconies or stairways to encroach into yards a certain amount of distance. I think stairways in the front yard can go five feet, balconies in the side yard three feet, roots and overhangs, nothing can encroach into a side yard within a foot of another property line, things like that. It's all written out in that accessory -- exceptions to required yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that it looks like here what we're trying to do is set up with Page 80 6 i 1 January 28, 2010 the definition of yard the setbacks of the building. In other words, doesn't the definition of setback tell us the exact same thing? And actually, the experience I had like in the townhouse, it's what's allowed to come forward of the setback. And then the yard was an area that usually the fire department reserved that you could not put anything, hence the 30 -foot above ground level in the yard -- 30 inches. But if you look at setback, all's -- we're saying the same thing. I mean, the setback around a cul -de -sac has always been the same, it's the distance to the property line. You know what I think maybe we should do is can't we -- and maybe not to slow this down, but can't we study what a yard is and what a setback is and either merge the two together so we don't hold up yards when we mean setback, and setback when we mean yard, or separate them and give them two clear definitions so we don't get into fights over ramps in the yard and stuff? MS. ISTENES: They're interrelated. I'm not sure how much you can separate them. But, you know, how about if we do this: How about if Ray and I have a discussion with you off -line to make sure we're understanding your concern. I'm not sure I am, and I don't know if I want to -- unless the rest of the board wants to try to have it here. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think in the planning, you know, and the resources you have for planning, see what the difference between a yard and setback is. Because there must be a difference. Why would we have two terms -- MS. ISTENES: Oh, there is, yeah, there is. I guess I'm just not understanding what you're not seeing, and I'm not seeing what you're not seeing, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But anyway, this is taking the yard front measurement and coming up with a way to determine the setback, which hence my on -- MS. ISTENES: I do understand that concern, and I will look at the difference between the two. But I think your concern is maybe a little bit deeper than I'm understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 83. Any other questions on Page 83? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your fiscal and operational impact, your last sentence is concerning. So there's plenty of lots out there that are going to be nonconforming if this goes through? I mean, how do we fix that? We just can't have everybody's title be screwed up forever and then their build -back be screwed up forever. That puts a real difficult situation -- can we do it for lots after a certain date or something like that? MS. ISTENES: I think that was suggested in the yard. Now, I'm not sure if technically that means they're still not considered conforming. I mean, I'll look to the Attorney's Office. But I think what Catherine had intended was to apply this regulation to plats and other things submitted after a certain date. So I'm not sure how that would render previous -- MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding, everything that's been -- is in the ground now or been approved now is the old definition. From here on out, everything that gets platted or site development plans is under the new definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we put the date -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Or redevelopment. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it can't be redevelopment. It's got to be new stuff. Otherwise you're going to he -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if you tear a house down that was nonconforming and build another one -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is the way you've got to do this, is because we've got like 50 years of history on this. Everything that's been built up to date, okay, old definition. All new development, okay, you can use your new definition. Otherwise you're going to have the entire county being, you know, nonconforming. That's -- MS. ISTENES: Jeff, would the correct way to write that be essentially to contain two different definitions within the code and just say all plats before this date -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MS. ISTENES: You measure this way, all plats after that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you bring it back that way? Because I think it's important we plug the date in. Page 81 January 28, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Stan, so you're saying that there's buildings that meet the yard requirement but don't meet the setback requirement? How can that be? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, I didn't say that. Did 1? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, the setback requirement is to the property line. And essentially what you're doing now is changing yard requirement to match the setback requirement. Or you're inventing something here, this is a new one, front yard measurement on cul -de -sac never existed before. So we were measuring front yard cul -de -sacs with some yard method that didn't meet the requirements of the setback method? Or what a setback is'? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think I'll let Susan answer that. MS. ISTENES: I'm thinking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER_ Stan, another thing too — MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I know we have other rules too like the length of the driveway has to be a certain distance from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the house, and that wasn't -- that automatically caused you to be so far back. And there's an 11 foot arc rule that -- MS. ISTENES: Essentially the cord methodology in certain cases was allowing you to incorporate portions of the street, the right -of -way, into the -- all of the yard and setback requirements. This now pushes that back onto the property so you are around at the same angle as the lot is platted on its frontage and that is your setback yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't if somebody followed the yard requirement then they would be violating the setback requirement, which is the distance of the property line to determine the buildable area? We're talking about determining the build able area of a site, correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. But you can't use one part of the code to violate another part. You have to go with whatever part's stricter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would be setback. Which they're in violation now. Stan, when you do plats, one of the requirements in the preliminary -- now, I know we've adjusted that lately -- is that they have to show on that the setbacks. They have to draft -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That the lot is buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have to draft the setbacks on the subdivision, correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, we tried getting that passed, but it was -- it never made it through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought -- because you know when I noticed is when we took out the preliminary plat. In other words, as you had -- you remember one time we had a requirement for preliminary, and reading the requirements for that, one of them was to show the setback on it. So -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on these subdivisions, all these preliminary setbacks were long shown, correct? MS. ISTENES: Yes, they were -- you were required to show a typical of the lots that you were platting. So if you had a variety of lots and setbacks, they were all shown as typicals on your preliminary subdivision plat. We were told when it came to final plats that that was not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Taken off. MS. ISTENES: — acceptable and had to be taken off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So essentially you go back to those preliminaries and that would be what people could rely on to be the accepted setback. Even if it didn't verbally match, maybe, but -- MS. ISTENES: I mean, the preliminaries weren't recorded. They were really kind of what I would call a working document that was used for staff review. And then became part of the record but didn't become part of the -- you record your final plat, which didn't have that information on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so the public essentially wouldn't have access to that to determine their setbacks? MS. ISTENES: Unless they knew we had it on the preliminary subdivision plat file, correct, they couldn't go into the clerk's office. Page 82 16 1 1 US, 2810 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So since you're saying this is a new way to do it, the old way didn't work, can you put in the old definition here too? This looks like a brand new, you know, yard front measurement of cul -de -sacs. I think this is -- isn't this a virgin definition, or is there an old one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If it exists, I'll find it and bring it to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're saying this is the new way to do it. So show me the thing that gave you the old way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And just when we were talking to Susan about rewriting to break it out in two separate statements, it's in the definition here now, because the last two lines take care of that. This definition sball apply only to new plats created after whatever date we give it. And applications deemed complete by the county may use the old front yard measuring if they're accepted prior to, and then there's a date. So I think -- MS. ISTENES: It refers to it. I think what I was suggesting, and Catherine may have done this and I'm not aware of it, is to just have two different definitions in the code with the different dates. COMMISSIONER CARON: Separate them out. MS. ISTENES: Yes, yes, rather than incorporating them into one so it could be easily -- more easily understood, hopefully. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, if you'll look at the fiscal impacts, though, the middle sentence, once these structures/homes become nonconforming the redevelopment possibilities would be limited to less than 50 percent of the value of the improvement. It talks about redevelopment. I'm not sure what the intent of that actually is, but I had assumed the intent of it was -- I didn't write all of this. I assumed that the intent of it was that redevelopment would fall under the new rules. But I guess we're going to have to clarify that it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it wouldn't. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And her rule about -- Susan's rule about a certain date would do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because some lots that are created and platted may not work under the new rule. I mean, you might plat them differently or create them currently based on the interpretation of the new rule. MS. ISTENES: I'll make sure there's no conflict with the nonconformity section too. I think that's kind of what you're alluding to. And that's what that's referring to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because isn't that the general rule, that when you go to redevelop, if it's 50 percent or less, as opposed to 50 percent or more, if it's 50 percent or more you have to come up to new standards. If it's below 50 percent -- MS. ISTENES: Correct, the idea for nonconformities is eventually some day everybody will conform as the community changes and codes and regulations change. This may not be a really great place to do that, only because you've just got approved and developed projects already, and it's so extensive. But, you know, that's really up to the board, you know, to ultimately decide. But I'm certainly happy to present it in two different formats and explain the consequences of the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 83, the third line from the bottom, it says SDPs created after -- and then the date of this ordinance. Could you make the word created I guess approved'? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that be better? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we want to also see what the figure is, C figure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be the next page_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but they don't have it marked. MS. ISTENES: I think the intent with created, back to that, is you've got people that have invested money into creating or drafting plats that may not be approved but may be in the review cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then submitted. But I'm sorry, they're not created until they're approved, right? Until it's recorded you don't have a greater lot. So if you mean submitted, that's fine too. Let's just say whatever -- MS. ISTENES: Okay, understand. Page 83 January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs to be cleared. Mr. Murray, did you want to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, no, I just call to your attention on Page 83 when it says see figure, it's blank there. I know you -- I'm assuming you're referencing the figure on the first side. MS. ISTENES: Yes. I'd have to refer to John Kelly, because usually they don't put the figures in until they're ready to submit it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the practice, fine, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Page 54, does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you --in a lot of PUDs, the measurement of a pie- shaped lot for determining the lot width to meet the minimum standard is measured straight across, point to point, not on the arc. Does that have any -- does this have any bearing on how the lots width is determined on cul- de-sac lots? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Susan, let me point out something. Ilere we're discussing yards, and here you're using the word setback. So we really do have to come to peace on which is which. MS. ISTENES: Yes, they're both defined. And I'll tell you, they are commonly used interchangeably, but there are differences. I will get all of that information for you and we can have a long discussion about it, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do that with him before the next meeting. MS. ISTENES: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on to Page 85, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Sorry, I was taking notes. Yes, 85. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deletion of recreational vehicle provision. MS. ISTENES: Okay. This is as a result ofthe board adopting an ordinance, No. 08 -64. And basically what it did was readopt some provisions in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, I believe, or let me just double check that. And consequently the LDC was not amended at that time, so that is what we are doing now is just removing this language that had already been readopted in another place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it changed the language when it went into 08 -64, I think substantially. And if you delete all of this section, you're going to delete sections that aren't included in 08 -64. 1 pulled 08 -64 up, and I've read it. And I'm not sure that it addresses, for example, on Page 86, this entire area that's strike through'd (sic) as number 3A, B, C and D, which is your commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in residential areas. Is it addressed somewhere else? MS. ISTENES: I'll be honest with you, we didn't do 08 -64, and we're relying on direction from the County Attorney's Office on how to rectify the situation, and this was their direction, so I would ask that maybe you defer to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said Gretchen from the County Attorney's Office? MS. ISTENES: No, their direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Direction from the County Attorney. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Actually, this was an item that Mr. Submitted taken to the Board of County Commissioners for direction. And the board at that time had opted that it come out of the LDC and go into the Code of Laws. And so 08 -64 accomplished that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if you look on Page 86, number three, the parking of commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in residential areas, and it goes on. I've got 08 -64 and I don't find that language in 08 -64. So does that mean they don't care about the parking of commercial vehicles, they don't have any laws for that, or is it somewhere else and I've just missed it? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, I have my backup materials in the back of the room. If I may have a Page 84 l6 {1 h9 January 28, 201 moment to go pull them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Go ahead, Heidi. Okay, you know what? We're going to have to take a break before we go home. Why don't we do that now? Because we plan to be out of here about 10 minutes to 5:00. So let's just take a 10- minute break. It's -- come back at 3:45. Recess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on the record. We left off, and County Attorney was going to check, apparently some of the language in the definition suggestion to be struck may not have made it into Ordinance 08 -64. And rather than belabor the point, County Attorney's Office is going to go back and check and see if it in fact didn't get put somewhere. And if it didn't. I'm sure they'll offer a recommendation by the time we come back. Is that fair, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other thing I noticed, that the language that did get moved over into 08 -64, for that part of it in the top involving the recreational equipment, in this document that's being struck, the recreational equipment was a period not to exceed seven days. In the language that got replaced, I believe it's 48 hours. So I'm a little concerned that if that's right, what are we doing with people who are out there parked now for seven days and all of a sudden we have another ordinance that says it can only be 48 hours? And that is Section B.1 and 2 of the old language that's suggested being struck, as it compared to section five of the Code of Laws, 08 -64. I'm not -- if the BCC was told that this was a straight transfer from one document to the other, then I think there needs to be some clarification to them that they change the restrictions from seven days to two days, if that in case is the -- if that is the fact, after you research it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, I will research it. My understanding was that it was to be moved into the Code of Laws. If anything was omitted, we'll be back next month with the recommendation on whether that needs to be amended in the Code of Laws or whether there's any sections here that need to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it wasn't so much the omission, Heidi, as did they know there -- if there is in fact a significant change to this, which seven days to two days is significant for people with RV's. I mean, I got one. I don't know if they knew they were making that change. I think we ought to find out if that change was one that was authorized as well. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on 85 and 86? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will come back on whenever we get up to it. The next page is Page 88. Oh, actually, that -- there's Page 87. This last one carried over to 87. And the top of 87, Item E is also not moved into the new code. So that whole -- items 3.A through E, when you check those, Heidi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's move on to Page 88. This one is the agricultural zoning district's temporary events. MS. ISTENES: Yes, this one actually came about kind of by discovery. There was some direction given by the board and we realized that it never did get amended into the LDC. And we had been, and I think -- I think we had been offering temporary use permits in the interim until this was adopted in the LDC. And anyway, so we're now going as the board directed some, what, 1999? The and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Catching up. MS. ISTENES: We're getting there. And we're making this change. And this is essentially to allow the temporary raising of hogs for youth residing in the Estates for presentation at the Collier County Fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions starting on Page 88? (No response.) MS. ISTENES: It's essentially memorializing the practice of issuing a temporary use permit, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you're charging -- and I think this is fine, you're charging five bucks for Page 85 January 28, 2010 the temporary use permit. But I like the explanation. This minimal fee will defray staff cost and allow the applicant- - this is now these kids -- to become familiar with the governmental regulation and controls inherent to business operations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's helpful. MS. ISTENES: That's Catherine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For five bucks, look what they're going to buy into. Those poor kids. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And may 1 say that on behalf of the 4 -H foundation, as I am a member, we thank you for this. We do. So that we're in good shape. Now the kids can put their hogs up. MS. ISTENES: 1 was a former 4 -H'er myself, so I can appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a great organization. MS. ISTENES: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 89. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 909 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the top of Page 90, you refer to a bona tide 4 -H youth development program. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm sure it means somehow they've got to be real. And that's good, rather than a non bona fide 4 -H program. But in D.1 where it talks about 4 -H youth development programs and similar youth development programs, if the word bona fide is defensible, after the word similar we ought to insert it so that we have bona fide youth development programs, whatever they may be. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then under I -C where it says once removed for showing and sale, wouldn't it be or sale? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that would be fine. Showing and sale is common language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but what if they show it and don't sell it? Is that okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It still qualifies under common language, showing and sale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read this as meaning you've got to show it and sell it or it can be there in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under a bona fide 4 -H program they would in fact be selling the hogs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how about under a bona fide youth development program? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you know that if you don't know what the program is'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'd have to actually go in and find out whether the child was in a program and operating under that basis. Do we go that far? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. So what difference does it make -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a major problem to changing it to or, but in general language, show and sale and their actions are to sell the thing, so -- I don't care. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under D, the permit may be revoked for cause. fm just curious, what kind of cause? MS. ISTENES: 1 don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I'm just --I was just curious, what kind of cause can you have? MS. ISTENES: I'm guessing it's a catchall phrase in case there's some issues with incompatibility or noise or COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You found out they were in a non bona fide program. MS. ISTENES: — waste problems or wild hogs or something, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's pretty standard language, isn't it, for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this kind of thing? Page 86 161 1 January 28, 010 MS.ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just wondering what it meant. The next one we have, I'm assuming everybody doesn't have any questions on the 4 -II ordinance. So Page 99? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 99 is the early entry TDR program extension. Michelle Mosca isn't here. So do we want to discuss it or wait till the 26th of February? MS. ISTENES: I see David Weeks, and I'm hoping he is here to discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure how much he'll understand about what Michelle might have done. MR. WEEKS: He will not comment on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You just did. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks ofthe Comprehensive Planning Section. I'm actually the author of this, myself and a former staff member. The short and simple of it is, the TDR bonus provision within the Future Land Use Element of the GMP was amended in 2008 to extend the time period for which the early entry bonus could be awarded. This amendment simply brings the LDC language into compliance, or conformance and consistent with that GMP provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then basically the only change is the Page 100 with the new dating in there, and the strike - through. MR. WEEKS: And also over on Page 101. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, same thing. Okay, anybody have any questions on any of this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A small one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, why did you bump the start date back? I understand why you bumped the finish date forward, but itjust seemed strange. Is there a good reason? MR. WEEKS: Yes. If I recall correctly, the -- there was a difference from when the -- I think the '05 to '04 might have been a correction of an error. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's enough. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but isn't there a question about the setback and yards involving that issue? MR. WEEKS: I hope not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the yardage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He only bumped it back a yard, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then it's -- nobody have any problems on this one? We're done with it, I guess. Sounds good. Next item is agricultural excavations. Chris (sic) Wright. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or lack of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, this will keep us busy for a little while. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What page is that, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Page 102. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon. MR. WRIGHT: Commissioners. Jeff Wright, for the record, Assistant County Attorney. And there's one thing that we wanted to point out on the front end, and maybe I can put this on the overhead. We've added a word. And it appears twice in this amendment. And it's the word new. Obviously we'll be bringing back an updated version. This is kind of a last minute thing. In going over these amendments our goal here was to protect existing rights. We don't want to interfere with any hit that exists already but want to just going forward have this regulation apply to prohibit below ground aquaculture. So I wanted to point that out_ It's not in your packet. The new one will be in your packet And that's all I really have. Hopefully it's self - explanatory. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Page 97 C� January 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Page 102? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your fiscal and operational impacts, basically the fiscal impact on landowners would be difficult to pin down in such a way that covers all operations. But I think it would be obvious that an above ground without an excavation, which means you have nothing in which to hold the water available to you from the resources on -site. Basically have to bring in an embankment, or bring in a shell or bring in -- whatever you got to do is going to be more expensive. And part of the problem that we have with this is not the fact that people wanted an aquafarm, it was that they wanted to clear and excavate. But the clearing in the sensitive areas was the big issue. This would still allow them to clear, they just wouldn't be excavating. fm not sure if the excavation is a big problem if they can clear. MR. WRIGHT: Well, this came up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember. MR. WRIGHT: -- in relation to Fozzi (phonetic). So it is focused on aquaculture. I realize the concern. And it does fall into the category of agricultural, but were really not addressing clearing with this amendment, we're addressing specifically underground aquaculture, particularly the pits in the sending lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if you allow in the sending lands above -round aquaculture, in order to do so you've got to clear everything out anyway. What have we done to help the sending lands? MR. WRIGHT: We've hopefully limited the ability to dig big holes that stay there forever. That's the aim. M CHAIRAN STRAIN: Okay. You're saying those are bad compared to bulldozing all the trees down and putting something else there, even on an interim basis. MR. WRIGHT: Oh, I'm not taking a position on good or bad. But it did come up in relation to Fozzi, and Nancy Payton in particular said could we do something about the pits in the sending lands, and the board said sure, and directed staff to come back with something that was intended to address pits in sending lands. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, if 1 could interject, this one was board directed and we did narrowly limit the aquaculture per the board's direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I've still got questions, though. Does -- by putting this in the sending on -- this only applies to the sending lands, or is it all the RFMU district? MR. WRIGHT: Just the sending lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are the sending lands on -- the sending lands are sending lands because they're acknowledged to be environmentally sensitive. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the object here is to prevent the digging of the ditch which would encourage destruction of the sending lands for the possibility of earning money off the excavation versus really trying to do aquaculture. That was the whole issue I think from the beginning. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCFIIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and 1 think that is it, Mark. I mean, we're just preventing burrow pits in the name of agriculture. But what if somebody really did want to go into the ground a little bit with footings and stuff like that? Do you think they'd be trapped by the word above ground, or -- you know, if you're going to build it above ground, you're going to be building a wall, probably, or mounding earth up against the wall or somehow waterproofing mounds of earth or -- I mean -- MR. WRIGHT: I understand what you're saying. This thing went through several iterations in order to address the cattle pits and the amount of dirt that might be moved. We tried to put various limitations on it, and we came up with this simple solution. Now, 1 think that an above -round facility probably would have to impact the earth a little bit. And I'd like to think, though, that a reasonable person could look at the operation and determine are we dealing with an Page 88 Jary 28, 2010 � E above - ground operation or a below - ground operation. Based on just a reasonable assessment of the operation itself, I think that more than nine times out of 10 you'll be able to put it in a category of above ground or below ground, based on the planned operation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the other issue is that again, I know the abuse of this agricultural -- aquaculture. But it would be wiser for these people to be somewhat in the ground when there's cold temperatures and everything. They could take advantage of the insulation of the earth. Where now we're sticking them up in the air. So when you looked at this, did you look at like a minimal amount of excavation, like, you know, half in the ground and half out or something that they could actually start to create something where they could take advantage of the earth for insulation? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we didn't address it specifically from that angle. I did talk with Stan Chrzanowski about the cone of depression for a typical cattle pit, but we didn't really get into thermal warmth of the earth or anything like that and how that might play in, just tried to keep it simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did anybody -- any aquafarmers meet with you guys and make any suggestions? MR. WRIGHT: No, although there has been one active stakeholder throughout this process, and I showed their representative this language this morning and they seemed to be comfortable with it. However, the particular stakeholder they have is an existing operation. So we would -- I'd be happy to -- I'm not really sure that the effort has been -- a thorough effort has been made to talk with all the property owners in the sending lands to determine what their input would be. But we could definitely put the lines out and try to get their input. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because, I mean, if some of these -- if somewhere they're finding fill and they have to keep it above ground, they're actually going to be doing more damage to the ground around it to do that. Where if they put it half in, half out, they could balance out somewhere. And obviously the intent is to -- the deep burrow pit. But anyway, I would like to see somebody who actually -- aquafarms to see -- because they may come in and say forget it, you can't do it because the temperature is going to kill everything. And its not going to be worth it. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, if I may go back to your question about fiscal impacts, this is the kind of variables that you have to -- if you really wanted to determine what the fiscal impact of this proposed amendment would be, you would have to take into account a lot of different types of set -ups for the operations, and that's why those different animals are listed. But in addition to those species that are listed, there would be different configurations for the operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in line with where Brad may be going on this, if you were to allow an excavation to the extent that the material used was needed for the facility that was being constructed, so that if you went partially in the ground and partially above, you would only be allowed to excavate enough to create the berm around the facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would help shore up the sidelines. That I think would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would get it somewhere closer to a compromise on reality. And see, the reason that becomes important is I would think that it would seem like it's unfair for a local municipality to overburden the property rights afforded by Florida statute. And in essence that seems like what you're doing. The statute says you can do aquafarm, but we're going to make it so that -- how you can do it, but it's going to cost you so much you won't want to. I'm not sure that was the intent of the statute. So if we look for a compromise, it might be better and more defensible. That's just a suggestion_ Mr. Murray -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just to follow through on that, Mark, the wisdom of that is you have the fill to fill the hole in if the aquafarm fails on -site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Push it back in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and you also don't destroy as many trees around in order to get the fill in the first place. But do we know what acreage is really essentially minimum for an aquaculture of any of these items? Page 89 January 28, 2010 MR. WRIGHT: I have seen, for example, Ngala, they have what they call an aquaculture operation. And it's literally in a pond that could, you know, fit in this small area here. So I think there's quite a bit of variation in size. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but I think that one is expositional. I don't believe that's a money - making intentional aquaculture. I remember his comment about that, and I thought that was expositional. Because getting back to what Mark was saying, the amount of trees that you're going to take down here, first of all, we're in a sending land, we're going to take the trees down. To what -- you know, to what advantage are we really providing the sending lands security? I don't know if we've -- I don't know if we've achieved a result. MR. WRIGHT: Well, we welcome the input -- the suggestion on -- I believe, I want to make sure I understood it, maybe have a quantity of excavation that would be allowed in relation to an above - ground operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not to exceed what could possibly be used on -site above ground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you got no incentive then left over excavate or excavate like everybody's concerned. Plus with the material left there, ]fit had to be restored the restoration of the material is there. And I think too that that would protect us a little bit from someone saying wait a minute, the statute gives me the right, you're unfairly burdening me from exercising my rights as a property owner under Florida statutes. MR. WRIGHT: I believe you're referring to the Right to Farm Act? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. I think during the previous discussion this came up. The position that was taken by the county was that that law applies to bona fide operations. And in the case of an empty field that has the perspective operations in mind, our position would be that that doesn't apply. In other words, the Right to Farm Act and the limitation on the local government's ability to interfere with farming activities, that applies to bona fide farms and not to future bona fide farms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm not disagreeing. I don't know -- your statement's fine. Was there a point? I don't get what you're trying to get at. MR. WRIGHT: The point is 1 think that you said that we're running afoul of the statutes by interfering with rights that people have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure someone couldn't claim that we are. That's why I was looking for a compromise, to make sure that we didn't breach that area where we're putting up so many roadblocks so they really can't exercise their rights that the Florida statutes provide to them. MR. WRIGHT: I understand. The middle ground. And we'll come back next time with our effort to capture that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Initially we looked at a flat -out prohibition, and so the above ground was actually a compromise to not have a flat -out prohibition. But we'll evaluate what you've proposed today and be ready to discuss it at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, lacking a flat -out prohibition you're not really helping the sending lands that much, because if you're going to create it there and clear all the property anyway, whether it's above or below ground, you still got a problem. But if you disincentivize the excavation, that might limit the amount of occurrences this has, and you can disincentivize it by insisting the excavation can be no deeper than that to be used on -site. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that all tits together. And then no one's harm -- 1 don't see how anybody's harmed by that by promoting excavation under a false premise. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. Jeff, could you call one of the farmers and see if there's a width that would make sense? I mean, every aquaculture think I've seen is on narrow long troughs. I mean, we don't want some guy to dig a 20 -foot hole with two 10 -foot mounds on each side of it either, you know. MR. WRIGHT: Surface dimensions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just see if there's like a trench width that we could maximize it out. I mean, if they say eight feet, we'll give them 10, something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The University of Florida has a site where you can pull all that information. Shows Page 90 161 1 A5 January 28, 2010 you how to create an aquafarm and do all that stuff for each type offish and everything. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you might just want to pull that down and you might get the information right from there. MR. WRIGHT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us past aquaculture excavations. Now, Steve -- he's still here. Lucky fellow. It's 4:08, and we're going to proceed on with protection of endangered, threatened or listed species -- well, these all -- all this following conservation ones, I'm surprised there aren't certain individuals that I expected to see in the audience. I don't know if that's because they didn't think we'd get to these today. Steve, these were -- you have a huge list of people you were constantly in touch with on these particular items. Were they all aware this was going on today? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger. Yes, I've been e- mailing the items on this meeting, as well as your other meetings for the LDC amendments on a continuous basis. So they should be aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we haven't got time to waste, so we'll just keep plowing ahead. You want to start off with any kind of presentation? We'd be starting on Page 125. MR. LENBERGER: Well, the amendments here are all GMP related. The GMP was amended in 2007. And obviously we came to you last year and we went back to stakeholders. Worked very hard over the last year, actually more than a year, drafting these amendments, listened very carefully what they had to say. Had a lot of support from them, had a lot of support from management. I think we have amendments that will work. I hope so. I'm here to answer any questions. I can go through them and just hit the highlights or we can just go page by page, or however you'd like to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we'll go page by page. Then we'll probably have questions, and you can highlight them as we go along, if that works for you. MR. LENBERGER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start on Page 125. Does anybody have any questions on Page 125? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the preamble so it may not be a lot. Page 126? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Okay, Steve, on Page 126 on the second sentence there's a -- talks about the number of endangered, threatened and commercially exploited plants in Florida, and there's what, 400, 500 -- just under 600, almost 550. That's a lot of plants. Of these, at least 124 have been documented to occur in Collier County, many of which are only found in the eastern parts of the county. So then you go down to your two paragraphs below that on the last line, seems like in those parts of the county they are specifically exempt from the provisions. Is that meaning the provisions that this whole effort would apply to? They don't have to preserve the plant species out there if this were to go into effect. MR. LENBERGER: This exemption, well, it's taken right from the code. I just put it there for your reference. But it says right there the regulations in this section are applicable to lands in the urban designated areas and areas within the rural fringe mixed use district, as identified on the FLUE for Collier County. And then it gives these exemptions, and they're in the amendment. They were not changed, but they're there just for reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the RLSA would be exempt from these provisions? MR. LENBERGER: Exactly as stated there. I'll read them. Agricultural operations that fall within a scope of Sections 163.3162(4), or 823.14(6), Florida Statutes. All development within the Rural Land Stewardship Area district, except as specifically provided in Section 4.08.00. And all development within the North Belle Meade overlay, as specifically provided in 2.03.08 are exempt from the provisions of Section 3.04.00. And that citation -- well, I added the 3.04 because that's the plants. But is in 3.04.01. That's on -- I'll find the page for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I think my question is -- Page 91 �l January 28, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have an urban area that's quite built out. We have a rural area that isn't quite so far built out. Seems that the most valuable lands would be in the areas that aren't quite so built out. But it seems by this paragraph that those areas are exempt from this action if it goes into effect. Is that right? MR. LENBERGER: They're exempt, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just seems contrary to common sense is all. And I'm wondering, we're going to a huge effort to preserve plants in an urban area where there's very few of them, but in the rural areas where there's probably still viable communities they're not protected. I'm just -- [ want to make sure that's what I'm understanding to be the case. MR. LENBERGER: The rural lands have their own rules, as you know. And we went through the comprehensive plan when it was updated. And as far as the listed plants, they would -- in those rural areas, and you mentioned specifically the RLSA area, the habitats were mapped out according to sending, receiving. And if you would look at listed species, they most likely would be found in those sending areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in reading the paragraphs you provided me here, the preservation and wetland areas within the urban area or not so urban area, just before the RLSA also are the areas where most of these plants would be automatically preserved and captured by the preservation of those areas; is that accurate? MR. LENBERGER: Some of them would be. I went through each species that I included in the amendment and either included them or not included them. And some for that very reason, that the habitat would already be protected. Such as hand fern, I mentioned in there, that they world most likely be in hammocks or wetlands with good quality wetlands. So I did not include them in the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every project has some kind of preservation requirement in today's processes. What percentage of these plants do you think are automatically caught in the current processes? And the reason this is important for -- at least to understand is it looks like we're creating a whole nother layer of regulation on a whole nother grouping of concerned species. Nothing's wrong with that. But if we already got layers there that protect a huge percentage of them or enough of them so that we're not really causing that much of a problem, I'm wondering what we're going through all this for. MR. LENBERGER I guess the best way to look at that is probably for you to turn to Page 141, and let's take a look at the listed plants. It would be easiest to go through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: The plants are broken down into two categories: Rare plants and less rare plants, for lack of a better tern. But they are just that. Plants listed as rare, they are rare. You're not going to find them very often. Plants listed as less rare, you're going to see, you know, in different areas of the county, depending on the habitat quality. As far as your question would you normally see those in areas that would be preserved as part of the county rating system? I would say you would capture in a number of preserves plants listed as less rare on a regular basis. Plants listed as rare are going to be very spotty. They are truly rare. So getting those in a preserve is going to be very iffy, if they're even going to be on -site. So that's kind of the breakdown. As far as the less rare plants, I've included them here. And I was looking at the comp. plan, and we have a lot of amendment changes here. And one of those was preserve management plans. And the GMP was amended to try to -- and it has language talking about maintaining species diversity in preserves. And I kind of looked at that, okay, maintaining species diversity. I kind of looked at these epiphytes and said okay, if they're not in the preserve then and you have some in an area on your site within the heights -- distance from the ground, then just move some of them over. I capped it at 10. And that would give you a seed source. And that's kind of in keeping with the maintaining species diversity. It's not like saying you have to preserve that area, it's just saying if they're not in a preserve you have them on -site, move some in the preserve, you're maintaining some biological diversity. That's kind of the thrust on the less rare plants. The rare plants are going to be really spotty, if you see them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so you know, I think you did a really good job, especially in explaining it to us in the documentation and laying it all out. But that also then made it easier for some of us to ask questions. So Page 92 161 1 1 J uary 28, �L010 you're probably going to get a lot more questions -- MR. LENBERGER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because of the way you did it. And I'm glad the way you did it, because it's much better to understand it than it was previously. So with that in mind, are there any other questions on Page 1269 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, how about 127? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then 128? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 128 the fiscal and operational impacts, there's a cost involved with reviewing for the survey of the environmental firms you were talking about. And then the -- towards the bottom of that page talk about gopher tortoise preserves and working those over. And it's all based on quantity of acreage that's involved and things like that. How many acres a day can these environmentalists review on a survey; do you have any idea? Is it something they move through pretty fast? Is the cost relatively minor? MR. LENBERGER: The -- well, the survey, I did speak to several firms about this. They usually go out in teams, depending on how big the project is. A lot of times they like to do it in a certain amount of time, whether that's a day or two, depending on the size of the area they're surveying. So they'll either send out two biologists or three, if they need to get through it quicker. So it's usually how many they put on a site at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that just kind of determines where the cost lies. Anybody else on Page 128? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 129? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 129 actually begins the endangered species language. Under A.2, United States Fish & Wildlife Service and endangered or threatened, and as provided for by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. On the page after that it talks about provisions and management plans by the FFWCC. Are they comparable? Is there no conflict between A.2 for the measures utilized there versus the management plans that would be utilized in C.2.A? MR. LENBERGER: Provisions in A, both one and two, are the laws protecting these animals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: As far as the management on the next page, the Fish & Wildlife Service does not have a specific growth management plan they work in conjunction with the state agency. And the state agency has the Bald Eagle Management Plan which they've adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does -- MR. LENBERGER: That wouldn't prohibit the Fish & Wildlife Service from making additional comments, of course, in regards to the species. But generally they work together. And the management plan adopted by the state is coordinated with those agencies, being Fish & Wildlife Service, as well as stakeholders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we'll move to Page 130. Does anybody have any questions on Page 130? (No response.) C1 AHZMAN STRAIN: The middle of that paragraph under 2.A -- I shouldn't say the middle, third line down in the underlined big section at the bottom, it says recommendations of the FFWCC or the USFWS. Are they always both required or is it one or the other? And do they differ very much? MR. LENBERGER: Well, generally for federal listed species one will defer to the other agency, or they work together. So it could be either /or. And the stakeholders wanted or in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this would require listed plant and animal species. So this does kick in then the management plans that were now missing for plant species; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's new language, so I'm assuming that's the purpose of it. Page 93 —' +January 28, 2010 Okay, I'm trying to find which line you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right below the one (just referred to with the "or" question. MR. LENBERGER: Right, listed plants and listed animals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, previously we didn't have that language, and it was just listed animals that we were concerned about. MR. LENBERGER: "Chat's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under B, management guidelines contained in various agency publications. The word various is a little concerning. It's one of those ambiguous terms that someone could come in and say what does various mean? What agency are you talking about? We had them listed here for a while. What was the reasoning for not listing them and just using the word various? And how defensible is that if your department has to tell someone that the various agency they picked is not the one that you want them to use'? MR. LENBERGER: We'd have to look for a different term other than various, if you're concerned about that. They were taken out from the discussions we had at this board last year and why we have all these references in here. And I worked through this with management and the stakeholders and basically saying okay, you know, there's different publications the agency use and require you to draft management plans and survey for listed species. And do we really have to list them here? Which is the reason we took them out. A term other than various agency publications? Sure, we can think of another word to put there. But basically they're environmental professionals out there. They do this regulation all the time for the state and federal government, as well as the county and cities. You know, they know the publications out there, what's the most current. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's my concern. You have environmentalists of different caliber. Some are hired by developers to do a specific task. Task for the developer may be minimized by impacts from environment. The other ones may be non - profits that work for what they feel the general good of the public. And their mission is more or less I want to make sure that I'm going to protect everything to the max. One would probably go to a different agency than the area. And the two agencies -- the two different publications may be different in their management plans. How would you then as a staff member with that language be able to tell them which one they have to use? MR. LENBERGER: Generally speaking they would use the most updated plant plan, the current plan. If there was a discrepancy and we were concerned about it, we would ask for technical assistance from the agencies. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ms. Caron? MR. LENBERGER: Management guide is contained in agency publications. You know, we can write a publications recommended by the agencies. I mean, we could work on that a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what I'm trying to ask. Because the word various is so ambiguous I think it could present a problem, and that's the only reason I suggested it. Did you have a question, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, 1 was just going to ask if they ran into conflicting management guidelines. Does that happen now? MR. LENBERGER: I haven't experienced that, no. They use the current publications and the guidance from the agencies. I haven't seen a problem with it. But we'll work on that language. We can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you remove the word various, you still have the same problem contained in agency publications. Are we restricting -- are there only certain agencies that we relate to? MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission are the agencies charged by the state and federal government for regulating wildlife, so those are the two agencies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the agencies -- are the publications we're referring to here their publications'? MR. LENBERGER: Many of them are their publications. There are other publications out there that they reference. So they would be utilized as well. Page 94 161 1A 5 luary 28, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So couldn't we say contained in agency reference publications? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I mean, something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Agency reference publications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you actually could say -- list two agencies and any referenced publications of theirs, something to that effect, and that would get everything that you're talking about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if they've changed their desire to go to "X" and go to "Y ", then they'll reference that. You know, that's what you'll note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that would help it. Any other questions on 130? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 131? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 132? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on Page 133? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.A up on top references a time frame for gopher tortoise surveys. No more than six months old. I know when you go out to develop property you have to do an EIS in some cases and you do your survey so your EIS is accurate. But do you really feel that within six months of the writeup of the EIS the format of that document's issues into a site plan, the site plan formatted into by engineers, a manner in which it's acceptable to the county and submission to the county, all that's going to get done in six months? MR. LENBERGER: The six -month time frame is actually what came from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is the agency for the state which regulates gopher tortoises. We also included language, or within a time frame recommended by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, to give some flexibility there, in case they should say, okay, eight months is fine, a year is fine, whatever the case may be. That's why we added also within a time frame recommended by the agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do have some flexibility in those time frames? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the six months is what they have told us to use. But we wanted to add the flexibility in the code in case they decide maybe on a project -by- project basis, or whatever the case may be, that more time is fine or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Page 133? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 134? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 135? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top, the last line of 135, the top paragraph, the location of thickets potentially used by hatcheling and juvenile gopher tortoises shall be identified in the Protection Management Plan, and any gopher tortoises within the areas shall also be relocated. Okay. If it's identified in a Protection Management Plan, wouldn't it be protected and managed? MR. LENBERGER: This is under new 8, starts on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: -- 134. And it says, all gopher tortoises shall be captured and relocated within a development footprint prior to any site improvement in accordance with the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines and the Protection Management Plan approved by the county manager or designee. This is under the relocation section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: So the Protection Management Plan would include a relocation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. LENBERGER: So if you're concerned about that, we can -- shall be identified on the relocation plan Page 95 6anuary 28, 2610 would workjust fine. Because that's what's under this section. it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, it's probably my reading of it that's wrong, but I just want to try to understand COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It looks superfluous, actually. 1 don't know why you added the location of thickets potentially used by hatcheling. In other words, you're saying -- you're giving a second set of eyes on it, so to speak. That's what you're really mentioning here? MR. LENBERGER: We're mentioning that, you know, we've identified these areas, it's in the literature that they're on -site. All the little baby tortoises are on these very low areas of grapevine. It's just a fact, that's where they are. And we're just flagging it out and saying hey, some consultants -- actually, most of the consultants were aware of this. Some found it on their own, some found out through the literature. There was one that wasn't aware of it. So it's more identify it because a significant population, if not most, if not all your babies are going to be in this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I see it from that point of reference. You made it a new sentence. Okay, I mean, it could -- I think it could be left in there. I would have put it in italic or something in order to make the point I guess that it's a second look at the issue. But — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only concern I had is it said you'd identify the thickets. They're in the Protection Management Plan, and then you've got to remove the gopher tortoises from them. That's what I -- so why would you want to remove the gopher tortoises from places they should be? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it says gopher tortoises shall be recaptured and relocated from a development footprint. So it's all referenced — MR. LENBERGER: It's all under the relocation section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's all under the relocation aspect of it. In other words, the big guys you can find, pick up and move, but you've got to look for the little ones. MR. LENBERGER: Little ones too. So it's under the relocation section. But I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- MR. LENBERGER: -- I could work on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Protection Management Plan is going to locate all the thickets, whether they're in the plan or not. Is that what this says then? MR. LENBERGER: Well, this is mainly focused on the relocation. We want you to check those thickets so you don't just bulldoze them over, and relocate them. But I think Protection Management Plan seems to be the hangup here. That includes the relocation. So 1 can just identify it in the relocation plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Special care should be given to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful if yoti d put it -- if you'd change that language, yeah. MR. LENBERGER: I'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 136, any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 137? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 138? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, Item 2.C. A survey by -- and then the gopher tortoise relocation. Locating any gopher tortoise burrows on -site within 50 feet of proposed construction. Relocation of gopher tortoise will be required when the burrows are in harm's way of the construction activity. So if they're within 50 feet they're considered in harm's way. And if they're outside 50 feet, that means they're outside of harm's way? MR. LENBERGER: Fifty feet is the distance given by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission as what you should stay away from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what -- MR. LENBERGER: -- the gopher tortoise. But, you know, if it was let's just say 45 feet and the game commissioner came out and said, well, I don't think it's going to hurt it and it stays, well, then they wouldn't have to move it. It says relocation of tortoise will be required when the burrows are in harm's way. We didn't want to put 50 feet, It says harm's way. And we have Page 96 161 1 A 5annar8, 2010 flexibility with the agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 139? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 140? (No response_) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question. You took out for panther for projects located in priority one and priority two panther habitat areas, and you replaced it with primary and second area zones. This became a real big issue during the review of the RLSA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had speakers there who wrote the panther studies and all this other stuff, and we try very carefully to determine what is considered primary and secondary. Because there was a lot of argument that secondary zones included farm fields. And to a point. We were trying to get that nailed down. We got it somewhat defined. But where is the definition that you're using so that if someone reading this knows where the primary and secondary zones are? MR. LENBERGER: Well, they're established by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why do we have a concern with that? MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's updating the language. It used to be called priority one and priority two. Now they're called primary and secondary zones. So it's updating the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide us with a definition of those zones when you come back? MR. LENBERGER: Definition? Sure, I have the map. I guess you probably have all seen this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I never saw that one before. MR. LENBERGER: Is this working? Okay. The primary, secondary zones are indicated by the crosshatching, which I'm pointing at. Can you see my finger here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. LENBERGER: So the primary would be the red hatching, this direction. And the secondary would be here. It was my understanding that they no longer use the priority one and priority two, but they use primary and secondary zones. It was just updating it. But I can get a definition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could also just reference — THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray, could I get you on the record? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. Couldn't you also just reference or include the graphic that depicts, or are you going to say to me that this changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me follow up then. Because before you say that, that may lead to the concern that I have. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Well, this is just meant to be an update. You're looking at the issue of how it relates to previous discussions you've had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your -- it says for projects located in primary and secondary zones, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed native habitats that are preferred by the Florida Panther. And then it goes on about intensive land uses. The problem is the argument that the scientists gave us was that for a certain distance the farm field, even though they're disturbed, are considered secondary zones that they believe are essential to the panthers' value. Well, that is the definition that I'm wondering how we're fitting in to the process here, if we are, by referencing primary and secondary zones. How much of that secondary zone is supposed to be protected versus the primary. Because if you can go right up to the primary with destruction, you've eliminated the secondary zone. Is that a necessity? Is that a concern or is that something that we should be looking at as far as a definition goes? It's going to come up in future issues we got to have before this Planning Commission, and if we're talking about it now, we ought to get a handle on it. MR. LENBERGER: All right. Well, I'm just looking at it now. It just says the management plan shall Page 97 January 28, 2010 discourage the destruction of undisturbed native habitats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: All right, that are preferred by the Florida Panther by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Steve, what that seems to be saying is that a secondary zone isn't a secondary zone unless it's undisturbed. But that's not the wav the scientists were talking to us. MR. LENBERGER: No, what it's saying here is projects within the primary and sec -- it says for projects located in primary and secondary zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: The management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed native habitats that are preferred by the Florida Panther by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas - So it's talking about undisturbed native habitats within the primary and secondary zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so if it's a -- if it's in the secondary zone but it's not undisturbed, meaning it's a farm field or something else, it doesn't have any impact then, right'? MR. LENBERGER: It doesn't apply. In that sentence anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of where my question's going. That is not the testimony provided by the scientists who wrote the panther issues that came up in their definition of primary and secondary. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying what to use, I'm trying to figure out how it correlates to this. Because the two now are inconsistent. MR. LENBERGER: Well, this isjust on -- okay, I see what you're saying. I guess the first thing I have to do is check the GNP language for the panther. I can do that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you also read the report that came out from the scientists in regards to the property owners in the RLSA, the one that they had commissioned with those scientists that spent quite a bit of time trying to reevaluate panther priorities in that area? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be very helpful to -- MR. LENBERGER: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's available on line. And I've -- 1 mean, I've downloaded a copy of it. But it might give you some insight as to what they're defining as primary and secondary. I haven't got that far in it myself. But maybe there's an answer there. I'm suggesting to take a look at it is all. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they were -- you're absolutely right. But they were also more talking I thought about corridors. And I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's part of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so that's why I asked the question whether or not the shifts -- I mean, this is an arbitrary determination, and it's done in part I'm sure with the collars. But still, it's a ranging issue. And if you get to that RLSA issue that he's brought up, which is excellent for you and help you, that if you superimpose corridors over that, you'll get a lot clearer picture and we'll understand it better when you come back. MR. LENBERGER: Well, I'm just looking at the GMP policy. Actually, the language in the code is — looks like it's identical to what's in the Policy 7.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. And under 2.G, as in girl, I'll read it. It's paragraph -- and I believe it's probably word for word. For projects located in priority one and priority two panther habitat areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed native habitats that are preferred by the Florida Panther by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the part that we're -- MR. LENBERGER: Right. And so it's taking word for word out of the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just -- I'm concerned that we haven't resolved the issue that I think's going to continue to come up, especially when we do transmittal of the RLSA and the rest of it. Because that -- there were a lot of people involved in that panther primary and secondary discussion. They're not going to go away. And I'm just trying to make sure we don't build something in that causes a problem that he we don't anticipate. So -- MR. LENBERGER I think the GMP will need to be amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To change that. Page 98 161 1 A5 Janual, 28, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can't change that without changing the GMP. Thank you for finding that. MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 141 is the last page of this issue. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top, Steve, it says when habitat containing the following listed plants as proposed to be impacted, plants listed as rare or less rare shall be relocated to on -site preserves if the on -site preserves are able to support the species of plants. How do you make that decision that they're able to support the species? MR. LENBERGER: Biologists make that determination. It's really not very hard. The epiphytes would require usually some sort of hardwood tree or cypress, and other ones, listed species here are either on barrier islands or scrub habitats. It's pretty easy to determine, if you have the habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would rely on the biologist that's overseeing the preserve management, say, to provide that answer? MR. LENBERGER: Staff or biologist could easily determine that. It's not difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The couple sentences down, number -- line seven. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plants listed as less rare shall be relocated to the on -site preserves only if the reserves do not already contain these species. So what if it has one specie on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or if it has only one plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's to establish a seed source for the less rare plants. The idea of moving it is to maintain species diversity for the preserve and to establish a seed source. Just because you only see one, you know, a lot of these less rare plants are going to be high in the canopy. Pretty much guarantee you, there's going to be more than one. So I wasn't really concerned about it. If you see one, I'm sure there's going to be others, you're just not going to be able to see them all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not grown up yet, right? MR. LENBERGER: Could be. Could be smaller. Could be out of sight, you know. You're not going to survey every square inch of every tree so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: I'm just trying to use a common sense approach here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. But you made a comment that's interesting, because you say, you know, if you see one there's bound to be more up in the canopy. Can we rely upon a 360 - degree eyeball look at these things to be sure that if they don't see them here that they may still be up there? In other words, is the point of decision the absence of any plant on the ground in the preserve? Is that the point in decision? MR. LENBERGER: I'm not sure the way you worded it. But let me just try to answer that question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll restate it if-- MR. LENBERGER: That's okay. When we go out there, we just want some sort of reasonable assurance that if you go out there, you know, biologists, it's not very difficult to take a look to see if you have these species. They're pretty easy to identify. And granted, you can't see them all, but it's pretty easy to spot them. You're going to look, you're going to identify them. You know, just some reasonable effort. If they're there, fine. You know, the seed sources there, we're comfortable with it. If you don't see one there, you're going to look a little harder, and maybe you still don't find one. There could be one hidden somewhere. Well, yes, there could be, I'm not going to argue that. But just some reasonable assurance. You know, if you don't see one, look even harder. You don't see, then just move 10 plants in the preserve, start a seed source andjust kind of a common sense approach to the whole thing. Not something burdensome. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And 1 thought the commonsense issues that were raised here between Mark Page 99 16f MA " 5 January 28, 2010 and myself were if you're going to try to preserve rare plants, and so you've got a bunch over here, are you going to put too many in there? Is that a problem? MR LENBERGER: Well, again, you're only relocating them if you don't have them in the preserve_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you don't have them, you need to relocate them, if you can. MR. LENBERGER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if you have them and you have these plants here, wouldn't you want to try to preserve them, or no? MR. LENBERGER: We didn't do that, we just -- the idea, I mean, less rare plants is just to establish a seed source to maintain diversity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, that wraps up this particular item. We've left you with some changes. And with that I would like to look for a motion to continue this meeting to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --February 26th. Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The workshop into a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is a special meeting into a regular meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With all that, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, what is it seven of us? No, six of us to zero. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:34 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA ING CO SSION MAPI, STRAIN. Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 3,714 —7 to as presented :/ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 100 R1 MVED MAR 10 2010 Board olCounty Commies,one, 161 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 4, 2010 V A5 Fe7ary 4, 2010 Fiala 114� Hales Nanning Coyle Colette LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, CDES Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property DirecWsc Corres. Page 1 item #._ _ - es to y February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY _ COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIC I-IT Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'17I: 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 VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Wolfley is absent. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. Ray, I think everybody's -- everything staying more or less as noted on here? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I do know that there are handouts involving some of the cases coming UP. Mr. Nadeau, I believe you may have some handouts for us, and I think staff may have some. If Mr. Anderson is here, he may have some. I'd like to ask that you distribute the handouts early in the meeting, like now, and then we can read them during our break or during any slower times, and that would help us be more prepared for your particular item. And make sure you give one to the court reporter, please. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Good morning. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, representing the petitioner. There were some concerns about the disclosure information -- (At which time, Mr. Wolfley enters the boardroom.) MR. NADEAU: -- in the two last petitions that arc in your agenda today. This information was produced by the Ohio attorney yesterday afternoon. It has been forwarded to county staff, including Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton- Cicko. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Mr. Wolfley is here -- Commissioner Wolfley. Page 2 1611 Feb5 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I don't see Bruce Anderson, but I know he's got a change coming up to his, but we'll deal with that during the meeting. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay, Planning Commission absences. Next week we have off, but after that it becomes intense. We have a meeting on the 16th of February, which is a Tuesday, in this room at 8:30. It will be for the hnmokalee Area Master Plan. It will be the first of two or three scheduled meetings. Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on the 16th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks good. Then on the 18th is our regular meeting. I don't know how much we've got yet scheduled for that meeting. But does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 18th? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to be late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney's going to be late. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 7 2010 REGULAR MEETING With that, we'll move into the approval of minutes. The set of minutes that we were distributed were January 7th, 2010. Is there either a motion to approve or a motion to correct? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I would have to abstain, because I wasn't here that day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak will be abstaining from the approval of January 7th meeting. Item #6 BCC REPORT — JANUARY 26,20 10 The BCC reports and recaps, Ray, for January 26th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for the Naples Bath and Tennis. That was approved by the board 5 -0, subject to the CCPC conditions. The rezone for the Olde Florida Golf Course was continued to February 23rd. The sign variance for the Lemetka Plaza, that was the Benderson project, that was approved on the summary Page 3 A5 February 4, 2010 agenda. And the variance for the Vineyards, that was approved by the BZA 4 -1, opposed. And it was subject to staff conditions, along with some additional conditions. One was they wanted to -- the roof to be painted green. Two, that the residents within the homeowners association that abutted the maintenance tract has at their request within 20 days that they request the building be rotated so the doors face away from their development but the building placed within five feet of the wall and landscape buffer with additional trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. Thank you, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Don't really have any this morning. We'll move right into the 1SSlleS. Consent agenda items, there are none of those. Item #9A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -1304, BARBARA KAREN LEHMANN, 27 EAST PELICAN STREET, ISLES OF CAPRI And with that, it will take us into the advertised public hearings. The first one up for today is Petition BD -PL- 2009 -1304, Barbara Karen Lehmann, "frustee for Barbara Karen Lehmann Declaration of Trust on 27 East Pelican Street, and I believe that's in Isles of Capri. It's for a boat dock extension. All those wishing to testify on this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Rocky, it's all yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing Barbara Lehmann of 27 East Pelican Street in Isles of Capri. The property is -- we have it on the overhead? Feel free to read that handout during my presentation, the other agenda items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the IT was just in here trying to adjust all the screens, so maybe something got turned off by accident. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there you go. MR. SCOFIELD: All right. You know, Ray, I've got a little bit better one than that. In Isles of Capri down on the very end is Pelican Street. This is East Pelican Street. And you can see the lot there is highlighted. It's located on Snook Bay. For the record, I'm a Cracker, so we say Snook, okay? I'm going to -- to start out with, the request -- we need to -- I, need to change this request of the BDE, and I'll give you the background on it. When this application was submitted, another staff member of our office submitted this application and the measurement was taken from the old property line, the platted property line. And I've discussed this before in front of this commission that a lot of times platted property fines don't always line up with actual shorelines, seawalls, ripraps. And in this case, as you can see there, the blue line going across these properties right in the middle, those are the old platted property lines. And you can see there's a good deal of property between that blue line and the mean high water line, the shoreline. Right now, and --yeah, that's correct. So when this application was done the staff agent who filled out the application adhering to what the LDC says, and they always want you to measure from the most restrictive point, Page 4 161 1 A 5 Febr ry 4, 2010 which in this case would have been the property line, which is 28 feet landward of the mean high waterline, that's where these measurements were taken from. So in the packet you got where it says we're applying for a 97 -foot boat dock extension for a total of 117 feet, well, the communication wasn't made in our office. Back in '05 another person in our office went to the state for Mrs. Lehmann and got the necessary -- it's called a Certificate of Lands Filled Prior to 1975. And we've discussed this before. I'll be glad to go into detail, if you want. But basically what that is, is when you apply for a state permit, the state looks at that and they see your property line and they kick it back to you and they say well, you've got to show me who owns that property between the platted property line and the mean high water line, because you're not the riparian owner, it means you're not out to the water. So what we do is we fill out the application, the Certificate of Lands Filled Prior to 1975. We show old aerials. We go through the process. The state comes back to us with a big, long document from the trustees and they -- what it is, they say we have no title to that land. The state lays no claim on it. Everything below the mean high water line the state does claim. But that upland property, they give you a certificate saying they don't claim. The owner takes that certificate down to the Clerk of Courts. It's recorded. And then what you see now, a few years back on this aerial here on the overhead, now when you bring it up in the Property Appraiser's Office you'll see the entire lot out to the mean high water line is in yellow. So now that belongs to the owner. And it's kind of by default. The state says we have no claim on it. You can kind of have it. And so that's -- when it's recorded, that's what it is. So now I have papers which I will submit here today. This request that we're here today for should read it's a 69 -foot boat dock extension for a total of 89 feet. And this is the drawing on the overhead now showing that. And I will submit these for the change. (Handed document.) MR. SCOFIELD: Now, again, the quick history on this: This -- when Ms. Lehmann bought this property, it was one lot back in'02. And the dock that you see there on the left side with the boat -- well, they're both very similar, but the one on the left, that's the one in question. This was one lot 120 feet on the waterway, had this dock, boathouse. When she bought the property she immediately applied and had the lots subdivided into two 60 -foot lineal foot lots of shoreline. When that happened, this dock was in the middle of the property. So now the property line, riparian line, split the dock pretty much. So now to come into conformance that dock has to be removed. The lot next door's been sold and that one, there'll be a similar boat dock extension corning before you in the near future for that lot. But that's the existing conditions right now. And this is an aerial showing the existing dock. And then in the purple magenta color there, that's the proposed dock, how it will fit on this slot. And again, on the lot next to it there will be a similar dock being proposed there. You can see on this aerial very clearly where the shallow areas are and where you have to go out to get into deep enough water to moor a boat. This is in the aquatic preserve. We have the DEP and Corps permits. So the state allows you to go out to minus four feet of water in the aquatic preserve to moor your boats. And the setbacks here, we had 15 -foot setbacks on each side. We have two boatlifts which the LDC allows for two slips. And these are the proposed conditions. This aerial is a comparison which we try to always bring up and showing you on Snook Bay there all the other docks. Everything's pretty much similar. The proposed dock that we're here today is not as far out as the existing dock that's going to be removed. All of these docks here are out the similar distance, and most of them longer than what we're proposing. And you can see the shallow areas in there. Again, it's in the aquatic preserve. State really will not let us dredge if we can move the dock out to deep enough water. And so that's what all these docks show in this area. So that's -- if anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, one thing, what's the length the boat's going to be on this site when we're done? It looks like you've got two lifts. Are we going to exceed the 50 percent? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, we're not sure, but what we're propo -- what Mrs. Lehmann's proposing, one is for a Page 5 IZZ February 4, 2010 30 -foot boat and the other one's for a 20. The inside slip is for a 20. And that's what we put in the application. And then a 30 -foot boat on the outside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lot width is 60? MR. SCOFIELD: Is 60. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no -- MR. SCOFIELD: So they can't go any -- you're pretty much maxed out. You have 15 feet to either side for the setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't we have a requirement, the combined length of 50 percent of the lot width? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's one of the criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. And we stated in our application that we did not meet that criteria. However, if you read the staff report, they say the intent of the criteria was met, even though in actuality it does not meet the 50 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is, what do we measure to? Your elevation or section drawings show you measure to the outside of the pile. The plans are measuring to the center of the pile. Where should we be measuring, do you think? MR. SCOFIELD: To the outside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the drawings that are the plans -- in other words, you show a setback of 15 feet, but that's actually to the center of the pile. So will the dock -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, what they try to — you know, always, you know, any structure that's a permanent structure in the water has to, you know, be within the setbacks. So it would be not the center of the pile, it would have to be the outside of the pile. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though the way you show it in the plan -- in other words, you won't go back to this plan and say but wait, we showed it to the center line. You're acknowledging that the plan -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's right. You know, and that's just -- and that's something that's not caught between the CAD person and the staff person that's making the application. So that --yes, in actuality that should be to the outside of that piling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you'll build it that way. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is, is the depth here -- you've shown this a little different than normal. You show us a zero of the MGBD and then mean high water's a foot and a half above it, mean low water's half a foot. So some of these depths -- for example, the outer one has a five -foot depth which essentially would be a four and a half foot depth at low tide and a six and a half foot depth at high tide. So the concern is are we able to bring in too big a boat here or -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, no. I mean, the aquatic preserve rules which we're regulated by is minus four feet mean low water at the state. And that's the furthest extent of the terminal platform of the dock. You can put a lift outside ofthat, the state allows that. I think it's a bad ruling, but it's something we're stuck with in the state. I think we should be allowed to go in the deeper water, but they restrict us to minus four feet and that's low water. So yes, it would be right around six feet, five and a half feet, high water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So do you think -- have you gone too far or are you right at that? MR. SCOFIELD: No, we're right at -- on the end of the dock we're right at minus four feet. Because it gets very shallow quickly on the inside slip. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're at your section AA, four feet doesn't look like it's at -- well, you have to subtract. Okay, that's fine, the tolerance is close enough. Forget it, I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Does the extension we're talking about this morning differ from what was on the notice? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. That's why I stated earlier that the notice -- your notice stated, and we're applying for a 97 -foot extension. In actuality it's 69 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Does this present any problem legally? Page 6 1611 A 5 Fe" Try 4, 2010 MR. SCOFIELD: Not that -- we've done this before. I've submitted the paperwork this morning for the record, and it's lessening what we had. But go ahead. MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams. Commissioner Kolflat, that is a lesser use, a less intense. It's a smaller extension than what we noticed. So the notice was actually for a greater encroachment into the water and I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, Rocky, and we'll have staff report. As part of the staff report, will staff comment on the changes and whether or not they have any impact on the analysis. MS. CASERTA: Good morning, Commissioners. Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning. Staff is recommending approval for this dock extension. And I don't think that the change of request makes much of a difference with the review. The actual design of the dock is not changing, it's just where the measurement is being taken from. The mean high water has not changed, so I don't think that the staff analysis would change at all with this request. I don't have any other presentation. If you have any questions, I'd like to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ashley, you're responsible for putting all this together, correct? MS. CASERTA: Sure, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me bring your attention to the conclusion statements where you make recommendations, and there are three. And number three speaks again to prohibited exotic species. This would be the third time that I've asked that it be taken off. In each case it has been agreed that that doesn't belong there. Can we have some sense that that will finally be removed from these petitions? MS. CASERTA: Number three regarding the exotic species? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. Each time we have asked that you remove that. The last time the young lady from environmental has come forward, there is -- we have no activity under water there that we're concerned with. MS. CASERTA: It is a standard stipulation from the Land Development Code and we can remove it from the staff report and presentation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you guys have said that. Now this will be the third time. I'd like to see it removed rather than talking about it. Because it's annoying as hell to see it like this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, the concern I have is this is a narrow lot and they are putting in more than 50 percent of the boat, you know, you've noted that. But if you look at the placement of the outer lift, the concern I have is that if they do put a big boat on that, it's going to stick into the setback. In other words, right now it appears the center of the lift isn't the center of what they're calling as a 30 -foot area that they can put a boat in. So how are we going to make sure this boat's not sitting -- MS. CASERTA: If a vessel were to go in that did encroach into the setbacks, that would be in violation of this approval. A Code Enforcement case could be opened and they could be charged with a violation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I would assume that the center of the boat would probably sit on the center of the lift. No? So Rocky, maybe explain that for me. MR. SCOFIELD: The boatlifts are correctly shown. When you moor a boat on a lift, generally the cradle beams that go underneath the boat, the rear -- the one toward the stem of the boat, usually that cradle beam -- the heaviest part of the boat is near the transom. Especially with outboard engines. Even inboards. So if this is the stem of your boat, your lift is usually four to five feet from the stem of the boat. That's where most of the weight is. Most of the boat hangs out over the front cradle beam. So that's how these lifts --that's why Page 7 February 4, 2010 they're shown this way, they're positioned this way. The boat will come in from the west --the boat will come in from the west, the bow will be to the east. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you have one? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm just --I'm concerned about the --your thinking on criterion -- secondary criterion number three, which very clearly states that it is the length of the vessel or vessels in combination that cannot exceed 50 percent. And I don't know where you get the intent to be other than just what is stated in clear, plain English. MS. CASERTA: That was something that staff discussed within our department. And that was our professional opinion, that the intent was to not have a larger boat, rather then that the two boats in combination are stacked upon each other wouldn't meet the intent of the code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's not so, Ashley. The intent is that it only take up 50 percent of the width. So it wouldn't be a bigger boat. I mean, you're not -- that's not a logical statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the difference is the literal interpretation of the ruling is what Ms. Caron's talking about. And the intent is something I guess if staff has --would have to go back and may have researched the way that was formulated in the first place. I'm not sure -- but the literal statement is what I think Ms. Caron's focusing on. MS. CASERTA: I do understand the literal statement. And that was my first thought when I was reading and looking at this petition. However -- let's see. Am I on here? Okay, the two vessels will not be moored length -wise as if they were moored maybe from here to here and would take up more than 50 percent of the water frontage. Since they're not moored front to back, they'll be moored side by side and won't be taking up more than 50 percent of the water frontage. They'll still be at exactly 50 percent if they do the 30 -foot vessel, as described. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand what you're saying. But that clearly is not the intent of the code or it would have said that. The code is very clear here. And it doesn't affect their petition, because remember now, we're supposed to be, and we've had this discussion many times, following these criteria precisely and exactly. So now you can't start making changes because you dreamt up an intent. The code is very clear here. It doesn't change whether or not you can approve this or not, recommend approval or not, because we only need two -- four out of the six or something for the secondary criteria. And there's only one in question. But to make an interpretation that clearly doesn't match the words on the page seems to me to be, you know, not the intent of the code. MS. CASERTA: I did say that it does not meet that criteria, it was just staffs opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, when you are opining on this, and maybe it's not the view of the property owner, the applicant, it's the view of his neighbors that could start to get blocked by multiple boats stacking up on the dock. But it -- you said it's not met. We play scorecard. It's not going to affect the outcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a transportation question. Just kidding, John. If you all haven't noticed, John broke his leg, and it was kind of insinuated in the beginning we ought to ask him up here every single time for every application. But since Nick -- that's punishment from Nick, I don't think we need to do that to John anymore, he's had enough. With that I'll ask for any -- are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you. And we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 8 1611 Febnr5 4, 2010 ary COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I recommend motion for approval -- submittal to the board with motion of approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That motion's been made and seconded. Is (sic) the motion maker and the second accept staff stipulations one and two and dropping number three, as recommended by Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? (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. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. Item #9B PETITION: PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320. SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42. MCMULLEN MPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is Petition PUDZ - 2007 -AR- 11320. It's the Sembler Family Partnership No. 42, known as the McMullen MPUD off 951. 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? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke with both Mr. Anderson and just briefly with Dwight Nadeau on this matter. And with that, I guess whoever's going to make the presentation, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm on behalf of the applicant. With me today is Dwight Nadeau, planner with RWA. This project came before you almost a year ago, and at that time you asked us to continue it in order to update a market study and to try to work with representatives of Swamp Buggy Days with respect to noise concerns. Some things have changed since that time. Probably the most important item that's changed is that residential uses have been dropped from the application. There have been concerns expressed about mixing residential uses with Page 9 } Fv4mary 4, 2010 businesses that were more geared for contractors and concerns about compatibility of those two uses together. A revised market study was submitted. I think staff does not agree with everything that is in there. But we have agreed to disagree, and my client wants to let the free market system operate on its own. We have worked closely with the Swamp Buggy Days, and we have agreed to provide a noise disclosure statement in all contracts that will be placed, and contracts provided to buyers. And the County Commission is scheduled to consider next Tuesday whether to authorize the County Attorney to advertise an exemption in the noise ordinance specifically for Swamp Buggy Days' operations. And let me state for the record, my client is supportive of that exemption in the noise ordinance. Also that has been resolved is the issue of proximity to Physicians Regional Hospital and the PUD to allow for some medical office uses. We have an understanding with the comprehensive planning department that just over three acres of the PUT) will be eligible for medical related office type uses. And I want to take a moment and explain, there are a couple of uses that at first glance might seem awfully similar. And those are uses 19 and 20. Nineteen is health care services, and number 20 is health care units or care units. And that includes group housing assisted living facilities. The essential difference is that number 19 is for nursing homes, where nursing is the most important component of that use. An ALF is different because it is not primarily dependent upon a skilled nursing care. There may be some, but it's incidental, it's not the primary purpose. Another reason is that under the SIC Code, which dates from 1987, ALF uses are most similar to the uses that are listed in SIC Code group 8361, and that contains a long list of undesirable uses, such as alcohol rehabilitation, drug rehabilitation, halfway houses for youth. And rather than, you know, repeat that SIC Code number and then exempt everything else that's listed in there, we simply decided to go with our own more precise definition of what the care units will be, and it is tied into that definition that's provided in the Land Development Code. We're not aware of any opposition to the project and we're appreciative of the fact that staff is recommending approval. I'm going to ask Dwight Nadeau to come up here and discuss the specifics of the site plan and the development standards. And after he finishes, he and I both will he available to answer any questions. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name's Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RWA and I'm representing the Sembler Partnership No. 42 this morning. I'm probably going to be standing in front of you for about six hours today, so I'm going to change my presentation style and I'm just going to have a friendly chat with you, lay out all of the facts, we'll get the record straight. I'm not going to really use code citations, we're just going --I'm going to explain the project to you. The subject property being 19.32 acres is at the intersection of 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. Rattlesnake Hammock extension would go over and serve the McMullen parcel, which is this portion of activity center number seven. Now, the Growth Management Plan has very specific language that's been written in the FLUE related to land uses. And I wanted to show you what really is permitted in this portion of the growth management -- of the activity center number seven. Oh, boy, I can't read that. Okay, this is the excerpt from the mixed use activity center section of the Future Land Use Element. And what it says in here is that this particular property is to be commercial development, exclusive of the quarter mile medical use rule. We'll get into that later. The permitted uses include personal indoor storage facilities, mini storages, offices for various contractors, building and trade. And then that would include engineers, planners, primarily A &E firms. Now, that 185,000 square feet would apply to both of those land uses. And there are accessory land uses that are permitted associated with the A &E, but you can't build a Lowe's because it wouldn't be accessory to the architectural and engineering firms. Therefore, there's really a mini storage land use and some offices that are permitted. Now, with the understanding that group housing is a permitted land use within any commercial zone, and this is within an activity center, this rezoning process is intended to provide for senior housing opportunities and not be subject to the quarter mile rule that I'll discuss in a few minutes. So I'm telling you with complete honesty today -- unfortunately my client isn't here -- but the project is going Page 10 161, A 5ebrua74, 2010 to be developed as a senior living facility. The contract purchaser is going to be purchasing both the Hammock Park Commerce Center to the east -- to the west, and the McMullen property for an entire continuing care retirement community. But it won't have the buy -ins, it's going to have the rental opportunities in it. So it's not going to be as restrictive as a typical CCRC. Now, here's the PUD master plan. And as you can see, the 19.3 acres is effectively surrounded by natural areas. Both properties that I'm speaking of, but more particularly this McMullen tract, has received a South Florida Water Management District permit and a Corps permit. And the preserve boundaries and jurisdictions that are identified along the northern property reflect those permits. This portion of the property is within the Hammock Park Commerce Center PUD. It is all entirely conservation. So there is no opportunity to cross between the two projects. However, the roadway will be completed to serve two entrances, as well as to serve future development in the south. Now, with regard to the land uses, the entire site could be developed with CCRC land uses at a floor area ratio of .6. The medical office -- the medical related land uses are permitted within this small band here. It provides for adequate opportunity for some medical office or some medical diagnostic centers. This distance is roughly a little more than 200 feet and this is just a little bit less than 200 feet. It still remains a viable office parcel, consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Now, let me tell you how this boundary is measured. On Page 9 of your comprehensive planning memorandum in your packages, Mr. Weeks has made a policy decision on how a measurement is to be made for this quarter mile boundary. This is the measurement by literal reading of the Future Land Use Element that we were proposing. And that was to be measuring the quarter mile or 1,320 feet from this point. Through Mr. Weeks' policy discussion and extensive discussions with Mr. Weeks, he did make a policy decision, and that was to make the point of measurement for the quarter mile to be in this location with the facilities and services that service the hospital. Even though these medical offices are in the same tract as the hospital, this is the location where Mr. Weeks and our petitioner agreed to measure that boundary. Therefore, this little swath is what shows up on the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, before you go too much farther, do you believe your application and the use that you intend, which is the CCRC, is dependent on needing any of it classified within a quarter mile of the medical facilities? MR. NADEAU: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are you going into all this? MR. NADEAU: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. If it's not something that you're concerned about and you don't seem to be objecting to the -- MR. NADEAU: No, not at all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staffs conditions, I was wondering -- MR. NADEAU: --I just wanted to make --I wanted to make the record clear so everyone can know how we got to this point. Because our prior measurement was giving us a recommendation of denial, so that's all. I'm just showing you what has happened working with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Hi, Dwight. Are you saying that it's an absolute that there will be an ALF, that's what you're going for and only that? What happens if it doesn't entirely happen, is this an alternative? MR. NADEAU: No, it's not necessarily going to be an ALF. There is a contract purchaser, but we need to retain the opportunities that are provided for through the Future Land Use Element in this language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is -- MR. NADEAU: So we could have a mini storage. I'm sorry to interrupt, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right, I interrupted you. I apologize. So what I think you're saying to me is the possibility, although perhaps remote, still exists that you might want to use that 3.16 acres or some part of it for medical offices. MR. NADEAU: That's very true. If as a part of the continuing care the senior housing development chooses Page 11 February 4, 2010 to need to have maybe 20 or 30,000 square feet of medical office, it could easily be located there. But the senior housing is not dependent upon the offset. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that, but I thought I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, but the point I was trying to make is that they don't seem to be disputing the need for the 3.16 acres and the result that staff came to. So I don't know why we want to get into a debate on that. And I was going to try to save you some time in your presentation if youjust work on the issues that are more relevant that we're going to really be needing to work on, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, because I don't want to get into this issue of four years ago when we can hammer it down now. So are you willing to accept staffs viewpoint as shown in the monitor up there? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. MR. KLAfZKOW: Okay, thank you. MR. NADEAU: I would like to try and ask for some clarification from staff on the PUD exhibits. On that permitted land use -- on that permitted land use 19, these are health services, skilled nursing care. I want to show you -- I want to show you from the SIC Code what these particular land uses pernrit. This is where the majority of all of the senior care is provided for. There is another category, 8631, where it does have rehabilitation, you know, alcohol/drug dependency shelters and those sorts of things that may or may not be found to be undesirable for this particular piece of property. And this is the reason why we have a permitted land use 19 that has the specifics of these land uses. But as a catchall we're getting the senior housing in 20, as Bruce explained. Now, I think we had some discussion about changes -- or looking at the stipulation for building the bridge across 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, when I had asked for handouts earlier, Bruce wasn't here. Bruce does have a handout that might clarify that bridge issue for the paragraph that is in question, Exhibit E. And -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we have worked with transportation staff and the County Attorney's Office to delete paragraph A.4 on Exhibit E and replacing it with the following language. Quote, no building permits shall be issued for this McMullen PUD until the bridge /canal crossing described in Section 5.5.L of Ordinance 07 -30. The Hammock Park Commerce Center PUD is constructed as depicted in figure one below. End of quote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Dwight, that may help explain the bridge issue. And when we get to questions, I'm sure if we need more clarification. But that basically wipes out that entire paragraph with the replacement that Bruce -- MR. NADEAU: Indeed it does, yes, Commissioner. Mr. Anderson's already gone over issues related to the Swamp Buggy, and I don't have any further presentation materials for you, so I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I sure will try to help you with questions. So does anybody want to start? Ms. Homiak. I'm sorry. Boy, I'm messing up last names today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: hi Exhibit A, number 20. MR. NADEAU: A.20, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That you're specifically wording to leave out the SIC codes. MR. NADEAU: Yes, we were. We were working -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So are you using -- and you're including care units only including -- and you're including group housing and group housing facilities? MR. NADEAU: Assisted, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, and the definition ofthat in our Land Development Code includes drug rehab, homeless shelters, halfway houses, all the things that are undesirable to a lot of people in the community. And that I was -- thought that its specific SIC Code, leaving it out was supposed to alleviate those types of things. And if you're looking for assisted living facilities, then nursing homes and independent living, why don't you just say that? MR. NADEAU: Well, these two particular land uses were re- crafted about five times. We've been working with the County Attorney's Office. If it meets the pleasure of the Commission, I may defer to Ms. --to Heidi to assist Page 12 16 I 1 A5ry 4, with the explanation of this. If we need to remove the term care unit, we can. We just want to ensure that we get the senior housing opportunity, the ALF, the independent, the continuing care, so we can provide for the current contract purchaser. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. I didn't work on this particular project, but I would refer you to the Sarecino PUD, where the way we handled that issue is we specifically excluded certain uses. And I can pull that language from my file and read that into the record, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just --Karen, the language she's going to pull up is on the second project we have to discuss today. And it's on number --it's on Page 1 of 10 of-- on Exhibit A. So if you want to look at it, it reads the following: Health services including but not limited to skilled nursing care facilities, groups 8051 through 8059 and care units, only including group housing, group housing facilities, assisted living facilities, independent living facilities, continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes, all for persons over age 55 and excluding mental, emotional or alcoholic and drug addiction rehabilitation. That is the language they use there, and it maybe more meets some of the concerns you have. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For consistency we could add that language at the end, if that's your desire. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's a -- Karen, do you think that -- I think that covers the issues you're bringing up, does it, from your review? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think so. But it doesn't cover homeless shelters or defender halfway houses. There's a whole list of things under group care facility, which I'm assuming -- it's a different wording but it says group housing facilities. It's not even the same definition of a house, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, that's a good point. And whatever we find to resolve this, we ought to make sure that we carry it over on those other projects. Because while this one is in an activity center, those other ones are in residential areas, makes it even more concerning. So -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We'll expand the exclusions, if that's your desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that would be a good move. Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Does that mean that there will be group housing there or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be group housing, but we're going to be excluding soup kitchen -- I mean homeless shelters and things like that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. NADEAU: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I may be naive here, but wouldn't this be an excellent location for those things? It isn't in the middle -- it's in the middle of commercial areas. Why are we excluding those things? I know people don't want them in their backyard, but society needs them. MR. NADEAU: Well, society does need them, but we're also in a political process and we received a letter from the Naples Lakes owners, it may or may not be in your package, and there was a list of obnoxious uses to them. We excluded those uses for several reasons: One, watching the Board of County Commissioners in various adoptions; and also the letter that came from someone anonymously from Sherwood Park -- I'm sorry, from Naples Lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Naples Lakes is across 951? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that we might want to remember is right next door -- I should say within one tract of this facility is the -- what's the name of that great big place that's a homeless shelter out there? Reverend Mallory owns. MR. NADEAU: First Assembly of God? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First Assembly of God, yeah. That's a rather large homeless facility right next door Page 13 February 4510 10 to this project. So I'm not sure that we haven't already met maybe the need that would be in that area by that larger facility that's there taking care of it now, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The homeless needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there are -- anyway, I don't want to hang on the point, Ijust want you to tell me out loud why you don't want them. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on questions from Mr. Nadeau. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know you -- this becomes somewhat moot when the owner does own the parcel next door. But could you put interconnection in case these two parcels are split up and sold and developed commercially between the one to the west? Would that be all right? MR. NADEAU: Well, the connection between the two projects are going to have to be the Rattlesnake Hammock extension, because the easterly 80 feet of the Hammock Park Commerce Center is in a conservation designation with the Water Management District and Corps. So we can't physically cross it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There would never be a way to go through it, okay. MR. NADEAU: Well, we could open up the permits and try, but we just got the permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you do develop this together, people, staff and everybody's going to be running out onto Rattlesnake and going around that? MR. NADEAU: Potentially the client can help me. Mr. Tom Hareas is in the chambers with us. I don't believe that he's been swom, but he may be able to give you an idea. But I can tell you right now, we're constricted from providing interconnection east to west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to get back to this concept, if you put an ALF facility on this property, it's probably a very good use of the piece of property. However, it does back up to the Swamp Buggy facility. How are you going to monitor this letter that supposedly is going to solve all the noise issues? Because while we don't technically qualify ALF units as residential, people live there 24/7. Why should their rights be any less than had you put a multi - family development up there? MR. NADEAU: Of course. Commissioner, we've attacked this on actually two fronts. We've been assisting Swamp Buggy Days to try and get their noise ordinance exemption. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which allows them to be as loud as they are today. MR. NADEAU: Which allows them to be as loud as they want to be. And any complaints would be non - actionable. In addition to that, we have provided for full disclosure of the Swamp Buggy facility in any contract documents or lease documents that would be offered to potential residents of the senior housing facility. In addition to that, we are -- while staff has removed the condition, we are going to include sound attenuation measures in the construction of the buildings such that the -- there would be a 35- decibel reduction from the ambient noise outside the building. I understand from staff in discussions yesterday that someone was actually out with a dosimeter listening to the Swamp Buggy races this past weekend, and they determined that the sound levels were within the acceptable limits as provided by the current noise ordinance. So with all of that, we feel that we have ameliorated any concerns related to this Swamp Buggy noise and compatibility issue. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where in the documents does it say you're going to do that sound attenuation? MR. NADEAU: It would be added to the document. I'm bringing this up to you today. COMMISSIONER CARON: It was in the old, but -- MR. NADEAU: It was in the old, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it got taken out of here, so -- Page 14 16/ l bri'y'2010 MR. NADEAU: But you'll find in the supplemental staff report that Nancy's gone through and identified all of those old stipulations and the reason why she has had them stricken. We are willing to take that noise attenuation construction matter on our own, so we will accept that condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: You can go ahead for right now, because I'm going to start coughing again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many days a year are the Swamp Buggy races? MR. NADEAU: It's three days a year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Six. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, twice a year but three days -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. NADEAU: Well, it's six days, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we're talking about six days. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there any other activity there that would break any kind of sound barrier? MR. NADEAU: Probably not that noisy. They may have some dirt track races and they do have rave parties on the weekends, but -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because this whole discussion reminds me of somebody that moves in next to an airport and then three years later screams about the noise. MR. NADEAU: It does somewhat, doesn't it, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. For six days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve? MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams. Just to be clear on Mr. Nadeau's comments, just because someone is compliant with our ambient noise readings and our statute, I only have to mention the two favorite words of the county to point out what a problem that can continue to be, in Stevie Tomatoes. We have never found them in violation of the ambient noise or noise readings or anything else, but it certainly does not lessen the complaints we receive to date on a daily basis. So just to be clear, because the noise readings are okay and they were okay during Swamp Buggy this weekend does not mean it will not adversely affect the residents within it. So I just wanted to be clear. The readings may be fine, but that doesn't mean that you're not hearing it and the bass or whatever else isn't traveling through the walls and into the ALF. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And my point is further made in that what happens out there today is not necessarily the only thing that can happen out there. They're not limited to six days a year or whatever. And beyond that we do know, we've had these issues. And we're talking about a very vulnerable population that can't --you know, can't getup and move in a lot of cases. So they're stuck if they move in there and that becomes an issue for somebody who didn't see the slip of paper on the bottom of the 87 forms that you have to fill out first for Medicare. So I think it's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you check the noise level and it doesn't surpass the limits in the noise ordinance, then why are you trying to offer some kind of an exemption? MR. ANDERSON: We're not offering an exemption, we're just supporting one that was requested by Swamp Buggy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if the noise is not surpassing that, why is it necessary? MR. ANDERSON: You need to ask them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, are -- I'm sorry, do you represent Swamp Buggy, sir? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine, go ahead. MR. JOHNS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you swom in? MR. JOHNS: Yes, you did. My name's Randy Johns, for the record. Page 15 February 4, 2010 We've had -- this noise thing has come up several times. And in the old racetrack, the noise became a problem. Whether it exceeded the noise limits or not, there were so many complaints came that the commissioners decided to move us out to where we are right now. And I know and you know if enough people come and complain, you're going to have to react. We're trying to get an exemption from it, just like you have for the airport, just like you have for the drag strip over in Immokalee. We want to be protected. We're not here to try to stop these guys from going forward, we just don't want to be ran out from where we're at. So we have on -- I think it's on February 9th we're going in front of the board. Jeff Wright from the County Attorney's Office has drafted a noise exemption. And we're going for a recommendation of approval or to be --to go forward with it, I should say -- to advertise it and to try to get an approval. So based on us getting the approval, we have no problem with these guys going forward. If we don't get this, we need to work out some deal that the Swamp Buggy is protected that we don't have to move. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I mean, I support the project, and I don't think that they are surpassing the noise level and I don't see why they need to go and get an extra piece of legislation about this if they're not surpassing the noise level. But I guess if they want to do that to protect themselves, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's a -- you've got to look at the size of the Swamp Buggy grounds facility. It runs north to south. They're currently on the far north end. This facility at McMullen and the rest of the potential facilities that could be built on the south end don't have the same exposure to what's on the north end right now. That does not limit Swamp Buggy from moving or expanding to the south end some day. If they do, that level of noise might get more intense closer to areas that might object to it. And I think that they're smart going forward with this exemption, because it's cautionary and it's probably a good move. That however doesn't mitigate what could happen to the people living in this project. A lot of people don't read that fine print that comes with all their hundreds of pages of documents when they move into a place. And Swamp Buggy themselves will be covered by what they're proposing to do. I think it's the duty of this board to make sure that the future people who occupy this facility at McMullen are equally covered, regardless of what Swamp Buggy does to cover themselves. So that's everything in a nutshell. Mr. Vighotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTIT Yeah, my opinion on this matter is Swamp Buggy's been there for years, they've been there fast. And as we talked about the analogy of people moving in next to an airport and complaining, I don't know -- I definitely wouldn't be able to approve this today until I knew that they got their exemption. So I don't know how legal -- how any of the board members feel, but I wouldn't be voting for approval until they got their exemption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully before the day's over we can see what other issues we can address to make that happen. Mr. Murray and then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this Commission may recall that I tried mightily to have Mr. Wright, the Assistant County Attorney, to include the Swamp Buggy as the same exemption that was given to Immokalee's trade port for their racing. Now we're going to have an exemption, perhaps. I have, and my wife have sold tickets at the Swamp Buggy for the last seven years. And on Saturdays the racing begins somewhere and it's time trials, it's very intermittent. It begins somewhere around 12:30, 1:00, can end, as it did this last weekend, at 2:00 or it could be 4:00. Very intermittent. The sound -- I sell tickets, I can hear the noise, it's not that terrible. On the next day of Sunday racing, they have races and it's essentially the same thing. A little more intense but not bad. And I'm fully in agreement with Commissioner Caron that we have to protect the people who are going to move in there. On Page 3 of 5 where the staff has indicated that will be -- shall be designed and constructed to a soundproof -- to be soundproofed with a sound level reduction of 35 from I guess ambient. I'm not sure what that number should be. But I can tell you this: The Swamp Buggy is not a for profit operation like Stevie Tomatoes and it does good things. It provides lots of money for lots of folks in the community. So I would be really upset to think that we would encumber an organization that has been successful and effective, and that alternatives are possible through building Page 16 1611 Febriy2010 and design. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any more you want to add? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just to say that I think everybody's in favor of what the Swamp Buggy people are doing and their business. They've been there forever. They're part of the character of Naples. Ourjob is to take this petitioner and make sure that he protects what he puts on his property. It has nothing to do with Swamp Buggy. Great, I hope you get your exemption. You were forced to move out there in the beginning to solve a noise issue. So the only point here is that these people who are going to come in and if they move in an assisted living facility, we should require them to protect those people that move in there from the potential noise -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- hazards. And that was my only point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any other questions? Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: In connection with what Ms. Caron has just stated, Mr. Klatzkow has requested an additional developer commitment from the applicant, and they've agreed to add language that would indicate that within 120 days of PUD approval that they will record a notice of proximity to the Swamp Buggy grounds and make reference to the noise that's generated. And that will be recorded against the entire development. We'll attach the legal description so it will show up on any title commitment that is issued in connection with a sale of any real estate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Didn't --I think the petitioner said that this is a rental instead o£ an ownership issue. They're not going to be selling units, they're going to be renting them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you move the mic a little closer to you? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So I'm afraid that they wouldn't see that title issue. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you'll have two protections: One is the notification that's already in there that they have to give to any prospective resident, and then you'll have the second layer, which will be something that's recorded that would be pulled up if a tenant wanted to check the encumbrances or check the -- or in the event of a sale. So it would protect both the retirement community as well as the commercial property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, did you have something? MR. ANDERSON: And I just wanted to reiterate about the sound attenuation, because that's going to be part of the building. We'll reinsert that old stipulation. And I hope that between that and the two forms of disclosure that that will be sufficient to assuage any fears. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe. MR. ANDERSON: I said I hoped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not sure who's going to want to answer this on the applicant's side, but let's start with Exhibit A. And it would be Page 2 under B, accessories, numbers two and three. One is that they're both pertaining to uses accessory to what would presumably be office space. In the prior PUD application they were limited because of some I believe comments from staff in comprehensive planning that they be limited to 5,000 square feet. In this particular PUD application they're not limited. Can anybody explain why? MR. NADEAU: Through the various iterations of the document, in the process that limitation may have just fallen out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have no objection to adding the -- MR. NADEAU: None at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- limitation back in? MR. NADEAU: None at all. And that's going to be for two and three. Page 17 February 4, 201 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. On the next page, under Exhibit B, Page 1, under care unit intensity it talks about an FAR of .60 which has been customarily accepted by this board for many other particular cases. But you have no ratio of reduction between the square footage of care facility and the maximum commercial. So under this scenario you could consolidate all the FAR at .60 on a section of that property and still try to fit in 185,000 square foot of commercial. I'm not sure that was the intent --the understanding at the time of the GMP amendment. I certainly would think we need a conversion ratio of so many units of care unit intensity to commercial square footage reduction. Have you -- staff was supposed to let you know of that concern. I'm sure they did. Do you have a response to it? MR. NADEAU: Well, in actuality, speaking with W.T. Bowman of Tindale- Oliver last evening, we did a trip generation analysis to take a look at if we did take 185,000 square feet of the permitted land uses, that being half of that mini storage, half of that 185,000 being in professional office, with the addition of the proposed senior living, our trip generations are substantially less than what the maximum are that are identified in our document. So I guess the answer to your question is that yes, we would not be able to have the .6 floor area ratio on those lands that would be identified for medical office. But there is the possibility that all 19 acres could go for senior living and use that .6 FAR. So no, we do not have a conversion. And if you'd like to discuss a little bit of that with Mr. Bowman, he's here to maybe offer some commentary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're making an assumption that my concern is over transportation. My concern has nothing to do with transportation. My point is you're asking for too much intensity on that parcel, and I don't believe that -- had we known during the GMT amendment process that you intended to use a .60 FAR for care facilities on there, as well as in addition to and on top of the 185,000 square feet in commercial, you may have had a different outcome on your Growth Management Plan amendment. So I'm asking you if you're going to consider a conversion. It will certainly have bearing on whether --how I decide to vote on this. It is strictly up to you guys. You had time to consider it before today's meeting. It's your call. MR. NADEAU: Perhaps we could come back to that while we have our expert take a look at it. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be a break before I get done anyway, so yeah, that will be fine. Under the transportation issues, Bruce, do you have a typed handout for that language you want to have changed? Or could you at least put it on the overhead so we could read it? I know you read it into the record, but it's hard to remember. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, my only copy I had to give to staff, so if you'll display it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is it the one that you sent around last night? That you sent back to staff last night, has that changed any? MR. ANDERSON: Yes --no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the intent of this was to get the county out of the middle of the financial part of funding this bridge. Is the county satisfied this is done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the big kahuna is nodding his head yes. Okay. Then the way this would happen is some private entities would have to come together, get that bridge built for this project to get any building applications. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that include an SDP? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. They could get an SDP ahead of that, but they would not get the building application permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was my concern. The building of a bridge that's built will be the first phase that's shown on Exhibit E? And Nick, I'm directing the questions to you because when you broke John's leg, I didn't want to see him have to hobble up here on top of that suffering as well. And I'm sure you have just as much familiarity with it. Page 18 Ib 1 l oi February 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's hobbling. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's got an exhibit. Let me gab the exhibit from him, it shows the complete bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was where I was going. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, while we're waiting for John to come forward, I just wanted to note that if the parties didn't come together and come up with an agreement for the fair share, this property owner would not be able to go forward until that bridge is built, so that means he'd have to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just got to get built one way or another before a building permit -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue. Understand. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can tell us that Nick really didn't break your leg, we know that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's what happens when you disagree with the boss. All right, you're going to see today two exhibits here that have been provided by Sembler. And the first one that you're going to look at right here is the -- what's discussed in the Hammock Park PUD as far as the Section 5.5.L that was discussed. This is actually the north half of the ultimate bridge design that has to go in there. This is the replacement bridge for the culvert bridge that exists there today, okay? This is now the exhibit that's shown as the ultimate future design for the bridge, which is also going to be dependent upon that what is called Hacienda Lakes development, coming into the south of McMullen PUD and Hammock Park PUD. All of them are going to need to be participants in the ultimate bridge design. But the fast two PUDs, McMullen PUD and Hammock Park PUD, are participants in -- if you'd go back to Exhibit 1 -- in this exhibit because of the right -of -way constraints that are there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you foresee any possibility that the county would end up being responsible to expand this bridge once the first phase is put in as required by this document here? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this time, no, we do not. We're trying to structure that so that it's only the adjacent landowners that are benefiting from this bridge that are responsible to widen it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the county need to have some kind of oversight in the planning and design of this bridge so that it's easily expandable? There are some bridge systems between flat decks and pre -cast and con/spans that aren't -- that may not be as economically expandable as another one could put in. How's that being handled? Because there's no language to offer a review process for that at this point. Or is that automatically done? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You're going down the right track. We've been through this with Sembler for what, it's been a year and a half now or so? About a year and a half in planning this bridge and coordinating it with the intersection design. It's been coordinated with the 951 widening and the Rattlesnake connection to that intersection. So we've really worked with Sembler and RWA, and Banks Engineering I know is also involved in this, so -- we've worked with them to have them incorporate our design, and we're happy with it so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your design is for the traffic movements, the lanes and all that. The physical structure of the bridge, is that being addressed by county to make sure it will be expandable? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we will get seen at the right -of -way permit phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By then it's all designed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you provided information to anybody about the design that's preferred for expandability? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point no, because we're looking at the applicants to find the most economical design that they can put in there that will be approved as well in our right -of -way permit. This is also subject to a Big Cypress Basin right -of -way permit, which does have some certain criteria on Page 19 February 4, 2010 what kind of bridge can be built here. I believe this is a --you can use box culverts in this area with special permission, and I believe there's a minimum design low member elevation that has to be met, which I believe they have sought a waiver from South Florida Water Management District on that low member design. So there's a lot of effort and expenditure that's been put into the design process on behalf of the applicant that the county didn't have to spend on, so we're really happy with the contributions that are being made toward the design of this bridge and the ultimate construction of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're standing, and I know it's probably -- I hope it's not painful for you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A -1 talks about a C.A.T. bus shelter that will be going in this location. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the developer shall make payment in lieu at the time of development order application. It's nicer if we know values so that the payment doesn't become a disputed issue down the road. So do you have a value that is used standardly that we could put in there instead of the reference like -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We do, but the value is relatively old. The value that I last had was around 25,000, and that was probably two years ago. So I have yet to get an updated value on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the value the responsibility 100 percent for this particular project? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So maybe if-- with the developer shall make payment in lieu at the time of development order application for 100 percent of the design in construction cost, I'd rather, so there's no dispute as to how much they're contributing, and whatever that design and construction cost is, they'll end up having to cover it then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The county's okay with that, if the applicant has no objection. And we can work out the value between now and the time that this goes to I guess consent on the Planning Commission's consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the applicant. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Any objection to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce is nodding his head that he has no objection. MR. ANDERSON: Just let the record reflect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard it. Thank you, Bruce. The -- that's it out of that document. In the original PUD that came to us about a year ago, besides the SL, sound level, reduction building envelope of 35 that was required, there was another sound issue, and I'll read it. It was staff recommendation number four. The owner or its assessors and assigns shall construct a berm and sound wall totaling 12 feet in height along the property boundary adjacent to Swamp Buggy grounds no later than when the residential development or care unit development receives its first C.O. Now, as far as staff goes, the staff person involved in this, I'm assuming that this sentence was put in here to protect members of the public who would be buying in this facility, while I also understand there's a need to make sure Swamp Buggy grounds doesn't have any problems. The fact that they're off the hook or they will be off the hook doesn't alleviate the protection of the public. Is there a reason why you wouldn't have re- recommended item number four to be included in this new PUD? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning. And Commissioner Strain, the reason that the wall and berm combination was removed was because at the time that was written we had a residential component to the PUD. I removed it once the residential component was removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your stipulation back then said the following: No later when the residential development or care unit development receives. So it seemed to me that you were concerned about the care unit development as well. And why did you -- why are you not concerned about it now? Page 20 16 Iebruary 4, 2010 MS. GUNDLACH: The information's always changing and evolving. And at that time that that was written, and that was about a month ago, I had sent out a code enforcement investigator to do some sound readings at the October Swamp Buggy event. And he had reported back tome that the readings were well within the confines of the noise ordinance. And also, since then we had approved a PUD that is catty - comer, it's at the northeast comer of McMullen PUD, it's called Good Turn PUD. And that has an adult congregant living facility component as well. And there are no soundproofing or berms required in that PUD, so I was trying to be consistent. However, I've heard a lot of testimony this morning and had some conversations yesterday, and I would certainly support the 12 -foot combination wall/berm combination, if that's what the Commission would like to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I was going to suggest that. Also, I keep hearing it was a residential component. Now it's assisted living facility where people and residences are going to live. So why do we switch back and forth? People are going to live there. So I definitely suggest keeping the wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just while we're on that issue, these are multi -story buildings. The 12 -foot berm's not going to help a 50 -foot tall zoned building. I mean, these people are going to be in the upper floors. I think if we want to protect them, let's protect them with construction. The berm is going to protect the parking lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the height requirement? Do you remember -- well, I'll pull up the -- MS. GUNDLACH: I could tell you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're at 50 feet with actual 62. So yeah, 12 feet's only going to cover the parking deck. And I'm not for being impractical, but I wanted the record to be clear on where staffs reasoning was in the change between the two recommendations. I think it's -- after we go on further here today, we'll probably have more discussion on the matter. And it's getting close to break time, I'm at a point where I can break on my questions for just -- I haven't got that many more, so why don't we come back at 10:15 and resume. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. Let's try to move forward with the remainder of the questions of the applicant. Somebody from the applicant needs to come up to the microphone. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the things I think that would be important to clear up today, since you've accepted the staff positioning of the medical acreage, 3. whatever acres it is, exactly what uses you believe are limited to that section of the -- not limited. What uses can only -- have to go on that section of the property? Are there any uses that you're asking for that you feel need -- that have got to go in that medical area so that there's no dispute with staff over what can go in there and what can't in the future? MR. NADEAU: It's 19 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Principally the concern is to allow ALF and just medical office uses. If there's a concern about a particular use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now I believe you all think that number A.2, A.9, A.16, 17, 19, 21 are limited to that quarter mile radius. Is that what you're believing? So if you build an ACLF, are you telling us that you're going to have the skilled nursing care facility located in that radius area? And if you're not, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I want everybody to acknowledge that here today so we don't have a fight going down the road. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, the three acres is the limiting factor. Anything can go related to the ALF on all 19 acres. It's just the three acres that there are going to be limitations as to medical or some other -- a medical office use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you could turn to Exhibit A and look at number 19. You see the -- do you see the double asterisks over on the next page, Page 2? It says, these uses are pemritted under the GMP as Page 21 February 4 2010 support medical uses and are only permitted within the boundary of a quarter mile offset from the hospital to the south as depicted on Exhibit C. So how -- if you're going to build an ALF, are you then saying that those services can be spread throughout the property? Is that what your assumption is? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, an ALF could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that staff is in agreement with that. And David, you're the closest staff person. Is that going to be a problem or is that acceptable? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Section. And yes, staff is in agreement with the uses listed on Exhibit A that are indicated as support medical uses. Or to state it differently, staff also agrees that the item number 20, which are care units, group housing, so on, which includes assisted living facility, staff agrees that that is not limited to the support medical office portion of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about No. 19, the skilled nursing care facilities that would be part of the CCRC or ALF? MR. WEEKS: Struggling with that one a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is the time to get it on the table. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's resolve it today. MR. WEEKS: The applicant has identified it as a use limited to the support medical portion of the site. It does -- there's three SIC codes there in that grouping and they're all nursing care facilities that require skilled nursing on -site. And I'm still struggling with trying to distinguish that from nursing home which is listed under number 20, which is not restricted to the support medical area. And my understanding of a nursing home, I'm struggling to understand the difference. Because a nursing home does also by nature have skilled nurses on -site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: So if anything I think I would go ahead and make the decision that number 19 does not have to be limited. I just don't think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the premise it's accessory or part of the use of a bona fide CCRC or ALF. But if it was a skilled nursing facility only to support the hospital, it would have to be limited. Is that a fair way to look at it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that number 19, when it comes back for consent, we ought to clean the language up, because I'd hate to see it become a problem when you actually came in for your SDPs and we had a dispute over what it meant at that time. Let's just get it resolved on the consent agenda. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to -- should perhaps that be broken into two separate numbers so that health services -- and I'm not sure now what is covered under that category -- would have to be limited, but skilled nursing facilities would not have to be limited? Is that what we're trying to achieve? And could we do that simply by doing 19 and 19.A9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think whatever way you do it, you know what the clarification is and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, just the number, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: That's a good suggestion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One would have a double asterisk and one would not, and the one that would not would be provided that it's part of a ACLF or CCRC. Okay, I don't have any other questions at this time of the applicant, but I would like to know what the conversion ratio is being as a proposal. MR. ANDERSON: The W.H. is for warehouse. hnmediately under that, that's a G.O. for general office. And then under that is M.O. for medical office. And that conversion factor is 1,000 square feet equals one dwelling unit, one room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for every room of CCR -- for any one of the --by the way, you used dwelling unit and I'm concerned about that, because not all the units inside a ACLF or CCRC may be considered Page 22 16 l x„ Fe6rry 4, 2010 dwelling unit. But for every unit within an ALF or CCRC, you would reduce your warehouse capacity by 1,000 square feet. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for every seven units you would reduce it in general office by 1,000 square feet. And 15 for -- M.O. is? MR. ANDERSON: Medical office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Medical office. Okay, based on -- and I'm assuming the trip generation relationship is higher for the medical to the room because the people who use the rooms probably use the medical there on -site and they would save trips on the road. MR. ANDERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's -- okay. Mr. Vighotti, you had a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL• Yeah. Bruce, would you be willing to live with the stipulation that this doesn't go forward unless the Swamp Buggy gets its noise exemption? MR. ANDERSON: I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. That -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Swamp Buggy is trying to get a noise exemption, okay. Would you have a problem holding this up until -- or make this subject to them getting their noise exemption? MR. HOREAS: Tom Horeas, the Sembler Company, the applicant. (Speaker was duly swam.) MR. HOREAS: Tom Horeas, Sembler Company, applicant. At the beginning of our application process, it was suggested by staff and the corrtrnission body for us to, you know, work with Swamp Buggy and the associated neighboring groups, which is the Sembler standard, actually is what we do. We've had several meetings, several conference calls and everything. And it was crystal clear to us that the noise issue was paramount for this application. That's why earlier this morning we would like to put that condition back in that staff had recommended, I think it was about a year ago or a little longer than that, about the 35 decibels requirement for the buildings. Because we feel at the Sembler Company that our goal is to make our users, our constituents, our tenants, our folks who are using the property happy and content in addition to making the county happy and content and our neighboring neighbors, whether they be recreational facilities or independent units, single - family homes, condos, what have you. That is our goal at the Sembler Company. We felt as though putting a permanent solution to this problem is paramount. Being a former architect, we thought it was key to put the construction specification into the building standards to keep all the noise out. Regardless if the exemption goes through or not with Swamp Buggy, we think that that's the prudent long -term pragmatic thing to do, based on all the input that we've received from this body, staff. Some staffs no longer here, unfortunately, but their comments were taken very seriously by the Sembler Company so -- and the neighbors, et cetera. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That -- okay. So you would agree to the stipulation? MR. HOREAS: Agree to the stipulation? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That this doesn't move forward without their exemption for noise. MR. HOREAS: I don't think we can. Because if the goal is --if the goal I think is to control noise from a generating source which exists today, predated the Sembler Company and McMullen and Hammock Park, that problem's going to exist forever. So we want a permanent solution. So we think that if by putting the decibel specifications, as staff has recommended last year, into the document, this protects everyone, the users, whether they're tenants or contract owners within the ALF facility. It protects Swamp Buggy, it protects the county, it protects everyone. We think that that is a prudent thing to do. Because at the end of the day if the Swamp Buggy exemption doesn't get approved for whatever reasons, and I'm sure we can all guess on those, I don't know, but if it doesn't, you're still back to square one. So in reference to time, which is very important to the Sembler Company to get this rezoning completed and this project on -line, it's a solution that I guess has to be dealt with, you know, really now, the here and now. Page 23 February 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, as far as the construction and that's already agreed to. Everybody's going to do that. My question is -- CHAIRMAN STRAW: Let me offer a suggestion. We don't know if the Swamp Buggy grounds request is going to be approved next week or not. Most likely it would be. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to go on next week. It's been continued to the second meeting in February for the board to look at. And it won't get approved until probably the first meeting in March, if the board wants it. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. In any case, this project wouldn't have its --wouldn't be undertaken until that's resolved. I'd suggest that why don't we add a stipulation in our voting that if the Swamp Buggy approval does not occur, then they have to in addition to what they would do regardless, which is the building code upgrades to the 35- decibel R level that was in the previous application, that they then add that sound wall that we discussed. But if the Swamp Buggy criteria does get approved, the sound wall would not have to be added. And then that way there's -- it leaves a lot of encouragement for this development to make sure to help get that -- no concerns over that sound restriction getting approved. And if it didn't get approved, we're right back where we started with a year ago anyway, which at that time staff had found to be sufficient, and I think it's the best we could probably do anyway. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My only concern is again the Swamp Buggy's been there for years and years and years. I'm worried that you're going to get people moving in, whether you call them residences, living, ALF, it's people. And my concern is they're going to complain about the Swamp Buggy that's been there for years and years and years. I just want to protect them, that's all. MR. KLATZKOW: One thing we could do, and I'd have to work with Nick on this, we could bring this item to the board at the same time as the proposed ordinance goes to the board so they'll have both issues at the same time to deal with. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just kind of look at that sound reduction thing that you have. I mean, there's something called a sound level reduction. I'm not sure what that is. I certainly know what STCs are. So what is it that you really intend to provide? And obviously for you to provide it is the benefit of your operation. MR. HOREAS: I don't have all the specifications in front of me, but in order to meet the 35- decibel level, it could be done with different kinds of building materials, different assemblies of building materials, et cetera. I'd have to, you know, defer to, you know, an acoustical expert and all that. But I know when you set a standard, though, of that decibel, there's different ways to meet it. And obviously you have to meet local codes on top of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, and maybe I can wait for staff, but what does a sound level reduction of 35 mean? First of all, you have to reduce it from something. So what is that, from an ambient noise? The code has no real requirement for exterior walls. They certainly do for interior walls, but -- MR. NADEAU: That's accurate, Commissioner. Again for the record, Dwight Nadeau, RWA. I did a little bit of research on noise levels. I am not a qualified expert witness, I'm just going to tell you what I read over the Internet. And that is that -- and my knowledge of the noise ordinance. The Swamp Buggy grounds can currently enjoy a 100 - decibel reading at the track. The noise ordinance I believe is going to reduce it potentially down to 70. If there was a 70 -- a very, very loud rock concert or a standing next to ajet airline is about 102 decibels. As you comedown into more of the ambient noise of 70 decibels, I can relate it to a refrigerator or dishwasher in your house runs at about 55 decibels as far as sound. So there would be a 35- decibel reduction from the ambient sound outside the building. So if it were 100 db, it would bring it down to 65 db. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the 65 is our essential code ambient that we're allowed. Just worded, the reduction of 35 doesn't really make sense I think in terms of construction. If we establish an Page 24 1611 A5 4 February 4, 2010 STC rating, essentially what we would have to do is raise, you know, what the code would require between partitions. It's just a difficult thing for you to really do with a number here without -- I mean, what you were describing is you're going to take a very loud noise and you're going to have construction that would reduce a 100 - decibel noise to -- MR. NADEAU: By 35 decibels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 65? Okay, that might work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it reduce any noise by 35? MR. NADEAU: That's accurate, too, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you start with 65, you reduce down to 30. MR. NADEAU: That's right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Why don't we look into this and get back to you. Because I think it's construction materials. In my experience, depending on what kind of construction materials, how much stucco you put on, what kind of insulation you put on between the inside wall and the outside wall would have that effect, so -- MR. NADEAU: Actually, the most important factor, Nick, is the glazing of the windows. So if you put up hurricane glass, which we intend to do, that eliminates the diaphragm effect of the window. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're going to £md you're going to use double layer window. But obviously you can build a hotel at an airport, so you can figure this out. But I don't think the way you describe it as a reduction is something that anybody's going to be able to hold anybody to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between now and consent we need language that it can be held to. And I'm sure that staff can draw that up. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In actuality, the question I was going to ask was posed by Brad, so I'm comfortable with the answer, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll take -- yes, sir? MR. HOREAS: I think your suggestion, Chairman, is a very pragmatic suggestion with regards to conditioning with the wall and the berm in the event that the exemption does not get approved. I think that's a fair compromise that I think would make I think everyone happy, including the future residents there too. So we're willing to agree to that. The -- one other thing I wanted to mention. With regards to the Good Turn PUD that was recently approved, was there acoustical standards and wall requirements in that PUD? I just -- my concern is just for consistency, for my own edification, is the -- if a resident was there and they heard maybe a slightly drop in noise but the same kind of noise, and if they didn't have that requirement, I mean, how did the county handle that situation? I'm not being facetious by no means, I just -- for my own knowledge, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe the difference between the two is that on this one the Swamp Buggy people realized it was coming through and got involved with it and posed the question. I'm not sure the question was even brought up in Good Turn. Had it been, I'm sure that it would have been considered more intensely then. It may have been our fault we didn't catch it, but we do reserve the right to get smarter as time goes on, so -- MR. HOREAS: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we're trying. MR. HOREAS: My grandfather in Greek, I'll translate, used to say to me, that's why we put erasers on pencils, Tom. And I was like, good one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. HOREAS: Thank you for answering that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before I would go with the 12 -foot wall, there's a 25 -foot setback, I believe. MR. HOREAS: That's correct. Type B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So somebody coming out of the unit would have 25 feet and 12 feet. Wouldn't there be -- MR. HOREAS: Well, I think there was a -- Page 25 -Y. d..1N F�ebt -hry 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- kind of a -- MR. HOREAS: Yeah, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that create kind of a penitentiary effect? MR. HOREAS: Good point. I thought there was a suggestion. I think it was by one of the staff members, that it was I think a six -foot high berm and then a six -foot high wall combination is how I interpreted it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's plenty of-- MR. HOREAS: Which I think would look better aesthetically, just my opinion, over the long -term, rather than a 12 -foot high wall. Because you run into other problems with that wall. It looks penitentiary, structural issues supporting it. It's -- it looks like a DOT wall then getting that high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other point is, though, it would only go along the common property line between you and Swamp Buggy, which is only the far eastern line from -- MR. HOREAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I'm reading here. MR. HOREAS: Correct. That's how we interpret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a risk assessment approach, your potential of putting that up is probably close to zero. So Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a couple of comments. One is that wejudge each one of these petitions separately and distinctly. So whatever happened to Good Turn has no relation to what is happening -- MR. HOREAS: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- here now. Though Lord knows, we do try to be consistent. Secondly, before the petitioner leaves, we haven't had any discussion at all of the market demand study, and I would like to hear from the people on that issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we ought to get that before staff comes up. And if you have a question on the market study, looks like Mike's here to respond. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. TIMMERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Timmerman, Fishkind and Associates. We prepared the market demand study for the McMullen PUD. Our focus on it was the office space. We also did look at the assisted living and CCRC uses. So the questions that really were raised when we did the original study were the amount of supply of existing office space that was in the market. We went through exhaustive lengths to go through and expand and identify those existing vacant spaces. We looked at the space -- we looked at our subject site, McMullen PUD, and its influence by the hospital, and then looked at additional space from that five -mile radius, which is how we identified the existing space. Focused 100 percent of the use that's within that one -mile radius of the subject site as competing and influenced by the hospital. The further we got away from the property, there was less influence, therefore being less demand because of the generation of employment by the hospital There is an awful lot of space that's available up near the five -mile radius, which is near that intersection of Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. That is more influenced obviously by the interstate. A lot of that space that had been built was built speculatively. But it doesn't have as much influence from a standpoint of the hospital and the existing medical space that's there right now. COMMISSIONER CARON: But there's no actual commitment here for anything specific either. We have it may be an ALF, it may be medical office, it may be general, it may be contractors. So, I mean -- MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, the main thing we're looking at is the influence of the hospital. If you look at the other hospital sites, both NCH and North Collier, the majority of the space, office space that's built around there is medical in relation. The doctors like to be close to the hospital for calls and things of that nature. That's typically what ends up happening around hospitals, which is the reason we kind of focused our analysis of the influence of the employment center. If the hospital were not built yet, and the hosp -- this was 10 years ago and we were talking about a hospital, Page 26 16/ 1 A February 4 2010 then there may be a little bit of difference. But the hospital's existing, it's growing, there's a tremendous amount of potential for residential development and growth over the next 15 to 20 years in this area. So we're looking at the existing hospital locations and saying well, that influence of that additional space, whether it be general office or medical office, the influence of the employment of the hospital is a main driver for that. And the further we get away from that, the less that influence is going to be affected. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously staff has a different opinion. MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, and we addressed staffs -- all of staffs questions. Their questions, when we did the original study, were basically there's an awful lot of office space that's available in the marketplace, why do we want to add more. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is a true statement. MR. TIMMERMAN: It is a true statement. And what we did is we went through and we looked at product within one, three and five -mile radius. And what we found was that the majority of the office space is available up near the interchange. And as we see this area growing, there is going to be more of a need for office space. Obviously there's been a change. That majority of the use will beat senior housing's use, which we haven't seen a lot of that development occurring in Collier County for many, many years. So again, the influence of the hospital, that general area and the amount of growth potential that's there, we felt that there was adequate demand for office space. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the medical office on the hospital grounds or right surrounding that? MR. TIMMERMAN: That was included in our analysis. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so that's 100 percent occupied? MR. TIMMERMAN: I don't believe it's 100 percent occupied right now. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think so either. MR. TIMMERMAN: And again, we're looking at it from a standpoint of five, 10, 15 years. At some point in time that will be occupied. Obviously the existing space will be occupied first. And we're looking at it from a planning exercise. Developers are not obviously going to go ahead and develop something if there's not enough demand. We have to look at this last five -year period as an anomaly in economics. There was a tremendous amount of speculation. When retailers develop retail space, they build it based upon the residential rooftops. And we were building a lot of residential rooftops. Well, what we didn't -- they didn't understand was the amount of speculation that was being built in the marketplace. And as we worked with retailers over the years, we would make discounts in those rooftop numbers to account for the speculative amount of inventory that was in the marketplace. But many developers went through and speculated based upon the growth that they saw occurring. Personally and from the research that we had done many years ago over the last -- I've been here 27 years -- over the last 10 -year period we were very concerned of the amount of speculation that was being done. However, we're not the ones that say you can't put it back, it's the market that really influences that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, on Page 17 of your report you say that the data indicates that the county as a whole has higher levels of per capita -- MR. TIMMERMAN: Per capita. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is catching today. -- senior housing facility development than the five -mile radius. But then you exempted what was approved to the north of that. I mean, you made a special note of it, saying we exempted the 400 -bed CCRC proposed north of this. Why? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, at that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because it was too close and would have conflicted with -- MR. TIMMERMAN: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- with your figures? It says here the potential development's timing, funding and probability of completion of this proposed CCRC is not known at this time. And I would submit to you, we don't know it for your project either. There have been zero commitments for timing or completion or anything. Or probability, actually. MR. TIMMERMAN: From the research that we had done and talked with people, the probability of that Page 27 I'ebruary 4, 2010 continuing to move forward as a CCRC was limited. And we made that note to say we're not sure if this is going to occur. From the research that we had done, we discounted it. We don't know if that's going to occur. We don't know what's going to happen in the future for anything. But this particular -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. We don't know about yours either. MR. TIMMERMAN: We don't. But this particular piece of property, the CCRC that was planned there, there had been talks of changing that to multi - family and to other types of uses. So we weren't sure exactly what was going to end up happening there. And the CCRC, I mean, we really haven't -- aren't building a lot of senior housing -- we haven't built a lot of seniors housing in Collier County for the last 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you haven't been watching these meetings then, have you? COMMISSIONER CARON: My point exactly. MR. TIMMERMAN: We haven't built. We've been planning it, yes, but there hasn't been a lot of stuffthat's been built. So, I mean, obviously there's a lot more that's being added to the marketplace and that there's a demand for in the marketplace. So we're seeing that demand increase. As our population is aging, we're going through and seeing more of that demand in the marketplace. COMMISSIONER CARON: What we're seeing is that apparently there's not that much of a demand or some of it would be coming out of the ground. MR. TIMMERMAN: It all depends on the economics -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, we keep approving and approving and approving. MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, it depends on the economics of the business itself too. And that maybe one of the reasons why you're not seeing as much of it being built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute. While this exhibit is up on the screen, I now remember Good Turn Center. It isn't contiguous to Swamp Buggy Days. That is a big difference between the McMullen PUD and Good Tom. Good Tom is separated by Swamp Buggy by over 20 acres or more in distance equal to your project. So for the prior gentleman who had a question about why we didn't impose the restrictions on Good Turn, that's most likely why it never came up to question. It's quite a distance from Swamp Buggy Days, as comparison to this one that is contiguous. So now that being said, I had a follow -up. You had said there's a relationship between the hospital or hospitals and commercial such as this project? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, there's -- if you look at the concentration of office, medical space, it's --there's more medical space that are around the hospitals, because the doctors, obviously if they are -- need to get to the hospital for rounds in the morning, they want to be able to get to their office close. So generally you fmd more concentration of medical office obviously around a hospital. That's not always the case, but many cases you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason is this is a sister facility, this hospital, to the one that was the Cleveland Clinic, it's now Physicians Regional on Pine Ridge. Physicians Regional on Pine Ridge doesn't have any commercial except one little -- I mean, doesn't have any commercial generated by the hospital. They have the Vineyards Shopping Center that was there with the Vineyards DRI. MR. TIMMERMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then across the street from that they have a very small, I think maybe even less than a five -acre parcel, and that's the only medical in the area that I know of. So that hospital seems to be an exception to your statement. MR. TIMMERMAN: At the point in time that that was built there, there wasn't a lot of land developed. Remember, we've got Golden Gate Estates to the south, which is all Estates zoned. There wasn't a lot of commercial that was planned there other than the retail shopping center. The hospital, if you remember, that site was not really designed -- it was there, it was large, the hospital went to that particular site because it was close to the Interstate 75 and everything else. But if you look at North Collier and the main hospital, obviously you see there's a lot more land that's available for commercial development and there's been more of a concentration of office space and medical space around those. Page 28 16145 7ebruary 4, 2010 And that's where this particular property's the same way. There's land that's available around for it and that will allow for more generation of medically related uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think more for the edification of this board and certainly to help Commissioner Caron in that regard, I am currently the chairman of the Physicians Regional Hospital system and I can tell you that historically NCH, because of its being the sole provider here, had drawn to it proximate to it hospital offices and other ancillary activities. This will also occur with Physicians Regional and Collier. The one that was bought up there, it became Cleveland Clinic, was a particular format that Cleveland Clinic likes to operate. And I think you can say with certainty, and I'll say it with certainty, that there will be additional medical office needs. Currently the Collier County -- Collier County with the 951 hospital is actually operating at census almost full and is contemplating additional beds. So there is a need, it will be growth, and I can say it with that degree of certainty. I'm not trying to testify, but I am telling you what I am aware of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you said you're chairman of the hospital? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of Regions Physician (sic) Hospital? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know that. Do you have any conflict on this board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know you were chairman of the hospital. That's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's no conflict. Because the matter is this organization trying to rezone some property to use it. I don't know what will be there. I don't have any activity with them. I don't see it as a conflict of interest whatsoever. I'm not a paid position being a chairman of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions from the applicant, if any? Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Ijust wanted to supplement Mr. Murray's remarks to remind you, a year ago when we were before you we had the CEO of Physicians Regional speak and ask you to approve it because they knew that they needed the doctors' office space. I just -- we may have forgotten about that and Ijust wanted to bring that up again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll ask for the staff report. Thank you, Mike. MR. TIMMERMAN: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staff is recommending approval of the McMullen petition. It is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. And if you have any questions, it's my pleasure to answer them this morning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, do you think it's still appropriate to call this a mixed use planned development? There's nothing mixing here. MS. GUNDLACH: We contemplated that as staff. And because of the quasi commercial/residential use of the ALF, we still consider it a mixed use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, we had a conversation last time where we caused residential to be mixed use by the ALF. So now an ALF can cause commercial to be mixed use too? That's a powerful trump card then, I guess. Ray, remember our conversation that I asked at a prior hearing why it's a mixed use and you said because it has an ALF, which is a commercial use? So now it works the other way? MR. BELLOWS: You can be a mixed use if you have two types of different land uses, such as residential or commercial. That's one type of mixed use. You can have a community facility in a commercial, which we would Page 29 February 4, 2010 deem community -- other community facilities like in the CF district, that could also be deemed a mixed use project. Now, in regards to a PUD such as this where primarily and now a commercial project, if it limited it to an ALF, I think you could say because an ALF is also found -- is a use permitted in the commercial district that you can go with the commercial district. It's just a designating nomenclature. I could see a case could be made for mixed use also. Because there are some other mixed uses that are more -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't want to lose the real meaning of mixed use, you know, which this might blur. I think it should be removed. But your call. The other question is, on this quarter mile radius, how do you determine when a building complies with that? In other words, if a building touches that, is anything in the building allowed, or do you actually go into the floor plan of the building and plot this radius and state that things on the north side of the building, for example, could not be medical, things on the south side could? flow does that radius affect the building and the uses in it? MS. GUNDLACH: I could ask the appropriate staff person. Thank you, David. MR. WEEKS: I wanted to hear your answer. MS. GUNDLACH: I have no idea. MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of Comprehensive Planning Department. I don't know that that situation has ever come about before. Based upon the language in the Future Land Use Element, the measurement for the qualifying property is from the -- wouldn't be inclusive of the boundaries of the support medical project. So in this instance the presumption would be if they go to develop with medical office uses that they will in fact plat the property. And we would be -- the expectation would be that the entire platted lot or tract would fall within that quarter mile distance. But your question is one we've never dealt with before. But that's certainly possible that the line cuts right across the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you would -- so if a building was half in, half out ofthe line, half of the building would be available for medical, the other half would not. MR. WEEKS: Ludicrous as it sounds, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ludicrous it does sound. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you've got a question of staff? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just a comment, sir. I think Commissioner Schiffer asked how we would regulate that sound, decibel reduction. We have a section in the airport zone that talks about how to do that with the building standards. We'd reference that section and just say per this section with a 35- decibel reduction. And it talks about building construction standards and how to apply for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, excellent. Good. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I have a request. If it's okay with all the parties involved. We were discussing the timing of the noise ordinance. And my request is if we could let the noise ordinance go forth the second week in February as originally planned. 1 just thought it would be nice to have that information for when I prepare my executive summary, which is due on March 13th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we put a stipulation in that's caveated upon the successor failure of that, that takes care of it. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that it becomes that necessary to run together, because the outcome is determined either way. It works either way -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think, so -- okay, are there any public speakers, Ray? Page 30 161 1 s o February 4, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Randy Johns, but he spoke already. But he may want to speak again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bruce, do you want a rebuttal to nothing the staff said? He's shaking his head no. Okay, with that we'll close the -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sony. I would like Mr. Weeks to come back up and comment on the market demand study. MR. WEEKS: As noted in the comprehensive planning department's staff memo dated January 21, 2010, on Pages 5 and 6 is where we discuss the market study. And I first want to say -- before I get into any of that, I first want to say that the petitioner's comments, as I heard them, were mostly pertaining to medical office uses, and just to remind the Commission that a very small portion of the site is eligible for support medical uses. This whole project site is different than your typical activity center. It goes back to how the comprehensive plan was amended to add this plus or minus 19 -acre site. As you know from the presentation and your prior involvement with the petition, this quadrant is treated differently -- this portion of a quadrant is treated differently than the quadrant of any other activity center. Because at the time of the comprehensive plan amendment the applicant's position at that time, and that was not the people before you today, their position was that there is a need for more C -5 type commercial uses. We need more contractors' licensing -- contractors' offices, other C -5 types of uses. They made their case and ultimately were successful in getting the plan amendment approved. And as you see, the language is very specific in the types of uses that are allowed. This develop -- this property is not allowed to have your typical activity center commercial uses. You can't have your general office uses, you cannot have your retail, your neighborhood commercial, community shopping center. The types of things you usually see in activity centers are not allowed at this location. I mention that specifically because I believe the context is important. Because this is within an activity center, mixed use activity center. One of the factors to be considered at the rezoning is in fact the market study, the types of commercial uses within a two-mile radius of the project site. I believe that has far less relevance to this piece of the activity center than it would to any other activity center. Because it's not open to all of those general commercial types of uses. Staff did take issue with some of the analysis, as noted in the memo I referenced. We were concerned that maybe some properties were excluded or discounted that should not have been. But ultimately, despite those misgivings in our opinion in the market demand study, we still came before you with a recommendation to find it consistent with the plan. And it really comes down to in short that context of the types of commercial uses that are being proposed and that are authorized by the Future Land Use Element versus other activity centers. COMMISSIONER CARON: David, how do we reconcile? I mean, we were all here when that growth management plan amendment went through. How do we reconcile the fact that that was presented to us as a need for industrial, for C -5 uses, C -4 and C -5 uses. And now we want to mix up C -4 and C -5 uses with assisted living? I mean, because they're telling us they could have both. They've shown us a conversion ratio. If they want to have both, that seems to be very poor planning, to allow industrial C -4 and C -5 uses on the same piece of property as an assisted living facility. MR. WEEKS: Couple of comments. One, if their objective -- if they are at a level that they could make a commitment to only doing the continuing care retirement center -- I don't believe that's the case, but if they were, I question whether they would even need this rezoning. We might instead be looking at a conditional use or a rezoning to PUD but without all their commercial uses. Without this rezoning, the property would -- the portion of it would still qualify for the support medical uses. The property would still qualify for the types of community facility uses that are allowed anywhere within the mixed use district. That includes the ALF use, the group housing, nursing home, those types of things are allowed by the FLUE without necessitating this rezoning. But of course they are asking for the types of commercial uses they're allowed as well. Staff did, in our consistency memo, did raise that concern about the mixture of uses, just as we had back when there was a residential component, that we have the highest intensity type of commercial uses allowed with the Page 31 _ G February 4, 2010 lowest intensity of commercial or quasi residential. But we do not take a position to say that this should not be allowed, and here's why: Jump to any other mixed use activity center quadrant and they allow the full array of commercial uses, C -1 through C -5, and they allow residential. So activity centers by design allow for a mixture of use. The decision - making process is where we should evaluate is it appropriate to have a propos -- any given proposed mix of uses. Just because it's allowed by the comprehensive plan does not mean it's appropriate and should be approved. And I'm not suggesting this one shouldn't, but that's where we're coming from, from the staff perspective. So they're allowed to have the C -5 type uses, but they're also allowed to have the community facility uses and the support medical. The question is, for this body and the board ultimately, is should that mix of uses be allowed. And if it is, is it necessary to impose certain development parameters to ensure compatibility? Be it buffering, open space, setbacks between the uses, those types of things. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions before we close the public hearing? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one more. On Exhibit A, on number 20 that I was questioning before, could it just simply -- if that is truly the intent, to just have the assisted living and nursing home and that type of thing, could it just simply say care units only, including, and leave out group housing -- group housing facilities and then start with the assisted living and continue the rest? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The State of Florida has a serious of statutes that address assisted living and they use a lot of different temtinologies. The CCRCs are a unique animal, and I believe group housing -- they have definitions for group housing as well as ALFs. I'm not sure if everything's covered by leaving it out. I guess the applicant would know that better than anybody, unless staff has an opinion on that. Heidi, are you getting up to address us? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, not really. Fin just getting my Land Development Code because that's the definitions that we refer to in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, do you know from a -- I guess from your applicant's viewpoint whether the group housing is something you need, or does a reference to a CCRC, which I believe covers -- by statute I think it covers everything. Would you be inclined to look at that, or not? MR. ANDERSON: My recollection is that those are separate. A CCREC is different because that's aging in place. And an ALF is not as wide - ranging as a CCREC. What we maybe should do, if this would be sufficient, is specifically exclude those uses that Ms. Homiak is raising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we previously agreed -- had stipulated. I was going to bring that up in a stipulation. But if that's not -- if there's an easier way, I think is what she -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But it looks tome like the defnation of care unit includes all of that anyway. It includes everything that's included in group housing or group care facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce -- COMMISSIONER HOMM K: Category 1 and 2. So it includes all of the -- it still includes all those things. But here you're listing it -- I mean, if itjust says care units only including assisted living, independent living, community retirement, care retirement communities and nursing homes, all for persons over age 55, is that not what you're asking to allow here, all those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, there might be a solution. You know where the concerns are. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, 1 do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And staff knows where the concerns are. There's a lot of different language in both statute and even our code that addresses all the types of uses that everybody wants or doesn't want. And one of the stipulations I was going to suggest we make today was that the restrictions on this group housing language get cleaned up by the consent agenda. And that would give staff and the applicant time to make sure that they got legally Page 32 1 6 1 1 A 5 '�ebruary 4, 2010 the right references there before anything is agreed to be taken out that may not necessarily address the issue you're concerned about. Is that a solution that you think would work, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think if staff, if they had time to comeback and look at the options they have and then come back with cleaner language, and we got it ahead enough that we could then look up those terms ourselves, rather than just guess on what they mean and try to take them out because we're not sure what they mean, that might be a better way to approach it. Does that work for everybody? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will do thejob. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, onto another issue. Since we are talking about the potential of C -5 uses, C -4 and C -5 uses next to assisted living facilities, what provisions have you made in your PUD to buffer and separate those uses? MR. ANDERSON: What buffering development standards do you have to separate the ALF from any of the C -4 or C -5 uses? What do we have in the PUD for that? MR. NADEAU: We don't have buffering standards, because there's going to be separate tracts that would be associated with the next to occur development order. The buffering would be established at that time through the Land Development Code provisions. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're going to rely on minimum code to do this? MR. NADEAU: We're going to rely on our Land Development Code to put in the buffering, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any other questions before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Public hearing's closed. And let me -- I have as a suggestion some stipulations. Let's have some conversation before a motion. I made notes, I'll read off what I've made, and then you all can decide what we want to do. The first one would be that we add some restrictive language to the references to group housing. I think it was number 20 that we were focusing on. We also add sound attenuation requirements for the building, similar to those that were in the prior PUD application, as recommended by the staff report. Likewise, we add the requirement for the sound wall from that prior application, contingent upon the approval or lack of approval of the Swamp Buggy Days application be exempted from our sound ordinance. If they're exempted, then the wall doesn't need to be there. If they're not exempted, then the wall does need to be there. Another item -- number four would be to add a notice of proximity as indicated by our County Attorney. Number five, the 5,000 square foot limitation is missing from the accessory uses where it used to be in the original PUD. We want to put those back in. Number six, for the C.A.T. contribution in the transportation section, change that to read it's going to be 100 percent of the cost of the facilities and design. Number seven, we're going to clean up number 19. We may split it up into 19.A or B or whatever methodology staff and the applicant work out to address the quarter mile rule. And number eight, add a conversion criteria that was previously displayed for those units -- not dwelling, just units -- developed under uses 19 or 20. Those are the notes that I made. Does anybody have anything -- Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on number two, which was the sound thing, I thought the thing that Nick had was better, essentially referencing the airport zone and make it meet those requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I wasn't trying to say -- I was just indicating something has to be added. He was going to come back on a consent with some definitive language. That's what I was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question, number three was the berm. So if they do get Page 33 'February 4, 2010 the berm waiver, in other words, their sound doesn't have to comply with the landscape code, I think you said do they need the berm then, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- do they not need the berm? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Swamp Buggy gets the waiver, then there's no need for the wall. 'COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't it be the other way around? In other words, if the Swamp Buggy does get away with it, that means they can move the use closer. That means they don't have any concerns over sound. So shouldn't we be protecting the people under those circumstances? If they don't get the waiver, then we have the sound ordinance to protect us, thus no need of the berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the way this was originally set up in the original application, Swamp Buggy's waiver wasn't applied for. So this was to protect the facility if Swamp Buggy didn't get the waiver. And they were also going to do the sound attenuation. But your point earlier I thought was a good one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's not going to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said a 12 -foot berm or wall combination's going to do no good to a 50 -foot high building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't wejust -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so I'm thinking that -- well, because I think there needs to be some kind of incentive for this organi -- for them to help make sure that Swamp Buggy gets approved, and that would certainly provide it. But if it's not -- I mean, it's not a do or die situation from my perspective. I don't think it's going to help as much. I think it will help the lower floor, whatever that may be, but I don't think it's going to do much good for the overall building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think the berms should be a requirement at all. But if-- the place where it would be a requirement is if the Swamp Buggy gets the approval and that means they can do anything they want. Now, I think what you're saying is you want, by causing the removal of the berm if they don't get the approval, to inspire these people to help them get the approval. I think they've said they'd do that. But in other words, I would think the berm would be necessary if the Swamp Buggy does get the approval. Because that means they're able to then make more noise and there's no control on it. I do think first of all the berm isn't necessary at all, because it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you suggesting we change stipulation number three so the sound wall is required if the Swamp Buggy gets the exemption -- or does not get -- yeah, either way then. You're basically saying no matter what, it's required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, what I'm saying is the way you first worded it is if they get the exemption, which means they have no -- there's no community control over their sound, then they had the -- they didn't have to build the wall. And I'm saying that's when they really would need the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's fine, I don't have a -- I understand what you're arguing. It makes sense. I'm not debating it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Personally, I think I'd like to just get rid of the berm entirely. That's -- and a berm -- you know, sound, as it comes through the air, especially from a distance, it's just going to redevelop on the top of that wall anyway. So you're really wasting money on that berm, money that could be spent on the windows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vighotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Mark, just to avoid any possible ambiguity that might result from -- you said in number two similar to what was in the original PUD for sound attenuation. Would you -- I know you're being gentle in the language in assuming that they would work together on that, but is there anything that you wouldn't want to see from that one? In other words, take it from -- reinstate it as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad's earlier point questioning what it really means in relationship to sound was a good one, and then Nick offered a suggestion to clean it up. So I was leaving it open enough so they could insert -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you meant by similar to. Page 34 1 6 1 1 A5 February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- those -- yeah. COMMISSIONER ML TRAY: And I'm good with that. I just wanted to be sure we're not going to get into ambiguity. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I have a question. We discussed a possible stipulation that this doesn't go forward unless the Swamp Buggy does get its noise exemption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they have a right to develop their property. I mean, I don't know -- we could discuss it. But my thought would be they have a GMP amendment that says they can do certain things, they have a right to do them. Whether Swamp Buggy gets the exemption or not should not prevent someone's property rights from developing. Now, what we should do is try to make sure the best protection we can provide is in there, and I think that's where the debate might want to focus. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'd like to hear from the board of any other suggestions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've read off eight stipulations. We talked about two of them. We're down to one that seems to be we want to make sure we all understand it, and that's the sound wall. Originally the sound wall was going to be an if/or situation or not at all. Brad's point about a 50 -foot high building being protected by a 12 -foot potential sound wall is really reasonable. It's really requiring somebody to do something that's going to cost money that may not have the effect out of it. So I'm wondering if he's not right --right from the get -go why do we even need to bother with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, do you have something you can do to help me feel comfortable here? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think that the effort that the Planning Commission is undergoing to reduce the actual noise is the right approach. Because the Swamp Buggy's there. It's a permitted activity. And even if the board doesn't pass that exemption, I don't know how from a code standpoint you're going to be able to hold somebody doing something that they've been permitted to do and have been doing for years from not doing. I mean, it would be a mess from a code enforcement standpoint. So irrespective of what the board does with the exemption, I don't really think there's going to be a negative impact to the Swamp Buggy for when you get the surrounding area developing around it. So the right approach really is to ameliorate the noise to the expected community by using the sound walls and architectural features and what have you. I do think that's a good approach by this Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL That's fine then, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion? Go ahead, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: I just wanted to share with you, there was some concern about what the minimum code buffering is between the intense commercial and the ALF. And depending on who comes in first, somebody -- one of the parties is going to have to put in a 15 -foot wide Type B buffer, and the other party would have to put in a 10 -foot wide Type A buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just for our enlightenment, the buffer that would have to be -- let's say the sound issue never came up. What buffer would be required between this PUD and Swamp Buggy grounds? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, currently there's a preserve. And that -- so long as it acts as a Type B buffer, that would be sufficient. And a B buffer, just to let you know, trees are 25 feet on center and there is a required six -foot; it could be either hedge or fence or wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said there's a -- now, the Swamp Buggy grounds is on the east side of the property. There's a preserve along the north side. I don't -- MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, sorry about that. Okay, along the east side there's an access road. And on the other side access road is currently some Swamp Buggy land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. GUNDLACIL It would just be a D buffer, a 20 -foot wide Type D buffer as you see depicted on the master plan. And a D is trees 30 feet on center and a hedge that's 24 inches high of planting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was another buffer with a requirement of a fence or a wall. MS. GUNDLACH: That was your B buffer, B as in boy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When would that kick in? Page 35 a Feb.a 4, 2010 MS. GUNDLACH: That kicks in when we have like a -- what we were describing earlier, which would be the ALF next to a C -4, C -5 type use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Internal to the site with a higher intensity use next to a lower intensity use. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this potential project being an ALF has a higher intensity use potentially next or low intensity use next door to a high intensity use. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So wouldn't we be better off suggesting that if they go with the ALF or group housing of some type on the area that -- on the property adjacent to Swamp Buggy that the buffer between that and Swamp Buggy be elevated to the higher buffer? MS. GUNDLACH: You know, there is a higher buffer in the minimum code that might help us, and that's the Type C buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what is -- MS. GUNDLACH: And that is different from the Bin that it has a double row of trees planted 25 feet on center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Type B though has a fence or a wall. MS. GUNDLACH: So does the C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we were looking at a Type C buffer with the -- right from the get -go, and if they went -- because no matter what they have there it's most likely going to be in conflict about whatever the future is for the Swamp Buggy Days area. Type C just means more plantings. But if they go with an ALF, they would be required to put a wall in. I'm not saying a sound attenuation wall, but a wall. And that just might suffice to give at least a medium level of assistance for sound rather than none at all. Just throwing it out on the table for discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you seem to dwell on these issues a lot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I like your input. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so. And actually, the smartest thing is if they ever did any C -4 uses that they would put it on the eastern property line. Let them become a buffer too. But I think they're not going to put C -4 uses, at least that's not the expressed intent, so let's not waste a lot of time on that. But if everything, all their plans fell through, it would be nice if the C -5's occurred on the eastern boundary. And then you would have them plus a buffer. But I think you're right, if you put a C buffer along the eastern boundary, that's probably the best we can do by default. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- yes, sir? MR. HOREAS: I just wanted to interject a couple of things. One, since you have a code in place for the acoustical around an airport, which I think is wonderful, obviously -- I'm sure the airport's been there many decades -- there's probably good factual information with regards to whatever decibel levels that are required there and how well they work in terms of absorbing sound. So I just offer the suggestion that maybe staff would look into the criteria that's already established there and try to match that with this situation for the long -term solution, to make sure that the sound is, you know, completely encapsulated, or whatever the appropriate word is, or blocked into the facility I think would be a good suggestion. And as a developer /owner of the property, I think it would be -- we would rather -- you had mentioned, Commissioner Schiffer, that -- about the berm and the wall being away. I couldn't agree with you more, being a former architect. Because if the goal is to block sound at the -- all levels of the facility, which I think is the intent of the board, I know it's Sembler's intent and our consultants, to do that effectively long -term, I would rather channel resources, money, talent, designs, specifications into the building for the -- you know, for an ideal acoustical treatment to keep the sound out of all those buildings forever so we never really have to ever visit this again for this property is my suggestion. Another suggestion I have too is with regards to Swamp Buggy, I know it's been there quite so many years, and there could be a possibility in the future that that facility gets relocated somewhere else, for whatever reasons I Page 36 � 1 ' 161 t February 4, 2010 might not be aware of But that event happens. And we'd like the condition on whatever you all decide with regards to a wall, a berm, and acousticals, that that's required only in the event that the Swamp Buggy facility exists as a loud decibel- generating I think activity center, what have you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you've been waiting patiently, and then Brad. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I gave the advice to the applicant after reviewing our sound code around airports, I think applying the money to the building structure requirements as written in our airport code to the strict standards that are there is a much more beneficial use of the money than a berm and a wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, you'll get the added use that it will prevent the noise of 951, which will be somewhat loud. So you're going to benefit wrapping your building in sound protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: Yeah, I'm just concerned that we're not micromanaging from this planning board. The one who has all the incentive is the developer himself so that he doesn't create something that's a problem for his residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is in the past when we don't micromanage we find it comes back to bite us, so sometimes it's better to be overly cautious than under, so -- then let's suggest dropping the reference to the sound wall that was previously suggested and replace it with language to the effect: The eastern property line will have a Type C buffer. And now as far as any type of wall goes, because the Type B standard, for example, has a wall, is anybody concerned in pursuing that or just dropping the wall reference altogether? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How tall is the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Type B buffer I think is only six feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Drop the wall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd rather see tall trees, more trees than the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just leave the -- eastern property sign will have a -- eastern property line will have a Type C buffer. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If I'm not mistaken, I think Nancy said that there's a wall involved in a C as well, so -- MS. GUNDLACH: They have the option of a wall or a six -foot tall hedge. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Kolflat's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, we've read all the stipulations. I can read them again, if you'd like, if it's not clear to anybody. Staff, are you clear on where we're at? The nod of the head seems to say yes. So is everybody on the Planning Commission clear enough to make a motion? If so, I'll call for a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320, McMullen Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. I move that it be recommended for approval, with the stipulations as offered by the Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded it. Page 37 1;ebivary 4, 2010 Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Also by staff, there were some staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, if I hadn't said that, I assume that was intrinsic to it, but fine. By staff and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, there was nothing on this one'? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there isn't any on this one. It just says recommendation of approval. There's no staff stipulation, so — okay, motion's made to approve with stipulations previously discussed. It was seconded. Any further 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 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. It took all morning. Thank you, Bruce. Kind of predicted that, though. Okay, it's 11:24. The Planning Commission usually breaks for an hour for lunch. We can either start on a new one and get 15 minutes into it and break or we can break now and come back at 12:30. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Break now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will break now and be back here at 12:30 to resume. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Wolfley is absent from boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the lunch break. We'll kind of resume where we left off. We were going into a new petition before we left. It was the first of two Sembler -- both of them are Sembler, but we'll take them one at a time. Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437, SARECINO RPUD It's Item C, Petition PUDZA -PL- 2009 -437, the Sarecino, LLC. That's on Radio Road near Davis. Formerly the Triad RPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swam.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had a conversation yesterday with Mr. Nadeau, and we will be going over all the issues today. Okay, Dwight, it's all yours. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, here we are in the afternoon. Moving forward our next petition for Sarecino RPUD. It's your planning number 437, represented by Sarecino LLC. Just as a housecleaning matter, we had some disclosure of interest information handed out to you in advance of today's hearing. I also have a modified Covenant of Unified Control that had a typo in the name. That has been corrected, provided to staff. I can put it on the visualizer, if you'd like to see that, or we can just let that go. Page 38 161 I A5 -11 February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had a correction of a name? Which name was corrected? MR. NADEAU: The -- if I may, this was the Covenant of Unified Control. Little bit down, Ray. Pull down. Not that way, that's up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're talking about the folio number that I -- MR. NADEAU: Yeah, the folio number and the name of the development. There was one folio number that had an extra zero on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We made those corrections. MR. NADEAU: So that's all been corrected and provided to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard. It's called Radio Lane. It was the former Radio Road right -of -way. But when they created the intersection of Davis Boulevard with Radio Road, Radio Road turned into Radio Lane east of that intersection. Property is 10.75 acres. I was the petitioner's agent for the former Triad RPUD amendment. And that converted the property from C -1 to a PUD with a limitation of 86 dwelling units. This petition is in no way changing the density that was approved, and in fact this is going to be a senior housing project. It's going to include both 40 independent living cottages, as well as an opportunity for an assisted living facility of up to 100 bedrooms on approximately a 2.8 -acre property, parcel. The property is intended to be platted. And I guess I'll get right into some of the pictures. This is the master plan for the PUD. We've allocated all of the land uses. We have a residential tract. We have an assisted living facility tract and a recreation tract. That's the schematic view. I'm going to put up a picture of what the actual development may look like. I don't want to be held to it. It just shows the layout of the cottages and the footprint of the building. So you can see the cottage arrangement in the northern portion, with access off of Palm Springs Boulevard. And the ALF facility is the institutional sized looking building to the south portion. We have some artistic conceptualizations of what we think the ALF is going to look like, and if I may show you that. It's too bad we can't get a brightness control on here, because that's a little dull. It's a very vibrant picture. So there's going to be articulation in the front. It's almost going to look like an enclave of homes, but it will be an institutional assisted living facility. In attendance with me is Mr. Lloyd Chapman, who is a -- probably the potential operator of this facility and has some explanation for you on the operations. We'll bring him up when the time is appropriate, or if there's any other questions. Now, switching over to the independent living cottages, this is an artist rendering of what they could look like. This is the character of the units that we're trying to portray. And it's going to be set along the streetscape. These are small little cottages for independent senior living. They are all attached, but they're attached in a means where it provides a street front with articulated fronts. I'll show you the streetscape. Again, it's dark. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe if you took the others away, it might -- MR. NADEAU: So we're trying to attempt to achieve a neo- traditional design where things are more compact. We want to do a fee simple conveyance. As you probably know, there are recent changes in the lending laws. Federal lending laws have made it virtually impossible to get a loan for a condominium. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are requiring that a condominium project be turned over or have 90 percent of the units sold and have a solvent association before they would lend to individuals. That's why it's essential these days now to be able to go through platting processes, so we can have fee simple ownership and deal with homeowners associations. Just wanted to provide that as a side bar. Now, I'm going to show you a rendering of what the floor plan for the cottages may look like. So there are going to be no less than 750 square feet. There's going to be a one car garage that would be entered into. And there is a 34 -foot driveway that would provide for the second vehicle for this particular unit. To illustrate this, I took one of the figures from the PUD document and I've highlighted the geometry of the units, how they're back -to -back. And the curler is actually on the 34 -foot dimension from the face of the garage; therefore there's adequate room to park a car and not be over the sidewalk. Additionally, there may be some questions about how setbacks are applied. Because we are going to be Page 39 IA ° February 4, 2010 creating lot lines in here, there will be zero setback between the attached units. There would be a minimum five -yard side yard setback for end units, and then the minimum distance between structures of being 12 feet. That's to identify these separations between the multiple buildings that are throughout the site. Now, there was some concern expressed related to the preserve for this particular property. When I did the Triad rezoning, we had a site plan that would provide for a 1.62 -acre preserve. That preserve was specifically articulated in 2.13, native vegetation requirements from that Triad Ordinance 05 -11. And I'll put this on the visualizer, but I just want to read the crux of the material that's hr here. It says, pursuant to Policy 611 of the Conservation Element, a minimum of 1.34 acres, 15 percent of the native vegetation on -site is required to be retained and replanted. The RPUD master plan depicts one preserve area, the 1.62 -acre preserve depicted as retained native vegetation. This is due to the fact that of the 10.75 -acre site, only 8.92 acres of the site is native. So the required 15 percent of the 8.92 would be the minimum of 1.34 identified in the paragraph above. The final paragraph is which provided the latitude. It says, the minimum width of the preserve shall be an average of 30 feet but not less than 20 feet in width. The design, area and configuration of the native preserves may be modified from the depiction on the RPUD master plan. However, the remaining native preserves shall not be decreased below 3. -- 1.34 acres in total area. Thus we have a conservation area. It's been recorded with South Florida Water Management District and was approved through the site development plan process with Collier County as a 1.36 -acre preserve, a little bit larger than what the requirement is. If you'd like, I'll put this language on the visualizer. It's the last paragraph that's the operative. Now, another item I'd like to discuss with you is in our workings with the neighborhood there was a number of requests that were made of us. We had several, several meetings in addition to the neighborhood information meeting. Ms. Cathy Gorman in the neighborhood was very happy to allow us into her home on three or four occasions where she brought in some of the neighborhood interested parties. And you'll also find in your package that there's a letter of support for the petition. One of the requests that was made at a late date was the opportunity to be able to put a service access for the assisted living facility not having to travel on Palm Springs Boulevard. So to that end I coordinated with the transportation department and I've come up with a little schematic of what this may look like. And if I may, this is the simplest version for you to see. We would just put an arrow on the master plan and say proposed service entrance. The service entrance would actually be very similar to looking like this, where we would be coming off of Radio Lane generally centralized with the ALF, we'd provide the 24 -foot apron -- or the 24 -foot wide pavement surface, the required 50 -foot setback to the control gate. And not having an SDP in process, we merely got a yeah, it looks all right from transportation. So Ijust wanted to bring that to your attention. And that is a request that we would like to make today to try and help the residents of the neighborhood. At this time I'd like to -- well, no, I need to probably go through a few document changes. There were some concerns that were voiced related to some of the accessory uses associated with the assisted living -- the assisted living tract and the recreation area tract. I have those suggested changes here in a strike and underline version I'll put on the visualizer. If you could zoom in on those. Now, this has been provided to staff And the petitioner has taken a look at this. There's a little clarification I need to make. But the -- in the assisted living tract, the accessory uses customarily associated with principal uses, including but not limited to dining halls, swimming pools, other internal amenity activities such as exercise rooms and administrative offices. Now, I've also put language in there that no commercial land uses are permitted. Well, what's that really meant to mean is that usually in these ALF facilities there's an internal beauty salon where they can get their hair done, there may be some vending machines, those sorts of uses that are for the exclusive use of the ALF residents, they may be permitted. But from the overall perspective, no commercial land uses open to the general public would be pennitted in the ALF tract. Secondly, in tract RA, the outdoor recreation facilities, in addition to the private clubhouse, could include a community swimming pool and deck, activity courts and bathroom facilities. So that's really all that would be going in this amenity center that would bejust north of the ALF track. And as far as the accessory uses to the recreation facilities, they would be limited to maintenance storage, shelter and equipment rooms. So we hope that this clarifies some of the concerns that may have been made -- been Page 40 1 6 1 I A5 01 February 4, 2010 identified. There was a -- some concern about some development standards in table one. We've gone ahead and made a few changes in here. Most particularly to the clubhouse recreation buildings where the accessory -- the number of stories and the building heights are consistent with the principal structure building heights and number of stories. So hopefully that resolves that concern. And then finally -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait, will you put that back up there again? MR. NADEAU: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point of the correction was missed. Would you scan -- pull out on that so we can see the top bar? So under single - family independent living you can have a -- you have a one -story maximum height zoned of 24 feet, maximum building height actual 30 feet. But if you build an accessory structure, you can build a two -story accessory structure at 35 feet high and 45 feet actual. Now, why would you want to do that? MR. NADEAU: A one -story not to exceed 24 feet and two -story not to exceed -- they should be consistent with the principal use building heights. I will make that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be a lot more, so I'll wait until we get the rest of it, thank you. MR. NADEAU: And then finally there was some question related to the planning conditions that are in Exhibit F of the instrument. Many of these came as a result of our negotiations with the neighbors. And we've been talking with legal staff as well as the petitioner and Kay about how to try and address these. I've made some suggestions here. The first item relates to limitation on rental units to only those persons 55 or older. It was in the former Triad PUD that it would be enforceable by the lot owners. Legal staff has requested that it be the responsibility of the county to ensure that there's language restricting it -- any rental to 55 or older. And the evidence of this disclosure language would be provided prior to approval of the first development order. So that type of disclosure language would be included in the SDP --in the plat materials. Secondly, number three is redundant with the development standards table and so that has been removed. Number four, as far as limitations on the square footage of the independent senior living units, that's in the development standards, and that has been removed, given the redundancy. Number five, is regarding the controlled access to the development. And we would put that in a separate agreement with the neighbors. Number seven is the construction of a fence. The residents had some concern about some of the residents to the east traveling through the subdivision, using it as shortcut to get to the Circle K and get to the bowling alley, and the developer has kindly said that he's going to facilitate the permitting and construction of a fence to try and prohibit or limit the amount of people walking through the subdivision. And that would be in a separate agreement with the neighborhood. And then finally eight is the developer would work with the neighborhood to approach the transportation staff as far as making any changes to the interconnections of, let's say, Radio Lane within Davis Boulevard. We're willing to try and set up some meetings, sit down with staff, come to that. But that would be in a separate agreement. With that, Commissioners, I'll conclude my presentation, and I'd be happy to take questions. But I do know that we'd like to bring up Mr. Chapman and the petitioner, Scott Gillespie of WXZ. May we do that, or do you want to do questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave this picture you have on here -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I have some serious concerns about what you've proposed. But Mr. Murray has a question, then I'm certainly going to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm certain they're the same serious concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, you got this approved in '05. MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five years ago. And the language here says you'll work it out with the neighborhood. You've not done that in the last five years. MR. NADEAU: Well, that was a different developer. That was Triad. Page 41 February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same issue, though. Same issue. Walls and other things with the development. The developers -- or the neighborhood is proceeding here in non - objection because they're probably relying on the language that used to be under this section that really shouldn't have been here, because it didn't say anything. It just said you shall work. And evidence of that is you didn't for five years. So where is the agreement? Do you have an agreement with you? MR. NADEAU: The original PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- MR. NADEAU: No, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an agreement worked out with the neighborhood with you today? MR. NADEAU: No, I do not. We teamed of this concern yesterday morning at about 1 1:00. But we can get an agreement for you for the consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we'd want to read it and weigh in on it and have the neighborhood's opportunity. And in a consent we can't have public testimony like we do under the time that we come for a vote. In the consent it's all done with. Part of the problem in pointing all this out was that there are some things that should have been sewn up and buttoned up and taken care of before this was scheduled, especially now that you know some of these in the manner in which they are presented to you. The fact that you need something with the neighborhood and the neighborhood had an NIM and wrote a letter liking your project and the fact that a lot of these things were in here and never addressed I think is serious. I think you need to address these before this project were to change its position that you want it changed to today. MR. NADEAU: Well, in actuality, during the SDP process for Triad, it was called the Sarecino SDP, there were some discussions and some improvements were proposed, but that SDP was never acted upon. So this new developer came in and is willing to make these commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can tell you from this person's point of view, any arrangement with the neighborhood, and we'd have to know who the neighborhood was anyway, will be the predicate for anything that follows. Because you're not ready. You may be up to the starting line, but your shorts are hanging on your knees. So you're not ready to run, in my opinion. That's a very open issue here. Several of them, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we need to do is go through the issues we have and before we vote today you may want to consider requesting a continuance to come back with the answers that I'm sure -- I know I have a slew of answers -- questions over this whole proposal. And I think others are going to have the same, if not more. So why don't we go through the process, you'll understand what our concerns are, and you may want to consider before a vote to ask for a continuance to come back and answer the concerns that we have. MR. NADEAU: Understood. May I bring some folks up to talk about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Mr. Chapman, Shaker Heights, Ohio. Is that L. Chapman or R. Chapman? MR. CHAPMAN: L. Chapman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's R. Chapman? MR. CHAPMAN: I don't know. I'm Lloyd R. Chapman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. I just --there's a couple of Chapman up in that area. MR. GILLESPIE: I'm not a Chapman at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you got up when I asked for Chapman, so that's good. MR. GILLESPIE: You looked at me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Chapman, go ahead in whatever you were planning to say. MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you very much. My name is Lloyd Chapman. I spent 15 years in Florida as a director of nursing in two hospitals and an administrator of another. Moved to Cleveland Ohio to bean administrator for two hospitals there back in 1988. And in 1996 built my first assisted living center in Mentor, Ohio. Operated it myself. And in 20011 built a second assisted living center in Mayfield Village, Ohio. Operated that assisted living center and then formed Senior Living Solutions Group. And at Senior Living Solutions Group we help others develop assisted living centers. Sometimes we manage Page 42 161 1 A5 Im February 4, 2010 those for them and sometimes we help them find folks to manage those facilities who are local and well - known, good, strong operators. I've had the privilege of serving these folks who are planning the Sarecino project for a period of the last seven or eight months to help them work with their planners to design a project that is very consistent with the market study that we commissioned several months ago. We see a fairly significant need for assisted living for the elderly, people who typically are 86 years old or so on average at the time of move -in. People who typically need help with two or three or more activities of daily living, such as bathing or dressing or medication reminders. Our staffing standards are excellent industry-wide. And it's been our privilege to participate in the process thus far. I'll stand by Mr. Gillespie and see if you have any questions from me regarding the operation or the intended operation of the building as the Commission considers the project further today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question. Have you ever heard of a company called Senior Housing Solutions? MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is? MR. CHAPMAN: That was a prior organization that I owned as well. I changed the name of it to Senior Living Solutions when I became the only principal in the company. There used to be two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The address you -- that's on the letterhead that you provided, you ever hear of RDL Architects? MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're your neighbor? MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. I lease my office space in the same building that RDL is located in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I was trying to understand your background. You've provided a good understanding of it today. Thank you. I didn't know you'd be here. But in trying to understand who you were, I found a lot of questions as to the address provided. The phone number is a cell phone out of Atlanta, Georgia, not of the neighborhood. 404 -539 -1000? MR. CHAPMAN: It's actually 440 -539 -1000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, well -- MR. CHAPMAN: And I typically put my cell phone on my business card because I work in six different states and it's kind of hard for people to track me down otherwise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's kind of hard to nail down your, I guess, criteria in order to determine if your letter was coming from a position of experience. It seems like you've got the experience. Are you also the intended operator of this facility? MR. CHAPMAN: My company will either operate the facility or will help the developer select an operator for the facility. We haven't decided yet. I'm interviewing a couple of different parties over a period of the next two or three months to try to decide if we'll bring in a regional operator from this area or whether I'll hire people that live here and operate it myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the reduction of parking spaces, how does the space request of reduction here compare to other places where you've -- and where have you obtained the same reduction? MR. CHAPMAN: Excellent question. We've retained that reduction in Mentor, Ohio, we've retained that reduction in Mayfield Village, Ohio, and we're requesting that same reduction in three other projects that I'm working on currently. We got that parking standard from ALFA, the Assisted Living Facilities Association of America. At 86 years old, with 100 individuals potentially living in the unit, we typically see four people with automobiles. The balance are our staff And we've carefully counted the number of staff individuals. And the national standard as we see it now is one -half space per unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide -- assuming this comes back through a continuance, and even if it doesn't, then who knows how it will survive -- the reference that you just had from the ALFA? MR. CHAPMAN: I'll be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And not -- I'd prefer it not be in a letter format, but in some document format where Page 43 A5 February 4, 2010 it's a printed matter. MR. CHAPMAN: From ALFA. Sure, be happy to do that. And I'd be happy to provide my own resume and background and further detail as well in writing, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Also the market study that he mentioned as well. MR. CHAPMAN: Be delighted to provide that as well. That was performed by a company called V WB Research who do about 900 senior housing focus market studies per year. They're quite excellent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem with the parking standard that you're asking about, we've learned very quickly that if we provide something to one, it becomes to all. An example for it is the FAR that's being used for these kind of facilities now is .45 in our code. But we deviated once a long time ago to .60 for one particular applicant. That applicant's attorney was hired by numerous other applicants, and before you know it they were all asking for .60. I'm not saying that's bad, but we've got to be very sure that the demonstration of its validity is provided. A letter from you who is the potential operator of the facility doesn't carry a lot of weight. MR. CHAPMAN: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your backup's going to be crucial. MR. CHAPMAN: You bet. That makes good sense, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Chapman? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just a comment too on that whole parking standard. You said that you took it into account the fact that most of your residents would not have cars and that the rest of the parking would be for staff. I think you make a grave mistake in not including visitors. MR. CHAPMAN: Oh, I understand. And we do in our fuller calculation. I was just a little nervous and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAPMAN: -- should have mentioned that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Because that becomes critical. MR. CHAPMAN: It really is critical. And we have a pretty good idea on any given day at any given hour how many visitors are in the building at a certain point in time as well. That will be addressed in the stuffthat you get in writing too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Did you have something you wanted to throw in or are you just standing there because we're looking at you? Okay, I guess that wraps up the presentation. MR. GILLESPIE: The only thing I might add is on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the record, your name? MR. GILLESPIE: Scott Gillespie. I'm the development director for WXZ Development. We are the general partners operating -- development manager for this community. And Ijust wanted to mention on the neighborhood items, in working with Dwight and the neighborhood group that was assembled through Mrs. German's assistance, as Dwight mentioned, our goal here was to be proactive. And as he mentioned, we had the original neighborhood -- the NIM meeting I believe you call it -- and we followed up with about three other meetings with that group. And they were very positive. I've done this for many, many years and I try to be very receptive to the things that we can deliver. And we felt that all of these items were for the most part legitimate requests, and that's why we put it in this format. If the format is incorrect, obviously we're going to make the correction as necessary. But I did want you to know that it was basically just an attempt to do the right thing with the neighborhood so we weren't coming into a situation where they would be opposed to some particular element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the concerns this board has, whatever goes in the PUD document is a public document, controlled by code enforcement at the county. There were certain statements in this planning questionnaire, planning statements that weren't really enforceable. Especially things where it says, the developer shall work with the neighborhood. That doesn't really say a lot. Itjust says you're going to work with them, it doesn't say how far. It doesn't help to have that in a public document. Page 44 , I 1 6 1 1 �- February 4, 2010 But if you have a separate agreement with the neighborhood that shows that these issues were worked out and the neighborhood still supports your project, well, that kind of seals up all the holes and makes it a lot more viable, so MR. GILLESPIE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's a switch, so — Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to invite Dwight to come back up, please. Dwight, go back to that document where you referred to commercial uses, please. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to make a suggestion that's just preliminary. I'm sure others might have further thoughts on it. MR. NADEAU: Of course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But to the extent that it might be appropriate to put something there, you might entertain the possibility of saying something like commercial land uses, if any, are permitted for the sole benefit of the persons living there, however you want to phrase it. And I'm sure it can get tighter than that, but that was just something that I thought you might want to put in there to avoid having a question at some other point. Do you intend -- is it within your design, your plan, to have room set aside for the purpose -- like a little beauty parlor and so forth. And I think that's very common. So then I think that is appropriate to say that otherwise code may one day come in and give you a bad time, so -- MR. NADEAU: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. You might want to think about making that even tighter, but that was the thought. MR. NADEAU: That's an excellent suggestion. We can use the -- some terminology similar to commercial uses aren't permitted -- public commercial uses aren't pemritted, but those associated with the facility, for the exclusive use of the residents, something to that effect. Yes, thank you, commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to be doing applicant questions now. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Dwight, a couple things. One thing is looking at your map, your -- I'm not sure what exhibit -- Exhibit C_ Would you do me a favor, again, put "W's in all the little squares. The way you draw this it looks like Tract R might be only the center one. But would you have a problem doing that, adding Rs into all the other tracts? You know, there is --there's a lot of lines here that can get confusing. And just to make sure that the ones adjoining the ALF are in fact Rs, not ALF's, okay? Do you know what I mean? MR. NADEAU: I do know what you mean, Commissioner. I'm trying to see --virtually everything outside the ALF tract, the tract R and -- excuse me, the tract RA is all R. So the lakes and the residential, except for the preserve tract, are all R. I can put as many R's on their as you'd like, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it just -- you know, you define a boundary, call it R, you define another boundary, call it ALF, and I'm just worried about the ones that are in between, to make sure that you assign which one they are. MR. NADEAU: Of course. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is fine. Okay. The -- do you have a -- I guess maybe describe how you're going to build these things. Because these little guys, you're calling them single - family, but they're really not, they're multi- family units in our code. MR. NADEAU: By definition any time you have three or more units attached within a single building it's a multi - family. However, because we have the opportunity to plat attached single - family, similar to a townhome, that's where we enter into this issue related to setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but what are you considering these, single - family or multi - family? MR. NADEAU: They're considered attached single-family- Page 45 February 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, first of all you're going to get -- you can't take that into the building code with that logic. What would make these not be attached buildings, just because there's a lot line between them? MR. NADEAU: Well, they will be attached buildings, but the lot line will run between the common wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will you have double wall there or will it be a party wall structure? MR. NADEAU: I don't know the construction techniques. I'm not even sure my client knows, because it's in the design stage. But more than likely it will be very similar to a townhome. And there may need to be those fire walls that separate the units. It will be a double wall I understand from the petitioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think the only way -- I mean, you're going to have trouble with the building code, seriously, I mean, that these buildings not be considered attached. And they're not going to be townhouses, because our code defines -- or the building code defines a townhouse, it has to have two open sides to it. But anyway, so what construction do you imagine this to be? Are they wood frame, are they -- MR. GILLESPIE: They'll be both CMU and wood frame. The -- I don't want to tell you that all of the first floor is going to be CMU and that the roof section will be trusses, but it will be a -- if it is a wood frame -- and we haven't gotten that far to actually define the specific construction standard that it's going to be under — it would be a double wall, if it's a wood frame. And if it's a concrete masonry unit wall, it would be a single wall between each unit. And as far as the townhouse, and I haven't -- I'm not familiar with the code and how deep it goes into definition, but it would be open on two sides. There's a side kind of courtyard with each one and then there's an opening on the front as well. So I don't know if that plays into the townhouse definition or not, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it will. But, you know, we don't want to solve building code issues here. But you're going to really -- you're considering these single - family units and they'll be constructed as independent single - family units. MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to have an interesting time with the code, but you can go that way. MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. Dwight, a question on table one. MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some of this, I mean, you have a minimum floor area and a minimum of lot area that are identical. I mean, obviously we know what your intent is. And you're always going to have to have a lot area bigger than that. MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, so I'm not going to focus on that. On the minimum side yard where it says zero feet when attached. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you change that to put zero feet where attached? And the only reason I'm pointing that is if a unit is attached, I don't want the other setbacks like that driveway to start getting narrower. In other words, so theoretically you could stagger one foot, two foot, you could do something pretty weird. And you're going to have enough fun with the fire separation on this already. So would that be okay? MR. NADEAU: Not a problem at all, Comm ussioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just change it where attached, so the intent is that when you touch, you can touch at zero. MR. NADEAU: Would that apply also to rear yard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Let me see if there's any other -- I think, you know, I too have questions about the parking. You -- do you have a plan that actually shows the whole site plan as you propose it or -- where are you in other processes in the county. Have you gone in for SDP or anything like that? MR. NADEAU: We have not. We have not. We're in for our ERP permit because mod. because this was permitted through the Water Management District. Page 46 161 1 A5 February 4, 2010 But I don't -- did you bring any ERP plans that may show driveways? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just curious how much parking you really are providing. I mean, we've only gotten a tiny glimpse of it when you did the gate. We know there's some opposite the gate there. And if the project's not that far thought out, feel free to let that be the answer. MR. NADEAU: No, I actually don't have a site plan. I thought I did, but -- no, I don't have a site plan that shows the specifics of the parking around the ALF building. We did have this -- we did have this exhibit that shows some of the parking arrangement where we had parking in here, along here and around the porte- cochere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. That looks nice. You'll make it happen that way. MR. NADEAU: Very good, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On your plan here, Tract R in the lake? MR. NADEAU: Yes. The water management facility would be permitted in Tract R. Just like -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It would? MR. NADEAU: Yes, the water management facilities would be located in Tract R. It's standard practice. Some of the roadways -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So is the converse true? MR. NADEAU: Well, no, you typically don't put residential units in a water management tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but I'm just saying, is that your water management area or not? MR. NADEAU: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I don't think it should be labeled residential then. I think it should be labeled water management. Storm -- you know, lake water management. MR. NADEAU: We could do that. But it would fall within Tract R. And we could call water management lake; that would be simple enough. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I -- remember I was asking you to put R in, and I notice there's another one that does have Rs in it. What other difference is there between the one in staff report and the other exhibits here? Are they pretty much the same except for that, or what else does -- MR. NADEAU: They're pretty much the same. Actually, Ms. Deselem just highlighted all of the tracts. Let me put this up here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because what I was asking you to do this actually has done already, so -- but I just wondered now, because I only looked at the other one. MR. NADEAU: Sure. This particular exhibit has the ALF tract, the RA tract, all of the Tract R around. We can put this in Tract R but just say water management lake for Commissioner Caron's concern. I'm not so sure that any additional labeling for tract Rs would be necessary, unless you wanted it to bleed over into some of the roadways, like in here maybe or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just take the Tract R off and leave the word lake. Because you are actually asking for a deviation pursuant to that lake and its location. And if you leave Tract R on there with the unstated attempt to possibly move it into residential and move the lake somewhere else, it's going to cause other concerns other where. So why don't you just take the reference to Tract R off of it. MR. NADEAU: I can do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NADEAU: It will be built within the Tract R -- within Tract R, but I'll take the label off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one other thing I thought of The lining of the road coming out of this thing, is it perfectly in line with the property on the other side? I would -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- assume so. Okay, thank you. Page 47 VAruary 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Ray, it's going to start with you, though. If there's a deviation or a change from an accepted standard in a PUD for acreage, how much of the acreage has to change before it has to come back through the public process? Say if you had 20 acres and they changed it to 22 or to 18. MR. BELLOWS: A designated tract? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Land Development Code allows for minor changes to tract locations and sizes, unless it affects a preserve tract. Then that would trigger an amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you --in the old PUD there was table one called projected land use tracts. And under Tract P, preserve, it showed acreage 1.6. In the old PUD under 2.13, which was up on the prior board, the master plan depicts one preserve area. The 1.62 -acre preserve depicted will be retained native vegetation. And then if you turn to the master plan attached to the old PUD, it has a table on the master plan in which 1.62 is again the number for the preserve. Now, I know why they changed it. Because they put a catchall phrase under 2.13 that was up on the screen earlier. And I'm just wondering if that's -- if they're intending to tell us one thing but put catchall phrases in to come back with another lesser item, I don't particularly think that's a good process to have. If we said 1.62, it was approved at 1.62 in three different locations and the catchall phrase allows you to go to 1.34, which is what you went to anyway, why don't you say 1.34 was what you were going to provide us in the beginning? MR. NADEAU: In actuality, Commissioner, the developer at that time had a specific product that he was looking for in the rezoning. I was being generous with the native preservation, because he said he didn't need the land. He subsequently after zoning changed his building footprint and the design slightly, and with that the staff found that the changes following the caveats in Section 2.13 were consistent with the Land Development Code and the SDP was issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in 2.13 it does not say the applicant can reduce below the 1.62. It just says, if there's any changes, they won't go below 1.34. And it doesn't say that if there's any changes from the 1.62 the applicant doesn't have to go back through the public process to get there. So I don't know why staff gave that permission of approval in the first place. So I'm a little disappointed that this board was presented something back five years ago, we voted based on what was presented to us, and a catchall phrase changed it, which looks like it was changed outside the due process that was supposed to be provided to the public. And Cherie', I'll slow down. But that leads to more of my conclusions, that this thing better get wrapped up right before we vote on it. Because lacking those agreements and other things, this document needs to be done much tighter than it is from what we've seen from the history. And I certainly am going to go through a lot of issues that I have with it. That having been one. In the deviation number two, you're talking about the necessity use of access easements. Yet you're intending to plat tracts in which the -- I shouldn't say tracts -- lots in which the units are going to be I assume sold, fee simple? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you plan to provide platted access to those lots? MR. NADEAU: Through the access easements. MR. GILLESPIE: It's not intended in the -- let me put it this way: In the original -- our concept of what this community's all about is to sell them from day one. This is going to be part of a rental community associated with the services provided by the ALF to serve independent seniors. We are platting them for the anticipation that down the road if we see that there's a market to individually sell those units, that would be part of the reason for having those platted. But the intention and the original scope is to be to rent those units. Page 48 1611 °�9 5 February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's fine. Whether you rent them or sell them, I understand your need. How are you intending on the plat to designate the roadways? MR. NADEAU: Via access easements, Commissioner. With utility easements on the outside, the access easements will allow me to define my front yards -- define my yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've done a lot of plats. I've never done one the way you're suggesting. I'm trying to understand it. MR. NADEAU: I realize that. I've coordinated extensively with Mr. Holdsworth, we've got e -mail communications, and he doesn't find any issue with that. Correct me if I'm wrong, Kay. MS. DESELEM: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay, Kay, you're going to be up here soon enough. If I need Kay's correction or comment for the record, I'd ask for it. Has the County Attorney's Office reviewed the proposed plat in reference to how this is all going to fit together? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, we haven't reviewed the plat. I think what he's telling you is if he does a platted access easement then he's got a different setback. Because he can put the public utility easement outside of the access easement. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whereas if you plat it -- MR. NADEAU: A right -of -way tract, it has a tendency to use more land, which removes the efficiency in the traditional neighborhood design opportunities that this plan provides for by being able to plat with access easements. MS. ASHTON: So you could do a more narrow -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- easement with the public access easement and put the public utility easement on the outside and then it would still be measured from the access easement -- MR. NADEAU: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- as tar as the setback. MR. NADEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to make the assumption in all my questioning today that we're preparing for this to come back to us in a better format. Because if you push the vote today, I can tell you where mine's going to be, and you can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make the assumption. So under that premise, I would suggest you draft a format of the plat you intend to use and get it to the County Attorney's Office so that when it comes back to us we can have a legal knowledge that it's sufficient and going to be sufficient. You're asking for a hybrid concept here, one I haven't particularly seen before. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm certainly not against these retirement communities, they're needed. But I want to get us there in a manner that sets a precedent that doesn't disrupt other parts of other projects that we're going to be seeing as it comes down the road. And I think it's careful (sic) we tread as carefully as possible from here on out. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to explore how, using the easements, how narrow would it be? How narrow a road would you make it? MR. NADEAU: Oh, well, it would be a minimum standard county road, 24 feet. Then there would be curb and gutter on the outside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I had this vision of 86- year -olds driving in a really narrow road. MR. NADEAU: No, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your actual PUD you've addressed the issue of accessory. There's going to be some cleanup language in that. Page 49 L February 4, 2010 On the RA tract, are you going to be using food service, restaurants and stuff there? Was that RA tract addressed as well, or not? Did you think about addressing that as far as additional descriptions go? MR. NADEAU: Oh, here it is. The RA permitted uses, I had on the visualizer no change to A -1. It was private clubhouses intended to provide social and recreation space. A -2 kept the same first phraseology, outdoor recreation facilities such as community, swimming pool and deck -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NADEAU: -- activity courts and bathroom facilities, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I remember it, yeah, you had both of them up there. That's fine. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your table one, 1 know you've got the corrections now for the accessory heights. We talked and Brad pointed out a change in the zero foot. When you talk to minimum front yard, you have 16 feet from HOC. MR. NADEAU: From back of curb, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a standard for 23 feet to front opening garages. And while that doesn't -- not be the unit, 16 feet to the unit's fine. But you need to put the clarification or the caveat that I know you're familiar enough with because we've had it in other PUDs. MR. NADEAU: Of course. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: So that should go in here. How do you -- your minimum distance between structures are 12 feet. That's between unattached structures. So if you have attached single - family, that doesn't apply. And your example showed it between buildings more or less. MR. NADEAU: Building to building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The parking in the garage, you're looking atone car garages? MR. NADEAU: The parking for the cottages was a one car garage with a 34 -foot long driveway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so -- MR. NADEAU: -- for a second car. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you could have two cars there. MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your relief from the parking that you're trying to seek is just for the ALF? MR. NADEAU: Just for the ALF, that's accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit E, your list of requested deviations from the LDC, your deviation number one you had previously indicated this was part of the prior PUD. I don't believe that's accurate. 5.03.02.A.9 I believe is anew reference. It maybe the same language it's referring to, I didn't check this and staff will probably tell us when they came up. 5.03.02.13 was what was referenced last time, so that's the only change. There's two sections of that fencing section in the code -- MR. NADEAU: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I can't remember the language right now but I have them written down here. They are two different pieces. Was that intentional? MR. NADEAU: No, we were using the same standards that were in the prior Land Development Code, using the same citation. But it did move through the revisions of the LDC. All this does, Commissioner, is allow us to put a fence on top of a berm. The current code requires the fence to be measured from existing grade. This allows us to measure the fence height from the finished grade of the berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see where else I have you. You cleared up a lot of questions that I know staff had forwarded to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: While he's looking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at that, Dwight, could I ask you a question on -- let's see, where is it here. Page 2 of 10 here on your Exhibit A under RA tract, permitted uses and -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: --accessory uses. Page 50 161 1 ;A 5 February 4, 2010 MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: The very last line says, including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage or shelter. What kind of shelter? I was just curious, because I've never seen that. I mean, I understand why you need maintenance and storage. I mean, is it like a bus shelter? MR. NADEAU: Is this -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just don't know what it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dog shelter. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. NADEAU: Could you please direct me to where I'm looking at? I'm in Exhibit -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Your development standards. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it is Tract RA, 4.13. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page 2, last word? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. NADEAU: Yeah, okay, the stuff I just changed. Please proceed. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to know what shelter was. MR. NADEAU: Oh, if it were just to be a pavilion that were outside, provide shelter from the rain, so you come off the pool deck and you can stand under the shelter. That's all that is. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. No, I just wondered what that was. MR. NADEAU: No, it's not a hurricane shelter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any other questions -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and Dwight, since you're going to come back, you know, reviewing the platting and stuff, have somebody check out the code issues on this, okay? Because first of all, I'm concerned about that one building which does have the rears touching. That's similar to some, you know, dec. statements that have come before the fire tac. for the Building Commission which 1 sit on, and we've denied that to be townhouses. So that really is a -- you know, going to be a mixed use building -- or I'm sorry, a multi- family unit, which would take it from R -3 to R -2. I think you're going to have a tough time making these R -3, which is what you want. And once you -- if you fail to make them R -3s, the code requirements on separation and fire resistance and openings are going to be a tough battle. So kind of take a look at that to see if --because you may want to make them R2s, which these driveways now become courtyards, they're not separation from building and stuff. So since you're going to look at code, look at, you know, the building codes too to see if that alters anything. MR. NADEAU: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one final thing. The relationship between the cottages and the ALF, what is that? MR. NADEAU: The relationship between the cottages and the ALF are that there will be a menu of services to -- offered from the ALF facility. It might be a concierge service. There will be opportunities for monitoring the senior living people in independent units where if they need to press a button to say I've fallen and I can't get up or if they haven't taken their meds as required, there's going to be this multimedia system available to them to interact with the facilities and the ALF. If they need to have dinner brought to them, they'll golf cart it over. So the independent units will have the opportunity to use all of the facilities of the ALF but there'll be a menu of selections that they can choose from. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at that time? Jeff Page 51 1> ` February 4, 2010 MR. KLATZKOW: I take it that this development is based on an existing development? MR. NADEAU: The appropriateness of the development? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I take it that this type of development has already been built by the applicant elsewhere? I mean, going through his website, this is their business. So my guess is that you've built substantially similar residential communities like this elsewhere? MR. GILLESPIE: Of one variation or another, yes. But of this exact combination with this layout of cottages to the ALF, we haven't done that. I'm not going to say that that exact configuration's been done. We have built many independent living cottages, we have been involved in the construction of ALFs and senior housing. MR. KLATZKOW: Could you get me an example -- MR. GILLESPIE: Sure. MR. KLATZKO W: --actual photos of developments you've actually put into the ground? MR. GILLESPIE: Absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: Because this is pretty new for me anyway, I don't know for you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm thinking that they've done this before and it would be nice to see what it looks like. MR. GILLESPIE: I can give you also some examples herein town of this same kind of independent living cottage configuration with assisted living facilities. There are some examples that are in the area that I'll also include. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff presentation. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Kay? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, with the Zoning section of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division. You have in your information a staff report last revised 1/15110. The staff report goes into detail as to who the agent is, who the owner is, the requested action, the location, a brief description of the project. Explains both pictorially and in writing the surrounding land uses in zonings. It has an analysis of the growth management issues that are applicable to this project. And it goes into PUD findings and rezone findings in support of staffs recommendation. Also discusses the deviations and provides staffs recommendation for those deviations. In summary, staff is recommending approval of all three deviations, and we are recommending approval of the rezoned PUD amendment petition. And I'm available for any questions you might have. I have looked at the proposed new PUD document, and I don't have any questions as far as what's proposed, with the exception that I would ask since it came up that there is going to be a relationship between the independent living units and the ALF units, I think there needs to be some reference to that within the Tract ALF permitted uses. Because originally we were talking about making some limitation of commercial uses to only residents of the ALF. And it sounds as though those might also be available to the independent living unit residents as well. So I just wanted to make sure that we get something in there that clarifies that relationship so they don't run into problems down the road when they try to implement that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the deviation number two -- three on the parking where that -- it talks about the petitioner has demonstrated that the element may be waived. Now, I know that their letter isn't enough demonstration, at least from my concerns. If you find any further information on examples of where that's occurred that you know of, would you please make sure you provide it by the next Planning Commission meeting? MS. DESELEM: Most certainly. I'll look into it and see what more I can find. There is a reference to Lee County regulations and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- what they have. And I'll look further to see what else I can fine as far as county or Page 52 161 1 AAS 9q February 4, 2010 municipal regulations. And I assume the applicant's going to be providing something from the private sector. Is that basically what you're asking me to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason, if this happens, if this occurs, it will set a precedent. And as you know, there's going to be probably a lot of others following in. I don't want us to jump into this without the thorough research that it hasn't caused a bigger problem somewhere else if we do that. MS. DESELEM: I would note that in Lee County's regulation, although they have a lesser amount per unit, they do have a specific amount, that 10 percent that they want to set aside, which assumes a visitor population. So you could go something like that where you have half of per unit plus some percentage that would address a visitor population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree, we should be looking at conditions. Lee County has other conditions too in the way they define the unit and how they count them. I think those are all important considerations and I think that in order to be properly demonstrated, staff needs to participate in understanding some language that is used. Now, it won't be part of our code, butjust like the .60 FAR is not part of our code, it becomes part of what everybody's going to be asking for most likely here on out. And I have read some books because the issue is becoming personally relevant to me -- not because of myself, by the way. And one of them complaints about many of the retirement communities is that they don't have enough parking. And I don't want us to get into that trap. So I don't mind moving forward, but we've just got to be sure that we're moving on the right foot. MS. DESELEM: I'd be more than happy to look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers on this one? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish to ask for a continuance before we vote on this today? Before you speak, I might suggest to you that the parking issue needs to be resolved. There needs to be a neighborhood agreement that is now referenced or going to be referenced. The tables need to be corrected. The proposed plat needs to be seen. And there are some miscellaneous language changes that would be better done with us receiving the documents ahead of time rather than doing it on the fly. With that in mind, do you want to continue this? COMMISSIONER CARON: And market studies that were going to be provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, there's a market study that Ms. Caron had asked about as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: The ALF parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reference -- yeah, that's the parking issue. MR. NADEAU: Oh, the parking study, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, as far as the neighborhood agreements, I don't really want to see proposed agreements, I'd like to see some evidence that there's an -- I'd love to see an agreement. But in the absence of that and seeing testimony from those who represent the neighborhood coming in indicating that they are very pro for something that whatever minor matters have to be worked out. MR. NADEAU: Of course. The Germans own Gorman's Auto down on Marco Island. They're working twelve hours a day. Many folks in the neighborhood, our meetings occurred after 5:00. It may be difficult, but maybe we can get some other written testimony rather than asking them to come into the chambers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have to have anybody stand on their head to get achievement, but I do have to feel comfortable. And I wondering, who all are the neighborhood? Is there an association, are there more than one? Who are representing those folks? Because they're going to live with this for the rest of time. MR. NADEAU: That's very true. They don't have -- they are not organized. They have some neighborhood leaders that are vocal in issues, most particularly the C.A.T. transfer station. They were all riled up about that. Page 53 February 4, 2010 But we've been working with that same group in listening to their problems. They didn't have -- I don't need to go into this, but they really didn't have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you do. MR. NADEAU: — a problem with the project, they had a problem with things that were outside of the project that they wanted our help with. And we were more than happy to help them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but Dwight, if you're going to come in and you're going to have subject to, subject to, subject to, you're going to be subject to my no vote. So that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you've demonstrated part of the frustration or problem we have. If you're striking deals with the neighborhood, I think it's to your best interest to get the neighborhood defined. Then come back in with the neighborhood's best I guess recognition that your -- you and them have worked these matters out. Because as it stands now, we don't have any way of knowing any better who the neighborhood is than you are, so MR. NADEAU: Very good. And for the record, not having to jeopardize the project, it's a valuable project, the petitioner has accepted a continuance. We don't know how far our advertising's going to carry us. May affect our board date, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're requesting an indefinite continuance, is that -- MR. NADEAU: Requesting an indefinite continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from the Planning Commission's perspective, is there a motion to accept their request for an indefinite continuance? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'TTI: I will second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vighotti. Is there any 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 MIDNF,Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Let the record reflect that, by the way, Mr. Wolfley left at noontime. I flunk for --out of-- we should go through the Radio Lane development. I'm not --we'll just walk through that one and see where we stand with that one as we go through it. MR. NADEAU: Of course. If you'll just bear with me for a moment, I need to go get those materials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, remember at lunch you said you sent something out. Is this what you sent out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, Ray, I had sent an LDC cut and paste document that I had done in response to the Immokalee area deviations coming up on the LDC amendments on February 26th. There's 44 pages on the Phase B request for LDC amendments. And Bob Mulhere received a copy, as well as Susan and a few others. Bob was going to distribute that to the Planning Commission members. I didn't want to do it myself, so I sent it to Bob for distribution. Would you follow up and fmd out if someone's going to get that out to everybody so they can read it? Not now, but 1 mean sometime between now and our next meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want them dropped off today if they're ready? Page 54 161 1 A February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have them. But I think Bob was going to distribute it, because he's the applicant. So I was trying to not put the burden on the county staff. MR. BELLOWS: We'll definitely do that. If he gives them to us, we'll drop them off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Oh, and Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, we don't need the Vanderbilt Beach extension. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, we absolutely do. I would worry about you getting into one of these ALF's if you keep bringing it up all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Dwight, are you ready? MR. NADEAU: I am indeed. Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734. TOFINO RPUD Again, good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RWA. I'm representing this petition, Tofino RPUD, which is planning No. 734. I'm representing Radio Lane LLC. This particular piece of property lies across the street from Palm Springs Boulevard. This particular piece of property is owned by a different entity, which is the Radio Lane LLC, although there's some crossover between some of the ownership entities that -- MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, I think we need to be sworn in on this item too. MR. NADEAU: Oh, probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, we should do them both. I'm sorry. Thank you, Kay, that was a very good point. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm used to dealing with the same crowd so I didn't -- I completely forgot. This is Petition PUDZA -PL- 2009 -734, Radio Lane Development LLC. That will be known as the Tofino RPUD. Any Planning Commission members have any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I spoke to Dwight about both of them at the same time, so I can't tell if the discussion overlapped, but so be it, we'll go forward. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Very good. Again, this is another 10.75 -acre parcel. It was previously rezoned from C -1 to the MAC PUD. It was approved for 86 dwelling units. Again, this petition is not intending to change the density on the site, nor change the preserve from what was originally approved. There was a site development plan issued for the Tofino SDP. And the impact fees were never paid and picked up. But that process was completed. This particular project is going to be very similar to the Sarecino project in that we're looking to plat, we're looking to use attached single - family homes, but this is residential. This residential development plan looks like this. And as you can see, there's yellow enclaves throughout where the clustering of the buildings will occur. There is a recreation area tract, and we do have a lake in Tract R. However, we can make that correction as well, Commissioner Caron. There was a question about what that little yellow box is down next to the detention area. That actually is a two -unit building. And for illustrative purposes, but I don't want to be held to it, I want to show you how the actual layout looks from the conceptual site plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good and busy. Page 55 19 February 4, 2010 MR. NADEAU: Yes, it's a compact design and it provides for the access easements. In this instance, though, these are really unique, because the fronts of the units are actually the rear of the units. So there won't be any cars parking in the --near the front door of the units. There's a green paseo that would be a pedestrian access that would have canopy vegetation shielded and will provide more of a, you know, a park feeling between the units. These also will be articulated so that they'll be a very pleasant streetscape. And they'll be served by motor courts in the rear of the units. And you look, they're these areas in here where each unit will have its own two car garage. So what we're trying to do we're trying to eliminate the visibility of vehicles on the road. We do have some guest parking. And if you're interested, they're going to be very unique kind of Key West style cottages that are two -story but they're really a mezzanine type of a two -story where you walk up to your front porch, step up to the inside, or you can step down to the lower level where the garage is and there's a living level above. I'll show you a little bit of a -- probably what I'll do is I'll show you a cross- section and then what the floor plan kind of looks like. Again, these are in design stages, and we wouldn't want to be held to these. But this is the character and what the intent is for the development. This is a cross - sectional view of how the houses would be constructed. As you see, you come in from the front porch, you walk upstairs into the main living area, or you could walk downstairs to the mother -in -law's apartment and the garage. This will give you a perspective from the floor plan view where up in living room up in here, master bath, and then downstairs are the two bedrooms, some utilities and the two car garage behind. Those two car garages occur off of the motor courts. There were -- I'm going to move on now to some of the changes to the document. There were some requests for --or there were some concerns that were brought up yesterday. And Ijust wanted to try and identify these upfront. Maybe they can alleviate some of those concems here today. Most particularly there was some concern that the provision for multi - family on this site may not be appropriate because we weren't identifying a multi - family tract. So what the developer has agreed to do, or the petitioner, excuse me, is to go ahead and remove reference to multi - family from Tract R, permitted uses, as well as to remove the development standards attendant to the multi - family uses in table two -- table one, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How did you do that, Ray? MR. NADEAU: It's still a little dark. I'll play with it later. So that would be the removal of the multi - family uses. Also, there was some identification that the recreation development standards were again -- or the accessory structures were higher than what was permitted for the clubhouse buildings. Those have been corrected to be consistent. COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, Dwight, all the way across on that. MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By all the way across, you're referring to the fact that it's missed again on the single - family, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, sorry. MR. NADEAU: I can get into the layout, the various layouts of the building. I've showed you the overall master plan. I've also included some typical figures within the PUD to show the definitiveness of how we're proposing to move forward. This is one of the scenarios where we would have the single- family attached units across but not attached in the rear. This would provide for a front yard off of the alley, side yards off of the access easement, and these being the rear yards separated from the paseo. The common lines would be -- the line running between the units just six inches off the sidewalk and up to the access easement would be the defined lot that would be intended for fee simple sale. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dwight, on the paseo, 1 can't visualize, but you did describe earlier that there's going to be floral and perhaps some structure supporting the floral. I think that's what you said, some -- Page 56 Ibis A5 4Wq February 4, 2010 MR. NADEAU: Yeah, there will be some latticework, and there may be some canopy vegetation. It's supposed to look like a garden. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who's responsible? Is that common property, or is that -- MR. NADEAU: That would be common property. It would be installed by the developer and most likely maintained by the association, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those are -- are we limiting it to lattice? In other words, there's no structural consequence? I'm trying to figure out where the burden begins for a homeowner relative to where the common property is and what the implications of that will be in the future. MR. NADEAU: Of course. I think the only burden to the property owner is going to be the maintenance cost that would be out of the association dues. The developer will be installing all of the floral materials, any bench seating, any latticework, any paving -- paver bricks, the treatment for marketing purposes. And the association would maintain those common areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What level of income are we shooting for in this particular program? MR. NADEAU: Well, I think I'd have to defer to my client on that, which I will be bringing him up. And I can do so right now or you can continue with your questioning -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, where I'm going with this, it could be answered later. But as long as we get to it at some point. And I'm not trying to micromanage this, but certainly I think it's important. It could be very nice. But with all the adornment, we also see a potential future expense. And, you know, we could over -fix something, and the people who occupy can then end up in some trouble. So I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going. It's very busy, very tight, compact operation. And I'd just like to know more about it before I'm comfortable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Dwight, to start out, what's the open space on this? MR. NADEAU: It would be a required 60 percent open space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to hit that okay? MR. NADEAU: And we will hit that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. These alleys are a little tight. How does the person at the end get out of it? Does he back, can he turn? He's kind of in a tough spot. But I guess he can go, you know, up to the garage door on one side and come around. But he's -- MR. NADEAU: Well, the end unit would be able to back out of the driveway and proceed out in this fashion. And we're going to - -just like anytime you back up in a parking lot, you need to make sure nobody behind you is doing the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I should -- I'm more worried about the dead -end alley, that one. MR. NADEAU: The dead -end alley? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And whatever you do, don't make that distance greater than 150 feet from the -- MR. NADEAU: Oh, no, we would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- curb or you will get a wrath of hell like you didn't believe. MR. NADEAU: Yeah, it would be difficult to put a cul -de -sac in here. So the actual units would be -- because there's a driveway along here. We would be able to back out -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not worried about him. I'm worried about the two of you that went straight in. I assume that's what happens. If I lived on those long units to the far right. MR. NADEAU: There. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. NADEAU: They are going to have to back out and probably do a three -point turn to come out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you're right, if they've ever visited Key West, this will be easy. One thing, we got to really be careful with the code work on this. That little slot you have on the side to bring light into the room steeper in, how wide is that? And is it like -- MR. NADEAU: Well, we were looking at the sidewalk. Maybe it's five or so feet, six feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've got to get your architect to look at the Florida versions of the Page 57 February 4, 2010 International Building Code. First of all, we have a default four -hour firewall. I've tried to change it. The vote last failed six -four. Two more people, we got rid of that. So there's a massive firewall requirement in Florida that other states don't have. The fire protection, if you do prevail keeping these as independents, which my prediction is you won't. But then there would be so much rating alongside those walls, all the windows are going to have to be protected. I mean, you're going to have a sprinkler system. You're probably going to have to bring it up to a full 13 to maybe fight off some of that protection. But I think before -- if we're going to do the same thing on this one, you come back, really make sure the architect has seriously looked at Florida's version of the codes and all the weirdness that might be in there. Because I think first of all in Florida any time you have more than three buildings attached, this is the State Attomey's, you know, word, it becomes a multi - family building. MR. NADEAU: I got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you do -- you're going to lose R -3 in the building code. Whether we keep zoning -- calling it a single - family, I don't know. So just really be careful on that. Or really took into it. Because I'm not sure you have. And it is important to keep these as independent properties. All of these would qualify as townhouses, but unfortunately in Florida a townhouse with three units becomes multi - family again. MR. NADEAU: Indeed. But we have worked with county staff where we can go through the platting process for these types of uses. And the commentary that you're referring related to the construction techniques is being recognized and I'm sure logged in by the developer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question in terms of landscaping. Again, this alley, there's no place for a tree or anything in there. So what kind of landscaping are these things going to have? I like the look, I like what you're doing, but unfortunately your drawings show trees. I mean, what is going to happen for vegetation in that alley? It's your front setback. So I assume that's your porch is going to be on that side? Or where would the sitting porch in this unit be? MR. NADEAU: The sitting porches would be off of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The rear? MR. NADEAU: --off of the fronts inhere. There's opportunities for landscaping in these little terminal islands that are common between -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're five feet -- the landscape code doesn't allow anything that narrow. MR. NADEAU: The landscape code doesn't require anything — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, we do an island in a parking lot it's got to be greater than five feet. So, I mean, that's something staff will review. In other words, I'm just concerned that that could end up looking like a pretty -- not as nice as your drawing of the single unit. MR. GILLESPIE: The -- I might add for clarification, and I'm going to admit to a lot of the modeling here came from Ole', the way that the courtyards -- auto courts work there, as well as his description of the interior courtyard spaces and how the floral and the lattice and those sorts of things. So I'll be happy to -- we have a whole series of photography from those areas that I think clearly defines. That was we actually hired the designer that did that for Stock to help us create this neo- traditional -- or T &D approach to the layout. And I'll bring photos for the next meeting of that example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The people and residents to this facility are limited to 55 and over? MR. NADEAU: It's all -- no, I'm sorry, these are not age restricted. MR. GILLESPIE: No, these are not age restricted. Page 58 161 1 A5 M, February 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to find out the price points? MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes. MR. GILLESPIE: Price points are going to start in -- the hoped for price point is going to be in the -- starting in the 230's and go up to the low 300's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We need to provide Cherie' with a break, especially as fast as I've been talking today. So why don't we take a break till 2:15 and we'll resume at that time. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Welcome back from the break. When we left we were off -- we left off on questions of the applicant. And I think I'd asked everybody if they had anymore questions. I'll ask one more time, does anybody have questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a couple. One of them will be of staff, so let's move on from that. On the table, Dwight, you already acknowledged that multi - family's coming off. We've got the height corrected. This 16 feet from back of curb. You need to change -- correct that with a footnote like we typically do for the 23 feet if the garage on the front. And it's a front opening garage, if you remember that language. MR. NADEAU: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back of curve. Do we know that all the streets are going to be curbed? MR. NADEAU: The streets will all be curbed and guttered? Valley gutter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, usually it's the back of curb or edge of pavement. You might want to -- whichever -- if there's a curb present, it's back of curb, if not, it's edge of pavement. You may want to put some clarification in there so you've got that covered in case there isn't any curb. MR. NADEAU: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With these units being part of the -- described as much as they are in the PUD and with the concerns that Brad Schiffer's got, he is a state licensed Florida architect, he's on numerous architectural and fire boards, you guys may have a real serious problem about your design. And if you do, it would be to your best interest to get that fixed before you put it back in this document. Otherwise you're going to be coming back to a public process to change the document. And I would suggest that whoever you've got working on this real carefully go over what the concerns were following up to Brad's expressions, because he certainly has a lot more knowledge of the building code than any of us up here, I would think. In the planning stipulations that were in the PUD, the prior PUD had several paragraphs that required you working -- again, working with the owners of the Palm Springs neighborhood. None of that got carried over into this new PUD. Do you know why? Did you get -- do you have an agreement then that exists where you've worked that out with the neighborhood? MR. NADEAU: Actually, no, we don't have the agreement. Similar to the Sarecino project we spoke about, the Tofino project is not one that is going to be initiating development sooner than Sarecino. Therefore, through the discussions with the neighborhood, we took their concerns that were attendant to the MAC PUD and applied them all to Sarecino so they could be implemented sooner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to get -- because you're dropping off those references to what you were going to do for the neighborhood from the prior PUD to this PUD, they become issues. You need to get those resolved I would think with that neighborhood the same way you're going to get the first one resolved. MR. NADEAU: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and that's the only questions I have. Does anybody else have any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report then. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon again. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with the zoning section of Collier County, Community Development and Environmental Services Division. Again, you have the staff report with a revised date of 1115. The staff report does explain who the property Page 59 February 4, 2010 owner and agents are; the requested action; the geographic location; a brief description of the purpose and project description. Provides the surrounding land use and zoning, both in written form and pictorially in the aerial photograph. Goes into the Growth Management Plan analysis that includes both the transportation element and the Future Land Use Element. The analysis from staff begins on Page 5 with the various staff members involved in the review of the project included. It does show the stipulations that have been proposed to address environmental review's concerns, as well as transportation concerns. Going over onto Page 6 of the staff report, it continues with the other staff members' review comments, columating (sic) with -- comu -- yeah, ending with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've all got that affliction today, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Thank God there's other words. -- ending with the zoning review comments and a brief analysis of this project in relationship to the heights of the surrounding area. Beginning on Page 7 you have the PUD findings. And going on you have the rezone findings on Page 8, continuing through the staff report. These are made in support of staffs recommendation of approval. You do have a deviation discussion in the staff report. And again, similar to the previous petition, staff is recommending approval of the deviations and is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of the overall PUD rezone amendment petition. And I'm available if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got two. On Page 15 of your staff report --actually, maybe three --the one on top is really going to be of I guess the county transportation department. But John, don't get up and hobble up here. Let me see if Kay can answer it first. Or Nick. Will that carry that far? Do a test, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Test, test. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only answer I'm trying to get is on the top of Page 15, it says, the project is still under review by the Collier County Transportation Department and Comprehensive Planning Department who does the growth management analysis. Is it still under review? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I've got to tell you, I'm unfamiliar with the language that you're referring to at the moment. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, if I may? For the record, Kay Deselem. Let me get him the staff report so he can be looking at the same language and respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is concerning traffic congestion on Palm Springs Boulevard. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: One moment. For the record, John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's too bad Kady's not here today. I bet someone's having a great time trying to catch you on camera. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's okay. Sorry about the delay. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. This is not under review at the moment, but traffic calming is an ongoing issue that may still be under review. You know, it's not that it's under review, that it's something that will be addressed through the NTMP process that's on -line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it need to be addressed through the PUD process? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe it does. There's a separate process for that that can be addressed at the time of SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. `There's also a reference here to working with the county to improve the drainage between 1 -75 and Magnolia Pond Drive. I'm not sure what all that has to do with this project, but it's in the staff report. Is that you -- since drainage is under transportation, is that something you can respond to? Page 60 16 11 A 5 February 4, 2010 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, it is. I've been working a little bit with the stormwater department, Jerry Kurtz, the director over there -- I'm sorry, manager over there. And one of the initiatives that we're looking at is improving drainage for the entire basin that these two PUDs, the one prior to this one and this PUD both sit within. Each of these PUDs has offered a proportionate share of drainage improvements that will benefit the entire basin. And that's essentially I think $7,500 of contribution from each one. And that's going to benefit both of those. It also -- those monies are to be contributed towards a portion of the MGG -15 canal, it's called, which is on the north side of I -75. Basically it drains the basin all the way over to Davis Boulevard and 951, that comer. It takes drainage all the way from there and takes it all the way up to Golden Gate main canal, north of the highway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the solution to the statement that they will be working with the county to improve drainage, that basically has been worked out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Very true, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the time this was written, apparently it hadn't been. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I needed to bother for hobbling up here with. Thank you. Appreciate it, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing I noticed in the preap., that the fire department wasn't there. I think it would be wise if the applicant went by the fire department and reviewed it. I think they've got radiuses okay, but there is the ability to have fire department access to sides of a building. The ultimate result is what kind of construction you could build that building. So again, in the things to do, I think since they weren't at the preap., and, you know, I would kind of go by and visit them and make sure everything is happening cool. MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem. We do invite the fire department staff to attend the preaps. Most often in the case of a PUD, they opt not to attend because their comment is generally that they'll address it at SDP or plat. But they are invited. But yes, I'll give the applicant the required information that they need to know who to contact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think they should visit, in case there's any concerns. Because this -- what you're doing is really tight and tight. And I really like what you're doing, don't ever misunderstand that. But really, you've got to be careful because, you know, you're pushing yourself to the edge, to the edge, to the edge, and you want to make sure you're comfortable there. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, are there any public speakers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is just for clarification. On your Page 15, the sentence is confusing me a little bit. It's the -- well, let's -- from the bottom of one, two, three, fourth one up. And where in the second sentence Mr. Nadeau quoted from the MAC PUD ordinance which stated that the development will contribute 50 percent of the construction cost of the fence or construct 50 percent of the length of the fence. Which 50 percent are we talking -- I don't understand what that means exactly. MS. DESELEM: Since it was Mr. Nadeau's statement, I will let him try to explain to you. But it does come out of the old PUD language. And I won't say that it was crystal clear at the time either, so -- but I'll let him respond, if that's appropriate for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, that is one of the items that was in that old language I asked them to come back and have that agreement worked out before they came back to us. Page 61 r � F ru 1 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good, so then it's moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's what I was saying, it's from the old PUD document -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine, it just didn't make any sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I need to ask the applicant how they want to proceed. We're missing three items. Obviously the example -- the plat, proposed plat as we had talked about in the previous one; the neighborhood agreement, as we talked about in the previous one; and there's numerous issues regarding references to multi- family and other language and table changes that need to be done to tighten this up. I would suggest you may request a continuance indefinitely like you did in the last one until these matters are clarified. Along with I think for your own benefit to take a closer look at the units you've designed to see -- to make sure they work. MR. NADEAU: With regard to the Southern Standard Building Code, I presume? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With regard to all the issues discussed here today. I'm not going to -- MR. NADEAU: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- nitpick over code. Brad's much better than that, and you don't want to go up against him on that issue either. MR. NADEAU: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NADEAU: On behalf of the petitioner, we would like to request an indefinite continuance on this to be able to work out our specific agreement with the neighbors, to provide a schematic subdivision plat, as well as to address the changes to the document, look at the construction methodologies for the proposed buildings to ensure that they can comply with the matters that were discussed today. I humbly request that continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for a continuance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. 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 MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. 'thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make one comment, Dwight. You know, PUDs do creative and new types of development. I think this is the first time we actually really had something that was creative, so -- MR. NADEAU: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- don't take our comments to mean to not -- MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We just want it to work for everybody. Page 62 161 1 A5 February 4, 2010 Item #10 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we don't have any old business scheduled and we have no new business scheduled. Oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Under old business, which I'm pretty confident that Nick isn't prepared, but I just wanted to remind him -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At all? For anything? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're going to blindside him? COMMISSIONER CARON: --that there were a couple of issues that got brought up at the last CCPC meeting that he was going to get back to us on. One was the roadway width of 50 to 60 feet and the planting requirements in the smaller spaces. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have the roadway width question. It would be a good discussion to have at the Planning Commission for five or 10 minutes, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Well, I'm not sure, are we trying to make a deadline here to get out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't care. We can add it to an item for the future or we can discuss it at this meeting, it's up to you all. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's fine either say by me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. On the roadway width, we can discuss it now. Mr. Mulhere, I spoke with him on the phone, he's coming down with those LDC. He should be here shortly. He called about 20 minutes ago, said he was on his way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the right -of -way width. We have a typical standard that we hold and we say this is kind of like the idea of what we'd like you to build. What happens is you can see this PUD was a good example where they're doing access easements. The idea for us to have a standard is based on MUTCD AASHTO guidelines, you know, FDOT guidelines as well too. Most of the applicants will take a look at that and they become creative. They put a multi -use pathway on the back of the houses, we've seen on one development. This one has a paseo and an easement. So you have a standard in the LDC. 60, 80 percent of the time when they get creative they change those standards. It is a deviation that is there all the time. And I think even in one of the PUDs I read last time it said we encourage you to come up with something more creative and we will support the deviation if it's there. But we have to come up with a standard as a kind of go -by, and then that way we have something to start from. But that's the reason it's there. And you see that deviation quite a bit, because part of our goal is to encourage alternative design through the PUD process. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I don't have any problem with being creative and doing alternative designs. My question related to just the fact are we just making it rote and for none of those reasons, that we're just -- we'll take that out because that allows us over our entire PUD to shove a few more units in because we can get away without this roadway width. So that was all. I have no problem if we are genuinely being creative, if we are genuinely doing something else that helps, like pathways. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: That makes all the sense in the world to me. But it's just been sort of a check box, okay, well, it's supposed to be 60, but we'll deviate to 50 -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: --without any explanation really as to why or what is it that the community is getting a benefit from from having them do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of those things too as I looked at them are also the underground utilities. They have spacing requirements. And some designs will take those utilities and put them in the utility easement or tie them together differently. Page 63 February 4, 2010 So that typical design you see in many subdivisions, that 60 -foot standard, when the designer comes in, he says I can move the utilities, I can put the pathway in the back, I can shrink the roadway width by doing these things, that's where you get those deviations. So you will see a number of them. I think it's a good point to ask them why have you done it, what creative thing have you done, and maybe it's staffs to -- us to point out to you what's there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's all I'm asking is obviously there can be reasons, and very creative reasons. And I think it should be explained to this board what is the public getting for this gift to these people. Because there should be something, some benefit to the overall community. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or the neighborhood, whatever. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we will take note to point it out to you when there is a deviation, what benefit does that deviation derive, what is the alternative design that's been done to drive that. And that other one you had wanted to talk to me about was the landscape or the trees? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I have that down. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other old or new business? (No response.) Item # 12 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment. There's no -- anybody in the public have a comment? There's very few left. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 VIGLIOTIT Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are adjourned. Page 64 16/1 A 5,bruary 4, 2010 There being no finther business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:39 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION t,1 MARE STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on -3 ' y - lO as presented ✓ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 65 Fiala 61 1 A V -1i V RECEIVED Halas Henning' — February 17, 2010 MAR 1 2 2010 Coyle Coletta ""'TRANSCrUPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida February 17, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Thomas Lykos Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Lee Horn Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Ian Jackson, Building Review & Permitting Michael Ossorio, Building Review & Permitting Robert Zachary, County Attorney's Office Patrick Neale, CLB Attorney Page 1 Misc. Cones: Nem t: L *ies to: t1 �Y.,� February 17, 2010 (The proceedings commenced without Mr. Boyd and Mr. Horn being present.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right. Let's call the meeting to order of the Collier Contractor Licensing Board. Today is Wednesday, February 17th, 2010. Before we get started, for the record, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. At this time I want to remind everybody to speak slowly and speak one at a time into the microphone because we're being recorded. We'll start with roll call to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Tom Lykos. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And, thankfully, Patrick got here just -- just in the nick of time, and we do have a quorum_ . So we'll have official business today. Thank you. MR. WHITE: On -time delivery. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing, Collier County. The staff has one addition, a request to authorize the chair to sign orders to pay the civil penalties, and that will conclude the additions and deletions. (Mr. Boyd entered the room.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Those are additions and deletions. I need a motion to approve. MRS �TpSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. k -,�r Page 2 1601 A�j� lbruar 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just before we get started, for the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing. Just to let you know, Mr. Jamie French is here in the building. If you want to speak to him, he's -- any questions during the meeting, he'd be willing to help you answer any questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Mr. French, did you want to address the board at any specific time? MR. FRENCH: I'll do it right now. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's great. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Good morning. For those of you that don't know me, my name's Jamie French. Sorry I'm a little winded. I just ran in from the parking lot. I just wanted to introduce myself to you today and, also, take the opportunity to thank, you. I know as professionals and as community members this takes a lot of your time, and as -- from staff s point of view, we certainly appreciate the civic pride that you show by being on these boards. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about some of the reorganization that's going on at CDS and -- just to let you know that Mike's group has been brought in with the operations piece. Excuse me. I'm just trying to get caught up. But at any rate, what -- what's happening is that we're actually looking at some of the efficiencies that we could install, and not just Page 3 Fvbrua+P, 2010 the services that he provides but, also, some of the other services that we provide in community development. And with that what we've done is that we've. actually brought over some additional staff to help Mike on that front -end line, but in return Mike's going to provide us some oversight on some of the other licensing functions that goes on within our organization. So it really is a cost benefit to not just the community but, also, to Mike's organization because it gives him two additional staff members that he's not currently budgeted for or paying for on that frontline that'll actually free him up and get him more out in the field. Also, we are working very closely -- part of my organization is that we're an integrated operations support so that we are still working very closely with the building official. The building official does provide some oversight to Mike. He's still involved in the permitting function, and he's going to be very much a part of Community Development from this point forward. So the only thing that we do see in the future is finding out where we can even be more efficient here. So if there's anything that I can answer for you from this point from an operations point of view, I'm certainly happy to do that. MR. JOSLIN: What other types of licensing factors are we going to be responsible for hearing cases on? MR. FRENCH: This board will not be responsible for anything -- we -- we don't envision that you'll be responsible for anything more than what we're currently asking you to do, but Mike will be serving as a staff liaison to the consumer advisory board, which meets about quarterly. At the very most it would meet once a month. And, really, what they do is they provide regulatory oversight over the vehicle for hire -- this -- this -- this -- was formerly known as the Public Vehicle for Hire Board. What happened is that the Board of County Commissioners recognized that there may be some conflict, may be some protectionism as that -- as that board was currently Page 4 16 4 1 ``''� ebrul�ry 17, 2010 assembled and was assembled for a number of years. So they -- they -- they -- they told staff to go back -- and at the time I had that group, and they told us to go back and revisit that and come up with our -- our best approach of regulating that business. And for the past year my group has done that. What Mike is really going to be doing is, because of the renewal seasons and how they're opposite of one another from, say, the Professional Contractors' Boards and the Vehicle for Licensing Board -- and that staff is already -- it's only a staff of about 1 1/2 FTEs. What happens is that for an entire month, month and a half, that staff is -- is pretty loaded down with about 1200 drivers and companies that they're renewing. During that time Mike's folks are basically still doing their job. I don't want to say that they're not busy, but it's not during your renewal season. So what we felt like is that if -- it's almost going to a relief pitcher, so to speak, if we talk baseball. In the event that you have someone that's out sick, vacation, whatnot, Mike's already got a staff that's trained in the licensing field very similar to what goes on in the vehicle for hire business, so that he could provide kind of the relief pictures -- pitchers, and in return when -- when the contractors' licensing business is extremely busy, he's got two extra staff members there to fall back on so that if he has someone out sick, if he has someone that -- he just needs a little extra help, that staff will be cross - trained. (Mr. Horn entered the room.) MR. FRENCH: So it's not as though we'll be bringing those -- those -- that business in front of you. We do have a board that has already been established. It is a quasi judicial board. Mike will be providing oversight as far as the staff liaison, but I'm very much involved with that as well as our Operations Manager, a gentleman by the name of Ken Kavanski, who is a direct report to me. Ken's been with me a number of years. Page 5 d !P 161 February 17, 2010 And -- and I know as -- Mr. White, he knows that we're also involved -- my group was also involved with regulating all of the private utilities in Collier County, so I serve as the Executive Director for the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. So I -- I'm very multifaceted. I wear a number of different hats, but all in a regulatory sense. So we felt like it was a great fit. We followed a lot of different models when we looked -- or we looked at a lot of different models; one of which that we really liked and that we really felt like fit our business as far as the licensing side was on the Broward County side. And we're still tweaking that. We're still seeing where we can be more efficient with less burden, of course, on the taxpayers of Collier County because, even though it's a license that pays it, a license is, in turn, some sort of tax. So we want to make sure we're getting the best available product out of the money we have available. So, again, we are going to be working very closely with Mike providing him some -- maybe a little bit more oversight than what they've had in the past. And we're going to be blending some functions as they make sense. Now, if we feel like the level of customer service has dropped, if we feel like there's some -- there's some failure modes based off of the -- that we're going into some failure modes based off some of the detectable that we've -- that we -- that we've installed in the process, we'll pull back, and we'll change those inputs so that it doesn't do anything more than improve the results that you're seeing from his staff and, also, from the licensing folks up front. So we're -- we're -- again, we're -- we're -- we're -- we're going through some tough times budget wise, and we're going to make the most efficiencies we possibly can, not just out of Mike's group, but as well as the entire Community Development Organization. So we're really excited about it. We -- we hope that you're excited as well. We -- we appreciate -- we -- we do look at you as a Page 6 161 1A6 February 17, 2010 partner, someone that kind of keeps us in check, gives us honest feedback, not just as citizens but as professionals. And we need that because it helps us grow. It -- it gives us our areas where we need to improve. So we do really look forward to working with you. I'll leave out some of my business cards for Mike to hand out at the end of the meeting. And if you'd like to meet with me privately, if you'd like to sit down with Mike and I, I am happy to meet with you at any time. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. I do have a couple of questions. Last year the Licensing Board approved a license fee increase based on a financial analysis done by the Billing Department because the license -- because the licensing was part of the building fund. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And now that that -- the licensing has been moved to operations, how is -- how is the Licensing Department being funded? And if that fee increase is still necessary -- and I know that permit fees were also increased partially in support of -- of licensing. And will permit fees be addressed now that licensing's been -- been changed? MR. FRENCH: What -- what we have told the County Manager, and certainly what we've advised the Board of County Commissioners, is that we will do -- is bring in quarterly reports, quarterly business reports to determine what our overhead costs are. And we will break it down as far as what's costing how much and in what department. To answer your question will those fees be revisited, I intend to revisit those fees on a quarterly basis to -- to almost do a self check. That means if we've got to come in annually, if we've got to come in quarterly, we'll do whatever the board advises us to do as far as the Board of County Commissioners. I would tell you that this function is still in a 113 cost center. I'm Page 7 February 17, 2010 also going to tell you the vehicle for hire function is 111 general fund. You're not paying for that. That's a -- in other words, there is money -- it's -- that -- that burden for that staff, that's paid for by 111, that's -- that's labor that Mike is getting. In return he's providing some oversight. I would tell you you're on the better on that deal. Just as my oversight -- I am not a burden on 113 whatsoever. I'm -- I'm primarily paid for out of the utility regulatory trust fund with some general fund offsite. So we're looking at everything. Will -- will that result in us coming back and reducing the cost? At this point, sir, I can't tell you. I can tell you that I will look at it. That's a promise I will make, and we'll continue to evaluate that. It may come back, and I may tell you we're still off. We're -- we're losing money. Or I may come back and say we're breaking even or, yes, at this point staff would recommend we reduce fees. But until I really know, it would -- I'd be lying to you. It would be a guess. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I understand. Last year the chair and the vice chair of the board participated in the DSAC subcommittee that went through the financial analysis, and perhaps once you've completed your first quarter analysis we can do the same thing this year, have the chair and the vice chair sit down with you in a private meeting, maybe with you and Mike, and go through your quarterly report and your quarterly analysis so that we can report to the rest of the board how the -- the funding and the financials of this department has been affected by the change. MR. FRENCH: And as -- I would tell you, Mr. Lykos, that it -- that has already been expressed to the DSAC that we would be bringing back quarterly reports to let them know where we stand, and rather than telling you what we want, we're just going to tell you what we need. You know, there -- this is what we need to operate our business. Page 8 161 1 A6 February 17, 2010 And if you've got any questions we -- we intend to not just bring forward the numbers but have full transparency that you could look at any department and say, okay, what's -- what's my operating cost to run that type of business, and -- and what's the need, what support do the -- does this provide. And -- and -- and I was with Joe. I -- I served as Joe's Operations -' Manager, not on the financial side, but for day in and day out operations as well as with -- on the regulatory element for a number of years with Collier County. And one of my other positions -- again, very multifaceted position -- is that I -- I also serve as Nick Casalanguida, our Interim CDS Administrator -- I also serve as his Interim Deputy Administrator. And at this point I am -- I do provide oversight over all the financials for CDS as far as budgetary as well as -- again, we're talking integrated operations support. We not only support this department; we support the Building Department; we support Code Enforcement; we support Planning and Zoning and Engineering and -- and Transportation Planning. There's so -- everyone within the organization at CDS we touch. So we will bring those numbers back to you. I'll be happy to bring those back and report. If -- if you'd like to sit down, and if that's the will of this Board, will of DSAC, this is something that you want to work out as a Board; certainly you're -- you're welcome to attend. At least from staff s perspective, we -- we'd have no issue with that whatsoever. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Great. MR. NEALE: Mr. Lykos, just one point I'd like to make is you may want to consider not two of you meeting -- two members of the board meeting with the administrator in -- in a private meeting because you may be running afoul of the Sunshine Law. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: So in a public meeting, like if you're -- if you Page 9 ri February 17, 2010 attend the DSAC meeting together and that's a publicly advertised meeting, I think you're -- you don't have an issue, but the two of you meeting privately, I think that would be an issue, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Didn't -- didn't we have a special meeting of the board to go over the financials? We do that -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, and you can do that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. MR. NEALE: As long as it's an annou -- an announced public meeting, that's fine, but just the two of you meeting privately with him I think would be an issue. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, thank you for being here. MR. NEALE: Sure. MR. FRENCH: And staff s -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So maybe that's what we'll do. MR. FRENCH: And staff is cognizant of that as well, and we we wouldn't have that meeting. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? MR. JOSLIN: I have -- I have one last question. As of -- the chair last year -- again, Mr. Lykos and I went to the DSAC meetings, and part of this -- the increase of the fees was going to be to be able to add another investigator to Mike's staff. Is this something that's still going to happen now? MR. FRENCH: We're aware of that. As we go back and we look at our current budget guidance from the County Manager's Office and as -- as it's handed down by the Board of County Commissioners, we have that on the to do list, so to speak, based off of what our budget guidance is from the Board of County Commissioners. My -- my strongest recommendation to Mike as well as to this board is that we see what that budget guidance in -- is, we go back and Page 10 16 1 A6 -1 February 17, 2010 -- and even though we did increase the fees -- MR. JOSLIN: Uh -huh. MR. FRENCH: And I'm -- I'm aware that there was -- there was caveats, so to speak, tied to that -- well, that you approved the fees in light of hiring another investigator. MR. JOSLIN: Uh huh. MR. FRENCH: We're very well aware of the commitment that was made by the former Administrator as well as by the Building Director. We intend to fulfill those. But I -- I want to be as realistic as I possibly can with you and -- and give you the impact to the organization if I do that. And if -- if the money is there to support it, I'm going to tell you, and if it's not, I'm -- I'm going to lay it out, and I'm going to ask for further direction. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. FRENCH: But it's something that I do intend to take action on. It's just at this point, so long as the board is okay with it, I'd really like to wait to see what the budget direction is that's handed down from the Board of County Commissioners to determine how we go from here. And I recognize that 113 is an enterprise fund. This -- his -- his his carrying costs, so to speak, are -- are supposed to be paid for 100 percent by the licensing fees he collects. I just want to be able to get my arms completely around the financials. I've had Mike's group for a little over a month. And we've -- and as we approach the entire division we're -- we're eating this elephant one bite at a time. MR. JOSLIN: Got you. Okay. I understand, and I think that's probably suitable. MR. FRENCH: But at -- but at this point, like I said, immediately -- and what I've done is I've infused some staff that's going to be able to help him on the customer service line and on that front end. , And it's not that I'm trying to just put it all into one bucket; it's Page 11 A 0 February 17, 2010 just simply that these are very, very similar functions, almost identical, just to two separate industries. And I think that, if -- if anything, it's going to improve our customer service on the -- not just in this industry but, also, in the vehicle for hire industry so that we're able to process those applications and really get a better look at these applications so that we could bring you a better product because there may be some things that we're missing. I don't know yet. But as we get our arms around this we're going to -- we're going to make it better, I promise. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? MR. JERULLE: When was a vote last year taken to increase the fees? MR. FRENCH: I'm -- I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? MR. JERULLE: The -- we voted last year to -- to increase the permit fees. When was that? MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. I couldn't tell you. I -- I would defer to Mr. Ossorio. I was not in the department at that -- at that point. I can get you the answer if Mike doesn't have it. MR. JERULLE: Mike, do you remember? MR. JOSLIN: November or December, I believe he said. MR. OSSORIO: I believe it was November, l think. The last meeting was the -- was the approval in November. MR. JERULLE: November or December, so approximately four months ago and we haven't hired another investigator. And we -- we don't know when we're going to hire another investigator, correct? MR. FRENCH: Well, I wouldn't say I don't know. That budget guidance will be handed down probably within the next month or two, but I would tell you, again, on the -- on the staffing side we had beefed up staff. Maybe it wasn't on the investigator side. But as -- as a manager I can tell you that until I have an Page 12 �6 1 'A6 February 17, 2010 opportunity to do my own due diligence in Mike's department, I don't know that he is -- if -- if he requires more staff on that front -end side -- and putting him in the field might be that investigator we were looking for because Mike does spend an -- a lot of time in the office processing licenses, not just -- running down issues, complaints, those type of things. One of the staff members that he's getting over is one of my form -- one of my senior staff that currently serves as a supervisor, so he's not only picking up a processing clerk, so to speak, that customer service front end person, but he's also picking up a supervisor to supervise those people. And I'm not saying that Mike's going to be that other investigator in the field, but that -- there -- there may be more need to have him and his expertise in the field and have super -- more supervision up front. Again, as I tweak his business model and we look at this, I will come back to you. So at this point -- the staff did transfer over about a month ago to my group, and I make the commitment I will go back, and I -- and will continue to look at whether or not we can -- we can get that person. If that's the will of this board, for us to march forward, certainly the message I'll pass forward up to HR and up to the County Manager's Office to -- to show that this board approved fees contingent upon hiring of another officer -- and if that's what we need to do, certainly that's the -- that's the -- that's where we'll go forward. Again, I'm not opposed to it. It's just I really want to be able to give you guys an honest feedback as far as where this business stands. MR. JOSLIN: What kind of time span are we looking at before we have an answer on this, just in your estimation? MR. FRENCH: Sir, I believe that the -- that the budget guidance is going to come out within the next month or two -- MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. FRENCH: -- or less. And so based off of that I should be Page 13 A 6 February 17, 2010 able to probably bring something back. How often do you meet, Mike? Every -- every other -- every month? MR. OSSORIO: We're back every month. MR. FRENCH: Yeah, so I -- I should be able to bring you something back next month. I'll be happy to report it to you. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I looked back through our transcript of the minutes for December 16th. I believe our prior meeting was October 21. The information you were provided at the December meeting was that the fee increase would start January 1 and that within a few months, I believe it was several months, thereafter the new hire would take place. So we're somewhat within the same time frame for that individual to hopefully come on- board, and hopefully the numbers will be there. I'm a little unclear as to whether the quarterly report you're talking about is for the last quarter of 2009, which is the first quarter of the business year for the county -- MR. FRENCH: Right. I understand. m MR. WHITE: -- or it's going to be January through March. Or how is that going to work, Jamie? MR. FRENCH: I intend to bring that quarterly report probably the -- the first or second meeting to the board in April sim -- simply because we're -- that's when Mr. Casalanguida and myself stepped into the job was on December -- I'm sorry -- on January 4th. So this was a -- not just an org -- a reorganization of Mike's group or just at the Building Department. This was a complete reorganization of CDS. Unfortunately, 13 associates were let go. All in all, we -- we -- in the transferring out some -- some staff as well, we went down about 15, 16 positions. So, again, we -- we -- we are looking at the business more from a holistic approach rather than a siloed type approach where you've got Page 14 161 lj f February 17, 2010 Building Department, Planning and Zoning, Engineering, Environmental where we're seeing where similarities exist amongst all the departments and to find out we may have some free time in another department, someone that is -- is certainly able to handle some of Mike's responsibilities where we could go ahead and take on an FTE from another department that's a little slow. And that way I don't have to go through the advertising cost, that way we don't have to go through the interviewing cost. So I -- we really are approaching this from a business wide and what -- what makes sense, a business approach versus an individual department approach or section approach. So I -- I -- I will be able to meet the deadline as far as the quarterly report, and I will report back to you next month where we - envision this to go. Again, we have -- I -- I really have -- have -- there's no indicators telling me that I can't move forward and hire another investigator if, in fact, the business demands it, and that's certainly where we'll go. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have -- I just have one more comment before we let you go. Last fall DSAC, the licensing board, and the construction industry was told by CDES -- MR. FRENCH: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- that without the fee increases that they were recommending CDES was going to be shut down, the level of service would -- would be deplorable, that they wouldn't be able to operate at the level of service that we were getting, which, quite frankly, wasn't that great to begin with. So at a time when our industry has been suffering for years we took the bold step and endorsed increases for licensing fees, for permit fees with the understanding that what you're describing that happened, which is a reorganization of -- of the department, wouldn't occur, that those fee increases, permit increasing, licensing increases would keep rs that from happening -- Page 15 February 17, 2010 MR. FRENCH: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- to not only maintain the level of service we were getting but would improve the level of service we were getting. And then within two months we're told the whole thing's been reorganized, departments have been moved around, and now we don't know if we can afford to give you the service that we promised we were going to give you. So it's a little bit frustrating. I know I was -- I got many phone calls and many comments from members of our industry about what we allowed to happen with the government, and now after sticking our necks out it happens anyways is a little bit frustrating, quite frankly. I understand the -- the -- the financial end of running a business, and I've also learned over the last few years government doesn't operate the way a business operates, which is, again, quite frustrating, but we stuck our necks out and supported the request from the government being told that we would maintain or improve level of service, and now we're being told that that might not be the case. MR. FRENCH: Well -- and I'm happy to sit down with you individually, Mr. Lykos. That's news to me because all indicators from us, including the CBIA and DSAC, is that the level of service has increased. I don't want to say by tenfold, by twofold, by onefold. But every indicator we've received in the last 30 days from this industry has been phenomenal, and -- and I'll be happy to share with you the letters we've received, the -- the customer comment cards that we've put out in the lobby, and not just -- these aren't just blindly W written. We've got people's points of contact. These are -- we -- we've happily published these in the county newsletter. So we're pretty proud of -- of what staff has done. As far as the reorganization and -- and telling you -- and I -- and if I -- if I have given you any indication that we're not going to hire a person, let me correct that. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm " saying is that I don't think it would be prudent of staff, until we have a Page 16 161 Urtiar117, 2010 absolutely good look at the financials and for me to come back to you and say, "Here we are. Here's what I can afford. Here's what I can't afford" -- and you're asking me can we revisit fees. Correct me if I'm Ilk wrong. You're asking me when are we going to hire someone. And then -- and I don't have the record, but apparently the record reflects that we would raise the fees in January, which we did, and we would hire with -- it sounds like about three months afterwards. I'm still within that range, sir. So if that's the range you want me to keep I'll get there, but certainly I -- I don't look at it as though it's a reorganization of Mike's department or of the Building Department. I can tell you that the departments -- or the fund that was primarily affected was on the Planning and Zoning and Engineering side of the house. Mr. Dunn's organization was reorganized based off of the business component and how we thought it would be best effective to -- how we thought we could be most -- most effective to provide a better level of Customer Service at current staffing levels, so, if anything, we tweaked his business. Very few, if any -- and I can't think of any 113 staff other than those that may have retired or just went through the attrition process -- actually went home. This was primarily on the 131 side. So, again, I -- I -- I don't -- I'm -- I'm a little surprised as far as the' level of service that you're reporting to me, and if you've -- and if you've got those -- those stories, if you can give me instances when the level -- where you could tell me the level of service actually went down as a result of this, please sit with me. Let me know about it. Show me -- show me where, and I'll fix it. But I -- I would tell you from the 113 side of the house, on the building department side, for lack of a better term, we stayed whole, and we're -- we're really doing a good job; I've got to believe we are. If you -- you walk in, and there's excitement throughout the building. Page 17 A6 a February 17, 2010 And we're not just hearing it from the industry; we're hearing it from other county departments. So, again, if -- if I look a little shocked, it's -- it's simply because this is the first -- you're the first person that's ever told me that, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, let me -- let me restate my comments because they were probably too general. I -- I agree with you. I've heard from several members of CBIA that they're getting their permits a lot faster and there's a tremendous amount of cooperation from Nick and down through the rest of the staff, so I apologize if I implied -- MR. FRENCH: Sir, no apology necessary. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- it applied to -- to the permitting side. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: One of the other comments that I know I get and I know other members of our -- of our board have gotten -- we w have licensed contractors that are out there following the rules, doing things the right way, and they're being underbid and they're being -- work is being lost to people that are working outside of the scope of their license or aren't licensed at all, and that is critical to us, not only to protect the community, but, also, to protect the people that do things the right way. And I know that there was a lot of discussion on the members of the board's part about whether or not raising licensing fees was an m appropriate thing to do under the current economic conditions, and we were led to believe that by approving those fee increases there would be another investigator and that would help protect the public, and it would help protect the people that are licensed and insured and doing those things. So there was a time, probably summer of last year, when the number of citations was approaching 100 a month, and I was getting comments from people that, "Boy, it seems like you guys are really getting things done, and -- and there's really -- you know, we can tell Page 18 161 1 q6 February 17, 2010 that there's effort being put forth to stop unlicensed activity." Well, we're down now into the 60s again, and I don't think that unlicensed activity has gone down that much. I don't think there's a 40- percent drop in unlicensed activity. So our members -- the members of this board approved fee increases based on the department's ability to add more investigators on the street to help go after those people that are doing things illegally. MR. FRENCH: And -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And that's what we need to see. MR. FRENCH: Sure. And -- and just to let you know, Mr. Lykos, I have every intent to go back to look at looking -- increasing the number of investigators on the street. And the industry that you're speaking of, the industry that you regulate here, is -- and this almost solidifies my decision -- or our decision that we blended these two functions. What you're telling me -- and I could -- I could pull it on the record -- is exactly what the vehicle for hire industry -- you've got unlicensed contractors that's working against those that pay these -- these -- and their licensing -- and I will tell you as a company you pay several hundred dollars just to register your company and a couple hundred bucks per driver. And there's a criminal background check, credit check. There's a number of other checks that go on in this, very similar to what you do in this industry that -- you've got folks out there that are -- that are really trying to make an honest living and follow the rules, and they're being underbid. They're being -- not just underbid by competition but underbid by those people that are coming in from out of county that maybe aren't following the rules or aren't -- aren't licensed. So that's why, again, we thought the two functions worked so well together. And, again, we have -- please don't -- please don't think that we haven't increased your staff as far as your regulatory ability from the front end. We've added two staff members to this group already, so Page 19 a February 17, 2010 you almost got -- we're going to go back and we're going to look at an investigator. Let's say you get your investigator. But you got two other staff members that this department currently isn't paying for that's helping you out, so we've -- we -- we're on -board with you. We're -- we're of -- we're of like minds as far as from the staff members. From staff s level, we're -- we know exactly what you want from us. We know exactly where the industry -- what the industry expects, and we want to be more of a partner. I mean, granted, we have to regulate, but we certainly want to be a partner to DSAC. We certainly want to be a partner to this board. We want to be a partner to the industry, those that are following rules. And those that aren't, we want to make sure that Mike's got enough people on the street, not just to make sure they follow the rules, but, also, to fulfill _. our contract -- our contractual agreements with the municipalities that he works with. So we're on- board. We're going to go -- we're going to -- we're going to follow your direction. And, also, if I -- if I look to increase the number of investigators, what I may bring back to you -- and I -- and I don't know, but just because I don't advertise a position or juste because I don't hire someone new into the county doesn't mean I couldn't increase investigators from another department that may be going through some reorganization or someone that, you know, might be part of a -- part of a reduction in force exercise. I -- I don't know. So, really, until the board hands out that budget guidance, I think it would not be prudent of us to move forward to -- to find out exactly where my hiring pool is and -- and find out if there's qualified staff that's already on county payroll that we could fit into the position. And whether it be two part time positions that makes up one FTE, you're still -- we're still getting the increased activity as far as oversight on the street. So we're -- we're committed to you, and we're going to make sure it's right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Great. Thank you. Page 20 16 1 A 6 7 :141, February 17, 2010 MR. FRENCH: Okay. I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have for me. And, again, I'll leave my business cards with Mike. I'll -- I'm going to hang out for a little while here if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You're welcome. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: And please feel free to call on me. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And thank you very much for your time this morning. We appreciate it. MR. FRENCH: And we really look forward to working with you; we really do. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right. I need an approval of the minutes. MR. JOSLIN: Motion to approve the minutes. MR. LANTZ: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. All right. Discussion, end of the month report. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick note on that end of the month report, which, if you look down on the Contractor Licensing citations and you scroll over to January and you go back down, you'll see -- you'll see a little reduction from fourteen -- we Page 21 February 17, 2010 were running fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, fourteen thousand, and then it went down to eleven nine. You'll see that on January, and I think that was due from the two weeks that it was -- it was actually absolutely freezing cold. So I think there was a trend that there was no unlicensed contractors out there, so I think that was the trend. It was pretty cold for that January, that two week period. So, actually, I looked at the citations. We're up this month, so we should see a spike. MR. JOSLIN: They were probably all working inside. MR. OSSORIO: May be. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: Which one? My investigators or the contractors? MR. JOSLIN: The contractors. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The contractors. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And just to make sure we -- we're on the same page -- and Jamie has been very supportive with our group, and we're happy to work for the operations, and we're happy to work for the county, and we'll do what we can to support the City of Naples and Marco Island as a whole. I will tell you when you talk about financing, licensing makes the bulk of their money in renewals. So, yes, January the new effect came in, but you really shouldn't see a huge spike or a huge difference or or revenue coming in 'til -- until September. That's when we are going to be renewing 6,000 state and local con -- 6,000 state contractors this year because it's an even year, and we're going to be renewing the local contractors in September. So this -- you'll see a big spike in September -- or leading up to September. Any questions? MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious. How do the -- these numbers relate to the budget? And is it possible to get it so we can in the future get it, you know, where you say January and then show us what you've actually done as opposed to what's been budgeted just so we Page 22 1611 A6 I February 17, 2010 know if we're on track or not? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. I will coor -- I'll coordinate with, you know, Jamie and his group, and we'll come up with something, but I don't know if we had that capability in CE Class to do so, but I know that CityView's coming on -board soon, our new software system that's going to give us some more data and feedback. So I'll make sure we put a note, and we'll talk to Jamie's office, and we'll get something to you. MR. LANTZ: But are we close to -- you know, when we did -- e did the budget a few months ago, we got, you know, a breakdown every month. Are we close to what you had budgeted or -- MR. OSSORIO: That I couldn't tell you, but I'll make a promise to you that I will sit down with Jamie's office and -- and Ken, my direct boss, and we'll come up with something. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have an idea when CityView's coming online? MR. OSSORIO: I'm on the CityGroup task force, and I look forward to seeing CityView within three or more months hopefully -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: -- on Phase 3. MR. FRENCH: Just real quick I wanted to give you some feedback. Again, Jamie French for the record. We're working very closely with CityView right now. As the -- as we've gone through -- and Joe has left the organization as well as Mr. Molly -- what has happened is that we're -- we've sat back down with CityView. We need to make sure that they're understanding what staff s, for lack of a better term, our pain is; in other words, what's holding us up in the system where we have some stability issues and what our real needs are. And one of the things that we did -- Mike's group was not originally involved with the user's group that we created. We put Mike on there because we needed the vendor to understand what Page 23 .ij February 17, 2010 w..- contractors' licensing needed as far as -- I mean, they're -- they're a client of the system. So we do expect that they'll be coming back to us shortly. We're working with a gentleman by the name of David Arrowsmith, who was their executive vice president -- or -- or their -- their operations -- vice president of operations out of -- out of Canada, British Columbia, Canada, their home office. We've identified a number of needs. One of the other things that we're also doing is we're trying to -- what one of my groups that I have currently under me is the county GIS, or addressing group. We want to bring in a little bit of GIS technology and some mapping into maybe -- not just tracking where Mike's got more activity than not as far as unlicensed contractors but, also, with routing and those type of things. So we -- we want to explore. Again, we want to -- I want to explore every efficiency that's out there. And -- and just to let you know, my -- my background previous to government 6 1/2 years ago was private sector. I've -- I've -- I've got a number of family members that are currently in this industry, and I've got a family member that was a building official, I've got a family member that is -- that's -- you know, was a home builder, so it -- I grew up -- I can tell you as a kid I toted block, I set trusses, and I poured forms. I -- I -- the calluses are gone, but I promise I don't -- I don't -- I don't forget any of it. So I do know the -- the -- the industry. I'm very familiar with it. I grew up here as a kid myself. But we want to install every technology that's out there, not just out of this system, but I want to look at other systems that we currently support from an enterprise approach for county, and -- and I want him to have all those technologies in the field, not just for him, but for code enforcement, for -- for any officer or for any regulatory agent, so to speak, that needs a tool. Whether it be damage assessment after a hurricane or whether it be daily tools that they need, if we've already got that tool on the shelf Page 24 1611 A6 February 17, 2010 and we can build them an application, let's do it. Let's -- let's -- let's challenge ourselves every day. So CityView is just one of the tools that Mike will be using. And I'm big on continuous improvement and constant involvement. I -- I can't tweak the results unless I tweak the inputs, so we're going to -- I'm going to constantly be -- be challenging Mike in giving me feedback on CityView; how is it doing; how's the tools we provided you. But -- but, again, to make a long story short here, is -- is simply that we are going to have Mike more involved with CityView so that he can give you feedback on what's going on as far as how they're evolving, if they're going to be able to address their needs because, again, I don't just want transparency in the numbers; I want transparency in the business operation too. And so if he's not being properly supported or if -- or if the system is crashing or if the application just is not right, no matter what the tool is, whether it be GIS or CityView, we -- we're going to give you the feedback on that and let you know and let you know what we're doing to correct it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Thank you again. MR. LANTZ: Thanks. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Workshop information. MR. OSSORIO: 2006 is when -- the last time we did our workshop for -- for a -- to look at prospectively redoing the contractor licensing ordinance, and this is our first step. I wanted to know -- get some feedback from the board to see if it's possible that we could start doing this workshop. I have some things in mind. I know Jamie has some things in mind for the ordinance. And I just want to know if it's -- if it's okay with you, I want to schedule workshops, advertise it, and maybe have input from -- from CBIA or whatever it is that we did last time in Page 25 aP.:, � OR February 17, 2010 2006. MR. JOSLIN: I think probably a workshop to get together to maybe analyze some of the licensing -- licenses that are avail -- than are out there now and either uncondense them or condense them to whereas we understand what each one does. There's a lot of overlapping licenses, it seems like, and a lot of things that -- like the tree stump removals and the tree trimming removals, and people that trim trees and just can cut grass -- I mean, some of these can be put together or ganged into one or maybe not -- or understood maybe better. MR. OSSORIO: Well, I'm all open to looking at each and every single category. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. OSSORIO: But, actually, my thought was -- is that, you know, I would want to get more stringent. The State of Florida has -- has implemented a program, which everyone now knows that if you're .. . a state contractor, if you are a convicted felon or -- or -- or have a felony, you must notify the state within so many business days starting October 1 st of last year. So I'm looking at a number of things. The state did make some -- I think Mr. Lykos and I had a conversation before. The state has changed a couple of things in State Statute 491 want to look at. I want to tweak the individual categories. You know, tree trimming -- I don't necessarily -- a big proponent of combining a couple of different things -- " MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. OSSORIO: That's not fair to the person that has a license and pays for a license and -- I want to tweak it, but my direction is -- is enforcement. You know, maybe we can raise the fee for unlicensed activity, if we can, to narrow down the -- a couple of things in the ordinance I think need to be changed, the owner builder exemptions and whatnot. Page 26 February 17, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. MR. JOSLIN: I'm all in favor of it, sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I just would -- given the idea here of scheduling a workshop -- I know we typically get our packets for the regular meetings about a week or so ahead of time. I expect there's going to be quite a bit more volume of information we're going to be asked to absorb and process and would see if it would be possible to have at least a couple of weeks' lead time in having that information to us; that is, the staff recommendations so that we can read through it and have our questions prepared and be most efficient at the actual workshop meeting. Does that sound like a good idea and doable or -- MR. JOSLIN: I believe in the past, Michael, what we've done is we've given out -- or we've had staff make up copies of the ordinance which was passed out for the meeting so that each individual board member had a copy of that ordinance and could review it on their own or read ahead of the -- and see how it pertains to each license and each category and then go through a discussion process as far as the individual items or breakdowns of each license or, like you say, other things that you want to discuss and add into it. Wasn't that the way it was done before? MR. OSSORIO: Well, typically -- MR. JOSLIN: Rather than bring -- rather than bring it to the board meeting and then try to discuss it here as you hand it to them. MR. OSSORIO: Well -- well, typically, what I -- what I envisioned is that if the board wants to go ahead and look at the -- the workshop and -- and revamping the ordinance -- I think it's time; it's been four years -- is that I will sit down with the County Attorney and Pat Neale. We will go over what the county position is, and then we will Page 27 February 17, 2010 work something in there. And then we will schedule the workshop, and you will be -- we would have a public meeting. I'll probably have a table and chair here. You have a copy of the ordinance. It will be publicized. If any -- any CBIA member or -- or anyone in the public want -- wishes to communicate on the -- on the ordinance, they -- they surely can. And then we will go through what the county attorney, myself, and Pat Neale thinks is appropriate to go ahead and revisit the ordinance. That's what I envision. MR. NEALE: What had also been done in the past is that the the board was asked for input on particular areas that the board had noticed over the -- over the term of your service that were thorny issues, things that came up again and again, and bring those up as -- as potential ways of either adopting them as an ordinance amendment or adopting them as a change in procedure for the board. µ So those are the other things that -- that gives it a good time to do that. And, you know, as -- and as Michael says, it's been -- it's been four years since it's been done in the past, so it's certainly time for the board to -- to look at this. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: And we've kept over the years -- Ian and myself. , has met privately, and we've made notes, comments about the ordinance that needs to be changed, or we -- so there's a -- we have a folder, a running folder of what we think that needs to be changed, and then it's up to the board and the Board of County Commissioners if -- if they do so. But I think the first step is to get the okay from the board to -- to proceed, and then I will sit down with Robert Zachary and myself and Pat Neale, and we'll go through our -- our to -do list. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do we need a formal vote on that, or can we dust -- MR. OSSORIO: I would if you -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Page 28 16I 1 �j keiruary 17, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: -- if -- if it's possible. MR. WHITE: Okay. I make a motion to approve the staff request with the stipulation that the board members be provided the staff recommendation proposal two weeks in -- before the scheduled meeting. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We have a motion. MR. JOSLIN: I'll second the motion too. How about a copy of the ordinance? MR. WHITE: That, I assume, would be included. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. Fifteen cents a page, though. MR. WHITE: Make mine double - sided. MR. JOSLIN: Put that in general fund, would you? MR. OSSORIO: We'll take care of it. I'll make sure that we'll have a -- if it's been approved, then Robert Zachary and myself will sit down and go over it, and then I'll -- what I'll do is I'll get a copy of the ordinance, and we'll highlight a couple of things. We'll make some notes for you so that you have something ahead of time. And then I would appreciate it, Mr. Lykos, if you could tell the CBIA or have -- let them know that we are going to have a workshop upcoming with the licensing board and -- so that we get the word out. I want to make sure we get it right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I have a -- I have a motion; I have a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye.: MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Page 29 Febru6 ary 17, 2010 All right. Michael, we talked briefly. How close are we to having a full board? We have two more members to fill the board. Can you give us an update on that? MR. OSSORIO: I just -- I -- we have communicated with the City of Naples, and they are in the final process. As a matter of fact, k today, I think, they have a board meeting -- or a city council meeting. They are going to prospectively approve a board member. Once that gets approved, then it gets forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a final adoption. So 1 anticipate having another contractor on the -- a City of Naples contractor on the board within our next meeting. We did advertise for a consumer for the unincorporated Collier County, and that's advertised in -- I think the -- I think the Naples Daily News picked that up. So hopefully we'll get some response. So we're getting there. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. WHITE: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Casalanguida, in fact, is on the agenda before city council today, so hopefully -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Great. Good. MR. OSSORIO: Is he? Good. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. The first item I have under new business will be the addition to the agenda to authorize the orders for penalties. Ian, if you wouldn't mind, could you just address the board and - just explain to everybody exactly what this is that you need us to do today? MR. JACKSON: These are civil citations that were issued by investigators that have not been paid. And once the process been -- process has been followed through to this point -- this is the -- the last step in the process in the payment of these citations. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So you need us to make a Motion to Page 30 16/1 A6 February 17, 2010 authorize me to sign these orders for you, correct? MR. JACKSON: Correct. , CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: I will make a motion that the chairman signs the orders to pay the civil penalties for any outstanding issues that are before us or have been before us. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any discussion? MR. WHITE: Just so I un --just so I understand the process, what'll happen after these orders are signed? , MR. JACKSON: Potential liens placed on property. MR. NEALE: These can be recorded in the -- in the public record, and the county typically does so that if the violator -- if they haven't paid their -- their fine, if they go to sell a piece of real estate or whatever, it will get picked up in a title search, and hopefully the title agent would see fit to collect it at closing and get it paid. MR. WHITE: Okay. So it acts kind of like a claim of lien? MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Page 31 February 17, 2010 And, Ian, I'll sign these after the meeting, okay? MR. JACKSON: Yep. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. All right. Under new business, our first order is -- I apologize for mispronouncing this name. Is it Dusan Skoric? MR. SKORIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Would you please come up, sir, and be sworn in. (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Mr. Skoric, you're contesting your citation; is that correct? MR. SKORIC: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Ganguli. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Lykos, the citation was issued entirely based on the postcard that you have in you evidence packet. It's self explanatory, full service general contracting. If there's anything I can add, it's that, unfortunately, we've seen this before. This company, Idearc, has distributed postcards like this advertising contracting trades that have been brought before this board that you have adjudicated in various ways depending on the circumstance, but the -- the stem of my citation is entirely based on on what you see in front of you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Skoric? MR. SKORIC: Well, the -- I first want to thank you for giving me a chance to explain my side of the story. I registered my handyman business in Lee County on -- in November of '08, and ever since I registered my business I have two to three calls a day -- a week, actually, offering me all kind of advertisement, and I always denied " any kind of that. And in this case -- particular case with Idearc Company, you know, they were telling me, like, "We can bring you four to five Page 32 1611 A6' February 17, 2010 :.; 1 thousand dollars a month businesses." I said, "Whatever you're offer -- offering, you just send me that in written. If I like it, I will sign it." I never signed any contract with them. I never did anything else with them except in -- I don't remember exactly. In April or May when I received first statement that I have to pay something they are doing for me, I called the company, and I told them I never did sign anything. I never agreed of any advertisement with them, and they just ._d.. continued sending me statements every month 'til October. It accumulated to $700. Then I e- mailed them -- and I have the -- I don't know if you have that. I -- I submitted that to you. I e- mailed them to stop doing anything for me because they're just causing trouble because on October 8th of last year I had a call that I was, you know, improperly advertising business in Collier County. s That was the first time that I realized that they're actually doing something. And since then, you know, that -- I consider that, like, predatory activity of -- of, you know, a desperate company who is trying to -- to extort money from -- from people who are trying to survive, you know. I registered my business in Lee County. I never did any activities, any businesses and -- in Collier County, never ever, and I never received any call from any -- any person in Lee County or anywhere else asking me to do something for -- for them. I do, you know, have several accounts that I do, you know, home watches and, you know, stuff like this that I can do under a handyman business in -- in Lee County. Since October since they received and acknowledged my letter that -- you know, I e- mailed it. I am asking them to stop doing anything. In October it was -- it was $700. Since October I'm still receiving every month statement -- it -- it came up to $4,700 that I owed. I mean, I don't know -- I -- I just have no idea how to get rid of -- Page 33 ' e 1A ebruiry 17, 2010 s of -- of them. I don't know if they still continue sending those fliers or whatever they -- they did, but, you know, I just have no idea how to stop doing that. In -- in four months -- in the last four months, from 700 it grew up to -- to $4,700 that they're charging me for something that I never .. signed for, never asked for, never did any agreement with them for anything. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, how is it that you came up with the postcard or a copy of the postcard in our packet? MR. GANGULI: The source of the postcard, Mr. Joslin, I'm -- I'm -- I can't definitively say, but I'm guessing one of the licensed contractors in Collier County turned it into our office to investigate. MR. JOSLIN: Uh -huh. Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for -- just for the record, I just want to make sure that -- advertising is a big part of licensing, especially if you're a licensed contractor and you see an advertisement or -- or if you see something in your mail -- we periodically get those. You know, we get those a lot, advertising Yellow Pages, phone books, Naples Daily News, postcards. It's pretty -- unfortunately, this particular gentleman that -- he's corresponded with the company the day before the meeting of the citation with Mr. Ganguli, and Mr. Ganguli's, you know, called him the day before. So it would be nice if I had something showing that he's communicated with the company weeks or months before. The citation was issued on the 8th. He's notified the company on the 7th. Rob called him on the 7th or the 6th or whenever Mr. Ganguli did. So, on that premise I decided to let the board decide to hear this case. It's very similar to the last case, and it's -- it's up to the board's pleasure of what they wish to do. I , , ,: „ Page 34 16 1 A6 February 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. JERULLE: Michael, I show that -- that Rob called him on on the -- on the 9th -- excuse me -- on the 8th, and then -- and then -- then he's called or e- mailed them on the 9th, the day after, not -- not the day before, right? Am I missing something? MR. SKORIC: No, it's on the 7th. I -- I have it. MR. LANTZ: The pages are not in order. MR. JERULLE: No, if you look at the bott -- on the bottom -- all right. I see it now. MR. OSSORIO: If you look at the citation, the citation was issued -- issued October 8th, '09, and if you look at this correspondence, if this e- mail's correct, it says 10/7/2009, so we're looking at the day before. MR. JERULLE: Oh, so they responded to him on the 9th. I see it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Ganguli, when was it that you made a phone call to Mr. Skoric regarding this postcard? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Lykos, normally -- I can't answer that definitively, but I would guess either one day or two days prior to the meeting. I can't answer that for you. When I actually contacted him to come in for the meeting for the citation issuance, I wouldn't be able to answer that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I -- I think the question that's -- that we're trying to deal with is what was it that prompted Mr. Skoric's communication with this company. Was it your phone call to him that you were in possession of this postcard, or was it that he was fed up with getting invoices and he was disturbed that there was untrue advertising about his company going on in Collier County and Lee County? That's really what the board has to make a decision on. MR. SKORIC: Well, the -- MR. WHITE: Well, the fact, Mr. Chairman -- MR. SKORIC: If I can add one more thing, actually, I didn't Page 35 l Y I A e,;.,t' } February 17, 2010 know. When I received that call, it -- it was just something about advertising. I didn't know. But both, you know, I was fed up with -- with them and the call that I received from Collier County for something that I had no idea that's happening. And another thing, when I -- when he showed me that flier that says "general contractor," I never ever introduced myself to anyone as a general contractor, only as a handyman. So both, you know, I was fed up and I received the call that -- something about advertising my -- my business prompted me to finally, you know, have something in written (sic) because I did call them before, a long time, during last summer, but, you know, they would always put me on hold for 10, 15, 20 minutes, never had a chance to talk to -- to a real person. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Mr. White. MR. WHITE: My point was simply that I view the conversation with the county as being the first time the respondent was aware of the fact that there was any kind of advertising in Collier County and, additionally, that his -- his e -mail indicates that he had attempted to make prior contact by phone. So I just wanted to make sure that our factual determination isn't limited to the idea of timing alone but, also, the timing of him knowing that, in fact, there was some type of advertising ongoing, so CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Skoric, did -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Skoric, you -- in your e -mail, you say you've received bills since April or May of -- MR. SKORIC: April or May, I'm not quite sure. MR. JERULLE: What happened with those bills? MR. SKORIC: I never paid anything, and they just kept -- MR. JERULLE: So you got a bill, and -- and you didn't pay it and you got another bill? MR. SKORIC: And they just keep piling it up. Page 36 "I f A6 ",T bruary 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: And you weren't concerned about what was going to happen with your credit rating or -- or somebody turning that over to a collection? MR. SKORIC: Well, I -- I did not, actually. MR. JERULLE: So you just didn't do -- do anything with it -- MR. SKORIC: Well, you know -- MR. JERULLE: -- except try to call? MR. SKORIC: Right. MR. JOSLIN: You're holding something, and I assume that -- is that a copy of one of the bills? MR. SKORIC: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: Do you have bills that go back to the April time or maybe the May or June time when they would have billed you, apparently? MR. SKORIC: Yeah, I -- I didn't bring those. I can submit those also. I can bring them to you. MR. JOSLIN: That's not going to help me. MR. JERULLE: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Do those reflect billing from the time frame of last year? In other words, do they list, "You owe us for April. You owe us this much for May "? MR. SKORIC: Yes. Yes. MR. WHITE: Is that on those bills? MR. SKORIC: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: Is that something that maybe you'd want to submit as evidence so we can take a look at it just to maybe clarify some of the -- the billing efforts as far as what they billed you for and then your communication with them? You're more than welcome to do that, and I'm sure the board probably would look at it. MR. SKORIC: Do you want me to bring it to -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I need a motion to move this into evidence. Page 37 1 6 ' I ruary 17, 2010 MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz. MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. NEALE: Let the clerk mark it, please. Make it Respondent's (Respondent's Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. JACKSON: You're welcome. MR. SKORIC: Okay. Here is another one. I have one more just with a list of, I guess, since -- a list since July charges that they submitted. MR. NEALE: I need that one moved in also, Mr. Lykos. He's got another one. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, we need a motion to have that -- MR. JERULLE: So moved, Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. NEALE: Respondent's 2. (Respondent's Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.) MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Neale, these -- I was looking at the pamphlet. Is this the -- the same company, Idearc, Media -- didn't we have this case before us once before? MR. NEALE: I'm not sure whether it was Idearc. It was a similar Page 38 161 1 A keb ry 17, 2010 set of facts, though. MR. JOSLIN: Similar. Okay. It sounds familiar; that's why I was wondering. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I -- and I think Mr. Ossorio may -- may know that better. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me one second. I failed to get a vote on entering this into evidence. MR. NEALE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So I have -- I have a motion. I have a second. All those in favor. MR. HORN: Aye. ., MR. JERRULE: Aye. ;J MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) r CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Mr. Ossorio. MR. OSSORIO: I can't tell you to -- I have no idea. It could be the same company; it could not be the same company. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, it's the same company. MR. JOSLIN: It is. I kind of thought so. The reason why is because it seems like the same scenario happened to the same -- or a different person at one point. I'm not really certain, though, what the outcome was as far as what we did. MR. OSSORIO: I believe the citation was upheld. MR. JOSLIN: I believe, yeah. MR. GANGULI: Uh -huh. MR. HORN: But you also found that gentleman doing work. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Horn, I believe this occurred twice in front Page 39 February 17, 2010 of this board. The -- the second person was caught on a job site by me and cited, was cited for advertising again, and the same person was arrested during a sting operation that we did later on. I believe the first one may -- may have been dismissed. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I believe so. MR. OSSORIO: It was -- it was -- unfortunately, I don't want to -- it was kind of ironic. The same advertisement that the gentleman was saying that it wasn't his the State of Florida used to -- for a sting operation that he got arrested for. So I have no objections if -- if we want to dismiss this citation, but we will -- we will keep this advertisement on record, though. MR. WHITE: I'd just note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that in the bill that's proceeding to my left the months of the prior billing and dollar amounts are on the back of one of the sheets, Page 2 of 3. MR. JOSLIN: Wow. I don't know what you've gotten yourself into, but that's a lot of dollars. MR. OSSORIO: One of the things that this gentleman should do is, if he feels like this is a scan -- a scam operation, he needs to do two things: One, sit down and really think about is that this is advertisement that's been going on since October of last year. Has he benefitted from the advertisements? He -- he will only know if he's got calls from doing work outside his handyman license; and, two, he needs to sit down and if he feels like -- if this is a scam operation,z surely I will give him the information to call the economic crimes unit so that he can make a complaint on the company itself CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, to me there -- there's two issues. One is this advertising went on month after month after month, and you allowed it to go on. You didn't pay for it, but you allowed it to go on, which means you were aware of it, and I think that you have some culpability because you were aware of advertising being done for your company outside of the scope of your license. That's one issue. The second issue is you didn't take any action on this, at least any Page 40 161'1 A 6bruary 1 � 7, 2010 action you can prove to us, until after you were contacted by our local licensing department and then a citation was sent to you. MR. SKORIC: No, I didn't know that I'm going to get any -- sorry -- any -- any citation at the time when -- when I had that call from -- from the Collier County. And, you know, I -- I just didn't respond except on the phone call I -- with the phone calls that I made to that company trying to reach the real person and talk to some -- to somebody. - But, as you can see, I have no idea if that -- actually, the first time when I realized that any kind of advertising is out there was when I saw that flier or whatever, the postcard was -- that was the first time that I realized that there was any -- any kind of advertisement out there. You know, I -- MR. WHITE: And -- MR. SKORIC: I never did any work, and I -- you know, I swore u, that I -- I will tell the truth, nothing but the truth. I never ever did any work outside of my, you know, description of the stuff -- stuff that I can do as a -- as a handyman, and especially I did not introduce myself as a general contractor to anyone. And I never did any -- any, literally any, business in Collier County, and I never received any single phone call from anyone that supposedly received that postcard advertising my business. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the information, much of which you had stated before, Mr. Skoric, but the -- the question I have is, at any time prior to Collier County contacting you and showing you the card that was being mailed, had you ever seen that card before? MR. SKORIC: No. You know, what I was doing -- MR. WHITE: Were you aware that the card was being mailed and provided to people in Collier County based upon the bills you had already received, these -- these invoices? Were you aware that they were being mailed in Collier County? MR. SKORIC: No, I -- I -- Page 41 c5 February 17, 2010 MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. SKORIC: -- did not. You know, I -- I was just throwing that -- everything that was coming except -- you know, I would check -- I don't have all the bills that they have sent me. I was just throwing that to the garbage. I didn't pay attention until, you know, everything came to the point that where -- where, you know, it surprised me that suddenly from October to -- to this time, the end of January, it grew up from -- from $700 to $4,700 that I supposedly owe them. MR. JERULLE: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Go ahead. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Skoric, did you sign up for -- do you recognize this company at all in any other thing that you may have signed up for or done? s MR. SKORIC: No, I did not sign any single paper with them. MR. JERULLE: Because -- because the description is different for some of the billing dates. The May billing date description is different than the June billing dates, so it looks like they -- they provided a different service in one month than they did in another month, and then the amounts change from month to month. So did you -- did you -- MR. SKORIC: Well, I didn't pay attention to that at all. MR. JERULLE: Did you apply for the Yellow Pages? MR. SKORIC: No. MR. JERULLE: Because they're -- they're billing you for something other than just the card, it appears, so I'm wondering if -- if this is attached to something else you may have done and you were unaware of MR. SKORIC: Absolutely not. I never signed anything. I had conversation with a lot of -- a lot of advertising companies, and my response was always the same. I never do especially any -- MR. JERULLE: You don't advertise on the web site? MR. SKORIC: No. Page 42 16/ I A &bru ry 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: Not in the Yellow Pages? MR. SKORIC: Absolutely not. MR. JERULLE: Do you advertise anywhere else? MR. SKORIC: Nowhere. MR. JERULLE: Because the description has changed here, and the amounts have changed. I don't know what that means, but -- MR. JOSLIN: I have -- I have one question of Mr. Ganguli, or maybe also you, Mr. Skoric. The -- the postcard -- now, if another contractor presented this postcard to you, I would have to assume that the contractor may have lost a job or maybe was being bid against or possibly saw this man working on a job and knew he wasn't licensed and had a postcard and that's how you ended up with the postcard to go and investigate this. Is that how this came about? MR. NEALE: I -- I'd have trouble following that assumption and fining someone. I think that's -- that's a big stretch because there's nothing in evidence to show that at all. MR. JOSLIN: Well, we have a postcard in front of us, and I'm wondering how Mr. Ganguli got ahold of it, and he said, well, probably because a contractor gave it to him or -- "' MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, it's commonplace -- licensed contractors turn in unlicensed contractors to us all the time to initiate investigations. It's -- it's very common. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: A contractor could have got it in the mail at his residence, and that's why he turned it in. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So that's -- MR. GANGULI: And that specific scenario has occurred. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. So it wasn't a case of someone seeing someone on a job in that case. Okay. Also, I have in front of me a November 4th invoice that shows that you were sent, to Duke's Home Care, a letter showing that you had products that were -- were ::._ Page 43 , Lp i A SS February 17, 2010 exclusive mailers issued on 5 /6th, 5 /7th -- I'm sorry -- May, June, July, August, September, Oct -- and Oct -- October 9th for $62 a month. You weren't aware of this'? MR. SKORIC: I truly didn't pay any attention to -- to -- to those statements. I was just open -- I would just open it and disregard it. Some of those I would throw to -- to the garbage because I know for sure that I never ever signed or agreed to anything with -- with them. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. HORN: Regardless of which way we go on this on the decision, I was hoping maybe we could add a stipulation to whatever that is re -- requiring this gentleman, either personally or through an attorney, to make sure these fliers stop coming to Collier County either way that we go, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, that's a good request. MR. HORN: Thank you. MR. NEALE: I -- I would suggest to the board just -- it's something I would be willing to work with Michael on -- that we find out a little bit more about Idearc. And I just did a quick piece of research. Idearc has since gone through bankruptcy, and they were now on the -- out in the world as SuperMedia. And they are a former division of Verizon. So I would suggest that the board direct myself and potentially - the staff to take a little bit more look because I have a feeling this -- if it's happened three times already -- those are the only ones this board's heard about, and if it's a pattern -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. MR. NEALE: -- that is, in fact, a scam, I think the board should know about it and potentially staff should know about it so that the community can be notified that there is this scam going on, if that -- if it is, in fact, such a case. Page 44 161 1 A6 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I agree. MR. WHITE: In fact, that is right on the cover page that they're now SuperMedia; so good work. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So what's the pleasure of the board? MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we not uphold the Citation No. 5133 to Mr. Dusan Skoric. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Any further discussion? MR. JERULLE: Well, if -- MR. HORN: Yeah, if the motioner and the second would agree to it, that we add the stipulation that the plaintiff make sure that this -- these media stop being sent to Collier County, whether personally or through an attorney, so that this doesn't come in front of this board again. MR. WHITE: I -- I'd be willing to consider it if I thought he had any means to actually implement it. I'd -- I'd be concerned about us, if he didn't do it, somehow having to track all of that information and then bring him back because we found out he wasn't able to do it for whatever reason, because they have more lawyers than he does, for example. And -- and I would be okay with a separate motion, similar to what Mr. Neale suggested so that I think we get the same end but without making it his personal responsibility to slay this dragon. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Could -- you could add as an addendum that because of the fact that we're going to deny this citation that we direct Mr. Neale to investigate the Idearc and SuperMedia. MR. WHITE: I'd be comfortable with that as part of the motion. MR. JERULLE: Well -- and just for discussion purposes -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. MR. JERULLE: -- could we ask him to provide us with the resolution, whatever the resolution is. Page 45 ,w, February 17, 2010 MR. WHITE: Oh, you mean between our attorney and staff? MR. JERULLE: No, between Mr. Skoric and -- and -- and the card people, whatever their name is today. MR. WHITE: I would be comfortable with that being within the scope of this or any motion that brought that information back as a specific case of what the general investigation about this company and its practices have been, and not only the resolution of this individual case, but generally speaking how we would be recommended to proceed, whether -- whether this board should take some action or not, depending upon whether it's within our jurisdiction. But -- and, again, to impose on a defendant or a respondent a requirement to come back probably could cost him more than the amount on the citation. So what I'm trying to do is to not be as predatory as Idearc and SuperMedia is. MR. JERULLE: I understand. MR. WHITE: I'm just trying to let him walk out of here -- MR. JERULLE: I'm just -- I'm a little -- I just wanted to be curious as to what the -- the resolution is, whether it be a letter or -- I don't even think that he has to reappear at -- at the board meeting, but he could surely send a letter to Mr. Ossorio. MR. JOSLIN: Do we really have the capability, Mr. Neale, to be able to put a stipulation on the citation? Do we either deny it or uphold it, one of the two, first? And then we could go forward. MR. NEALE: Not really. The way -- the way the statute and the ordinance reads is really -- it's -- it's an up -or -down kind of decision. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: So, I mean, I -- I think Mr. White's suggestion that -- that the -- the denial -- you know, the dismissal of the citation and then a subsequent motion to direct myself and staff or how ever to investigate this, and, you know, potentially as part of that we can be in contact with the -- with Mr. Skoric with his permission to see what he hears back because supposedly this Idearc has been -- their "Customer Page 46 161 IA" §ebruary 17, 2010 Support Central," which we all have dealt with customer support centrals and know how efficient they are. They've been working on this since October and haven't given him any resolution, so they -- they are probably going to send him what is affectionately called a "bed bug letter" and hope he goes away. MR. JOSLIN: So we should really do this in two motions then, two separate motions? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right now we have a motion on the floor and a second to waive the citation, and then we have a pretty convoluted way to try to resolve this. I -- I would make this argument, that to this point Mr. Skoric has been completely unmotivated to resolve this on his own. He's had no -- no motivation whatsoever to resolve this on his own until he got a con -- contact from -- from Collier County. If you uphold the citation, there might be some motivation on his part to get this done. If we keep putting all those things on him, to send us a letter, talk to your attorney -- the man's had no motivation at this point. He's got $4,700 in invoices. I don't want to be tied up in whether or not this gets resolved. I think we need to find some motivation for him to resolve this on his own, and if it doesn't get resolved and he comes back in front of us again because this continues, well, then we can deal with it later, but I don't want to be tied into expecting to get letters and then Michael's got to follow up with somebody, Patrick's got to follow up with somebody. If we decide to authorize Michael or Patrick to look at this Idearc company totally separate from this issue, that's one thing, but I don't want to come back here next month and have Mr. Skoric come here with letters and proof. Did he do something; did he not do something; did his attorney try hard enough; did the other company respond fast enough, that's not our responsibility. So there's a motion on the floor to waive the citation, a motion Page 47 �f February 17, 2010 and a second and a discussion, and I think if -- if we want to see something get done, we hold the respondent accountable. MR. WHITE: May I respond, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please. We're in discussion mode. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I think the facts on the record are that he was unaware that the advertising was out there until the county put him on notice of it. Up until then it was just, essentially, a contract dispute between him and Idearc as to whether he had any lawful responsibility to pay the bills. He still has that responsibility and will have to deal with it because of the credit rating issues and other concerns. It's now up to $4,700. I think they got his attention. I think this proceeding has gotten his attention, and I'm assuming he's going to resolve it, especially if he gives us -- gives Mr. Neale permission to work with him. And I would hope we can deal with that in the next motion. My motion is simply to dismiss it. And more generally we can have the dialogue, I think, in our -- in our next consideration. If we want to do that under new business at the end or if we want to do it immediately after this hearing is of no concern to me, but I'd prefer to stand by the motion, and I'm going to vote in favor of it. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. The motion's on the floor. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I'll call the vote. All those in favor of waiving the citation, say "aye." MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. Page 48 1611 A 1 Oebrua` & & 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That is 4 to 2. MR. LANTZ: It's either 5 to 2 or -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I didn't vote. MR. LANTZ: Oh. MR. JOSLIN: You're abstaining? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. MR. NEALE: And if you're going to abstain you have to give a reason. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Then I vote against the motion. 1 u�O+ . . CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So it's 4 to 3. MR. WHITE: It still passes. MR. JOSLIN: It still passes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So the citation is waived. MR. JERRULE: Yes. MR. SKORIC: Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: Now, Mr. White, if you'd like to make another motion. MR. WHITE: I -- just the board's pleasure, Mr. Chairman, whether we want to handle this additional motion now or sometime later in the agenda. I'm comfortable with dealing with it now. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Let's just do it now. MR. WHITE: Great. I'd make a motion consistent with Mr. Neale's recommendation that he and the staff necessary be authorized to investigate the specifics of not only Mr. Skoric's case but more generally the practices of the company now known as SuperMedia and report back to us on what they find and with any recommendations that they consider to be appropriate. MR. JOSLIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Discussion? (No response.) Page 49 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 6 to 1. I get caught up in making sure I follow procedure right, and I forget to vote sometimes. Okay. Mr. Skoric, your citation's been waived. Thank you for your time this morning. MR. SKORIC: Thank you very much. Do you expect me anything else -- I didn't understand completely -- to do, or if I resolve finally that -- that -- that problem to bring you anything? MR. JOSLIN: Do you need these copies of this -- of your invoices back? I'm sure you do. MR. SKORIC: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: And then the other thing would -- one thing would be that I think it would be high time that you get on the -- on the -- on the boat here and try to get this resolved immediately. MR. SKORIC: Well, I'm -- I'm -- MR. JOSLIN: Any way you can. There's "inquiries" written on there. There's ways to telephone them, letter them. And then work with Mr. Neale, and he'll try to help you if -- possibly and get it resolved before it turns into ten thousands of dollars. MR. SKORIC: Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, staff will make copies and return the originals to Mr. Skoric, so we'll have those items that were submitted into evidence kept as part of the file. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. Thank you. Page 50 ^Hil Y 16P I A6 February 17, 2010 MR. SKORIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. See Mr. Ganguli outside for a cop -- for your originals of those invoices. MR. SKORIC: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Cochenour, am I pronouncing that correctly? MR. COCHENOUR: Cochenour. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Cochenour. Sorry. You are contesting a citation? MR. COCHENOUR: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. This is -- COURT REPORTER: I need to swear them. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. Please swear in -- thank you. (Witnesses duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Ian, do you want to start us off? MR. JACKSON: Sure. MR. COCHENOUR: Excuse me. He is in my -- in my affidavit, and does he have to be swore in? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS (Witness duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS Yes, he does. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ian. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. For the record, Ian Jackson, license compliance officer. On November 23rd I observed Mr. Cochenour trimming some trees at the noted address of 4242 29th Place Southwest. Mr. Coch -- Cochenour explained to me that he has a -- a tree trimming business in Lee County and also explained that he was doing some work for -- for the homeowner, Mr. Cunningham, I believe, in exchange for some services performed to a motorcycle, I believe. Mr. Cunningham worked on a motorcycle of Mr. Cochenour's, Page 51 February 17, 2010 and in return Mr. Cochenour was -- was trimming the tree for him. Based on the exchange of services, considering that as compensation and requiring a license in Collier County, I issued the citation on site. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you, Ian. MR. COCHENOUR: Excuse me. That's uncorrect (sic) at all. I've known -- he has a motorcycle shop. I've known him since the early '90s. He's worked on my bikes in the previous. We were not exchanging no bike fees or nothing. He's never had nothing in his shop of mine in -- since the early '90s. I believe I told you that he's a friend of mine and we work on bikes together. We -- but we go racing once a month in Georgia. The tree that I was cutting -- I didn't get paid. I got no -- no money, no check. I did my friend a favor. And there was no motorcycle he worked on. What I -- I did tell him that he had worked on my bikes previously, that he's a friend of mine and he owns a motorcycle shop here. I think you misunderstood me. And he can tell you I didn't work on no bike. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Mr. Cunningham, will you please step forward. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, sir. Basically, I mean, we've been friends for probably 18 years. I have not worked on any of his motorcycles. He did it as a favor to me because I was going to do it myself, and he basically stepped up and said he would take care of it so no -- you know, climbing the tree I didn't -- you know, he didn't want to see me get hurt or anything of the sort.'��" But the bottom line is I never worked on anything for him and he did it as a favor to me, so, you know, basically, he didn't want to see me get hurt. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Thank you. MR. COCHENOUR: And -- and I -- and I do have -- I mean, I Page 52 161 T A6 February 17, 2010 brought -- I mean, I do got my bank statements for the whole year. I've never done any work here in Collier County. I mean, I don't, you know -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: Ian Jackson, is he -- is this gentleman licensed as a licensed tree trimmer? MR. JACKSON: In Collier County? MR. JOSLIN: Uh -huh. MR. JACKSON: No, sir. MR. JOSLIN: Not at all. Is he licensed in any county? MR. JACKSON: He -- he has a business based out of Lee County, which I -- I believe does not require a contractor's license for the type of work that Mr. Cochenour does in Lee County; no -- no license requirement for tree trimming in Lee County. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look on E8, that is a business tax receipt of Lee County saying that Richard's Tree Service and Stump Grinding -- the description is a tree trimming and/or stump j removing. Lee County is -- is a little bit less restrictive than Collier County. With the Board of County Commissioners, we do regulate tree service contracting. Most counties are going that way. It requires a business procedure test and a tree exam to be able to conduct business in Collier. MR. WHITE: Just -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Questions of the respondent? Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Yes. And of Mr. Cunningham because I think your testimonies conflict with one another. One of you have said that you worked on the respondent's bikes, whether together or not, and, Mr. Cunningham, you said you've never worked on one of his bikes, and so between the -- . r MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, not since the '90s. - ' Page 53 s Feliiva -' "0, 2010 MR. COCHENOUR: Yeah, we're talking about 10 -- u MR. WHITE: Hold on. Gentlemen, gentlemen. One at a time. We're -- we're being transcribed, so we have to talk one at a time. So I don't care who answers first, but help me clear up this { confusion, because there seems to be a conflict in your testimony. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I mean, the only time I've ever -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Step forward to the microphone, please. MR. CUNNINGHAM: The only time I've ever helped Mr. Cochenour is when we've been at the races, and, I mean, that's as a friendly thing. It's not that I'm doing it as a business at the racetrack or .,.... ,. ,v anything like that. I'm doing it as a friend, and that's us jointly doing it at the races. It's not like he brings these bikes to me at my business here in town to work on his bikes. Basically, he does his own services, does all of his own. I basically -- we work together at the track to help each other -- MR. COCHENOUR: Yeah. MR. CUNNINGHAM: -- at the track, but other than that, I have not done anything to where he's had a bill and vice versa. We've done it to help each other out. MR. JOSLIN: I have one question. Mr. Jackson, one more time, I've got an E6 page, and on it you have the complainant form that's been filled out by yourself where, I assume, that when this citation occurred -- when the violation occurred, you questioned Mr. Coch Cochenour. And it states on here that, "On the site observed Mr. Cochenour in lift trimming trees in the front yard." You saw him trimming trees in the front yard. "Cochenour has no Collier license for tree trimming, and when questioned about compensation Cochenour stated homeowner worked on his motorcycle and he was trimming trees in return." Is this what he verbally told you? Page 54 161 1 A Oebruai 17, 2010 MR. JACKSON: I -- I wouldn't say that was a direct quote, but during the interview in the field that was the -- the general interpretation that I -- that I got was that there was an exchange of services. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And based on that being compensation I issued the citation. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. If he was not working on a motorcycle, in the fact that he was trimming a tree, wouldn't you still have cited him for unlicensed activity? MR. JACKSON: I probably would have -- would have looked into it a little further, talked with the homeowner to ensure that there was no compensation, whether -- whether monetary or -- or exchange of services, possibly an affidavit stating such from the homeowner. MR. CUNNINGHAM: May I say something, please? I did sign an affidavit to that and gave it to the office. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I believe we have that in our packet. MR. JOSLIN: We have that; that's why they're conflicting. MR. WHITE: Well, let me just clarify that it -- it's not an affidavit at Page E -- E3. It's simply a letter. It's not sworn, but -- MR. COCHENOUR: Yeah. MR. WHITE: -- his testimony today is sworn and would be the equivalent of an affidavit. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Right. MR. WHITE: For -- for just, you know, the weight you would give the testimony. MR. NEALE: Yeah. Since it is sworn testimony today, it's -- you know, the affidavit is almost -- I mean, the affidavit -- all he's really doing is reasserting what he had put in his -- his alleged affidavit. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: And -- and, specifically -- I'll just follow up with Mr. Jackson. To be a contractor, the contract requires compensation Page 55 WN Fe 'rua6 17 2010 for the services, so if he's doing it for free he's not a contractor. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Kyle. MR. LANTZ: For this one, my personal opinion is I think he -- they're probably good friends and they've probably been friends forever, and it's a friend helping a friend out. We seem to see a lot of times where people come in and say, "Oh, I was helping out my buddy," and their buddy never shows up. Now, here his friend stepped up to the plate, came down, and for -- that leads me to kind of think that he's telling the truth. And you never see the friend or the homeowner stepping up to the plate. To see that makes me think -- you know, leans me a little more to his side of the story that he's not doing anything wrong. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments for the respondent? I -- I have a question. When I was going through this, one of the things that came to my mind was it appears, Mr. Cochenour, you had a truck from your business that you had on site to do this work. Is that correct? MR. COCHENOUR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: In a situation like that -- and I don't know if Ian can answer or maybe Michael -- what happens if there's an accident and this gentleman's got his commercial vehicle on site, somebody gets hurt, property damage occurs? I understand it's a friend helping a friend, but this is a commercial business with a commercial vehicle. I'm not sure of the equipment that was being used. What happens if a child was around, a child got hurt or a pet or the neighbor's property got damaged? What would happen in a situation like this? MR. JACKSON: I -- I couldn't answer that. MR. NEALE: It really wouldn't -- it's just like if you pulled up on somebody's property and fell out of their tree or -- Page 56 161 J �,n February 17, 2010 MR. CUNNINGHAM: The homeowner's would cover it. MR. NEALE: It's the homeowner's insurance. MR. JOSLIN: Homeowner's insurance. MR. NEALE: It -- the fact that it's a commercial vehicle, all that means, frankly, is that that company would probably be joined in any lawsuit that happened to go forward. It doesn't -- if there's no compensation, it doesn't rise to the level of being a contracting issue and that workers' compensation would come in or anything because there's no -- there's no business being done, there's no work being done. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. So the fact that there was wr no compensation exchanged eliminates the -- any liability that goes along with the commercial transaction? MR. NEALE: It becomes premises liability just like if you've got a friend at your house. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I understand. Okay. y MR. NEALE: And, Mr. White, do you agree with that one?4 MR. WHITE: It sounds consistent with my understanding of the law. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: Good answer. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions of the respondent? MR. JERULLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry. MR. JERULLE: How many people were in the -- in the li -- was it a lift bucket? MR. JACKSON: I -- I believe it was a lift. MR. JERULLE: And -- and how many people? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Cochenour was in the lift. MR. JERULLE: By himself? MR. JACKSON: In the lift by himself. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments? Page 57 February 17, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I need a motion. MR. JOSLIN: I'm not sure that I entirely believe this, but I'm going to -- motion to waive the citation. -, MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. HORN: Aye. , CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 6 to 1. Your citation is waived. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. MR. COCHENOUR: Thank you. Is that all I need? MR. NEALE: You're done. MR. COCHENOUR: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Next, Gary Elliott contesting a citation. (Witness duly sworn.) MR. ELLIOTT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good morning, Mr. Elliott. You've been sworn in? MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Ian? MR. WHITE: Were -- were you sworn, Mr. Jackson? Page 58 161 1 A6 February 17, 2010 MR. JACKSON: I was. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. JACKSON: On December 3rd of last year, I observed Mr. Elliott pressure cleaning a roof, and on that site I also observed his business vehicle advertising a trade out of the scope of his license; sealing driveways to be specific, which falls under a sealing and striping license. With that I asked Mr. Elliott to come down from the roof, w explained the violation, explained the steps that he can take to correct the violation; removing the advertising, either permanently or temporarily, and obtaining the certificate required to advertise in that manner. And at the conclusion of our meeting I issued the noted citation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you, Ian. Mr. Elliott. MR. ELLIOTT: That is true. A few days after that I did take steps to fix that situation. I have pictures that I've taken of my truck since where I've covered over anything that would imply that I seal driveways. Can I submit this as evidence? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, if you would, please. Stop right here, and we'll get it entered as evidence. I need a motion to accept this into evidence. yw� MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. Page 59 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. ELLIOTT: The pictures on the left show the van before I made the correction; the pictures on the right show a magnet that I placed over the wording. (Respondent's Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.) MR. ELLIOTT: It shows the one side and the back door. The -- the other side is the same as what you see there. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ian, if -- if I understand correctly, the issue is the sealing of driveways. MR. JACKSON: Well, before I commit to that, I want to read the definition. i CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You have -- I think you have it in here, don't you? It's in the packet.+ MR. JACKSON: I do. "Cited -- cited for advertising as sealing and striping." CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And Mr. Elliott's van had a sign that said he did sealing of driveways? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So that was what prompted the citation? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And if it would please the board, I'll read that definition. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please do. MR. JACKSON: "Those who are qualified with the experience and skill to seal or stripe driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and w - patios. Scope of work shall include asphalt patching incidental to sealing up to 20 square feet per patch in a manner that does not use a mechanical spreader or paver." The -- the issue more specifically in the definition of sealing and Page 60 1 6 1 1 A abru ry 17, 201 k' striping was seal driveways on the -- on the advertisement. MR. OSSORIO: You could look at -- that's at E6 in your packet. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: As the picture makes its way around, what Mr. Elliott did was he got a red magnet and crossed over -- crossed off "seal" on his advertising. MR. JOSLIN: A question. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: See it? w. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. I was thinking this thing says the same thing, but "seal" was gone. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: He covered the word "seal" here and there (indicating). MR. JOSLIN: I didn't know you could pressure -- pressure clean upholstery. MR. ELLIOTT: Very low pressure, but with the proper tools. MR. BOYD: Ian, I see these people advertising cleaning your paver driveway and sealing it. Is -- do you need a license for that? MR. JACKSON: To seal it, yes. To pressure clean a driveway, a contractor's license is not required. MR. BOYD: Okay. But I'm not talking about sealing asphalt. I'm talking about pavers. MR. JACKSON: Sealing a brick paver driveway -- MR. BOYD: A brick paver driveway. MR. JACKSON: -- requires a contractor's license. MR. BOYD: Okay. MR. WHITE: Interestingly in this case, although the facts of your investigation reveal that he was potentially sealing a roof, a roof is not within the scope of work, so, but for the advertising issue, which is really what the citation's about, you -- you wouldn't have a sealing problem. Bad pun intended. MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. And, Mr. Boyd, you can take a look at -- E5 is this page. This is the Collier County Ordinance 1.6.3.38, sealing and striping Page 61 .. - . -A. .'" Tr.. February 1 2010 contracting. And that's what license is required to seal driveways and patios. MR. JOSLIN: What about brick pavers? MR. OSSORIO: And -- yes. MR. WHITE: If they're part of a patio or a driveway or a sidewalk, then yes. MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You can clean them. MR. WHITE: Or even a parking lot. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sometimes what you have to be careful of is -- I think we sometimes make assumptions that what's the big deal about sealing -- sealing a pavered driveway, but that license actually allows you to do large commercial projects. So under a specific project like this it might not seem like a such a big deal to seal somebody's brick — brick paver driveway, but that license allows you to do so much more, which is why there's a restriction on it. MR. WHITE: I -- MR. OSSORIO: Also, Mr. Chairman, when you deal with sealing and striping, the Board of County Commissioners and the licensing board put a restriction of 24 months of experience. They want someone that has the ability to understand how to put the application -- the product on the pavement. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Uh -huh. MR. OSSORIO: So not only you take the business procedure test to make sure you know how to conduct your business, but they want to make sure you have two years of experience in that field. And I'm sure Mr. Elliott is more than welcome to apply for a sealing and striping license since he already took the business procedure test. So now he just has to come down to the county, fill out the application to show that he has 24 months of experience of -- of Page 62 1611 Unary 7, 2010 sealing and striping, and we will issue him a certificate, if you -- if he wishes to. y . MR. WHITE: And -- and just for the record, the scope of the license -- the only asphalt patching you can do, so folks don't get the wrong idea, including you, is up to 20 square feet. MR. ELLIOTT: I never -- MR. WHITE: And -- MR. ELLIOTT: I never did anything with asphalt. That's not in my realm of ability. MR. WHITE: I understand. And it also indicates that you cannot use a mechanical spreader or a paver to do that patching of 20 square feet, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments from the board? MR. NEALE: Just one note to the board -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Neale. MR. NEALE` "'- from a legal point of view. 49.127(4)(d)(3), which is -- this comes under 49.127 -- states that if the person issued the citation or his designated -- his or her designated representative shows that the citation is invalid or that the cit -- violation has been corrected prior to appearing before the enforcement or licensing board, the enforcement or licensing board may dismiss the citation unless the violation is either irreparable or irreversible. So the board does have permission in the case where it's been corrected to -- to find that the -- to dismiss the citation. MR. JOSLIN: Did you say that was a magnetic sign that you covered over it with? MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. MR. JOSLIN: You covered over it with a piece of -- another piece of magnet? MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. I had went to a sign shop and had them make it just for that. Page 63 Ei"a February 17, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: So it's a completely new sign, but it has the word "seal" gone; is that what you're saying? MR. ELLIOTT: Correct, yes. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. You didn't just take another piece and just stripe over "seal" and you can pull it off sometime? MR. ELLIOTT: No, I -- that's what it is. I -- MR. JOSLIN: It's a permanent sign. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No. No. No, that's exactly what it is. MR. ELLIOTT: It's placed on there. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's a piece of magnetic sign over the word "seal." MR. JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The whole rest of the sign's the same. He can take the magnet off, and it'll say "sealing" underneath it.� MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Well, then I don't like that. That's not going to work. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. ELLIOTT: Can I ask you to look at the photo? MR. JOSLIN: No, I understand that. MR. JERULLE: Maybe you can see it in there. MR. JOSLIN: Oh, I can see it in there now. Okay. So what you did was you took the -- you took the sign that you had on there and µ, took another piece of the red background and just put it over the "seal" portion; is that correct? MR. ELLIOTT: Correct. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Well, that's not going to get it. Because you could take that back off again, right? MR. ELLIOTT: That could -- that could be possible. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. MR. ELLIOTT: Since I've put it on their early December, a few days after this, I have not removed it. I have -- I've had it on there ever since. Page 64 .. i:idiYi•' 161 J A6 February 17, 2010 MR. LANTZ: But you chose to do a magnet instead of vinyl on top? MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I did that because I'm making the preparations to get -- to acquire the license so when I do have that I can take it off without going through the expense of removing the -- the decals and having more lettering put on. MR. LANTZ: So have you done sealing in the past? MR. ELLIOTT: I have, yes. MR. JERULLE: But do you have two years of experience to qualify? MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. MR. JERULLE: You do. MR. WHITE: Where are you in the process, Mr. Elliott? MR. ELLIOTT: Where am I in the process? MR. WHITE: The process of getting that license you talked about. MR. ELLIOTT: I'm thinking of people that I can approach about this that can truthfully justify that I have the experience. MR. WHITE: So you've not -- MR. ELLIOTT: I understand they have to be notarized letters, correct? MR. WHITE: Yes. You've not filed an application at this point? MR. ELLIOTT: Not yet. MR. WHITE: When do you intend to file the application? MR. ELLIOTT: I'm working on that right now. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Elliott, I don't think you finished what -- you're coming before us to contest the citation. Can you explain -- MR. ELLIOTT: I was. MR. JERULLE: -- to us why you think you should not pay after the -- MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I -- I felt at the time that a warning would have been sufficient to take care of in a certain time period -- if Mr. Page 65 , J, .,........1.,A. February 17, 2010 Jackson would have -- would have said that -- you know, I took care of it right away on my own. I felt a warning would have been justified and come back to him and show proof within a time period that he specified. But I took care of it. That -- and since it does state on the backside of the citation that -- which this gentleman stated to you, that__.,,-,., it -- the violation could be -- is repairable, which it was, that you would consider that. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. WHITE: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sure. MR. WHITE: -- of Mr. Neale? Mr. Neale, is it possible under our jurisdiction in disposing of this case to dismiss it with a stipulation that he obtain the required license within a period of time; in other words, it's conditionally dismissed and if he -- MR. NEALE: What I -- what I would suggest probably as a better route in this case -- ;� MR. WHITE: Table it ?� E MR. NEALE: -- is that the board continue this matter -- MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- for a period of time to permit him to obtain licensure, at which time the board could review the case and decide what action to take at that point rather than up or down today. MR. WHITE: I mean, I understand there may be concern about whether under the statute he's, quote, unquote, corrected the advertising issue. I mean, he certainly has made a good -faith effort to do so, and I don't want to split a hair about whether -- it being permanent or, quote, temporary because he could remove the magnet. I'm -- I'm pretty sure based on his testimony if he's said he's left it on their he's going to leave it on their hopefully until he concludes the licensing process. And I'm interested in the other board members' opinion, but it seems from my point of view that we --we might want . 0 Page 66 161 A6 February 17, 2010 to continue this for whatever period of time that would seem reasonable for him to go through the licensure process. I'm guessing two months. MR. JOSLIN: No, 30 days. MR. WHITE: Three months? MR. JOSLIN: Thirty days. MR. JERULLE: It's already been two months. MR. WHITE: I -- I just don't know what the time frame is; that's why I was looking to staff for some guidance. MR. JOSLIN:..If he's qualified to do the work and he only has to get the affidavit signed by someone that says he has the experience, then that should be something that should be very simple to do. You've just got to get it notarized, present the packet to Mr. Ossorio, and then by the time we meet next month he should have it pretty well in line, or at least well on its way that it's either approved or disapproved. MR. JERULLE: And I'm confused as to why he hasn't done that in the last two months. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right. Let me make it easier for you guys. Again, why are we having a follow -up with somebody, having them come back here and spend our time on this? The man chose a temporary, least expensive solution to this and now is asking that we waive the citation. If he'd have went and got his signs redone and it was a permanent -� solution, I'd feel a little bit more inclined to waive this thing, but he ....,.... went out and found the absolute simplest, most temporary solution to this and hasn't put the effort into getting the license. So he doesn't want to pay the fine, and he doesn't want to pay the money to get his sign changed. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, our issue is is that his testimony directly says that he's done work as a sealing and striping contractor. He's been ben -- he benefitted from his sign; therefore, I would say Page 67 February 17, 2010 that he's a con -- he acted as a contractor and the citation should be w. upheld. K CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: Well, I just want to make a motion. I move that we uphold the citation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion. I need a second. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any discussion? MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There's one citation here, and it's for advertising. It's not for doing any work. And whether his k _ testimony is that he did, he's not being cited for that, so let's -- let's not 'I mix apples and oranges in how we determine the vote. I'm going to vote against the motion, but only because I believe he did correct the violation for advertising. And he's attempting to do it, and I believe that we want to encourage people to comply. Perhaps he should have been more timely and avoided the circumstance. If he was coming here with us saying, "Yeah, I've got an application. I'm going to be before you next month," the other gentlemen on the board may have seen this differently. But I -- I just don't want to have you cast your vote based on the fact that we're bootstrapping in his own testimony being used against him for a violation he's not being cited for; that's all. MR. ELLIOTT: I would be willing to -- if -- if you'd give me 30 days, I can -- that would be enough time for me to get the required affidavits. I believe it's -- what? You need three to show proof of experience or just one? MR. OSSORIO: Two or three would be fine. MR. ELLIOTT: Three? MR. OSSORIO: Three's better than two. -•�w MR. ELLIOTT: Is two acceptable? MR. OSSORIO: Two is fine. MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Page 68 1611 AAary"77, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: We need 24 months. So we need two. But if you some education or training in the field of seal coating, I can take that as -- as a -- as experience in a percentage. MR. ELLIOTT: All right. I would ask that you would consider that, please. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: If I'm not mistaken, I think we -- there's a motion - _ on the floor, but we either have to deny the motion or take the motion - back and continue this, you know, with that assumption or vote on it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. So if -- MR. NEALE: Right. MR. ELLIOTT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If the discussion's over, I'll call the vote. MR. ELLIOTT: Could I -- so we don't take up your time on another meeting, would bringing it to the attention of one of the inspectors be sufficient? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, we have a motion on the floor we a need to vote on, and then any further discussion after that. MR. NEALE: Well, you do -- you do have the option of -- if the''i movant and the seconder both agree to withdraw the motion, you don't have to -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- call a vote on it. MR. LANTZ: I stand by my motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Who seconded that? Was that Terry? MR. JERULLE: I did. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Are you going to maintain your second? MR. JERULLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Boyd. MR. BOYD: Does he have any previous citations? Page 69 February 17, 201 MR. JACKSON: No record of any previous violation. MR. BOYD: And he's been a contractor since 1998, right? He's been here for 12 years. MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. BOYD: Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: Now, understand one other item, gentlemen. If the motion carries or does not carry, that now there is no fine and there is no way that we -- he can bring anything before us as far as to alleviate the fine; he's off totally. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If the motion doesn't carry, that's correct. MR. JOSLIN: If the motion does not carry. MR. WHITE: Let -- let me state for the record that, if that were the case, my intention would be to make a motion to or -- or I would ask the motion makers to consider -- well, let me just stop right there. I don't think there's a procedural way -- MR. JOSLIN: No. MR. WHITE: -- to address your concern. MR. NEALE: Well, what -- ,. I , MR. WHITE: So that's why I'm going to vote against it. MR. NEALE: What can be done is that the -- the -- the contractor licensing supervisor can refer any application that he appears on his face -- appears to him on its face not to be consistent with the ordinance to this board for review. MR. WHITE: But I -- if the motion is denied, we're -- we're left in what posture? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The citation needs to be paid. I'm sorry. 4.. �. If the motion MR. WHITE: Well -- well, no, we could still make another motion. MR. NEALE: Uh huh, you can still make another motion. MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you. I wasn't clear on that in my own mind. Thank you. Page 70 161 a Lary 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: You know, in these tough economic times, I have sympathy for -- for somebody like Mr. Elliott, but -- but on the same token, you know, he's been doing this and benefiting from this and doesn't have a license. And I know that there's other contractors that I'm in direct contact with almost on a daily basis that do abide by the rules and the regulations and the laws that I think we as a board have an obligation to. Those people are following the rules, and -- and then along comes somebody like Mr. Elliott who -- who really doesn't follow the rules and maybe can under -- underbid them as we stated earlier. So not that I want to punish you so much as, you know, it's the -- it's the right thing to do. You advertised something that you were not licensed for. MR. WHITE: Yeah. MR. JERULLE: And -- and you have -- that's a very nice sign, and you've paid money to put that sign on there, and you made a conscious effort to put that sign on your truck, and you benefitted from it. And it is -- it was wrong, and it's time to pay for that mistake, and that -- that's my opinion. MR. WHITE: Well, the statute allows, as Mr. Neale indicated, if he corrects the violation before the hearing, which arguably he's done, that we have it within our power to not penalize him. MR. JERULLE: Yeah. Well, "arguably" is the correct term because putting a temporary magnetic sign over a permanent sign, to me, is not really correcting the problem. And having two months to make an application to -- to do the license and he hasn't done so is not correcting the problem, in -- in my opinion. MR. LANTZ: I think the statute allows it, but it doesn't require us. MR. WHITE: No, you're -- you're absolutely right. y w MR. JOSLIN: So restate the motion, please, just so I understand. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The motion was to uphold the citation. Page 71 7 ebruary 17, 2010 Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Then I will call the vote. All those in favor of upholding the citation say "aye." MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. �WUra," MR. JOSLIN: Aye. k ,•,r,, CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. COURT REPORTER: Who opposed? Can you raise your hands if you opposed? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed -- raise your hand if you opposed. So the motion carries 5 to 2. The fine is -- the citation's payable in 10 days, correct? MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. Mr. Chairman, is it -- would it please the court reporter if we took a five - minute break? COURT REPORTER: Yes. -` CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Then we'll stay adjourned for five minutes. We'll be back -- how about if we come back at 5 after 11. MR. OSSORIO: That's fine. (Recess held.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So I will call the meeting to order. And next on the agenda is Paul Lykins, reinstatement of a county license. (Witness sworn.) MR. LYKINS: Hello. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good morning, Paul. Michael, do you want to give us a quick background on this? MR. OSSORIO: Just give me a quick second. Page 72 161 1 �j "" „h itebruary 17, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: Is he sworn in? MR. NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykins is a certified specialty contractor, electrical specialty contractor by the State of Florida. He did have a electrical -- not -- an electrical sign contracting license in the county registered with the state. He became state certified, and he let his county license lapse but kept his state registration current, so what Mr. Lykins is wishing to do is to reinstate his county license so he would have a electrical sign contracting local license and a -- and he will keep his state certified specialty electrical license as well. They both can do the same thing, but he wishes to keep his electrical sign contractor active in our database because right now it's showing it's cancelled because he's state certified. I'll give you an example: when you were state registered, you let your registration cancel, but you became state certi -- certified. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. MR. OSSORIO: You can have two. You just elected to be a general contractor because it's an overkill. You don't wish to go ahead and keep two. Mr. Lykins wishes to go ahead and have two. It's a little bit different because he's a state certified specialty electrical contractor versus he's a county licensed electrical contractor for signs. So it's a little bit different classification. The state does -- encompasses the electricals, but he kept his state electrical license active, so he has two registrations. He has a registered license, and then he has a state certification license with the u state. But he didn't renew his -- his county license, so what we need to.,,,,,_. do is -- he wishes to waive the exam so that he can reapply and get his certificate back. He -- he is continuing his education. This has been a formality. We've done this five or six times in the past. My recommendation real Page 73 February 17, 2010 quick is to go ahead and waive the -- waive the test. And he can apply for his certificate back as an electrical sign contractor since he's kept his state registration up and current and be done with it. MR. NEALE: Yeah. As Mr. Ossorio says, really the board's action here is to waive the testing requirement for him. That's really all Y.� the board is doing. And then he has to go through the regular application process to get back in. So that's -- that's really all the board'4� is doing is waiving the testing requirement. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ossorio, did you give a -- what your thoughts were, what your recommendation is? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. My recommendation is he gets his -- if you look on the application, his application -- I don't know what page it's on, but you'll see it's -- it says Lykins, Paul David -- that is him -- Lykins Signtek Development Specialty, and he's a -- you'll see it says registered specialty contractor, and it's actually showing current. And so, therefore, since he kept his registration current and active, we recommend that he get his license back. If you go ahead and turn to the next page, he has an ES license, certified specialty y � contractor, and that is current, and that is, basically, for signs. So it's an overkill. He's going to have a registered specialty contracting for signs, and he's going to be a certified specialty contractor for signs. And he's doing that for a couple of reasons; one, he -- obviously, he wants to keep his registration current just in case something happened with his state license and, two, that into our database, when -- when a person pulls a category now that says "electrical sign," he'll be in there. Right now if you pull "electrical sign," it's going to -- it's not going to show him in there because he's not an electrical sign contractor. He's a state certified specialty electrical contractor, but it encompasses signs. So he just wants to be more definitive and be in that category and keep his registration current with the state, from Tallahassee, and keep a certified registration with Tallahassee as well, Page 74 A " 161 1 February 17, 2010 so-- MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to make -- this is the Shortest one we've had for a while. I'm going to make a motion that we , waive Mr. Lykins' testing requirements based on the fact that if you look at his credit ap it's impeccable, and I believe that the man's been i in business long enough here that it's just a formality, I believe, that was missed. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Discussion? MR. JERULLE: I know them, and I use them, so I think I will not vote to make sure that -- I'm trying to be impartial. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm in the same -- I'm in the same boat. I have to abstain because I'm one of their customers as well. MR. BOYD: Well, then I'm a -- MR. JOSLIN: You're not -- actually, I don't think -- MR. BOYD: I'm a competitor. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Neale, you can -- Mr. Neale can answer the question, but you don't have to abstain because you know them; you just have to make it so the board knows it. MR. NEALE: Yeah, you don't have to abstain as long as it's publicly noticed that -- that you do have a business relationship with them. MR. JERULLE: All right. MR. NEALE':" And -- and make -- make sure that you make the statement on the record, if it is, in fact, the truth, that it will not impact the -- your vote or influence your vote in any way. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Jerulle, is that the company you complained about last week to me? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, I'm also friends with Steve Stevenson, so I'm going to abstain because I do have a relationship Page 75 February 17, 2010 with Steve as well, so I will abstain. MR. LYKINS: Yeah, that's my partner. MR. JERULLE: No, I -- I use Lykins Sign, and I don't have any personal relationship, so I -- I will vote. MR. WHITE: And it won't impact -- MR. JERULLE: It will not impact my position. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Lykins, do you even want us to give you a chance to say a few words, or do you just want to get this done MR. LYKINS: Mike pretty well -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- as quick as possible? MR. LYKINS: Mike pretty well said it. CHAIRMAN LYKINS: Okay. MR. LYKINS: I just want to be -- when, you know, the web site's pulled up, you know our name doesn't come up on it, so we look cancelled, like were not current, so I dust want to reinstate it. MR. WHITE: As an aside, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is CityView going to be more comprehensive in how it shows contracting statuses at both the state and local level just as a suggestion? MR. OSSORIO: To be honest with you, I'm not sure, but it's one of the things we're looking at to making sure that it's compatible. I'm assuming it's going to be better. I think it will. So with that category -- with that caveat, I think it will be, but to be safe, we need to make sure that he is added as a specialty registered contractor because it is the county web site. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any discussion? MR. NEALE: Just one more point, as Mr. Boyd did -- did indicate that he does have a -- he is a competitor, but if -- if he would also state for the record if it -- if it is, in fact, the case, that it would not impact his vote. MR. BOYD: It will not impact my vote. Page 76 1611A `February 17, 2010 MR. NEALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'll call the vote. All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 6 to 0. Thank you. MR. LYKINS: All right. Thank you. All right. Do I need to do anything? MR. NEALE: Just talk to Mr. -- Mike. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I think it takes a couple of -- a couple of days. MR. NEALE: It takes a couple of days. MR. LYKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Next, Mr. Paul Gaydos, qualified second entity. Just to be clear, you're not the guy that shot a nine on the -- MR. PAUL GAYDOS: No. It's G -a. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- tour today, are you? MR. PAUL GAYDOS: It's close. (Witnesses sworn.) MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick overview. He's a state registered electrical contractor. He qualifies Paul J. Gaydos. He wishes to qualify MJG Electrical, Incorporated. And we have his tentative insurance papers and the -- the tentative workers' comp policy for the MJG Electrical, Incorporated, here, it was missing in the Page 77 I bruary 17, 2010 packet. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: For the record, I would like to just make it known that I do know both these gentlemen, Mr. Paul Gaydos, personally. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And will that impact your decision? MR. JOSLIN: It will not impact my decision. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, sir. MR. JOSLIN: I can make this one quick, too, if you want. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. Mr. Chairman, when you're reviewing that, I -- I reviewed this packet, and I find no fault in it, so my recommendation is to grant his second entity. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: For a point of clarification -- I don't know if this is Mr. Neale or Michael. The letter of intent is to verify that commercial liability insurance can be made available to MJG Electric. Is the requirement for us that the insurance already has to be in place, or is this -- this enough? MR. NEALE: No, that -- no insurance needs to be in place until the license is granted because -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- you can't operate without the license, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: One of the things we actually look for is -- when you fill out the application, that's on the checklist, so we -- the certificate won't be issued to any company without having proper insurance. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: But MR. WHITE: It's not exactly a binder, but it's close. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, usually we see them, and they already have their insurance in place; that's why I asked. MR. JOSLIN: If anyone has any -- no derogatory remarks or discussion, I'm ready to make a motion. Page 78 161 I 16ruary 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: I just -- if I may just briefly. Mr. Paul Gaydos, would you explain what you're doing and why? MR. PAUL GAYDOS: Well, my brother is currently unemployed. His company went under. He was a foreman for 20 -some years, a superintendent of many, many jobs. And he's in the process of getting his own license, but until he gets his license I will qualify him until he is certified. MR. JERULLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Gaydos -- Mr. Gaydos, if you would do me a favor and just step up real quick to the microphone. MR. PAUL GAYDOS: Yes. Gaydos, not Goydos. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. See, I have that in my head now. I apologize. MR. PAUL GAYDOS: I get it all the time, and I don't -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does anybody -- MR. PAUL GAYDOS: I don't even play golf. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does anybody else have any questions of the respondent? " MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure -- this is your if you do do this, he's a -- you will be qualifying a second entity for a specialty -- I mean, a registered electrical contractor, and he will have to file with the state, too, as well. So once -- if you do approve it here, he'll come back to the office, get the forms, and fill out the forms for the State of Florida for a registration, so -- MR. PAUL GAYDOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Joslin. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve Mark Gaydos and Paul Gaydos for qualifying a second entity and that he be, also, required to register with the state. 4,to'i xi "xM MR. LANTZ' :' Second, Lantz. Page 79 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. PAUL GAYDOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Good luck. MR. PAUL GAYDOS: Thank you. MR. MARK GAYDOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Onto old business, Marisol Santos, review of credit report, six -month review. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we've -- we've issued her a temporary probation of her license, and you -- and you made it clear to the applicant that she needs to appear back to you with a current credit report. And it looks like she is making some progress on her credit,' " "` and with that I'll leave it up to you. COURT REPORTER: She needs to be sworn. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. Please. (Witness duly sworn.) MS. SANTOS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good morning. How are you? MS. SANTOS: Good. How are you? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good. As a refresher, Michael, what was the -- the decision I made, was it one year probation or six months Page 80 16 l A4 .11 ruary 17, 2010 probation? MR. OSSORIO: It was six months, and it was -- the board wished to have the applicant back in front of the board with a current credit report. As you can see in front of you, you have a credit report dated May 8, 2009, and then you'll have -- somewhat in the back of the packet you'll see a new credit reported dated January 25th, 2010. And with that -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Miss Santos, why don't you give us a report on how things are going. MS. SANTOS: Things are going very well. I've also done some continuing education. I'm sure you're aware Florida just passed a law that's going to require us to be certified in fertilization and mulching, and I've already passed that course. I think I got a 100 on the exam, so I'm proud of that. And our customer base is building day -- day by day. We're getting calls every week, so we are doing well. You know, it's a little slow starting because we have limited equipment, but, you know -- and, also, if I'd like -- if I could, I'd like to comment on the -- what you were speaking about earlier about the unlicensed contractors. It's really hard for us to -- to do anything with our business when we have -- these people that are not licensed, they have no overhead costs, so they're able to underbid us by so much that we have no way of competing. And, you know, I am one of those people that follow the rules and try to educate myself so we can educate our customers. And, you know, we would like to see more enforcement out there. And we are also a company that will -- if we see somebody that doesn't seem like they're a contractor, we will report them because that's our meal ticket that we've worked so hard for, you know, and I don't think it's fair. CHAIRMAN'LYKOS: Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: As you -- as you probably heard during the meeting, because you've been sitting here a while, that the new Page 81 February 17, 2010 manager is -- is going to -- MS. SANTOS: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: -- make sure that we go forward with, maybe another investigator, to try to take some of these unlicensed people off the street to help your business along. MS. SANTOS: Yes. I was very pleased to hear that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, seeing here that your --your credit score has gone up, your delinquent -- number of delinquent accounts as gone down, your past due amounts have gone down -- so it looks to me like you're making good progress. Are there any other comments from the board? MR. JOSLIN: I feel as though we should probably maybe just for the sake of keeping her under our wing for a little longer, maybe put a -- extend the -- the probation for another six months, or -- MR. NEALE: The -- MR. JOSLIN: -- or can this not be done? MR. NEALE: No, the order issued by the board on the 17th of June stated that the credit report will be reviewed at the six month meeting, and the board determines whether the applicant will receive an unrestricted license, be denied further licensure, or have the probationary period extended, so you did have the three options at that point. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I went through this in maybe fly -speck fashion, and a lot of the smaller ones have been addressed. There are some larger ones and -- and a new charge off, but, you know, that's resolved. So I -- I think that maybe another six months makes sense. If the business activity continues to improve and the items that are on there of larger dollar amounts can, not necessarily be paid, but some explanation given as to what the status is going to be in the long term, then at the end of six months, I think we could feel comfortable that, you know, she had moved the ball as far as she could, and get a Page 82 3611 A6 tab,.wb+�r, February 17, 2010 report, also, on, hopefully, the continuing improvement of the amount of business so we have somebody that's, you know, a stable, solid economically, a well managed business. That's what we're looking for. I'm sure that's what the applicant's looking for too. So I think six months makes sense. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So your recommendation is to extend the probation for six more months? MR. WHITE: I -- I'd put it as a second, if that was a motion. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry. Richard, that was your recommendation? 1hh)A.4141, MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN'LYKOS: And -- and MR. WHITE: I'm agreeing with his recommendation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You're agreeing with his recommendation. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Did you make a formal motion? MR. JOSLIN: Not formally, no. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: But I can put it into a formal one. MS. SANTOS: May I say something real quick before you do? The reason for the delay in the improvement in my credit is because the company that was working on my credit went out of business. And I included a copy of the returned mail. It's all I really had. + 19.1 And several months ago we were really slow, so that's been the delay in the improvement in my credit. And then that's why you see, like, some improvement, then -- then nothing, so that's why. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Michael, if she's on probation, that does not limit her ability to work at all. MR. OSSORIO: No. Page 83 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's just that she's obligated to come back to us as long as she's on probation? MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. livIlUdij CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: And the only -- the only difference is is that it's going to take a little more staff time to, you know, put it into Outlook to make sure that she gets back on the agenda. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: There's a motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other -- any other comments or questions? Irl,111 III (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Then I need a motion. MR. JOSLIN: A motion to allow Miss Marisol to be on another probationary license for another six months and after six months come back before us one more time. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: And the one more time with a new credit report. Sorry. MR. WHITE: Seconder agrees. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Okay. So why don't we restate the motion so everybody has a clear understanding before we vote. MR. JOSLIN: For the fact that we allow Miss Marisol to have the probationary license, extend her license for another six months on probation, and after six months come back before us with a new credit report. MR. WHITE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. All those in favor? Page 84 wa V 1-{' -, I 1 6 1 1 ^ 61ebruary 17, 2010 MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Miss Marisol, thank you for your ,II �w�ll time today. MS. SANTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And -- and we'll see you in six months with a new credit report. MS. SANTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: Good luck. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. You're right. Motion carried 7 to 0. Colleen Martinez. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, this is Colleen Martinez. The same thing, six months. The credit report is dated April I st, 2009, and you have her new credit report dated December 30th, 2009. CHAIRMANLYKOS: Miss Martinez. MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Why don't you give us a report -- well, I'm sorry. You need to be sworn in first. (Witness duly sworn.) MS. MARTINEZ: My credit actually has gone up since then still. I am working with Lexington Law, and they're working on all three of my credit, not just on the Experian that you guys are looking at, but they're looking at the Equifax, the TransUnion, and -- all three of Page 85 a them. February 17, 2010 _..._._ �. So it takes a little bit longer just because some of the things have been deleted off one but not yet off the other, but I have been rising and rising every month. Every 30 days they give me a new report, and I have gone up. Actually, TransUmon is at 680 already, so I have gone up quite a bit. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's good. Tell us how business is going. MS. MARTINEZ: Business is going good. I am working for a few contractors and, you know, starting out slow, but it's been steady enough to keep us alive. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good. MS. MARTINEZ: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Questions or comments from the board? MR. NEALE: There's only one minor issue, and I -- I don't think - it's -- but I wanted to bring it to the board's attention -- is that as part of the original -- and I'm -- she's probably -- I would suggest that she's probably following with it -- is as part of the order at the last board meeting in June, the applicant was also supposed to supply a copy of her divorce decree indicating the division of debt. MS. MARTINEZ: I totally forgot about that. I apologize. I did not include that. I forgot. I'm sorry. MR. JOSLIN: Do you have it? MS. MARTINEZ: I don't have it. I just brought my credit stuff. MR. JOSLIN: No, I mean, you don't have it physically with you now, but do you have it? MS. MARTINEZ: Oh, I -- yeah, I have it. I just don't have it physically here. MR. WHITE.._We can maybe continue it until next month. MR. NEALE: Either -- either continue it, or the board could direct her that she provide it to the -- to staff. MR. JOSLIN: To staff. Page 86 161 A6 February ' 17, 2010 MR. NEALE: Because it doesn't say that the -- it doesn't have to be provided directly to the board. It can be provided to -- MS. MARTINEZ: And I think the ones that were his actually have been pulled off, other than maybe one that is a gas card issue thing that they're still verifying the account, but all the ones that were his, I think, have been pulled off. 11 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me. MR. JOSLIN: Is that -- that was -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Patrick, what was -- what was the exact order of the board six months ago? MR. NEALE: The order of the board was that she was going to come back in six months. The credit report was going to be reviewed, determine whether the -- she would be -- an unrestricted license, further licensure, or probationary period extended, same three options, and then she was going to provide a copy of her divorce decree indicating res -- division of responsibility for the marital and non - marital debt within the -- sometime during the six month period. So it -- it wasn't exactly specific as to when and what the criteria were, just it was -- it was something the board, I think, had interest in to see what -- how that -- how that shake -- shook out. �� 9 MR. JOSLIN: So just to answer the final question then, you -- , you have physically gotten that decree or that paperwork that we asked for from the divorce? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, I do have that. MR. JOSLIN: You just don't have it with you. MS. MARTINEZ: I just didn't bring it with me because I lost track. MR. JOSLIN: So would it be able -- you be able to present that to staff? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, I can. MR. JOSLIN: No problem? MS. MARTINEZ: Uh -huh. rniA� Ai Page 87 - - ::•.: FebruaA10, 201 Q - MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have a recommendation from staff? MR. OSSORIO: I think we should continue her on probation for six months, and she can stop by my office before Friday with the with the appropriate documents would be fine. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I think I'd like to have that turned in before -- I don't want to wait six more months to get that decree. MR. JOSLIN: No, Friday. MS. MARTINEZ: Friday. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's what I'm saying. I don't want to � wait six months. If she gets it in Friday, -- ' g y, at would be I think that s a good recommendation. MR. LANTZ: I move we extend her probationary period for six months, then she'll give us another credit report, and that she bring her divorce decree within five business days. MS. MARTINEZ: Uh -huh. MR. WHITE: Second. MR. JOSLIN: By this Friday? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Five days. MR. JOSLIN: Five days. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion; I have a second. Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Could I just -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those -- I'm sorry. MR. WHITE: -Just -- just one point to staff. I'd -- I'd caution that, ��4-+� ° although we send the letter out about social Security numbers being redacted, I just hope that's sufficient in the case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 88 161 T e6ruary 17, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. Itkfilli;ij MR. BOYD: Aye. I,lih�yli CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Miss Martinez, you'll have your report into the licensing office. Kyle gave you five days -- MS. MARTINEZ: Five days. Thank you, Kyle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- to get that done. And then we'll see you again in six months with your updated credit report. MS. MARTINEZ: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. And good luck to you. MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. MR. NEALE: Yeah, since it appears that the credit reports -- that the Social Security numbers were not completely redacted in here, I'd suggest that everyone hand this one back to staff and let staff shred it.� CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah. Before we move on to public hearings, there's one other thing -- Michael, I've got this -- MR. NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- evidence from one of the citations. I want to make sure we get that to the right place. Okay. Our last item of business is a public hearing. Is Miss Borrego here? Miss Borrego. Okay. (Witnesses duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. You've been sworn in. Okay. This is-- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been sworn in. I might want to take some testimony, so can I be sworn in too? MR. NEALE: Excuse me. Just one quick thing before we do that. Apparently, there's also a number of -- a non - redaction on Miss Santos' matter as well, so those should be returned to staff for Page 89 February 17010 shredding. (Witness duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Before we get started, I just want to explain the rules of the public hearing, and then we'll be able to move forward. Public hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of a type commonly replied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of the state of Florida. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any -- any evidence but shall not be sufficient by itself to support a finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in civil actions in court. The rules of privilege shall be effected -- effective to the same extent that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions. Any member of the contractors' licensing board may question any witness before the board. Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. The chairperson or, in his absence, the vice chairperson shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum. The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an opening statement where it sets out the charges and, in general terms, Page 90 161 7 A6 February 17, 2010 how it intends to prove them. The respondent then makes his or her E opening statement setting out, in general terms, the defenses to the charges. The county then presents its case in chief calling witnesses and presenting evidence. The respondent may cross examine these witnesses. Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent puts on her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the things described earlier; that is, call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. After the respondent puts on his or her case, the county gets to present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation. When the rebuttal is concluded, then each party gets to present closing statements with the county getting a second chance to rebut after the respondent's closing r�< argument. The board then closes the public hearing and begins ? a <M deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the parameters on which they base their decision. During deliberations the board can ask for additional information and clarification from the parties. The board will then decide two different issues; first, whether the respondent is guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint. A vote will be taken on this matter. If the respondent is found guilty, then the board may decide the sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise the board of the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to consider. The board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those. After the two matters are decided, the chair or, in his absence, the�,�,; -;;�1 vice chair will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board. This summary will set out the basic outline of the order, but will not Page 91 February 17, �m 10 be exactly the same language as the final order. The final order will include the full details required under state law and procedure. So we are hearing Case No. 2010 -1, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board versus Maharay Borrego -- am I pronouncing that correctly? MS. BORREGO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- Maharay Borrego d/b /a Mary's'; Kitchens & Interiors, Incorporated, License No. 32941. The administrative complaint: The Contractors' Licensing Board of Collier County, Florida, files this administrative complaint against Maharay Borrego d/b /a Mary's Kitchens & Interiors, hereinafter "the respondent," License No. 32941, and says, Count I, 4.1.8, committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct includes, but is not limited to, any of the following. And we don't have any of the following. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion that we M enter this packet into evidence. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion. I need a second. __..�_. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.,W� CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor`? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. The packet is entered into evidence. And, Ian, would you please start with an opening statement. Page 92 "MII 161 � ebruary 17, 2010 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. For the record, Ian Jackson, license compliance officer for Collier County. Today the county will show that the contractor, Maharay Borrego, committed mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to this customer. We're going it hear that by documented facts and through the testimony of the affected homeowners. This occurred due to the fact that Miss Borrego contracted with an inactive, delinquent license prohibiting the execution of the contract. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Miss Borrego, your opening statement. MS. BORREGO: What can I say? Yeah, I did go into a contract after so many things that had happened since August last year, and one of them is paying rent where I have my showroom over at the Big Cypress Marketplace, having so many overhead, going through a separation, a divorce, three kids, and the whole works. Yep, I went into contract. I needed the money. I don't have the money now, but I do want to do their job, if I'm able to do it, or if they want their money back, I'm going to have to pay little by little. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Ian, are you ready to present your case? MR. JACKSON: I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Please proceed. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I would like to call Mrs. Laczi, theI homeowner, as a witness for the county, if I could, please. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mrs. Laczi, will you please come up and - -- �, be sworn in? (Witness duly sworn.) MR. NEALE: Let me have her go to the -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Would you please come over here by Mr. Jackson. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: I'm going to stand here for a couple of minutes. Page 93 161 1 -) February 17, 2010 Pardon me. I'm going to stand here for a couple of minutes while I question her. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Ms. Borrego, you can just sit right in the front row, that's fine, so you're close by. Thank you. °-° MR. JACKSON: Has Ms. Laczi been sworn in? COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, she has. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: Mrs. Laczi, did you contract with Ms. Borrego for the installation of the countertops and kitchen cabinets? MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. JACKSON: And at what point in time did you contract with Ms. Borrego? MS. LACZI: We signed the contract on November the 3rd. MR. JACKSON: And, Ms. Laczi, in the packet that I gave you, on Exhibit E5 -- MS. LACZI: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: -- are these the checks that were paid to Ms. Borrego on 1115 and 11/6 MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. JACKSON: -- of 2009? MS. LACZI: (Witness nodding head.) MR. JACKSON: And, Ms. Laczi, would you have contracted with Ms. Borrego had you known that the status of the license that would have allowed her to contract was delinquent at that time? MS. LACZI: No way. I asked numerous times, "Do you have a license? Do you have a license." "Yes." Because we -- MR. JACKSON: And I understand that there was some time that had transpired between the signing of the contract and the issuance of the checks. When you arrived at the conclusion that this work was not going to take place, would you explain, in your own words, what happened Page 94 w!AM il February 4 12010 next. MS. LACZI: Well, we agreed that she would start work December the 1 st because she said that she doesn't know how long it will take for the license on Marco Island to be issued. She would have even started before December 1 st, but I said, be -- because we don't know the length and it's Thanksgiving, I said December 1 st will be okay. So I stayed quiet. I didn't contact her. I waited until after�''�°� December Ist, and she never contacted me to say, "This is what's , W going on. We're still waiting for the con -- for the permit to be issued," blah -- whatever. So when I saw that time is passing and no word from Mary, I contacted her, and I said, "Mary, what is going on ?" "Elena, the cabinets are being ordered." Then I waited and I waited and contacted her. Every time I called her she only had the answering machine on. After so many calls, repeated calls, I said, "Mary, please call me. Mary, please call me. Let me know what's going on," and then she would call me, and then she would say, "Oh, we will -- we will do -- we'll have some -- I have some jobs that we need to finish, and as soon as I'm finished -- we're finished with those --those jobs, we're going to start your job." That was before -- just before Christmas. And I told her, "Well, I need to go home for Christmas, so you finish up -- if you're going to finish up -- finish the job before Christmas ?" She said, "Yes, it will be finished in five days since the day we start." So I -- I -- I doubted that something -- I -- I -- I had the feeling that something is wrong, so I went to the licensing department on Marco Island to see if she didn't even get the permit, so at that time I found out that, yes, they applied for the permit and the permit was issued on December the 8th. Be -- after that she showed up at my house when I told her, Page 95 j .h '1;0,f, _! f► February 17, 2010 Piro li I "Mary, you have the permit. What -- what -- what is still holding you not to do the job ?" And she showed up at my house with another bill for $240, and she said, "I -- I need you to pay me this because Ariel Gonzales," which is the contractor that she obviously is working on -- with, "paid for the permit." And I said, "Mary, I'm not going to pay that bill because you -- we agreed that everything it's included in the con -- in the amount that we agreed upon that's on the contract." And so she said, "Okay. Then I'm going to waive that -- that fee." After that I kept calling her and I kept calling her, and then she never answered. And, finally, one time when -- when she answered, she said, "I'll meet with you," and she gave me a place where to meet and a time. The place was the Waffle House on -- on 951 with 75, h somewhere there, and 2 o'clock. So we went there with my husband at 2 o'clock, and she never showed up. I called her, and she said, "Well, I'm being evicted from my house. I'm going through a divorce. I have a lot of problems." And I said, "Well, Mary, I understand that, but I" -- I -- I said, "I don't want a kitchen anymore. I don't want to deal with you anymore. I don't want you to do any work for me anymore. I just want my money back," and I said, "today," and that's -- that's -- that's -- that's the end of it. Then we went to Mr. Jackson, as they told us in -- on Marco Island at the licensing department to go to Collier County, and that's when we went to file the claim because I didn't know what else to do l ( 4! because I -- obviously, I -- I -- I cannot talk to -- to Mary. And I went to her place of business every -- every Saturday or _ Friday or Sunday, whenever they are there at the Big Cypress Mar -- farmers market where she has her showroom. Since I had the doubts, then I went there all the time at one of these days on the weekends to see if she's there and what's going on, and nobody was at the counter. Page 96 .i i q February 1 , 2010 And I just left my -- my name there two times, I think, and -- "Mary, contact me. Mary, please give me a call." I left the phone number, the address, name. I've never been contacted. And every time I went there there was nobody at the desk at the -- where she has the showroom. And all I want to say is that I want my money back and not in installments, because I give her two checks, $5,750, and I want them -- I want her to borrow the money from her brother, mother, uncle, which is -- Ariel Gonzales I understood is her uncle. And she -- she -- she assured me when she showed up at my house with Ariel Gonzales that, "By the time we're going to be done with your work, you're going to meet all my" -- or "you're going to know all my family." So I was pleased because I said, "Oh, this is a family owned business, operated and owned, and they're honest. And I -- I can deal with people to people, person to person." And, well, it never worked that way, so I want my money back. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. MS. LACZL• Because if she -- if she will give me $200 today, .: $200 in five months -- in a month I'm going to leave Marco Island, and I'm -- I'm going to Romania because I have an 82- year -old mother that is old and sick, and I have to take care of her, and I don't have the time and the possibility to wait for her to pay me in installments. So I -- I need assurance that she is going to give me the money all at once and now. MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Ms. Laczi. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions real quick, if I may. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. ZACHARY: Robert Zachary, assistant county attorney. Mrs. Laczi, have you gotten any kind of money back from the respondent in this case, which is Mrs. -- Ms. Borrego, at this point? ' "�'lllljy M NY Page 97 '.. ebruar� -17, 2010 MS. LACZI: No. MR. ZACHARY: And do you see the person in the courtroom who you contracted with? MS. LACZI: Mary. MR. ZACHARY: Mary. Let the record indicate that she has indicated the -- the respondent in this case. MS. LACZI: And she was with another lady when we signed the contract, Rose -- Rosemary, and when we decided on the -- the color MR. ZACHARY: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you, sir, Mr. Zachary. Any other questions from you, Ian? MR. JACKSON: At this point I have no further questions. I would like to elaborate on the -- on the case, though, so I'll head back over there. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You can go back to -- over there. Ms. Laczi, if you would please stay. Ms. Borrego, you have the opportunity to cross examine the witness. Do you have any questions for the witness, Ms. Borrego? MS. BORREGO: No, I don't have any questions. I just want -- I'm sorry is all that I can say. MS. LACZI: I trusted you, Mary. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. You'll have -- we'll have -- n "i MS. BORREGO: I know you trust me. ... CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We'll have -- we'll have time for closing statements when we're done with -- with this part of the process. Ian, do you have any other evidence, any other witnesses to call? MR. JACKSON: No further witnesses. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ian, do you have more information for us? MR. JACKSON: Well, I just wanted to, once again, reiterate the fact that Mrs. Laczi contracted while Ms. Borrego was not currently Page 98 t A6 r February 17, 2010 licensed, and once that comes to the attention of the licensing department, the -- the contract cannot be executed. There's -- there's no way for this contract in the form that it's in right now to be completed. The Laczis are going to have to find a new contractor if they want this kitchen remodeled. Of course, this new contractor is -- is going to have to charge them accordingly, and at this point the Laczis are -- are out $5,750. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Ossorio. MR. OSSORIO: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Ian Jackson, if I may. Ian, can you turn to Page E3 in your packet. And this is a certificate detail report; am I correct? MR. JACKSON: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: If you'd look on the top left -hand corner, it says, "Expire date." What date is that? MR. JACKSON: September 30th, 2009. MR. OSSORIO: And I submit to the board that every single contractor has to renew his or her certificate by September 30th, 2009. After -- by code, after September -- you go into October, November, or December, and by code it says that you are delinquent. So when the -- Ian, if you could turn to Page E4. And the date of the execution of the contract is what date? MR. JACKSON: It's dated 11/3/2009, November 3rd, 2009. MR. OSSORIO: So it is your opinion that as of that particular date Mary's Kitchens' certificate was in a delinquent stage? MR. JACKSON: That certificate was delinquent on 11 /3rd. MR. OSSORIO: If you'd turn to Page E9 -- I'm sorry -- E8 for me. And this is a -- the Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46; am I correct? +x,401 MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. I'm going to have you go down to 1.1. Page 99 R, y t February 17, 2010 And, basically, that is -- it says, "Unlawful to contract without a certificate of competency," and then if you'd scroll down to the bottom of the page, it says, "Within the unincorporated area of Collier County and the unincorporated area within the boundaries of the City of Naples or within the City of Marco Island without having first made application for and having been issued a current and valid certificate." Do you agree with me that at that -- that certificate is not valid? - u MR. JACKSON: At the date of 11/3, that certificate was not valid. MR. OSSORIO: Can you explain to the -- tell the board that -- what's it take to get a current certificate now? MR. JACKSON: To activate this certificate now, the complete application process would have to be followed through excluding testing. MR. OSSORIO: And my question to you, the last question, did you -- did you notify Mary's Kitchens about their -- once you received this complaint, did you notify them how to come into compliance and get an active certificate? MR. JACKSON: I scheduled two meetings with the qualifier, Ms. Borrego, to discuss her business, to discuss her license, and it dus -- discuss what is going to be required to activate this certificate. u`.�... Two meetings were not able to take place because Ms. Borrego was not able to attend. Ultimately, I -- I was able to contact her where I met with her and ultimately did go over the issue with -- not only this case, but what she needs to do to activate this certificate. MR. OSSORIO: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Do you have any more evidence to present, Ian? MR. JACKSON: I have no more evidence. I'll be happy to answer questions, though. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any questions from the board for -- for Ian? Page 100 1161 y,ur;7v 161 1 ! A6 February 17, 2010�.ifi;�x,� MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If -- either Mr. Jackson or Mi Ossorio, what happens status -wise after delinquent, and when does that occur? MR. JACKSON: Delinquent is a time period from October 1 st ti December 31st. January 1st this certificate went to a status of suspended. Right now the certificate is suspended. It will -- MR. JOSLIN: As of January, you said? MR. JACKSON: As of January. It will remain suspended from January 1 st, 2010, to December 31 st, 2010. January 1 st, 2011, this certificate will become null and void. MR. JOSLIN: Is it possible that -- that Miss -- oh, shoot. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Borrego. MR. JOSLIN: -- Borrego could re -- reapply or renew her original certificate? MR. JACKSON: This certificate could be reactivated with a -- with a complete application, including a credit report, experience affidavits, the -- the entire application, excluding testing. There would not be a testing requirement at this point in time. MR. WHITE: As a follow -up question, in the time period from October 1 to December 31 st, what activity or actions on the part of thf contractor is required to move from delinquent to -- to eliminate delinquency? What do you have to do? MR. OSSORIO: I understand. Let me answer that question. There are two phases, actually. When -- when you move from September -- the end of September to being delinquent from October, November, or December, the only thing that the contractor, he or she, has to do is to pay a penalty fee of $30 a month, whatever the -- the admin cost is. So getting your license from being delinquent to active in that time period is very easy. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Once you go into January 1st the following year, it's suspended. You do have to make the full application, but Page 101 ._--t; J y February 17, 2010 then you have to show -- you have to bring your business credit and your -- and your full application. So it is -- you're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. You're much easier going once you've been delinquent to get your license back than suspended. In other words, it wasn't a big deal, if she did contract in November, to come into the office and pay a late fee and get her license back. That was much easier to do now. MR. JOSLIN: That's -- I guess maybe I should ask this question -- or this questioning goes back to Ms. Borrego. Is this something that - could be done? MS. BORREGO: To re -- reactivate my license now? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MS. BORREGO: Now, yes. I couldn't have done it in November or September or December because of all the things that I went through, but today, yeah. I could do it today. But is that -- is that going to help her? Is that going to take her money -- you know, give her the money? MR. JOSLIN: Well -- °� 4 MS. BORREGO: I have a piece of property that I put up for sale:' MR. JOSLIN: I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to say it's going to help at the moment. I'm just trying to look for avenues here to make the -- make the -- make this owner whole. MR. JACKSON: Well -- MR. JOSLIN: And just answer the questions is all for the moment, okay? MR. WHITE: Well, I'm a little unclear, and perhaps others can help me with this. But there isn't a count in this complaint that deals with status of the license. There is simply one count, and only the first sentence of that count, that is before us for consideration today; that is the mismanagement or misconduct causing financial harm to a customer. °Mli III So, although I appreciate the information and clarifications about ,u Page 102 16111 A6 February 17, 2010 licensure status, I'm not sure how it plays in except to the ex*nt it may inform us about how we choose to impose some type of stipulations or penalties because -- am I wrong in coming to the conclusion that the licensure status isn't something that's part of the complaint? MR. NEALE: No, you're -- I would opine that Mr. White is absolutely correct, that the only thing you're considering here is whether through the practice of contracting she caused financial harm to the -- to the homeowner. Anything else is, as Mr. White suggests, interesting and may t have relevance in terms of determining damages or whatever, but, , frankly, the only consider -- the only thing you can consider is did she commit mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm. I would -- I would suggest that by reference the rest of 4.1.8 is incorporated in this, that this is an excerpt there from, and you can consider all of 4.1.8. But I would certainly suggest that the only thing you can consider in this -- in this -- in this matter is the financial mismanagement. The licensure issue is one that is really not -- not something that is -- is being heard here today. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: (Nodding head.) MR. OSSORIO: I believe that if you don't have -- keep your current license active and current, that goes to your business practice of mismanaging your business. If you don't keep your license active and current, that goes towards a reflection of your business. So my only thing is committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to her -- to her customer -- mismanagement in practicing contracting -- if you don't keep your certificate current and active to be able to conduct business, how can you go ahead and take a contract knowing your license has been delinquent? That is mismanagement. Page 103 February 17, 2010 Now, you can go on in that Section 4.1.8, and you can go on to many different subsections, but it says -- it just says financial mismanagement and misconduct is not limited to those items below.' "', MR. WHITE: There are no items below. MR. OSSORIO: We're only dealing with 4.1.8. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We didn't get the items below. MR. JOSLIN: There's no -- MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there's no items below because we're not -- we're not -- it's just mismanagement of conduct of the license. I'm taking a specific part of it. It just says it's not limited to the following below. Those are not applicable. What I'm saying to you is, is that committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a consumer, by not having her business license, her certificate, which you authorized, current and active, she went out and took a contract knowingly that her license and certificate was in a delinquent stage. Her business was not up and running. She took a -- financially harmed a consumer. MR. WHITE: But -- but is it the county's position, Mr. Ossorio, that the status of her license caused the financial harm? It's -- would it be -- MR. OSSORIO: I'm saying to you her status of her license is part of her mismanagement. She mismanagement -- her company, by not having her license active and current, caused her financial -- she couldn't even do the contract. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Let me interrupt. Let me interrupt for a second because I think we're -- we're kind of getting off on a tangent that -- that may not be relevant. It sounds like -- MR. WHITE: Good point. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- the argument -- the count is that there was harm brought to a homeowner. There could have been a second count, from Mr. White's viewpoint as an example, that -- you could a have had a Count II, which is it's unlawful to contract without a Page 104 M,`140, 16A A I N N trs �...:•.m 6 1 AeMary 17, 2010 certificate of competency because her certificate was delinquent. You could have had a Count II with regard to her license being delinquent. Your argument is that the fact that she allowed her license to be delinquent is part of her mismanagement of her business. MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So if that's what I'm understanding -- does that sound like what -- where you two are both coming from? MR. WHITE: It's most of where I'm coming from. My point is is that the status of her license is not what caused the financial harm; it is—" every other aspect of the mismanagement in the practice of contracting that did. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: Yeah. I -- and I concur with Mr. White's point is that the -- the fact that the -- the apparent fact that she does not and did not have a license is evi -- may be evidence that she committed mismanagement, but it is not, in fact, a cause of the financial harm to the customer. MR. JERULLE: Well, we don't know that yet. We haven't heard CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. We need to have -- Ms. Borrego needs to present her case, and then we can continue to move forward °jYENi ^� MR. OSSORIO: I just wanted to speak to what Mr. Neale's .. , basically said. We've asked Mrs. Borrego to get her license active and current, and she refuses. MS. BORREGO: Excuse me. I don't refuse. Let me just go back, okay, just to -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Let's -- MS. BORREGO: Can I? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Borrego, let's have -- let's have you present your case, please. MS. BORREGO: Okay. Well, taking it from what he's saying, I have -- he's making it look like I couldn't pay my license so I don't Page 105 February 17, 2010 know how to manage a business. Fine. Now, you tell me how does Big Cypress Marketplace manage a business with 220 vendors paying over a thousand dollars every month go filing bankruptcy a year later, and then we find out right now that they never spent a dollar in advertising, so nobody knows that we are out there. Okay. We don't get customers coming in. Yeah, they came in through them, and I got so many customers, but not enough to keep me going, you know. So in July, August, everything started going down. If you go and visit the marketplace, you'll see from 220 vendors there's probably 50. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Borrego, I appreciate that the current market conditions have created a hardship for you. MS. BORREGO: Uh -huh, uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We need you to present your case in Ae defense of your actions -- MS. BORREGO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- with regard to this specific situation. MS. BORREGO: No problem. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MS. BORREGO: In regards to this situation, because the situation, the economic situation, yes, I did not renew my license. I was in the middle of maybe having to buy food for my kids versus going and paying the $200 for my license. So, yeah, that is a priority, of course. I have three kids. They have to drink milk. You know, they have to eat. What do I do? Go pay the license? You know, I know I'm making a big mistake even more taking her money, but it was never my intention to take this money, run, and .� go out -- where? Where am I going to go with $5,000? You know, I wanted to do her kitchen, but one thing led to another, and I just got caught up in a big mess. And when -- when -- the day that the permit was issued, July -- I mean, December 8th, I have a -- I don't know if I have it, but that same Page 106 161 1 q -4 ruary 17, 2010 day when I got home I find a little red sticker that I have to leave my house. So, yes, I'm in the middle of all this; that's why I don't answer the phone calls. I want to be -- you know, I want to be dead for -- you know, for God's sake, you know, I don't want to deal with all this. I don't want to hear it. What am I going to say? You know, and that's just one of the problems. Never my intention -- because if it was my intentions to take the $5,000 and run away, why would I have gone and -- and have a friend, you know, pull the permits, let's do this work? No. You know, I've been here for 5 1/2 years. My kids go to the same school for the 5 1/2 years. I've been trying to work, but every time I'm -- I feel that I'm climbing up, boom, I get hit in my head again. I -- I don't know what else to do. I have a piece of property that I was going to try to explain to you two weeks ago I put it on the MLS. I have my real estate license, too, but I had a friend put it on the MLS. Hopefully we sell it. I have it, like, rock bottom price. You know, they can lien the property. They can wait 'til I sell it. I don't know what to do. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.``" MS. BORREGO: I am -- I'm being as honest as I can be. I don't know what to do. MR. JOSLIN: Let me just -- well, let's just make a long story short. What you're -- what you're admitting, then, to is the charges that are against you here -- you are agreeing that they are valid, what has happened? MS. BORREGO: Yeah, everything is true. Everything that she said is true. I went to her house, and I -- I did a contract, and I got the money. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have -- do you have any witnesses to call? Do you have any evidence you want to present to the board? Page 107 Feli'� 17, 2010 MS. BORREGO: No. I don't have nobody here, no. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Does staff? MR. JOSLIN: I have -- I have a couple -- I have a couple of questions for Mrs. -- MS. LACZI: Laczi. MR. JOSLIN: I've got checks that are signed here. MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: I've got a contract, first, okay, that you signed -- I think it's E4 -- with Mary's Kitchens. MS. LACZI: Yes, sir. MR. JOSLIN: And it's got a total amount of $12,500, I believe.;,�s MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: Fifty -seven fifty is the deposit. And then the -- at the bottom, the fine lines down near the bottom, it states right there all in black and white that -- it says, "Checks to be made payable to Mary's Kitchens & Interiors, Inc." What was your reasoning for signing -- or issuing checks to a -- just Mary Borrego? Which I have two cancelled checks of yours that totaled $5,700. MS. LACZI: Well, that's what she told me, to make the checks payable to her. MR. JOSLIN: Well, did you not sign the bottom of this contract? MS. LACZI: I did. MR. JOSLIN: Did you not read it ? MS. LACZI: Probably I didn't read that section. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. So, Ms. Borrego, you have no evidence to provide; you have no other witnesses to call? MS. BORREGO: No. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does staff have any questions of Ms. Borrego? MR. JACKSON: I don't. Page 108 uuary 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Then we're ready for closing statements. MR. WHITE: I find myself in a difficult spot here. Has -- has anyone actually said that the work was not done? MS. LACZI: I did. MR. JOSLIN: I believe Mrs. Laczi said it's not done as of yet. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mrs. Laczi. MS. BORREGO: It hasn't been done yet. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: At this point she doesn't want it done; she just wants her money back. MR. WHITE: I understand. Okay. Then -- then thank you for correcting my understanding because there seemed to be that key link, at least in my mind, that I was -- just hadn't heard. MR. NEALE: And I believe we did get testimony from the homeowner that the work had not been completed, so -- MR. JACKSON: That is correct. MS. BORREGO: Work -- work hasn't been started at all. MR. WHITE: Thank you. That -- that's all I needed. MR. JOSLIN: Is the permit still active? MS. BORREGO: Yes. Yeah, I believe it's for six months, right? MR. JACKSON: The -- the permit is active. MR. JOSLIN: It is active? MR. JACKSON: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: Under Mary's Kitchens? MS. BORREGO: No, it's to Ash Ann Homes, which is a general contractor. It's a friend of mine that goes and does a bunch of work. And when I went back to her asking for the $242, it was for the permits for that because he didn't want to put it out of his pocket. He's already been putting a lot of effort into this, and he said, "Mary, have her pay for the permit. I'll pick it up. And then we can get started." u She didn't want to do that, so it's more stuff on top of me. Okay. Now, I've got to -- "Don't worry about it. I'll pay for it." But it's just Page 109 !. February 17, 2010 there. He's willing to do it. He's willing to go ahead and do -- get started with the work. I'm trying to see if my cabinet manufacturer will do the cabinets and then give me 30 days. I get paid from her at the end, and I pay them. And just even if I don't make a dime, but at least she gets her work, but she doesn't want to do it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Boyd, do you have -- do you have a ;m comment or question? a ., MR. BOYD: Yeah. Does the contractor that pulled the permit -- are they responsible in any way? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Boyd, I'll go ahead -- MR. BOYD: I mean, I would think, you know, I -- I pull a permit, and I've got to do a notice of commencement and everything else. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Boyd, you're absolutely right. And -- and I'll explain to you -- there's three jurisdictions here. There's the City of Naples, there's the City of Marco Island, and Collier County. This is a single family home. If you were in Collier County, to take out cabinets, put new cabinets in, no permit is required. This contract is valid. It doesn't show any electrical or plumbing. This contract is for cabinet installing; taking cabinets, putting cabinets in and out. Unfortunately, the City of Marco Island, the building official, which we have no jurisdiction over, basically says that "I don't care. I want a building permit on -- on that aspect of it." Well, all -- all they're actually doing is taking cabinets and putting cabinets in. The City of Marco Island is basically putting a -- you know, and this is a complaint that's valid throughout cabinet companies all over Marco Island, that they're making cabinet companies go out and get a general contractor to pull a building permit which really doesn't require a lice -- a building permit for the City of Naples or Marco or the City of Naples or Collier County, but the City of Marco Island Page 110 y, 16 A 6 February 17, 2010 says, "We want to have a general contractor." So the act of contracting on this -- on the application you -- which you'll see, is just for cabinets. But the City of Marco Island is putting more restrictions and said, "We want to see a general contractor pull the building permit." So that's something we're going to work with Marco Island, but be that as it may, we're not here to talk about the building permit itself. But it is an issue we're working with the City of Marco Island with because, like, if you were a sign company and you want to put a sign up on a -- on a -- on a commercial building and -- and they're saying the City of Marco Island is basically saying, "You know what, Mr. Boyd? Yeah, you're a sign company, but I want to have a building contractor pull the building permit only. "' That doesn't make -- it's not very fair. And you're only working in the scope of what your certificate calls for. So we're working with the City of Marco Island. _ MR. JOSLIN: But the question, though, Michael, is that another company that pulled the permit to install these cabinets or do this cabinet work, whatever it was going to be, new or renovation work, then -- but Mary's Kitchens is the one who contracted the work. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And -- and I don't want to go ahead and bring any -- we might have a case, but we're not -- MR. JOSLIN: In the con -- in -- in -- in Mary's Kitchens Cabinets' contract, if you read the bottom lines, it clearly says Mary's is a manufacturer of the cabinets and that they are allowed to hire as a 4'p crew installers. So who is the installer, and who is the permit puller, and does the-'l-all. permit puller have no obligation here? MR. OSSORIO: I submit to you that -- that Mary's Kitchen is contracted. She took the contract to do the installing. She might have the authority to sub out contracting; in other words, if -- if Mary's Kitchens can't do it, she's going to hire another cabinet company. Page I I I February 17, 2010 That's fine. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: That's above and beyond. I don't want to get into specifics of the building permit. That's not part of the -- and I don't want -- because you might hear that case coming up, so I would like to go ahead and just, you know, stick to what we're here for today. MR. JOSLIN: I understand that part of it, but I'm not totally content that we're -- we're in the same boat as far as who is responsible for what. I'm just a little lost here. I can see the point of Mary's Kitchens and Cabinets being responsible for taking the contract and taking the dollars and cents, but technically, if another contractor now pulled the permit, she could hire them to go in -- because the contract is still a valid contract yet, go in there and tell them, "I'll buy the cabinets. You go put them in," and they have to allow them on the property to put those cabinets in. She can't just say, "I don't want those cabinets anymore." She has to allow them to do the work. Does she or does she not? MR. LANTZ: I believe a contract written by an unlicensed contractor is an unenforceable contract. MR. WHITE: Well, I -- I didn't want to raise the question -- MR. JOSLIN: There's a lot of questions here. MR. WHITE: -- here. MR. OSSORIO: But that's not to -- MR. WHITE: Just let me finish, Mr. Ossorio, because you may want to consider your remarks more carefully. Can you be contracting if you don't have a valid license? MR. JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. WHITE: If -- if -- if the county's position is that it's -- it's the absence of a valid license that's mismanagement, is it contracting that causes financial harm? There may be a crime here. I don't know. But whether we have a licensure issue, to me, is -- is a -- is a hair that -- if you want to start splitting it, I -- I don't know. I mean, if -- Page 112 16 I 1 A6 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, this is directly related to the state law that was passed last fall that you and I discussed at length, remember? This is -- this is an example of what you and I discussed. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, would you say on the face of E4 -- if you want to go ahead and split hairs, look at E4, Mr. White. Would you say this contract is unlicensed? MR. WHITE: I'm not interested in splitting hairs. I have the testimony of the respondent that's an admission to whatever the violation is that the county has put forward. I'm prepared to vote and find that there is a finding of violation. MR. JERULLE: And maybe I don't understand. Does the count not say "misconduct in the practice of contracting "? MR. NEALE: Uh -huh. MR. JERULLE: Does that make a difference? MR. NEALE: Well, in order to practice contracting, it's implied that you have to be a contractor. MR. WHITE: So, to me, if you're delinquent and all you've got to do is pay a fee, you still have a license, and you're still contracting. I understand that the county's position may be different on its face, but I'm going by what the testimony and the facts are that I have before me. And no one's rendered a legal opinion differently, so, in my mind, there's a violation, and a finding of guilt is appropriate based on the testimony and the facts. And that's why I said to Michael, "You may want to think about your position a little more critically." It -- it -- it doesn't matter to me what the county's position is, essentially, other than the fact that they have put the correct piece of the code in front of us and we have the facts that apply to that code that tells me there's a violation here. So if it's okay with you other gentlemen, I would make a motion MR. JOSLIN: Not yet. Page 113 February 17, 2010 MR. WHITE: -- if -- if we're done here. I mean -- ,W,m.,, CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We -- we need to finish up with the with the procedure -- MR. WHITE: We can talk about the whole aspect -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- of the hearing. MR. WHITE: I understand. We can talk about the whole aspect of imposition of fine as a subsequent aspect, I believe. If not -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The discussion of guilt comes after the public hearing. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And then the discussion of penalties, if any, come after the discussion of guilt. We need to get through the presentation of evidence from both sides. We need to get through - closing arguments so that we can get to the point where we discuss guilt. If we try to figure out guilt before we get through the evidence and the closing statements -- MR. WHITE: I'm not suggesting we do that, Mr. Chairman. I'm just saying that I'm satisfied at this point. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. So where were we? I think the county was making closing statements; is that correct? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. MR. WHITE: We were responding to questions, I believe. MR. JOSLIN: That's where we were. MR. JACKSON: If there are more questions to respond to, I'd take my best shot at it before the closing. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Then I would say that -- are there any questions that directly relate to the evidence in the case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: There being none, Ian, would you please ,.� continue with your closing statement. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Ms. Borrego, the qualifier of Mary's Kitchens & Interiors, contracted for the installation of this Page 114 1611 6ebruary 17, 2010 kitchen, received $5,750 deposit from the homeowners, and is unable to execute the contract, does not have the money to repay the homeowners, and does not have the product to provide the homeowners for their deposit; mismanaging the business, mis -- committing misconduct, and causing financial harm to the -- to the homeowner. And with that I'll -- the county will rest. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Borrego, closing statement? MS. BORREGO: How does he know that I don't -- I can't put her cabinets in? I -- I just asked him in the -- in the break can I continue; give me 30 -- 45 days, and I'll do her kitchen. It's my problem if I go to my manufacturer and say, "Listen, I need you to do my cabinets and give me 30 days to pay for it and do this job." Whether I have the money or not, I'll get the job done. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Borrego, I need you to make a closing statement, and then the county will be able to rebut your closing statement, but I need you to make a closing statement for us. MS. BORREGO: What do you want me to say on a closing statement? I don't know. That's my -- MR. JOSLIN: Basically, I think she's said the closing statement is that she is -- - MS. BORREGO: I never said I don't want to do her kitchen. I never said -- I do. I don't have the money. I never said, "If you'd give me 30 days, 45 days I could get the job done." That's what I think. That's my -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If -- if -- if that's -- MS. BORREGO: -- bottom line. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- what your closing statement is -- MS. BORREGO: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- then you need to say that. MS. BORREGO: Okay. So that -- that's what it is. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So if you would please restate your comments so that the board is clear. Page 115 February 17, 2010 MS. BORREGO: Okay. If I'm allowed to go ahead and make my -- renew my license, if that's what you guys want, for me to pay and keep working and give me 30 days or 45 days, I'll get the job done and - take advantage of this permit that we have here for her house, which -- we have worked. You know, the -- her house is old enough where nobody has floor plans of this house, and they -- we had to go in there and manually do a floor plan, and that's -- nobody does that for free. So there is work involved in her house. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you. Rebuttal from the from the county? MR. JACKSON: I have no rebuttal. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Are there any other questions of the -- of the respondent, staff, or the witnesses ?� MR. JOSLIN: Just one last comment then. What I'm understanding, if I'm hearing this correctly, is that, as of right now, you are ready and able to go and finish this cabinet installation that ` you contracted for. With or without the money, you could get this job done -- MS. BORREGO: Yeah. Yeah. The word "finish," no. MR. JOSLIN: -- provided -- MS. BORREGO: We want to get started. We never got started. Her kitchen is the way it is. MR. JOSLIN: Well, finish -- MS. BORREGO: It hasn't been -- MR. JOSLIN: -- complete the contract -- MS. BORREGO: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: -- providing that there is a method to bring your license back to a current status? MS. BORREGO: Uh huh, yes. MR. JOSLIN: Now, this is something that has to be done through staff and through putting something of this nature together because I know that this board has in the past allowed people to reinstate Page 116 161 1 A6 February 17, 2010 licenses that have been suspended or have gone into this same mode, correct? MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. There's nothing stopping Mary's Kitchen to come in my office today MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: -- yesterday, the day before -- MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. OSSORIO: -- a week ago, a month ago, two months ago to get her license active so she can finish her contract. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. That's all I'm asking, and that's all I say. Yes, I guess. MS. LACZI: I would like to say that her -- her not having the contract or her having a delinquent contract did not stop her not to do my job. I don't know what stopped her. November, December, January, February, four months, she -- she wants another month to do my -- to do the job. b I would agree with that. Start tomorrow, Mary. Start in a week. Start in -- in -- because I don't have -- as I said, I -- in a month I'm going to go to Romania with my mother that is 82 years old. And if she has problems, I have problems. I don't have any income. I live on my husband's Social Security. I have two children. So I have to eat. I have to pay taxes. I have to pay insurance for the home in Marco Island. So I understand she has problems. I have problems too. But she didn't -- she didn't think twice of taking my money knowingly that she cannot even start the job, not -- not talking finish the job. So now, okay, she doesn't have the money. How is she going to finish my job if she doesn't have the money? I agree. I -- I want her to finish the -- I want the kitchen done. I rr want it done as we -- we understood each other. And when she came i u with Ariel, with -- with the -- with the contractor, it was the kitchen, the -- the -- the bar. Ariel was going to remove half of the wall in Page 117 February 17, 2010 between the bar and the kitchen area, and she said, "Everything is included. Permit, whatever it is. Even if we scratch your wall" -- here she is -- "even if we scratch your wall." MS. BORREGO: No. No MS. LACZI: "We're going to finish everything. We -- we -- we take the cabinets down. We put the cab -- we install the cabinets in the garage, whatever you want." So whatever I wanted, not even -- I didn't know -- I didn't even tell her what I want. She came up with the suggestions and her -- her friend, Rosemary. "Oh, this would go better. That would go better. That would be nice. That -- we'll do that for you. We'll put this for you, that for you," whatever. So, okay, if she can finish the job, I -- I -- I agree. Finish the job, but who is going to -- to -- to -- to keep her accountable that she is going to start and finish the job? Because she can start tomorrow, and I will be there a year from now without a kitchen. MS. BORREGO: Never -- that has never happened. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Laczi. Excuse me. Ms. Laczi, thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate them. If there's no more evidence to be -- to -- presented, I need a motion to close the public hearing. MR. BOYD: So moved. - MR. WHITE: Second. MR. JOSLIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in Favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? Page 118 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Mr. Neale -- MR. NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS this afternoon. 16i1 A6 "1 February 17, 2010 -- please remind us what our job is here MR. WHITE: Before he starts, if I may, Mr. Chairman, quite simply, we've seen some complicated cases in my brief tenure on this board. This case isn't complicated. The resolution of this matter -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's correct. MR. WHITE: -- is complicated. And -- and before we get too far down the tracks, two things have changed since my last set of remarks about findings of violation; one is the harmed party has indicated that there's an alternative solution here. If that alternative solution is implemented, it, in fact, could create a circumstance where there is no financial harm. If there's no financial harm, then the only mismanagement left was the idea beforehand about mismanagement simply because her contract -- her license status changed to suspended -- or to delinquent. Excuse me. It is now suspended. MR. NEALE: Well -- MR. WHITE: It seems to me, if the contractor renews her license, gets the cabinets in whatever fashion is appropriate installed, done and over within 30 days, we don't have a case. MR. JOSLIN: There's no need for a case. MR. JERULLE: Well, let me -- MR. WHITE: So my -- my -- my point is how do we assure that that happens so that if it doesn't these people aren't harmed and the person who's responsible is appropriately on the hook? That's -- that's why this case is -- as a matter is complicated in terms of its resolution, not in terms of the findings. And -- and so that's the only reason I wanted to say something as a kind of summary before Mr. Neale Page 119 <•U;r "a 1':" , February 17, 2010 started. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Let me get -- let me get Terry, and then we'll get Lee. MR. HORN: Just an answer to Mr. White. I believe it's in our pew -- purview to continue something for the 30 days, if we so desired. MR. NEALE: Yes, it is. MR. HORN: Okay. Thank you. MR. NEALE: And this matter could be continued by the board, if it -- if it's in its purview. And I just want to follow one thing with Mr. -- just before we get away from Mr. White's comments. It -- the -- the ordinance and the state statute is very specific in that -- and -- and I'm going to put this in order of an informal way, but I think it's -- it may be more effective. A contractor can be a horrible manager and can per -- can perform all kinds of misconduct if they don't cause financial harm because the statute is very -- and the ordinance is very specific. It's mismanagement or misconduct that causes financial harm, and I think that's -- that's the -- you know, there's two pieces to it, so - CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Terry, you had a comment. MR. JERULLE: We're going to have a discussion? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We -- we need to close the public hearing, and then we'll go into deliberation. MR. JERULLE: I'll wait until the discussion. MR. NEALE: The public hearing's closed. You already voted on that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We did close the public -- okay. Good. Okay. So -- so you were going to charge us, and then we can get into our deliberation on guilt, which is what we're supposed to be doing. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: And we'll go through this at -- everybody here, I Page 120 161 1 A February 17, 2010 think, has heard this before, but for the benefit of the -- of the respondent particularly, is that the board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the respondent; however, the formal rules of evidence as set out in Florida Statutes do not apply to these matters. The board shall consider solely evidence presented at this hearing in the consideration of this matter. It shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial, and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent pert -- person in the conduct of their affairs, it says, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be Tb admissible in a court of law or equity. u; Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence; however, hearsay by itself in this kind of matter is not _ -_ sufficient support of finding, unless it would be admissible in a civil court over objection. The standard of proof in this kind of case where the respondent may lose their privilege to practice the profession is that the evidence pra -- pra -- presented by the complainant, presented by the county, must prove the complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. This burden of proof on the complainant is a heavier burden than the preponderance of evidence standard set out for civil cases. The standard and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90 -105, Section 4.1.8 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, and that is committing mismanagement a :g or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. _ Financial harm -- financial mismanagement or misconduct includes, but is not limited to, any of the following. If the board is interested, I can read what that -- what those considerations are in the ordinance; however, the county has stated on the record that they specifically only want to consider the part in the charges, so I will -- I Page 121 February 17, 2010 will not do that at this point. The standard here is -- specifically is set out in the charge, and in order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation, it must -- 1`1,1 the board must find facts that show the violations were committed by the respondent. The facts must also show to a clear and convincing standard the -- legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of those -- the relevant section, 4.1.8. These charges -- this charge specifically is the only one that the board may decide upon, as this is the only one to which the respondent had the opportunity to prepare a defense. The damages, if any, must be those directly related to this charge; may not be damages that are caused by other actions of the respondent. The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read. The respondent, if found in violation, has appeal rights to this board, the Court, and the state construction industry licensing hoard as T set out in the county ordinance and in the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code. If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting. The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all areas and, if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative complaint. The board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of those charges. And the board now can enter into deliberation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The first issue -- the first issue we need to address is the issue of guilt. Kyle. Page 122 t W i A6 February 17, 2010 MR. LANTZ: Well, I'm torn on this because, to me, financial mismanagement -- although my gut tells me she took the money for the deposit and spent it on something else and didn't do it, it's only been a couple of months, and there's plenty of construction contracts, especially kitchen remodels, that there is no deadline in the contract, nothing like that. And, although I -- I -- my gut tells me there's financial mismanagement, my personal opinion is I don't think there's enough time to determine financial mismanagement. That's just me. MR. JOSLIN: I have a comment that says I think the board` because of -- we've heard testimony from Ms. Borrego, we've heard testimony from the homeowner that each one of them is in -- or, I guess, ready to make some kind of an adjustment as far as to -- they're willing to accept the cabinets if she can do them. She's willing to do the cabinets if she can get her license back together again. I think at this moment maybe the best interests of both parties, because of the fact that Ms. Borrego has said she can't pay the money back to her now, so it's not going to do us any good to do anything to her license or to her -- so the only recoup to help the -- the owner get their product that they've contracted for would be to allow them to do the cabinets in the 30 -day period that we've talked about and maybe continue the case as far as a penalty or as a guilt finding until this r _ 30 -day period happens and see if it does come together and see if the y problem then does go away. That's my feeling. MR. WHITE: I have to -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me. Excuse me one second, Pat. Terry. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. MR. JERULLE: And this is probably a silly question. Is there any way we can reopen the public hearing? MR. LANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, you can make a motion to reopen Page 123 February 17, 2010 b the public heard. MR. JERULLE: I make a motion to reopen -- MR. LANTZ: Make a motion to reopen. MR. WHITE: Second. MR. JERULLE: On a -- okay. The second question I have is -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What was his first question? That was his first question. MR. WHITE: The motion was to reopen it. I seconded his motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No. No, he asked if we could, and then he said -- �, MR. WHITE: Oh, I'm sorry. - MR. NEALE: He didn't make the motion. He just asked the question if he could. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. He asked the question if we could, .. and then he said the second question -- MR. WHITE: So sorry. MR. JOSLIN: Do you want to open it first or -- MR. JERULLE: No. No, I -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: He's asking two questions. MR. JACKSON: Okay. MR. JERULLE: Did we ask where the funds went that she took for the deposit? MR. JOSLIN: That's immaterial. MR. JERULLE: I don't recall. I'm asking the board if -- MR. LANTZ: No, I -- MR. JERULLE: -- if anyone -- MR. LANTZ: I don't recall any testimony. U: CHAIRMAN LYKOS: In Ms. Borrego's testimony -- in Ms. Borrego's testimony, she stated that she used money to feed her children and buy milk and, therefore, she didn't have the money to pay for her license. Page 124 .1611 A6 " February 17, 2010 MR. JERULLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So you could infer that those funds were used to maintain her household from her comments. MS. BORREGO: And the business too. And the business too. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And the business too. MS. BORREGO: The showroom and all of that stuff. >,Y. MR. JERULLE: Okay. And then that answer -- then I don't require to open up -- a motion for -- to open up the public hearing. If we know where the funds went or have an idea where the funds went to me, I -- answers in my mind the mismanagement question. MR. WHITE: From -- from my point of view, there -- there wasn't adequate testimony to draw an inference. The county never told us where they thought it went, and, although she -- she made some statements about what she spent her money on, she never said that the dollars she spent were their dollars that were given to her. So I'm -- I understand that an inference could be drawn. I'm not prepared to draw it at this point, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Why is that relevant? MR. WHITE: I -- I think it's immaterial, actually, but I just didn't agree with your assessment of it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, she -- she sent a letter to us that says she can't afford to pay the money back and she wanted to make payments. MR. WHITE: That's true, but that's a different issue. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So why is it relevant where the money might be if she says she can't afford to pay it back -- MR. WHITE: I don't think it is. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and that she can only afford to make small monthly payments? I don't know if she's got the money in a big wad in her pocket or in an offshore account somewhere, if where the money islis relevant to determining whether or not she's guilty. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, my point is that it's not. wr Page 125 February 17,210 MR. LANTZ: She could have paid the money to the -- she could have paid the money to the cabinet supplier, for all we know. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: She could have done that. MR. JACKSON: Yeah, that was my -- MR. WHITE: And -- and so, looking to get to the gentleman's "Wisdom of Solomon" approach to this, there is no financial mismanagement, per se. That's not the charge. It's mismanagement; contracting that causes financial harm. If the property owner is willing to accept having the cabinets - brought in, and if the contractor has the right, so long as there are con -- cabinets to put in, to enter upon the property to do so and it's agreed that they would allow them to do so, there seems to be a way to resolve this to assure ourselves within 30 days from now or not whether there is financial harm or not. So from my point of view, notwithstanding my earlier comments about how I may have intended to vote, I don't know, based upon what we now have in the record, that there has been financial harm. And I don't accept the proposition on the county's part that simply because your license was in a delinquent status and you executed a contract that you somehow mismanaged in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm. may get two of the elements there, but I don't get all. Three -- there -- there's no financial harm again. So I'm -- I'm at a place where I'm -- I'm very much interested in the other perspectives that you gentlemen have in -- in trying to work this case -- MR. JOSLIN: I think -- MR. WHITE: -- what's best for all parties, including us. -- MR. JOSLIN: I think there's going to be more financial harm involved in this if -- if there's not some kind of a happy -- MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. JOSLIN: -- I'll call it the -- the wisdom or whatever you called it, worked out because of the fact -- this is a win -win situation if Page 126 16,x, Aekary 17, 2010 ,,.._ -- if -- if we're in -- involved in trying to do it this way. If we go the other route and the $5,700 is gone, it's -- it's not going to be replaced..,a She doesn't have it. The people still don't have their cabinets in, so -- and they have to leave town, so that's not going to happen. So now we're going to still sit in here with -- is it financial harm? Yes, we could take -- we could do a lot of things at the moment, right, to -- to this license holder, but is it going to be a win situation for -- for the actual customer of Collier County? I don't think it's going to be. MR. WHITE: And -- and the other. MR. JOSLIN: I think the only way is to work it out because they're both willing to. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Well, let's not lose track of the fact that our first order of business is to determine guilt. You can talk about -- I'm not going to sit in a room and negotiate a deal between these people. If you want to do that, Richard, that's fine. Patrick, if you want to offer up your services to act as a mediator -- MR. WHITE: Not a chance. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- you can do that. But our order of service is to determine guilt. MR. JOSLIN: We don't -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: But regardless of what the penalty may be, our job -- MR. JOSLIN: No. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- is to determine guilt. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, you're incorrect. We do not have to r,, make a determination of that today. This can be continued until 30 days from now and give them a chance to work this out, whether it be ,b with us as a mediator or whoever they want to get as a mediator. We do not have to act on a guilty or innocent factor right now. MR. NEALE: And the board does have, you know, very clearly the ability to continue the matter. You know, it's specific that, if Page 127 Y� February 17, 2010 there's a question in law or other matters that allow the board -- that the board doesn't want to make or doesn't feel it should make a decision as -- as of today on guilt, innocence, or whatever, the board can continue this matter to a -- to another day, at which point in time they would feel -- the board would feel that they would have more evidence or evidence that would -- that would be relevant to the matter. a MR. WHITE: Can -- can I help maybe some of the board d members who may not be sure about the direction we should take here? If -- in the interest of making a request for a continuance, we also ask of board counsel to respond to the question of whether the practice of contracting can take place under a suspended or delinquent license, because to me that's a question, I think, that may be fundamentally a kind of hole in the code. And if we can use this example to fashion some type of an opinion that'll guide us both in this case and -- and down the road and help the county in how it brings its cases forward -- MR. NEALE: If -- if I may cite to 489.128(1), it states, specifically, "As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into after -- on or after October 1, 1990, by an unlicensed contractor shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor." MR. WHITE: Correct. But it does not necessarily mean that the MR. NEALE: It specifically says, if I -- if I may, in Subsection 3 that this -- this section shall not affect the rights of parties other than the unlacense -- licensed contractor to enforce the contract, lien, or bond remedies -- MR. WHITE: So -- MR. NEALE: -- which specifically -- you know, unlike a lot of people -- you think, well, it's an unenforceable contract. No, it's only unenforceable by the contractor. MR. WHITE: Correct. Page 128 16 A6 w. February 17, 2010 MR. NEALE: It's specifically enforceable by the -- by the person who signed the contract. V.; MR. WHITE: Who's in this case potentially the ones that could be harmed. MR. NEALE: Uh -huh. MR. WHITE: And -- and so in -- like I -- in addition to the impact on the license of this contractor that we are able to do something about -- and we could impose restitution. It seems counterproductive to do that at this point because I think that that adds to the harm, and if the intent here is to lessen the financial harm and improve their position, holding this off for 30 days doesn't weaken their position, lessen our jurisdiction, and it gives her a chance to a either keep her word or, more damningly, next month make very clear- that finding a violation -- finding of guilt under the violation is there because there is financial harm. You -- you've made that commitment. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle. MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious as to what the two parties have to say. I'm all for continuing it. I personally feel it's more of a civil matter that we shouldn't even be looking at to begin with, but that's just my opinion, not the opinion of probably most of the world. But I'm just wondering what the two interested parties have, if we were to continue it. MR. JOSLIN: Let's open the public hearing one more time, and we'll ask them. MR. NEALE: Well, actually, you can -- you don't even have to for this point, you don't have to really open -- reopen the public hearing. MR. JOSLIN: No? MR. NEALE: Because you're taking testimony that's relevant to your deliberations, so I believe you don't have to reopen the public hearing. You're just taking testimony relevant to the deliberations. MR. JOSLIN: Then I can ask a question to them? Page 129 16 A February 17, 2010 MR. NEALE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Ms. Borrego is already at the microphone. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Ms. Borrego, a question for you straight up, can you -- are you ready, willing, and able to go and put this cabinets -- this set of cabinets into this -- Elena Laczi's kitchen? MS. BORREGO: I'm willing to start the process of ordering -- ordering the cabinets, which are custom made. They have to be done. Six weeks -- the way that I'm doing the math here, I should be done .„ with everything no later than April 15th. And the -- the permits are good for six months anyways, so I -- MR. JERULLE: So you have not ordered the cabinets yet? MS. BORREGO: No. MR. JERULLE: You took the deposit from them to order the cabinets -- MS. BORREGO: Yes. MR. JERULLE: -- to give to the cabinet company, but did you not give it to the cabinet company? MS. BORREGO: Exactly, no. MR. JERULLE: And so, therefore, the cabinets have not yet been ordered? MS. BORREGO: No. They have the layout; they have the design, but I have not yet put the deposit up. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Now, just one other question for the members of the board who may know, is this a customary operation when you put in new cabinets that you -- when they're custom, you have to order them, and it takes a period of time for them to come in? MR. LANTZ: It is. MS. BORREGO: Yes. MR. LANTZ: However, my question is -- the original contract was November 3rd, and from -- what I recall hearing was that the job would be completely done by -- December 3rd was the original date, Page 130 ° U_,y A6 we l 61 1February 17, 2010 and now we're being told it's six weeks to get the cabinets in when that " was only -- MS. BORREGO: Well, no, we're going back. MR. LANTZ: -- four weeks. MS. BORREGO: We're going back again to the letter that I wrote to all of you explaining my personal situation. And there's no way that I could do the -- the -- her cabinets, even if I wanted to, even if I paid for it December 1st, because the City of Marco Island approved it December 8th. So even if I wanted to, even if I ran and paid for it -- MR. LANTZ: I -- I understand that. I'm -- I'm just questioning, if your original intent when you wrote the contract was that you could order the cabinets and get the whole job done in four weeks, which I'm a kitchen guy. Kitchens are my specialty, so I understand it `0 usually takes six weeks to get cabinets out. MS. BORREGO: It takes Home Depot and -- and Lowe's three months, so -- MR. LANTZ: I understand. I also know I can get flat pack cabinets in a week if I call, so it depends on the manufacturer. MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. MR. LANTZ: But if it originally could be done -- the whole job done in four weeks, regarding the permit issue that, you know, I don't think you under -- maybe you didn't understand at the time you wrote -- signed the contract; you didn't figure it out'til later. MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. MR. LANTZ: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for that. MS. BORREGO: Uh huh, uh huh. MR. LANTZ: But if the job could be done in four weeks, why now is it going to take six weeks just to get the cabinets in when before you would have had the whole job done in four weeks? MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. Because I -- I -- already explained it, but I could explain it again. After I did the contract with her, I had a Page 131 C February 17, 2010 bunch of -- the Marketplace having all kinds of problems, you know, paying their rent, paying my warehouse and office, which I ended up closing by the end of November -- MR. JOSLIN: Okay. This is all -- MS. BORREGO: -- and my house. And it was just so many personal things. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. This is what we've heard. We've heard this before. MS. BORREGO: Exactly. But he's asking. He doesn't know. MR. JOSLIN: I think that we're -- that's been answered. MR. JERULLE: Actually, I have one more question. So -- so you - took the deposit and used it for something other than -- MS. BORREGO: For different stuff. It wasn't for me. I didn't go traveling. MR. JERULLE: Do you have a line -- do you have a line of credit for -- with a bank? MS. BORREGO: No. No. MR. JERULLE: So -- so there -- you don't have the money you took for their cabinets to order the cabinets, and you don't have a line of credit from a bank to order the cabinets? MS. BORREGO: No. But I could -- I could -- I'm in the sit -- I'm in the position right now talking to the manufacturer for them to give me 30 days from order -- they're going to do the cabinets for me. I'm going to go ahead and install them for them. When they pay me the balance, I'll pay them. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You comment in your letter to us that you bid this job so low that you were only going to make about $500. MS. BORREGO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If you've already spent $5,750 -- MS. BORREGO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- that gives you $5,750 to buy cabinets and countertops -- Page 132 16iI A6 February 17, 2010 MS. BORREGO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and, it looks like, an appliance package. MS. BORREGO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Somebody's not getting paid. MS. BORREGO: I'm not going to get paid. I'm going to be -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No. No. No. No, you misunderstand me. Somebody else isn't getting paid. Otherwise, you're telling us -- MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- if you were only going to make $500 to begin with -- MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and -- and $5,700 is already gone -- MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- you're going to buy cabinets for $5,700 -- you're going to buy -- I'm sorry -- cabinets -- MS. BORREGO: Appliances. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- countertops, and appliances for $5,700. MS. BORREGO: No. No, I'm not saying that. There's no way that I could do that, but it -- when I get either money from the income tax or any other money coming in, I'm going to finish her house -- her -- her job. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MS. BORREGO: Even though I'm not going to make money at all. I'm going to lose money because whatever I was going to make in her house -- in her kitchen I've already -- I've already, you know, used it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So who -- if you finish her job, who won't get paid? The appliance people or the countertop people or the cabinet company? MS. BORREGO: How come they're not getting paid? I'm not going to get paid. Page 133 ;g February 17, 2010 " CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, where's the money going to come from to finish the job? MS. BORREGO: Well, if I do all this -- if I -- if I get my license and I do other jobs and I'm going to make a thousand here or two thousand here, of course, I can make two, three thousand dollars in a kitchen, not with them because they included appliances, this and that, and now two hundred and forty two dollar to the Marco Island -- because there's other companies saying, "I could do your kitchen_ for $7,000." CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. That's their problem. MS. BORREGO: Well, you know, there -- everybody's out there nowadays doing that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What -- what -- what the board members - have to understand is that there are members of our board that think that you can somehow finish this job and everybody will be left whole, and what they need to understand is, because half of the money is already gone, there -- there's no way for you to make everybody whole in this relationship. Somebody will not get paid. The cabinets won't get paid for, the countertops won't get paid for, or the appliances won't get paid for. MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Or you'll start the job -- MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and you'll wait to make money somewhere else, and then when you do make money somewhere else, then you'll go back and finish the job. There is -- let me put it this way. Can you start the job and finish it in -- in six weeks? Can you start it, finish it, and pay for everything in six weeks? Can you make that commitment to us right now? MS. BORREGO: By April -- by April 10th I'll finish the job. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Can you start the job and finish it and pay for everything in six weeks? Page 134 16/ 1 A6 ". February 17, 2010 MS. BORREGO: Yes. But what do you mean by starting? Starting is ordering the cabinets. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Starting -- MS. BORREGO: I can't go and demolish her cabinets because "ry, then she's going to be without a kitchen for six weeks. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Then I'll -- I'll -- I'll -- I'll make the -- I'll make it a list of several smaller questions. Can you start the job in six weeks? MS. BORREGO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Can you finish it a week after that? MS. BORREGO: No, because the inspections aren't going to happen. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. How will you pay for the cabinets? MS. BORREGO: I just told you I'm going to pay my cabinet guy -- as soon as she pays me, I'll pay him. I'll put money out of my pocket from other jobs that I get that I do, hopefully, make some money, make more money than what I'm making at her house. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. What -- what you have to make the board understand is that you are going to be relying on future profits from other jobs to pay for this job, correct? MS. BORREGO: That is what I'm relying on. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes or no? MS. BORREGO: Yes. But can I say something? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. So what happens when the very per -- next person that you go to -- MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- gives you a deposit and then you use that money to pay for her job? What -- where does that leave the next client? MS. BORREGO: Okay. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. And I'm relying that -- the Big Cypress Marketplace gave me m, a letter from attorneys and courts and all that here in Collier County Page 135 February 17, 2010 that they have -- they have $250,000 somewhere. I don't know where. And they're going to start advertising the Marketplace so we, the vendors, start getting people in there and we start selling kitchens. You know, I'm relying on that, which is a letter that they just passed in January, about four or five weeks ago. I'm relying on that. Otherwise, I just pack up and leave. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Thank you. MR. WHITE: And -- and -- and the point, Mr. Chairman, of someone not being paid -- the only thing that's of concern to this board under the rules we're looking at is whether they are harmed. If -- if she a doesn't make any money or some other vendor or contractor doesn't get paid, that's immaterial and irrelevant to me. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's not immaterial because -- _ MR. WHITE: To me. ' CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- the cabinet -- the countertop company could -- could do a notice to owner and file a lien on their home if they don't get paid. MR. JERULLE: I believe the testimony was she does not have the money today to order the cabinets. MR. WHITE: But she has -- MR. JERULLE: And I think that's relevant. Michael, her -- her license is suspended right now`? MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. MR. JERULLE: And to get off of suspension, does she have to show a credit report? MR. OSSORIO: Credit report, her and her business, full application. MR. JERULLE: And her -- and she's admitted that she's gone bankrupt, so she's -- her credit report's not going to look so good. MS. BORREGO: The bankruptcy's one of those bankruptcies where I pay monthly payments, so yes. Chapter 13 or something. MR. NEALE: Chapter 13, can't consider it. Page 136 1611 A6 on February 17, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: Which is fine. I mean, the only thing the county wants Mary's Kitchen to do is to get her license back because -- Mr. _.. - Lantz makes it pretty clear -- I mean, excuse me -- he makes it pretty clear (sic) that -- that -- that he can go ahead and -- the contract, yeah, it's three months overdue. Yeah, they can go out there and do it. He can't. The county's going to issue a stop work order for not having a valid license. We need to get it back as a licensed company so she can manage her company so there's not mismanagement. MR. JOSLIN: Now, hold on a second. MS. BORREGO: So you can -- so you can get paid, so you could collect your fees. MR. JOSLIN: Hold on one minute. MS. BORREGO: Don't tell me I mismanaged my business. You want to collect your money, period. MR. JOSLIN: Easy, easy, easy, easy. MS. BORREGO: Come on. MR. JOSLIN: Isn't -- isn't there another permit holder that's a - licensed contractor involved in this also that pulled the permit? MS. LACZI: Yes. Yes. MR. NEALE: The permit was pulled by another licensed contractor. MR. JOSLIN: Can't he -- if she orders the cabinets and pays for them how ever she wants to, can't that licensed contractor who pulled the permit and is still active and -- can't he go do the job? MR. LANTZ: So that -- MR. JOSLIN: And won't he go do the job? MS. BORREGO: Yes, but they -- they want -- Ian wants me to return the money to her and she does the contract with Ash Ann homes? MS. LACZI: No. ' MR. JERULLE: The question is, why -- why wasn't that done already? Page 137 February 17, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. MR. JERULLE: She could have -- she could have done that already. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: But today's the first time anybody -- that the property owners said that they were willing to take the cabinets. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Up until then, they wanted their money back. MR. WHITE: The circumstances seem to have changed. MR. JERULLE: Let's -- but still the cabinets haven't been ordered. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Another question -- MR. JERULLE: Going back to Tom's -- MR. JOSLIN: Hold on. One -- one last question. Are you willing to accept the fact of her coming in to finish your kitchen? I mean, 30 days, obviously, by the -- or six -week order period not going to happen, so the -- April 10th was what you said? MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. MR. JOSLIN: Is April 10th -- by April 10th, would that take you over the edge and make you whole and have a kitchen that's finished and done and completed? MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: It will. MS. LACZI: But if -- if I have -- if I have assurance that she will finish the job by that -- April 15th or 10th, whatever she said. She doesn't have to install the -- the cabinets because she cannot. Ariel Gonzales will install, which is the other contractor -- MR. JOSLIN: Correct. MS. LACZI: -- that pulled the permit. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MS. LACZI: So he will have to install the cabinets. MR. JOSLIN: Correct. Page 138 b 161 1 A6 February 17, 2010 MS. LACZI: So it's not -- it's not Ariel. It's her, that -- that she didn't order the cabinets. MR. JOSLIN: Correct. Okay. So the cabinets get ordered, and Ariel comes and puts them in, and you're content with that? You're -- you're satisfied with that -- that avenue for the moment? MS. LACZI: If she starts the job and she finishes by April the 10th. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Just so -- so you realize, there is no contract -- there's a -- there's an issue here with a building permit. These homeowners have no direct contact with the building permit itself. That's something that we're going to be dealing with. So the notion is that there's another contractor involved. Yes, there was a contractor that was in contract with Mary's Kitchen but never in contract with these homeowners. But the homeowners are ` willing to say, okay, if that's the case -- and we've talked about this is the homeowners will have this contractor with the building permit put them in. Mary's Kitchen has just to go ahead and get the cabinets CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And -- and the counter tops -- MR. OSSORIO: -- and renew their license. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and the appliances. MS. LACZI: And the counter tops. MS. BORREGO: We have to do everything. Ariel, all -- all that he does is pull the permits and oversees the whole thing, makes sure that everything is -- gets done the right way. Ariel is not an installer; he's a general contractor. MS. LACZI: I -- I don't know who installs the -- it's -- it's up to you. Just -- MS. BORREGO: I have my installer license, and I have licensed installers that we can get the job done. MS. LACZI: Just get the kitchen done. Page 139 i' `,C February 1�, 2010 MS. BORREGO: But you know Ariel. You and -- Ariel and him (sic) were very close, you know. We never went in there and wanted to take your money and run away. That's not the whole point. MS. LACZI: Four months. Four months. MS. BORREGO: Home Depot and Lowe's can take six months. MS. LACZI: Four months. MS. BORREGO: And there's the biggest companies out there -- MS. LACZI: You promised me five days, Mary. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Okay. We're still in deliberation. We still have -- my sense is the board is considering some kind of a 30 -day stay in a decision with the hopes that outside of this room there would be some resolution that comes between the parties, or we're going to decide on guilt and then move to a penalty phase of our deliberation. MR. JERULLE: I'm not -- I'm not one of those board members. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. MR. JERULLE: The cabinets have to be ordered, and the cabinet company needs the money. There is -- nobody's going to order the cabinets, so -- that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What I don't want to do is sit here any longer and -- and discuss all of the different options. And all we -- we have to take some action here. So if the pleasure of the board is to delay a decision for 30 days and ask the parties to come to some resolution with the support of the staff, then I need a motion, and we can vote on it. If the pleasure of the board is to find guilt and then move forward to a penalty deliberation, then I need a motion with regard to that. But I don't know that we're going to get -- gain any more from discussing the same issues over and over again. Both parties have been willing to answer any questions. If there are no more questions of the two parties here, then we need to take some kind of action one way or other. Page 140 161 1 Ab February 17, 2010 MR. WHITE: Thank -- thank you for helping to draw us to a close, Mr. Chairman. I think we all appreciate that. And in the same vein, I'm going to make a motion that we continue this case for 30 days and have a report on the status by the staff, and, if appropriate, we would bring this matter back thereafter to make a determination of finding on the charge, the point being that within 30 days we'll know whether those cabinets were ordered and whether there is going to be the possibility of making the April date. If it does not happen, we will be back here in April, and we will wrap this matter up. MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? ., (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? . tH MR. HORN: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those opposed? MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. COURT REPORTER: Who was the other one? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. How many oppose? MR. JOSLIN: 4 -3? 5 -3? 4 -3? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So the motion passes at a vote of 4 to 3. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So how do I conclude this, Mr. Neale? This is not -- this isn't in my notes of how to conclude this. MR. NEALE: This -- this one didn't -- didn't make it to the notes. Page 141 n February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It didn't, no. MR. NEALE: I've been doing this for 15 years, and I think I've only seen this twice, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, I know. MR. NEALE: What happens now is the -- the respondent should be very clear that she has 30 days to comply in such a way that when the board convenes again next month that at least -- at the very- least, from my reading of the board, the cabinets are ordered and that she has come up with a way to complete this job and pay -- and in a way that is satisfactory to the -- to the homeowner. She has to provide evidence to that matter by next month, and then at that point in time the board will determine what action to take based upon her actions for the next 30 days. I think to some extent the board has left the responsibility on the respondent's shoulders. MR. JOSLIN: And, also, the -- the time span of her actions within the next 30 days are very critical because if you wait until the 30th of next month or the 20 -- or the -- say, the 15th of next month and we convene on the 16th of next month, I don't think this board is going to go along with it because you've waited that long to order the cabinets. It's going to take too long for the completion date. MS. BORREGO: Uh huh. MR. JOSLIN: So the sooner that you order these cabinets is going to come back before us the next time and say, okay, you've given the effort, and now it's a matter of them being here. All you can do at this moment to prove that this is going to happen you -- I suggest you do; otherwise, the next time I can tell you what's going to happen. MR. JERULLE: Well -- well -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry. MR. JERULLE: All they have to do -- all she has to do is order the cabinets? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, what I was going to say was I think we should clarify what our expectations are for next month so we Page 142 1 6 1 1 A6 IN "" February 17, 2010 don't have a one hour discussion on whether or not her progress is acceptable or not. MR. JOSLIN: True. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We need to set some standards for what our expectations are for Ms. Borrego for next month. MR. JOSLIN: Although we can't force her to do this. I mean, there's no way our actions could force her. MR. NEALE: I would -- I would -- MR. JOSLIN: But we can make recommendations to her. MR. NEALE: I would suggest that it would be more appropriate, frankly, for the -- for the board to leave the responsibility in the lap of the respondent. w- MR. WHITE: And as the motion that was approved states -- 3 MR. NEALE: The motion was very clear. MR. WHITE: Yes. -- staff comes back with what the status is in our next meeting. MR. NEALE: And the board then gets to consider it, because I think I -- I would suggest to the board that it -- it is -- it is much more appropriate to have the evidence put on at the next hearing as to what has been accomplished for the next -- in the last 30 days than to prejudge a certain outcome that may be determined by factors beyond the respondent's control. So I would suggest that having her come back next month with a report that is vetted by staff and have staff and respondent reports at that time would be a better -- would be a better way of making the decision than to try and lay out very specific parameters at this point. MR. JOSLIN: Fine. MR. NEALE: I mean, yes, it's difficult to hit a target when you don't know what the target is, but I think the -- the respondent should have a good sense after the discussion as to what this board is -- what this board is leaning towards. MR. JOSLIN: Right, I would think. Page 143 ' 4 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White, do you concur with that? MR. WHITE: I believe that was the sense of the motion that was approved. MR. NEALE: Okay. And since he was the movant, that's why I asked him. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman -- Ian here -- could I have a clear ' review of the motion that was passed? MR. NEALE: Could you do a read back on the motion? COURT REPORTER: If I can find it. MR. NEALE: If not, I've got some notes on it. What I -- what I got of the motion was that she was -- they were going to continue the matter for 30 days, and then Ms. Borrego would -- would make a report to the staff, and both she and the staff would present that report at the next meeting, and then the board at that point in time would make a determination based upon the reports made by Ms. Borrego and the staff, and the staff will then, of course, have the opportunity to -- to -- to vet that report to make sure that the report being made by the respondent is accurate and correct in all aspects. MR. WHITE: What I envisioned, Mr. Chairman, was -- and Mr. Jackson, was that part of what the report from staff s side would be would be some further recommendation on how to proceed -- MR. JACKSON: Understood. MR. WHITE: -- with the understanding on my part that if things had not progressed as we hope they will and as these folks need it to, that we would have the matter back before us in April, and we would wrap it up. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: One -- one other final comment, possibly, is that is -- wouldn't it -- I think it would be in the -- in the -- in the homeowner's behalf that Mrs. Borrego communicate with her when Page 144 February 17, 2010 the kitchen cabinets are ordered so that there's transmittance between the two of them so that she's a little more rest assured that, yes, her cabinets have been ordered, they're on the way, or whatever the case may be, so that she can become abreast of what is going on with this contract that's still pending. MR. WHITE: Yeah, that was -- MR. JOSLIN: Is that something that can be done, Ms. Borrego? MS. BORREGO: Yes, I can. MR. JOSLIN: A communication link between the two? MS. BORREGO: Yes. Yes. I want to ask her when is -- she mentioned she was going to be traveling. When is she going to be traveling? MS. LACZI: At the end of the next month. MS. BORREGO: The end of March? MS. LACZI: Of -- of -- yes. MR. LANTZ: I just have another question. MS. LACZI: Or if you -- I can postpone it 'til the 15th of April, but by that time I need the kitchen done. MS. BORREGO: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Let's let staff -- let's let staff manage that relationship. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, you -- you work that out between the two of you. MR. LANTZ: I have a -- MR. JOSLIN: But I want some communication. I want you to get =" it done. That's -- that's -- we'll back off. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle. MR. LANTZ: I have a couple of questions for Michael, and then I'll address my concern. My first question is, is she required to get her license active to get this job completed? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. LANTZ: Yes. Okay. So then my concern is -- my opinion is Page 145 � e41 17, 2010 when her license gets active, she needs to do more than just pay the money. I feel she should be put on probation. Will we be addressing this -- something to that effect when we readdress the case next month or months after, or if the job is done, then she disappears from our radar? MR. OSSORIO: Separately, if -- if an application hits my desk and there's some issues with it, I will forward it to you. I don't want to get speculating too far in advance. I'm waiting for her -- her to resubmit, so she can get her license back, so she can legitimately contract her business properly, so she can order the cabinets, so she can get paid by the homeowner for installing the work. As she said, she's an installer. She wants to install these cabinets. We require them to be licensed, so she's got to get her license back. And we'll talk. MR. JOSLIN: Is there -- that was my next question. Is there any unforeseen glitches that we don't know about that's going to stop her from getting this license back, that will stop her from being able to do what we've just -- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, I know that Ian Jackson's been communicating with her for -- for several weeks asking her to re -- get the license back. If she had her license yesterday or the day before, we wouldn't hear this case probably. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle, do you have some -- another question or another comment? MR. LANTZ: No, my concern was addressed. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other questions or comments on this case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right. We'll leave it in your hands. Thank you for your time today. MS. BORREGO: Thank you. Page 146 A6 1 February 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good luck. All right. Any other reports? MR. OSSORIO: No. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No. MR. OSSORIO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Next meeting -- this says Friday, March 12th; is that correct? MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. MR. JOSLIN: I just have one -- one before we close. MS. LACZL• Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You're welcome. MR. JOSLIN: I just have one last comment on the -- on the statute, okay, as far as what a licensed contractor is responsible to have on their vehicles. Aren't they required to have company names, license numbers, phone numbers, I mean, ways of communication on each and every individual vehicle that they drive, operate, or pull, or trailer? MR. OSSORIO: Under the code, it does say specific that -- it does talk about lettering on vehicles and the numbering. You're absolutely correct. Unless it is a primary vehicle, like, if it's your personal vehicle or --or you live in a subdivision. But the minute you mediate yourself -- if I'm Michael Ossono's Construction, I need to have a license number on it. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. My question to this is that I am seeing, I don't know, probably at least two or three hundred pool trailers, okay, pulling pool supplies and pulling poles and pulling brushes, and not one name on the truck -- trailer and not one name on the truck. Now, what is -- what is the -- what is the procedure -- what would be the procedure for -- for -- I guess, I don't know, following this individual or stopping this individual or finding out if he is really a licensed company that pulls these trailers around pulling pool Page 147 February 17, 2010 chemicals? Now, I'm a li -- you know, pool contractor. You know, I'm -- I'm on it. Okay. But I'm -- I'm seeing other trailers being pulled also; lawn trailers -- I mean, you name it, it's out there -- that don't have names on them. Are you allowed to stop a trailer or follow a trailer to a -- that's unlicensed or has no name -- nomenclature onto it -- MR. OSSORIO: We can -- MR. JOSLIN: -- and ask them about it? MR. OSSORIO: We can surely follow them and -- and then when they stop -- and we've done that before. MR. JOSLIN: Uh -huh. MR. OSSORIO: You know, if we see an unlicensed contractor, we drive behind them or whatever it is. It does happen. I used to do it when I was out in the field. And then when -- when he or she is doing active contracting, we ask for a license. But surely in no -- no way or shape or form do we pull over a vehicle and say, "Show me your license." We just don't do that, no. MR. JOSLIN: Don't do that. MR. WHITE: One -- one follow -up question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Going back to one of our earlier cases, if a magnetic sign were adhered to the door of the vehicle, not the trailer -- well, I guess the trailer, too, if that can be done, is that considered to be adequate -- MR. NEALE: Sure. MR. WHITE: -- for the purposes of the code? MR. OSSORIO: I would -- I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it just says it just has to be so many inches. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: So -- MR. NEALE: I mean, you can have a magnetic sign. Page 148 16 1 1 A6 February 17, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: I think it's fine. It would be just fine. MR. LANTZ: Is Collier County's code separate? Do they have a different code than the state code? MR. NEALE: No, not that I know of MR. OSSORIO: I know the state does -- MR. JOSLIN: They want letters and all your license numbers on it, your -- all -- everything's got to be listed on it. But I just wanted -- I just question this because I'm get -- I got a lot of calls over this past weekend of pool people calling me saying, "Hey, you've got all the unlicensed people that are working out there pulling trailers. And I and I just bid on three jobs and lost them all to somebody that don't even have a license on their trailer," so that's why I -- MR. OSSORIO: And I'm not saying this to discourage you, but I probably bet that -- that the trailers you see are licensed companies. MR. NEALE: Uh huh. MR. OSSORIO: You know, you'd be surprised. I'm not saying that because -- we get those calls, and we go out there, and it turns out that, yeah, he's a one man operation. He has a trailer, and it's a junk trailer, and he's licensed with our office, or he's state certified. So it does happen, and we check those out. We just don't pull them over. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: I'll give you an example why we don't. I remember years ago there was a -- a gentleman and -- and vehicle for hire, and it requires you to have a license for -- for taxies. Well, on the side of somebody's vehicle, it says "Mom's taxi," and the guy thought it was a taxi and followed this lady all around forever. And it turned out to be a mom, and she's driving her -- her kids around, so she put taxi -- "Mom's taxi." So it is what it is. MR. WHITE: Was that a magnetic sign? MR. OSSORIO: No, it was not. MR. WHITE: No. {° MR. OSSORIO: And -- and it was not me. b Page 149 Vebruary 17, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I need a motion to adjourn, if we're done. MR. WHITE: Just -- just one point, Mr. Chairman, and I'll draw this -- I know we can -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Go ahead, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: You've been very gracious in -- in allowing us to fully deliberate these matters, and I want to thank you and my colleagues for that. The point about the gentleman who covered up the word "seal" using a magnetic sign, if a magnetic sign is adequate to meet the - requirements of the code, wouldn't a magnetic sign covering up, in fact, correct the violation? u,:e MR. JOSLIN: I don't know about that. MR. WHITE: So I only put it out there for -- MR. NEALE: I think it probably does. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. He was guilty. He was guilty. The sign was wrong. He was guilty. The question is whether or not we would waive the citation. MR. WHITE: I'm just -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The question of his guilt wasn't an issue. MR. WHITE: I'm just not going to wake up at 3 in the morning thinking about it, I'll tell you that. MR. LANTZ: It depends on where you are, though. In Cape Coral, a magnetic sign is not acceptable. MR. NEALE: Really? MR. LANTZ: In Cape Coral, no matter what, even if it's your personal vehicle, you have to have letters on your truck; whereas -- MR. WHITE: And we -- MR. LANTZ: -- the state laws, as I was told -- I don't know if this is true. I never read the statute. But they were very clear when I took one of my last continuing ed classes was -- you had to have a company name and a point of contact. MR. WHITE: Right. Page 150 161 1 A6 d1 February 17, 2010 MR. LANTZ: And on every plane of view that you had a company name and a point of contact, you had to have a license number. Most people have it on their two front fenders, their license number, but no license number on the rear of their truck, which, according to the state laws, is in violation. But if you don't have point of contact, then you don't need a place -- MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. If you don't mediate yourself, you don't need a license. If you put your name on there, you've got to have your phone number and your -- and your QB license number. MR. WHITE: Very simply, the reason why Cape Coral has that rule is to prevent people from using the magnetic sign and pulling it off, because Cape Coral does have a rule about trucks for commercial purposes -- - MR. NEALE: Uh huh, right. MR. WHITE: -- cannot be parked in a residential. MR. NEALE: And that was it because they -- they set that -- they - n' had the law that you can't park a commercial truck in your yard, and what they had was people having commercial trucks who would pull and -- yank the magnetic sign off when they pulled in at night and put it back on when they left in the morning. MR. LANTZ: That was the same law that only applied to homeowners, not renters, or something. MR. NEALE: Yeah, something like that. MR. LANTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I need a motion to adjourn. MR. WHITE: So moved. MR. BOYD: Second. a. .j CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JERRULE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. Page 151 ;-V- s , A6 161 1 February 17, 2010 MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: See you next month, gentlemen. Thank you for your time today -- and lady. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 1:13 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICE SING BOARD ,: t r�1'Yl� Th' mas Lykos, C I IRMAN These minutes were approved by the board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 152 RECEIVED MAR 10 2010 161 1 A7 V, February 3, 2010 9w,4o'counVN1"W -S OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMl JTE Halas Henning Naples, Florida, February 3, 2010 Coyle _ Colette 4 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room 9610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Ray Allain James Boughton (Excused) Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn (Excused) Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley (Excused) Regan Henry George Hermanson (Excused) David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: James French, Director of Operations, ODES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES — Staff Liaison Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review & Permitting Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities h isc jgil§; Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office . j D Manager 3 4- _. oning llo Plnni g e (0 Amy Patterson, Bellows, I Fe& EDC Manager T . Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist L 1611 A7 1 February 3, 2010 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:05 PM by Chairman William Varian who read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. II. Approval of Agenda Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — January 6, 2010 Meeting Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes of the January 6, 2010 meeting as submitted. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. IV. Public Speakers (Will be heard as the Item is discussed.) V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — Phil Gramatges, Interim Director • No new items to report • No questions from the Committee (Clay Brooker arrived (i_b 3:07 PM) B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • Monthly Report was submitted in the Committee's information packet • Ken Abler, Deputy Fire Code Official, retired and his position will not be filled which may affect review times in the short term • Plans for the new building were submitted to the Design Review Board for final review and will be presented to the City of Naples on February 24`h • Building Permit Application will be submitted in March (target) • Anticipated move -in date - January, 2011 (Robert Mulhere arrived @ 3:10 PM) C. Transportation/Planning Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager (absent) • No report D. CDES Update — James French, Director of Operations, for Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator (absent) and Impact Fee Study • Intake process for Division has been reviewed and revised • Functions for Permits, Petitions and Temporary Use Permits will be combined o Staff will be blended to assist the Permitting Counter as needed o Zoning Staff will be trained by Permitting Staff to answer questions • Goal: better efficiency and customer service (Dalas Disney arrived @ 3:15 PM) 161 1 A ?cbruary 3, 2010 A Committee Member commented that a suggestion to CDES to review and reduce the number of required submittals was positively received by Staff. Impact Fee Study — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & EDC Manager • December, 2009 - the Board of County Commissioners moved forward with the six 2009 Studies • Suggestion: DSAC form Subcommittee(s) to review the Impact Fee Studies for School, Government Buildings, and Law Enforcement • BCC directed review of Levels of Service ( "LOS ") for Law Enforcement and Government Buildings • March ls`: tentative formation of Subcommittee(s) review to Dependent Fire Districts, EMS, and Library • Will present a schedule at next DSAC meeting VI. Old Business A. LDC Amendments — Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning A Committee member requested an overview of the Planning Commission Workshop. Mr. Bellows reported: • The Planning Commission discussed the Private Amendment presented by Attorney Patrick White on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents' Association which was referred back to the Vanderbilt Beach Community to involve the Stakeholders (including hotel owners) in the review process • Fiscal Impacts were not complete • Private Petition PL2009 -491 sponsored Attorney Richard Yovanovich was also remanded back to the Community (subject: time shares in the RT) • No formal votes were taken at the Workshop • Next Planning Commission meeting - February 26`h - but voting on the Amendments may not occur until the March 10`h meeting LDC Amendments 2002 - Cycle : Section 2.03.03 F — Travel Trailer — Recreational Vehicle Campground District Change: To increase the allowable size of "park model" type recreational vehicles from 480 square feet to 500 square feet within the TTRVC Zoning District Clay Brooker moved to recommend approval of the Amendment as presented and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. Section 5.04.05 — Temporary Events (Temporary Signs) Change: To rewrite beginning of Section for clarification and to conform to the new provisions inserted from Section 5.06.00. Ray Allain moved to recommend approval of the Amendment as presented and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by David Hurst. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. 3 161 1 A February 3, 2010 Section 10.03.05 — Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Change: To correct the time limits, and return previously removed language that provided for notification to property owners with regard to Neighborhood Information Meetings Ray Allain moved to recommend approval of the Amendment as presented and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Regan Henry. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. Section 3.05.07 H.l.h.i. — Preservation Standards (Recreational Uses) Change: Add criteria for passive recreational uses allowed in preserves. Steve Lenberger outlined the changes made by the EAC to the Amendment. Public Speaker: Judy Hushon, Chairman, Environment Advisory Committee ( "EAC "), stated the EAC's changes concerned the widths of pathways. Under h.i.(a)(i), "pedestrian pathways," a range of 6 feet with a maximum width of 8 feet was recommended. Under h.i.(a)(ii), "shared use paths," the recommended range was ten feet with a maximum width of 12 feet. Under h.i.(a)(v), "minimum preserve width," the pathway shall be located along the edge of the preserve. Kate Crosley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, supported the EAC's changes to the Amendment, including the 1% cap. Suggested Changes: (a) Page 9, under h.i.(a)(i), the text shall read: "Pedestrian pathways shall have a recommended width of 5 feet with a maximum of 8 feet. " (b) Page 9, under h.i.(a)(ii), the text shall read: ".Shared use paths for use by golf carts, trams, bicycles, joggers, etc., shall have a recommended width of 10 feet with a maximum of 12 feet. " (c) Page 10, under h.i.(a)(v), remove the phrase "on either side" and insert "along the side" of the preserve. Marco Espinar moved to recommend approval of the Amendment as revised above and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Robert Mulhere. Discussion: The issue of the I% cap was discussed during the Subcommittee meeting and grand - fathering language was to be provided to DSAC. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney, proposed incorporating the following language as (new) h.i.(a)(viii): "The requirements of this Subsection h.i.(a) shall not 161 1 A7 February 3, 2010 apply to approved preserve pathways inexistence prior to the effective date of this Subsection. " Clay Brooker clarified if a community presently has a 2.1% impact of a pathway in a preserve, the existing pathway in its current width could be repaired with impervious materials and would legally conform to the applicable criteria that existed when the pathway was installed. Jeff Wright stated he would vet the "grandfathering clause" with other Committees. Judy Hushon confirmed the "grandfathering clause" language was acceptable. Marco Espinar amended his previous motion to include the grandfathering clause language. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. Section 3.05.07 H.l.h.ii. — Preservation Standards ( Stormwater Uses) Change: To add criteria for when treated stormwater is allowed in preserves. Steve Lenberger noted the changes made by the EAC to the Amendment which was prepared by Stakeholders. The Amendment was approved provided the second paragraph of (ii) on page 4 was "reworked" by the Stakeholders and presented to the EAC for review. Public Speaker: Tim Hancock, Davidson Engineering, outlined the reasons for the "referenced wet season" in Subparagraph (ii) on Page 4, and stated a problem was the absence of a standard for measurement. The model was based on the 1996 wet season (May through October) because 1996 is considered to be the "average" standard in regard to rainfall. An area -wide hydrologic survey was conducted to determine what amount of water could be accepted by which areas and for how long. The concern was not to change uplands into wet lands. Judy Hushon, Chairman, EAC, stated if a model considers only a single storm, the model will not consider how wet the ground is and what happens after the ground is saturated. The EAC's concern was for the 2" above recorded peak stage for 30 days could be a great deal of water for a preserve if it hasn't already had much water. There is a potential for damage. The other change was to (iii) on Page 4: "Storm water shall not be directly discharged into land designated as 322, 413, or 421 FLUCFCS Codes." It was noted that pre- treatment of water is required before any discharge into a preserve. Discussion ensued concerning what constitutes "acceptable" changes referenced on Page 5 under Subparagraph (g). Steve Lenberger suggested adding following language used in the pathways section of the previous Amendment: "Unacceptable changes in vegetation within preserves include 16 I 1 A7 1 February 3, 2010 replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native or weedy species, changes in vegetative composition which are inconsistent with target plant communities or die -offs of vegetation which are inconsistent with target plant communities." Kate Crosley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, stated the Conservancy will work with Wilson - Miller and the Stakeholders to eliminate unintended consequences from the language in the second portion of (ii) on Page 4 She stated the Conservancy prefers the language to remain as written concerning the following issues: • Page 4, (iii): water should remain out of the highest and driest of the upland preserves • Water quality (Page 3, (b)): provides a requirement that no untreated water will be discharged into a preserve • Monitoring and remediation (Page 5, (g)): a mechanism is needed to ensure monitoring Steve Lenberger stated the Stakeholders were happy with the language used in the Amendment. The Planning Commission will review the Amendment at the March l0a' meeting. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval of the Amendment, as amended by the above - reference revisions, and to forward their approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Marco Espinar. Motion carried, 8- "Yes %3 -`No." David Dunnavant, Dalas Disney and Reed Jarvi were opposed B. Update: Building Fee Post - Implementation Commitments — Bob Dunn, Building Director • There was a discussion concerning the new Building Block — Plan Review Performance Standard and the options provided concerning the number of sets of plans to be submitted which was not previously discussed with DSAC • Jaime French will review and revise the document for presentation at the next DSAC meeting. VII. New Business A. Time Span - Utility Bonds — Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager • $4,000 cash bond is required and held by the County until the utility tum -over of a project is completed • It was suggested that Stan review the figures from the past five years to prove the magnitude of the numbers and present the information in six months Mr. Chrzanowski pointed out a new problem: water mains have been breaking with "annoying regularity" due to improperly bedded pipes (41% of current breaks) and suggested extending the period of Maintenance Bonds to five years. It was suggested to require the contractor to pay for the bond instead of the developer. 16 I la February 3, 2010 A question was asked if there was a record of how many linear feet of pipe were installed in the past two years and the percentage of breakage due to improperly bedded pipes, i.e., one break per 100 feet or per 1,000 feet. What is the instance of breakage? Is it within typical breakage of pipe or a problem specific to southwest Florida? Suggested formula: Breakage = "x" % of linear feet installed, broken down by year. Suggestion: Extending a bond may not be the only option available, i.e., imposing fines or requiring additional education especially for subcontractors. There is a natural occurrence of breakage due to age which is separate from the issue of improper installation which will cause breakage to occur more quickly. The number should be quantified. Cost ramifications are also an issue. Phil Gramatges stated there has been an increased incident of breakage due to improper installation, particularly in one development, which has been absorbed by the County's rate payers. An alternative to requiring a bond is more inspections which was suggested previously and not accepted. • There is a Statutory requirement for latent defects that contractors must abide by and is not contingent upon a time frame. It provides a legal remedy against a contractor. Avenues should be exhausted before another financial burden is added to the Building Industry. Consensus: The subject will be added to the Agenda for the next Committee meeting with additional information and, if possible, to ascertain if a particular contractor or subcontractor is more responsible than others. What is the estimated cost of recourse? VIII. Committee Member Comments • Four sets of CityView Codes were included in the information packets • Re: LDR Subcommittee Minutes: Subcommittee members will review the Minutes and send comments to John Kelly who will forward the comments to Clay Brooker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee. If there are no changes, Mr. Brooker can sign the Minutes since no meetings are scheduled for the Subcommittee until the next Amendment Cycle. (David Hurst left at 5:10 PM.) Commissioner Henning suggested DSAC pursue Amendments beneficial to the Building Industry. It was noted CBIA is meeting on Friday to review the same issue, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, and may generate ideas. Chairman Varian stated he has been contacted by several groups, informed them the deadline to submit Amendments to DSAC is April, and DSAC will bring the Amendments to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners. • Two sets of Amendments are in the system dealing with both CRAB. Focus - to provide incentives /relief for redevelopment within the CRAB. 161 1 A? I February 3, 2010 • Dalas Disney, a member of the Intake Team, stated an Assistant County Attorney suggested imposing a two -year moratorium on LDC Revisions except for those benefiting Industry. • Reed Jarvi suggested compiling a list of Amendments to pursue for review by the BCC and asking the BCC to prioritize. Next Meeting Dates: March 3, 2010 - 3:00 PM April 7, 2010 - 3:00 PM May 5, 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 5:12 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORYY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were proved by the Board/Committee on as presented �, or as amended COLLIER COUNTY DkISON OF 161 7 A �' PUErC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road - Naples, Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252 -4000 ^Fax (2 657 Website: colliergov.net Fiala FtFOENE kenning, Coyle MAR 0 8 2010 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CEN�91fa g Ted of county Gommissipne s ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA March 1, 2010 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 1, 2010 V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson B. Band Stand Lighting — Annie Alvarez C. Tree Project — Annie Alvarez D. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan — Annie Alvarez VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez VII. Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting will be on April 5, 2010 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida c Misc. cont. Date: l3 ( D Item #: L t g 7"ies to: 161 1 A February*1 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, February 1, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug VICE CHAIR: Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Kaydee Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager /Region III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 16 1 A 8 February 1. 2010 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:04 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug III. H. Attendance A quorum was established. 111. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Bill Arthur arrived at 6:10 pm IV. Approval of January 4, 2010 Meeting Minutes Peggy Harris moved to approve the January 4, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Kaydee Tuff abstained V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson reported the following new programs started in January. Yoga Class on Thursday night has 9 participants. Y Senior Bone Builder Class has an average attendance of 20 people. GGCC has 5 Certified Teachers available to teach this class. ➢ Men Indoor Soccer Program has 8 teams registered ➢ Adult Volleyball has an average attendance of 20- 25 people. Participants are charged a $20.00 Sign -up Fee and pay $5.00 per night of play or $35.00 for the Season. y Organizing an Adult Basketball League is in the beginning stages. Participants will be charged. Staff suggested expanding programs in the gym. It was noted Christina Apkarian is willing to act as a Program Leader for Volleyball and Basketball until a Program Leader is hired. Vickie Wilson stated the 2 "d Annual Open House held on January 23 had 200 participants. The "Open (louse" attracted 10 registrants and many inquiry calls. It was noted the Senior Expo is scheduled for February 10 and a 5th Grade Dance would be held on February 19. Kaydee Tuff suggested the Instructors take pictures and send them to the Collier Citizen. She stated Collier Citizen would print photographs to help promote programs. 1611 A8 February 1, 2010 Discussion followed on advertising programs and the County's advertising process and policies. The County needs to approve drafts. Staff was not sure if the Board could advertise under the Sunshine I,aw. B. Band Shell Lighting— Annie Alvarez reported a "Notice to Proceed" was given to HAS Engineers & Scientists for the Design and Shop Drawing review for the "Lighting on the Field at Golden Gate Community Center." (See attached) • Second draft for the Design and Shop Drawing is scheduled for February 2010. • One pole was removed from original design. • Poles can go up to 35' in height. • Staff will mail survey on "Lighting on the Field" to property owners in the surrounding area. C. Tree Project — Annie Alvarez reported Davenport Nursery donated 10 -12 oak trees approximately 3 inch in diameter and 12 -14 feet in height. Center is scheduled to pick up trees. Davenport Nursery recommended keeping the moisture for the trees using Zeba or Pro Source until trees are ready to be planted per final approved Design. Vickie Wilson will be meeting with a vendor to review the GGCC Bleacher requirements. Y 306 Fund will pay for Bleachers. Y Electronic bleachers will be attached to the wall. Y When bleachers are closed, they will store flat against the wall. Y Bleachers meet with ADA Compliance. r' Staff does not expect quote to come in over $100,000. D. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan — Annie Alvarez reported the following projects have been added FY2010 and 11. (See attached) ➢ Playground - $60,000 i= Field Lighting - $75,000 Bleachers - $100,000 Repave Parking Lot - $25.000 Y Gym Floor - $50,000 ➢ Signage - $50,000 Staff suggested the Advisory Board make recommendations for the 5 Year Plan at the next meeting. A suggestion was made to add installing a walking path from the Center to the Library. 161 1 February .2010 VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the February 2010 Budget to Actual Comparison BCS Drilldown Report. (See attached) • Revenue came in $3,200 over last month. • Adjusted Carry Forward - $405,910 (See attached) • Interest Income on Carry Forward FY2009 - $7,936 Discussion ensued on the Adjusted Carry Forward and how it adjusts and Staff suggested the Chairman meet with a Finance Department Staff to get questions answered on the Reserves for Contingencies and Capital Reserves. Staff will set up an appointment for Jim Klug to meet with the Finance Department. VII. Member Comments Bill Arthur commented on how nice the marquee looks since it was repaired. Annie Alvarez stated "For the record" she is applying to become a Med- Waiver Provider. Getting requests to fill in a gap for adults in the 21 and 22 year old have no place to go. GGCC also needs a Volunteer Pre - Kindergarten Program. VIII. Public Comments Nancy Drew, a resident of Golden Gate and a volunteer at Domestic Animal Services stated she would like to see more programs for teenagers. Discussion continued and many suggestions were made by Advisory Board, Staff and Public. • Summer Nights • Big Screen Movies • Summer Basketball • Video Games — Halo Night • WI / WI Contests and include pizza • Football Season — 5"' Quarter Kenny Drew, a resident of Golden Gate suggested bringing the Bike Fest back to the Center. It was an event that was well attended. It was noted the event was partially paid for through a sponsor. Staff and Board had issues with the type sponsor. Darrin Brooks stated the ABATE Florida State Association will be holding their next convention in December 2010 and members will be staying at the Quality Inn. He stated the ABATE Association members attended previous Bike Tests and the convention would bring visitors "heads and beds" to Collier County. This would meet requirements to receive funding from County. 16! 1 February 1, 2010 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 6:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD 1 0.-cs Klug I I, Cha' t n 'These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on as presented K_— or as amended 161 1 A8 7:% COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road - Naples, Florida bs 4 olliergo 10 Phone net39) 252-4000 - Fax (239) 252 -6532 Jan 14, 2010 HSA Engineers & Scientists Mr. Paul M. Kinnunen P.E. 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Suite # 260 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RE: Golden Cate Community Center — Lighting field at Stage PO Number 4500115158 Contract Number 06 -3970 Fund # 306: Project # 80148.1 Dear Mr. Kinnunen, This letter is your "Notice to Proceed" for the Design, Shop Drawing review, Site Visit and out of pocket cost for the "Lighting of Field at Golden Gate Community Center. According to the Work Order, you have 150 days to complete the project from the date of this letter. Please allow 150 days for design and have Bid Documents for Bidding and Construction. If there are any questions on this project, please advise. Sincerely, a4&1� Tony Ruberto Sr. Project Manager CC: llonka Washburn — Fiscal Rhonda Cummings — Purchasing * C C ( f I 161 1A8 Send all Invoices to: Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Purchasing Departnert Attn: Accounts Payable 3301 Tem ami Trail E PO Box 413016 Naples, Florida 34112 Naples, Florida 34101 -3016 Tax Exempt 85- 80126218300 -2 Vendor# 117377 HSA ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS AND SCOTT SINS & ASSOCIATES 1520 ROYAL PALM SQ BLVD, STE 260 FT MYERS FL 33919 Please deliver to: NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK 15000 LIVINGSTON RD NAPLES FL 34109 Terns of Payment Net 30 Days com"pondence, shipping papers and invoices: Purchase order Po a,rhber 4500115158 1- 0111212010 censor Paran Region Telephone 23912544000 Delivery Date: W07/2010 Currency USD Item Material Dearipeors ORWQW Unfit Pike PerIMR NetValua 00010 Basic design and admin 12,500 each 1.00 12,500.00 Release order against contract 4600001744 Item 00010 306- 116360- 763100-000148.1 Bid 06 -3970 Expira0on date 08.07.10 Ghosbeq:10094054 Basic Design Phase $9,100 Basic Adm. Construction 400 Total net value excl. tans USD 12,500.00' VENDOR Terns and Conditions The VENDOR agrees to comply with all Purchase Order Terms and Conditions as outlined on the Collier County Purchasing Irdenlet site: httpJhxww.cdliergwv Oridex.aspx7page 762 (revision date 012212(108), including delivery and payment terms. FurBrer she VENDOR agrees to: 1. Provide goods and services ou0trned in this Purchase Order with the prices, terms, delivery method and spedficatons listed above. 2. Notify department Immediately if order fuOtlment cannot occur as spedfned. 3. Send all invoices to: Board of County Commissioners Attn: Accounts Payable PO Box 413016 Naples, Florida 34101 -3016 The Purchase Order is authorized under direction of Collier County Board of County Commissioners by. U ti C-47- Stephan Y. Carrell, General Services / Purchasing Director Pn TueJ 12 M1014:463 GMr -0500 3a611 M106801481 Penah ofh I. �r v'mmu� rv'000NN�o�v� �Nm10 10 ��NNNO"1 rn,� �rn, -� o ,� olnmlool0100 rn lnr I�iN V'm, INf+l nrN N Nm ii mop �n. I�', NN�mmNNrn H Z U _ z I I I I I I I I I I I I l�N ooN n OornOO�vl�'Ooft�`-r Naaul orN1D orrl0 m�Wbl m olO I m�u]m�(nn¢N">Nmpl9"JOoN(n O �o0oo0000rntC+I OoCOJ ooiNnoo O .flVD0r'O o •• oN¢r o i 0 o0 mvu�]'amOLO U 6�.rvl1 iN � l �rNTrN1O0l uOlI W Wmm uol in 19I 2�Oom 1looOOoo 0O 0.o�J O0 J•rmMn�mI�loO0 ��4nO.o00o00o00o 0 0c I�I�u�O'J0000 IflN me ow m<+1rn,�Nin u7mS 1Drn ONlO ,HNOrnlO a•rno cClN t`In OU�f+l v'rIN V "- I�rflO V'Nrn._I U aromm 61rINN ou>ur Nrvr c'M,I m v� m�mr+i.ti loo 'z, If1NNN W V'N N f�. G H 0 0 u7 U Nan 000 rr mf�")V'f�"1NO�000l90 v -'�1 iP Ol06i u]OONN � - {N Of�O ON O IO IO U)IO IONOIO ••o mmr rm�min ov�oNOU. ,ern _ mm�oomN NNm o.�no NO(h Orl LI 1010 [h frl t`mL�- 1!)tiul C)0 [D U]rnC0 61 -1 '61NN•19 � In lONrI00CJ OJ 9u�l9l{r 1p OV�O Orl ul . LUN V�(+100 '1 NN Omrn11 !y NNW H WZ 11-1N N Lfl 4J F1.1 Z N.1 ri U IflN mmm iN V�1oN rl rnrnNNr �� nt`\ N6� mwm .ti rN o ICI .I HN N qEU 0 O U W O rr rl.i u) O OlD W Into in N O 1 U i0 mm Ncn O 9 mm N q IOID l0 L0 �. 0 " N"" N l a am W,0 a Ho 0 O WI b US] III 111111 II II o0000 0000000000 00000 0000 000000000000000000 rn 00000 0000000000 _ooc,o - 0000000000000000 �y.1 OHH 'tl14 11z m 00000 0000000000 00000 0000000000 -o NO os _0�00o Nuic�m pro Napo oono0o 00000000000000 00 mmo 000000000000000000 HQ NUZm � rnrn�1 i U �,Sti'N rIU 'g oo O+ Iflu�L�rrn N0.- iONNV�H\9 101010 1010 rIHrINN Nm �flNON. -� Not\m t+1�0 i�r1N('� (D.n- 't�ut,� m W ti ITV• in m 10 N1oo 1p0�,� fn WP] NOO k uiln u�inm nrr d' HUUC.] M .-Iw 111 u IdFHC; CH 0<<m O" .H c7 c7 o m -P UR, mZZ'J III II III IIIII -POW G N O A�OU 00000 00I I0CJ000O '. OOOOO 0000000000 00000 000 00000 0000 11 000 011 OO000o 00000000000000OOCJOOo oo0000000 Nv roaa> -.1 J�00 o0000 00000000 _ooNO 0 -o ... Nc�c� 000 000 n000000�0000 ...... .-I .-I mUC7 F4 OB 00000 000000000 � ti m rum0v00o �00o N w o onov )NN Irmo Ong. > 7000 oo0000000000 a rno am, d o ov -rmNO o vrn,- UU tO Ln�rrn No,�o NNV'.ti r9 �NON,� Norm - m u� m1o,11oN0o rj to In ln�m �nnr+> O 11 1' N a z ro r'i w U z H w 0 Oro row z O� W ,moor UU OW uH Hz k W CV�AO v m gg FC -P N o� z H o Z W uwo z rf) OI N NH b br,7W ww p.i G a' O N 4, 0 p N q N N M-6 P, �I HIO WBOV U m� U 1'210 0b x x U m H ro co Hm + * + 93M 0000000000000 000 0 0000000000000 000000000 000000 000000000 000 0000000000000 000000000 000000 0000000000000 000 0 0000000000000 000000000 000000 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 000000000 0000 o�n00000m�o �n oNO N �N�o �nou�uiNOOm.�� noou�u�u�o <r �o min u�000 iniP �I V�v�NCNU) Nrl t+I O�W �ti i�Gl Nt+) rl ry u)NtIN rl SJ l9�NN�V NNr- I�n��N Nr1N r1N O.�N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 000 Off. O CJ000000000 OOOOOCJOO 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 C OOtP0000061�ON ONO N V�N�9 inOU]u)NOOWV� u)�n00 n inN VVN VNU) Nrl C10�OJ 1 N6l�tY1 Nrl i.n NCIN rlO�+nNN.ti NN�u)NN N rl ry fhNCJN rl �I M/ '1 q N V A/ i8 00000000000000 o m00000 oo0in000 ooiomooNOOOOOOOONO,�o orc0000m00000000�10�0 000m00000w000000 000u.o 0000�000 000 o�00000000r 000 om 0000000�o 000 oioo�n00000u� o�nN mN�om�noo 000000 o0u�o� -�o mr�Nmroo 000.ro�rn- iou�u� m - oNOOOOOOin00000 on oN OOOOm, . -��noo ono mmm �NO�nooui - u�oin �n �n ono a•i9 ti �n�nn �n000 �NrlNrlin III D .n N Ou) N oo moo�o�o �n m ON 000000 rl NCJ NN mm mo " ON � tot Ul O m. is (b �A NN�ni NNI�lO c� VSO NCJ u)u) N m Oin nl rlO m 0000000000000 000 0 0000000000000 000000000 000000 000000000 000 0000000000000 000000000 000000 0000000000000 000 0 0000000000000 000000000 000000 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 000000000 0000 o�n00000m�o �n oNO N �N�o �nou�uiNOOm.�� noou�u�u�o <r �o min u�000 iniP �I V�v�NCNU) Nrl t+I O�W �ti i�Gl Nt+) rl ry u)NtIN rl SJ l9�NN�V NNr- I�n��N Nr1N r1N O.�N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 000 Off. O CJ000000000 OOOOOCJOO 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 C OOtP0000061�ON ONO N V�N�9 inOU]u)NOOWV� u)�n00 n inN VVN VNU) Nrl C10�OJ 1 N6l�tY1 Nrl i.n NCIN rlO�+nNN.ti NN�u)NN N rl ry fhNCJN rl Capital 5 Year Plan 16/ Parks and Recreation f+ 2010i f P Park Location Repair / Replace (Wish List) ALL Parks New Concrete Storage Bins for Sand, Mulch, etc. Cocohatchee Bridge and Piling Repair Barefoot Beach New Toll Booth Bayview New Pilings Dreamland New Playground East Naples New Maintenance Building GGCC New Gym Floor New Playground Immokalee Sports Complex New Pool Heater New Pool Pumps Add a Big Slide Regrade Ballfields Max Hasse Upgrade Outdoor Lighting to Musco NCRP Add Additional Shade Structures In Park Purchase a Segway Port Of The Islands Add CLASS System Seagate Toilet / Restrooms Sun -N -Fun Add Flo Rider Sugden Add CLASS System Thorguard Veteran's Upgrade Outdoor Lighting to Musco -,Z ✓1 -'74r � T 161 1 >.ITIF LL M_ } LL o N O O O O O O O LL fR Iq R O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 8 O O O c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l/) O O O O- O Lti } In `� `� N N u7 to O N N th V LL fA EA EA 6q fA Gq fA Vf EH <H fA V3 EA 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O Ifl O O O O O EA EA fH EA EA fR K} EA EA o O U cl C 0 0 N O ` (n d d a o N K tC Q C U O~ 3 O C Ol J m t� N E '� N (0 @ `d N W� C C U N .L.. c w O `m m W c_ m y d E Y f6 W m W Y (0 O Y Y C N W co C N C N DY U L Y Z d Z N N @@ U i i O C m O O J fIJ N (6 `' m E Y d �- a C Y 'm f6 C- O m Y C c m a c m a"i a�i a`�i mmm a�'i °' o> u- oN UUa an d (q �OEO ma lm- U U UU U C U U N f6 f0 OU f6 Z Z Z Z Z Z N Z m »UUUWIn UDQ WWW WWW W,W W U` W 161 1 A8 0 0 0 N C, C, C. CD O O O O O O O O O u7 O O O O O O O O O O 0 c O O O 0 O 0 O O O P- O O O m O O O m O O O O l0 9 fO 6O ? H (0 EA fR fO R fR EA fH EA fA O O 0 0 O O O O O O Off' O O M Lo O N fA E9 fA fA N N >L i Y U y O N � U C N N C U N N — O 0 C ° ro U m O o o t ° L o N E Em > t o I a m > o a m m °'o o m o as ° E o E Fn of of N y` O N u C fo w N N 'O ~O O O o i.� O E J O O J U c N m X j N J N .�.. lu y N O N L C LL f6 K S m Y> N� N C N O O Y �m N N m N 0 N d a JCD UUU V UU�j U = ° ° �(D �C) J(D a a E E zzzz 0C9C900 7 � o wwww 161 1 R -" a a � o� o 0 Co 0 5 i.0 EA 0 0 o iCJ fA 0 0 o N fA 0 0 O Ef> 0 0 o oL iC1 M EA 0 o :D N Eli 0 O o fA 0 0 o 0 0 0 ono di Vi 0 0 c to 0 0 0 0 C c �L V> ER O O O I� EA O O O O Lo fA O O O N N O O L6 N ER O S O Lo 04 64 O O O N E9 O O O O O O LO N 69 fn i I i N o_ o E a) �°p N� O N i F- E m E o- c Er ai D ° n o o N o o m a)Lj F o w a) a E ocn> Q m> °- m ' U? N � a3 mrnaE m L (j f6 ° J a o a a3 N a3 a O c U c w° E H a a a o o a) i° c Y m C c o a m m N Y a s m C. aJ iimF c a a) a - ¢a�n a7 Q m m o `m Y N m @z� m a'a� 4o o N N y N N N N N N > m oC�aC7 o r f� Vl N N N i O Y Y xxxxxxxaam X X X X X X X L). V -C a) a) a) 1D' o ��J zza�� _ » »» '�� Q� Golden Gate Community Center Reserves and Carryforward Summary for 9/30/2009 Reserves for Contingencies Reserve for Capital (AC & Roof) Budgeted Carryforward into FY 2010 Additional Carryforward from savings in expenses and higher revenues Adjusted Carryforward Interest Income earned in FY 2009 1611 A8 61,000 72,400 338,300 67,610 405,910 = est. ending cash balance at 9/30/2009 7,936 161 1 Ag I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design A. Proposal for Cross -Walks and Sightline Study B. Proposal for Annual Maintenance Consulting Services VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency IX. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker X. Old Business XI. New Business A. FY — 2011 Budget XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is March 24, 2010 One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Misc. cares: Item 8: j O'ies to 1611 A g ,s IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. [�ECEIV�BVISORY COMMITTEE MAR 0 2 2010 November 18, 2009 Fiala pF�� Noard of County GommiWoners Hales Minutes Henning Coyle _ Coletta 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 —MSTLI 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. Cares: DaW i Item * __ .— Copies to: M.iri ri �c N r o 0 m mm an mo 00 mmm mm �� N A 1611 9 [z �j r�R'�O ri000000 w O'�"Y 0000000 T „] Qj C1fIFCC000000 O� !{HHNNNO MOB zw F N N N m \oo ..o aYk'�C�GNr ri �n v5bv m�omm mN 0H Y m�l{mmo vN are N.roroaaN NNON r'1 � •q1 f�1,YW M t�f T N O � N m AEU q 4 4 v�?a�m P2 w w N�CENN C NM r m 1v uC NyfN NM c! O m �rnu°i rNia moo 00O. -1 NN Cfl m S Y O O y61 •e1 E 11tl1 1 C � H 7.-i H o L a �ro F 3 q O i b C o000 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O N ro•,a O W bS+ Y FW o000 0o00o 0 o® OO 00000 0 N N 0 o o 0 N r-i w .�U 'd�m (�y y Rt 0000 �COi�H NN N N W W q W W mom �ry mac 9'C z W rd O ro L W O UE q ' ., YQ O£N J 0000 Poo.O 0 0000 00000 0 0U 10 El Imim o'oo0 00000 0 giro 'j. MN1'NN H0000 N o UU Q 8t it NNNN N o U a Q: bl CryJ m r o ,ad.�ugwi4Qr0 -i��a aoi m HQJroJvUia F5a2x.5 U�+OW U WHUF o 0.�ie d$i U.idFW � aw W z a ro m MOP OO. -Ym0 v E Q 00 U O'r'W mm.amw�+vmr+ F'`QW rYi M O N I4 � ?�. WMt�+lv�d'WWVNi 'd:IOS W W v °Yq ° roaw° �i W 'O U Y 'd opyp N WWW 014 w -:. k Report Date: January 27, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM -19) — ACTIVE- l" Street Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1" 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed for PO 4500111227; JRL IRG DESIGN 1 ST ST. 11- 17 -09: Design Review with JRL re: Project Specifications 01- 27 -10: Staff review and coordination continues with JRL on specifications for project. (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: JRL submittal of concept 'draft' design complete; Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. I" 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed PO 4500111225 JRL IRG DESIGN MAIN ST 10- 19 -09: Main Street Irrigation 75% submittal. Under review by staff. 11- 17 -09: Design Review with JRL re: Project Specifications 01- 27 -10: Staff review and coordination continues with JRL on specifications for project. (IMM -17) — ACTIVE- "Edgerrin James Sign" ;Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: CRA to install `sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) 01- 27 -10: Staff request Committee to review `purpose' of project (IMM -16) — ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign; Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: Confirmation pending from Traffic Operations on exact sign locations I 1- 16 -09: MSTU Liaison Staff submits proposed sign installation locations to Traffic Operations for review /approval. 01- 27 -10: Traffic Operations installing 4 miles ahead signs for Immokalee (IMM -15) — ACTIVE - ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting; Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 9- 23 -09: Change order in process to add additional monies to contract; Current Contract expiration date for maintenance consulting: March 12, 2010 10- 15 -09: Change Order #1 for PO 4500105395 processed. (IMM -1 1) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #06 -4008 -- expires: March 10, 2010 "Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. /M.S.T.D. Roadway Grounds Maintenance'; Commercial Land Maintenance Contract 9- 23 -09: Draft bid documents have been prepared; pending final edit for bidding. 11-16-09: Final Bid Documents submitted to Purchasing for bidding. 01- 27 -10: Staff request Committee to review bid results for award recommendation. b I 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Bid #09 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" to Florida Land Maintenance, Inc. d /b /a Commercial Land Maintenance, Inc. in the estimated annual amount of $117,001.58 OBJECTIVE: Recommend that the Board award Bid 409 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU /MSTD Landscape Maintenance" to Florida Land Maintenance, Inc. d/b /a Commercial Land Maintenance. CONSIDERATIONS: • On December 3, 2009, Purchasing Department sent out 638 notices for Bid #09 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU /MSTD Landscape Maintenance" • On December 16, 2009, bids were opened and three (3) bids were received, one bidder was deemed non - responsive. • Staff analysis of Bid 409 -5264 indicates the bid annual amount represents a 31% Decrease over previous Bid Award amount (Bid #06 -4008; BCC Date 9/26/06; item 16.13.10; award total annual amount was $172,006). Staff recommends award to Florida Land Maintenance, Inc. d /b /a Commercial Land Maintenance as the lowest, responsive qualified bidder. The bids were as follows: Contractor Base Amount Alternate Total plus Alternate Florida Land Maintenance, Inc. $97,070.57 $19,931.01 $117,001.58 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. $190,874.69 $13,656.40 $204,531.09 FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated annual contract amount per Bid is $117,001.58, This bid amount includes base contract amount of $97,070.57 (for Basic Maintenance and Site Specific Maintenance), plus the alternate selected is in the amount of $19,931.01 (for Planting Services); funding is available in Immokalee MSTD Fund I11- 163805. Bid award is based on "per annum" contract cost or estimated for twelve (12) months of service. Initial contract period is one year with three (3) one year renewals. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid 409 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU /MSTD Landscape Maintenance" to Florida Land Maintenance, Inc. d/b /a Commercial Land Maintenance and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after review by the County Attorney's Office. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department Attachments: (1) Bid #09 -5264 Bid Tabulation; (2) Immokalee MSTU Minutes (January 27, 2010 meeting - pending) �Y Y m y$ i $s w� -N 1 K oo 1611Ag 88888888 s� 8sss. s8 8888ss.ss, 8s. 88888888 8880 s o 3 O r ]� w M N N N N M N M N N N H N N M x N H H N N H N H M M H H M M M N H x a G 8.888888 8"8 9888 8S Cx 80888 G G CN 0888800588 P G C 8 °� 88 88 G 08888888 888 888 CN C 0080 8 a z »NNw »w »Nx» 8888888 88 8888888888 g Ao 88 ��omg 88888888 R88v mS 8 F 0 .- Me 4 3 N N N» N M N M N N N M N» N M N M N N 88888888 R8 80888 8888888888, 88 88888888 Rma 8 R� °RR a a r 4 N N N N N N N H w N H N w x N N H N x N N N H N M N N w M N M N w N H N N N f = MUM., W W q W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W q W NN 1111-NNN 9 M bi r n � N C q LL C R c $L 8y o o y ��N Z aj dab w � �cZi a 3 m �moil ,��g. as X 33 ro a " r= � LLa io L u�i ci � U .2 <mm &�NArgjp � B;;If4 ; m 9 m S 0 E d 16 11 g8 88 88 8888q 88 8,8 81 8 8 �o r » »« « « » »» «« « « yu� r_ z s8 88 «» 88 8888« »» �8 88 8,8 8 $ 8 3� 88 88 °388 � 88 85S $ 8 8 0 g r rc 08 88 88 $388« 88 88 $ 8 8 a t � j q W W • W �y W W m W W W W W qq W ryq q W W q W qq W m tV O♦ i+S O CC W O p 3 8 > y �i1 O a 4 a N v o� s8 m � 8 Ui03 p�8d _ 5 a Ey TSF MON 11 g bio a uS a ffi8 9t a S �oo 1611 00 r g 003 U a 8 'i 8 8 8 8 8 g g Y g g $ $ 7 r r t z ui u°i w° w ui ui it ml a _$2 V 9tgg Sy 6.m. ES° � $�� Ua -a3ja�j P U%'fa a ffl o aa8 ° gi MtY9t° ,9yp�2 N °r.R 2� °a4i . ° t=-. Rp du�rb>EE�r(5 °$m'34E3r� 3C� {a y > >E �ffi ° °. r5 > g1? fl, 19 a.�l. �+ 5• � � 745 €$ J� ffi _ y p ��p ° iwill �fytf ° � .s °� m g� f� F 26 r JIM E yE 16 11 A9 8 18 2 R 51 n R A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888888888888888888888888888888888 I HIM I B" E2 v4 u4H 8 888888888888888888888888888888888 6 gi 6;e 888888888888 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. 888888885888888888588888888888888 MaF ggai 8888888 llmd9d9999 8888 rc 3 ul lu Im I ., cy — — — — — — - - — — tD IQ P -A LLLL MOO— , m A gi , -t2 60 g .7 w I I 'Ei50-g E A A E E zR -31E WEAM, 1 Illa 1 11 -ml' 1 1 E M I M fiffi ll A M1 § ¥f » )|m | � ■ | |} �| s | | | �)2 �!! i!! i � 161119 4 #mama■ ¥ ■#■ s ■ ■ , a! ■ ■a §■§2a ; & K �- ......... - |■aa#a■■a#■ § a §! Ella §&! a■■ ¥#a # ■ ■# # ■ ■ , ;a „ ■ ° ■, ■, | t t \ ' | $8s$88#■aa & §E ■alga ■!a § ;_l;=;■!!_ § -- !| ■ ! � ! �k ! | ! ! § Bk � ! | � ! §- ) ■ `�|- 2 322 |§! | | \2!!!!E!\ §\ i � 161119 4 1611 1 Ag John P. Ribes, FASLA � i Richard T. Tindall, ASLA M K Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN November 13, 2009 Immokalee M.S.T.0 Work Order # RFPBID # 08 -5060 To : Darryl Richard, Project Manager Re : Planting Refurbishment Work Order — First Street Landscape: Main Street to Carver Street As per your request an authorization by the Immokalee MSTU Board at their October '09 meeting JRL Design Studios submits the following proposal of services: Scope of services Prepare a modification to the landscape design for the median and side R.O.W. for First Street from Main Street to Carver Street. The proposed planting refurbishment shall utilize a more appropriate planting palette, consider existing plantings and offer minimal maintenance and an enhanced landscape supplemented with feasible color additions. First Street Planting Refurbishment Task 1 — Inventory & Analysis: Review of existing design plans and related field surveillance Task 2 — Preparation of 60% Plan Documents Preliminary Format & Plant List Task 3 —Bid Planting List, Specifications, and Bid Assistance Task 4 — Construction Engineering Inspections (CEI) (Field Design Directives, Site Install Observations, Reports, and As Built Plan Assistance) Attached is scope of work with hourly rates by category, for the proposed Planting Refurbishment designs. The completion schedule for work is 90 days from authorization to proceed for task 1 -2. Bidding is estimated to be 30 days and installation 60 days. Please process through the appropriate channels and give me a call if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, John P. Ribes, FLASLA Senior Partner of JRL Design Studios 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studloWrl- desion.com website: www.irl- desian.com 16 1 1 "A 9 John P. Ribes, FASLA Richard T. Tindall, ASLA JRL Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA GN s LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN WORK ORDER # Landscape Design First Street: Main Street to Carver St. Agreement for: Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term Proposal Dated: November 12, 2009 (RFPBID # 0 8-5060) This Work Order is for Professional Landscape Architectural Services, subject to the terms and conditions of the contract referenced above, for work known as: Project Name: Revised Landscape Architecture and Landscape Maintenances services For the Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. The work specified in the proposal dated November 12. 2009, which is attached hereto and made apart of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order # _ is assigned to: JRL Design Studios. Scone of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following: First Street Planting Refurbishment Task 1 — Inventory & Analysis — Principal / Senior Landscape Architect Design Associate Technical Staff Administrative Total 4 hrs. @ $128/hr. $512.00 4 hrs. @ $75/hr. $300.00 8 hrs. @ $62/hr $496.00 2 firs. @ $55/hr. $110.00 $600.00 $1,418.00(TME) Task 2 — 60% Planting Plao/Plant List - Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @ $128/hr. $512.00 Design Associate 8 brs. @ $75/hr. $600.00 Technical Staff 4 bra. @ $62/hr $248.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $1,580.00(TME) Task 3 — Bid Plant List. Specifications. Bidding Assistance Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 2 hrs. @ $128/hr. $256.00 Landscape Architect 2 hrs. @ $ l20/hr. $240.00 Design Associate 4 hrs. @ $75/hr $300.00 Technical Staff 4 hrs. @ $62/hr $248.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $1,264.00(TME) Task 4 — Construction Engineering Inspections (CED (Field Design Directives. Install Observation. Reports & As -Built Plan Assistance) Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 12 bra. @ $128/hr. $1,536.00 Technical Staff 8 hrs. @ $62/hr $496.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $2,252.00(TME) 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studioDid- desion.com website: www.irl- desian.com 161 1 A9 John P. Ribes, FASLA Richard T. Tindall, ASLA Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA J.R 1 L STUDIOS LANDSCAPE AECNNECT PLANNING DESIGN TOTAL FEE 56.514.00 (TME) Schedule of Work: Task 1 -2 complete work within 9Q days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed, bidding estimated 30 days; installation 60 days. 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studiodDid desion.com website: jgp,com J ] :M AE S I G N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN November 13, 2009 Immokalee M.S.T.U. Work Order # RFPBID # 08 -5060 161 Aq 01 John P. Ribes, FASLA Richard T. Tindall, ASLA Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA To : Darryl Richard, Project Manager Re : Planting Refurbishment Work Order — Main Street(Hwy 29) Landscape: V Street — 9a' Street As per your request an authorization by the Immokalee MSTU Board at their October '09 meeting JRL Design Studios submits the following proposal of services: Scope of services Prepare a modification to the landscape design for the median and side R.O.W. for Main Street from I` Street to 9's Street. The proposed planting refurbishment shall utilize a planting palette compatible with existing conditions, minimize maintenance and enhance vibrance. Main Street Planting Refurbishment Task 1 — Inventory & Analysis: Review of existing design plans and related field surveillance Task 2 — Preparation of 60% Plan Documents Preliminary Format & Plant List Task 3 —Bid Planting List, Specifications, and Bid Assistance Task 4 — Construction Engineering Inspections (CEI) (Field Design Directives, Site Install Observations, Reports, and As Built Plan Assistance) Attached is scope of work with hourly rates by category, for the proposed Planting Refurbishment designs. The completion schedule for work is 90 days from authorization to proceed for task 1 -2. Bidding is estimated to be 30 days and installation 60 days. Please process through the appropriate channels and give me a call if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, John P. Ribes, FLASLA Senior Partner of JRL Design Studios 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studioftrl- desicn.com website: www.irl- desinn.com 161 1 A9 ", John P. Ribes, FASLA Richard T. Tindall, ASLA L. JAI, Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA - N S LANDSCAPE ANCNI7leT PLANNING DESIGN WORK ORDER # Landscape Design Main Street: 1i7 Street to 91" Street Agreement for: Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term Proposal Dated: November 12, 2009 (RFPBID # 08 -5060) This Work Order is for Professional Landscape Architectural Services, subject to the terms and conditions of the contract referenced above, for work known as: Project Name: Revised Landscape Architecture and Landscape Maintenances services For the Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. The work specified in the proposal dated November 12. 2009 which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order # is assigned to: JRL Design Studios. Scope of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following: First Street Planting Refurbishment Task 1— Inventory & Analysis — Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @ $128/hr. $512.00 Design Associate 4 hrs. @ $75/hr. $300.00 Technical Staff 4 hrs. @ $62/hr $248.00 Administrative 2 hrs. @ $55/hr. $110.00 Total S1,170.00(TME) Task 2 — 60% Planting Plan/Plant List - Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @ $128/hr. $512.00 Design Associate 4 hrs. @ $75/hr. $300.00 Technical Staff 8 bra. @ $62/hr $496.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $1,330.00(TME) Task 3 — Bid Plant List. Specifications. Bidding Assistance Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 2 firs. @ $128/hr. $256.00 Landscape Architect 2 firs. @ $1201hr. $240.00 Design Associate 4 hm @ $75/hr $300.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $1,016.00(TME) Task 4 — Construction Engineering Inspections (CED (Field Design Directives. Install Observation. Reports & As -Built Plan Assistance) Principal / Senior Landscape Architect 10 hrs. @ $128/hr. $1,280.00 Technical Staff 7 hrs. @ $62/hr $434.00 Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr. $220.00 Total $1,934.00(TME) 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio(am ddesian.com website: www.irl-desion.com q John P. Ribes, FASLA Richard T. Tindall, ASLA D s Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING Dlf16N TOTAL FEE $5.450.00 (fME) Schedule of Work: Task 1 -2 complete work within 90 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed, bidding estimated 30 days; installation 60 days. 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studioCid- des ian.com website: www.irl -desian.com 161 1 A9 00 Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James come to Immokalee home of 161 1 From: RichardDarryl Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20109:05 AM To: wilson_p; YuSteve Cc: tipton_b Subject:Re: Signs for Immokalee Miles Yes - approved Go ahead and order the signs. Darryl From: wilson_p To: RichardDarryl; YuSteve Cc: tipton_b Sent: Wed Jan 13 08:51:35 2010 Subject: Signs for Immokalee Miles Ok to proceed? From: Sandy [mailto :sandy @municipalsigns.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:51 AM To: wilson_p Subject: Re: Quote please 2 signs Thanks Good Morning Pam, and Happy New Year[ The two signs will come off of the bid for quantities of 1 -9 @$7.50 per square foot for Prismatic signs that are single faced 2 Color, these 2 signs are 9 Square Feet each. They will be $67.50 each Thank You, Sandy - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: wilson_p To:Sandy Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:08 FM Subject: Quote please 2 signs Thanks 1611 `A9 MOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY MAR 0 2 2010 ..+earl of GAUP y COM"I'SBIOnem COMMITTqata wialas January 27, 2010 tien N- c�yie CiF Minutes Coletta The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:30 p.m. A quorum was established. Attendance Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz (Absent), Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Weldon Walker -Code Enforcement Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Bradley Muckel- Immokalee CRA, Penny Phillippi- Immokalee CRA, Fred Thomas - Immokalee CRA, Darlene Lafferty -Kelly Services Darryl Richard announced Kelly Services took over the Secretarial Services Contract. III. Approval of Agenda Add: X. A. Colorado Avenue Sidewalk X. B. Update Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan Andrea Halman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 28, 2009 Attendance Corrections: Richard Tindell -JRL was present John Ribes -JRL was not present Cherryle Thomas moved to approve the October 28, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto reviewed the following Budget items: (See attachments) • Available Improvements General $706,900.00 • P.O. paid to date $50,508.26 • Carry Forward Analysis ..,q V B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard Caroline Soto reviewed Fund 111 MSTD General Fund Report.'Meiorres: attached) D1JO:____ .__ 16 /'1 A Darryl Richard reported on the Project Status report: (IMM -17) Edgerrin James Sign • JRL provided sketches for the Edgerrin James Sign (See attached) • Conveyed questions by Traffic Operations - The Public Purpose of the sign - Has a Public review process been conducted Cherryle Thomas stated the request to recognize Edgerrin James was made by an individual (in the audience) at a public meeting. Penny Phillippi reported: • The sign was addressed at a Public meeting and it was concluded the sign is important to the Community • The CRA perceives the sign concept should encompass: - A Free standing sign - List Business in the Community - Install Signs at each entryway - Indicate Home of Seminole Casino After discussions it was agreed to hold a contest for the Sign Design at Immokalee High School. (IMM -16) Miles ahead Sian • Sign Project was reviewed (See attached) • Coordination with Engineering to meet FDOT guidelines for Sign installation • Signs cannot be installed on State Roads by Traffic Operations • 4 -6 Signs were requested • The State will be contacted for Sign installation on State Route 29 and State Route 82 Directional Sign requests were made by Fred Thomas: • Signs should indicate mileage to Immokalee • Left directional sign at Camp Keais Road • Left directional sign exiting Corkscrew Sanctuary Cherryle Thomas conveyed Public request to remove the white barriers on Main Street. Darryl Richard suggested including crosswalk corrections to JRL Scope of Services. Discussions ensued and it was agreed by the Committee the Pedestrian crossings are a safety issue. Darryl Richard reviewed JRL Proposal(s) RFP # 08 -5060 for Landscaping and Plantings: (See attached) • First Street - $6,514.00 • Hwy 29 - $5,450.00 • Suggested JRL submit a proposal to address crosswalks - Noted upgrading the sidewalks (by FDOT) is not planned 1611 0 MR Cherryle Thomas requested in- ground lighting at Pedestrian crosdngs. William Deyo moved for Staff to (provide) a separate proposal (to address crosswalks.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Discussions took place concerning the type of Plantings that will be installed. Richard Tindell confirmed the Plantings installed will be environmentally suited for the area. William Deyo moved to approve Proposal(s) by JRL (for Landscape Design First St: from Main Street to Carver Street) in the amount of $6,514.00 and $5,450.00 (Planting Refurbishment for Main Street-Hwy 29: 1't Street - 9t' Street.) Second by Andrea Heiman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. OMMA 1) Roadway Maintenance: BID #06- 4008Roadway Maintenance: BID #06 -4008 o Executive Summary will go for BCC approval February Stn 0 638 vendor notices were distributed o (2) Bids are applicable o CLM Bid $117,001.58 o Hannula Landscaping Bid $204,531.09 The Committee questioned the variance in monies on the Vendor Bid. Staff responded the CLM Bid is significantly lower due to competitive bidding. Additionally assurance was given (by Staff) that the quality of service is equivalent (between the two Vendors.) The Committee questioned the level of Service by CLM due to the delayed installation of seasonal Banners. Staff and JRL will review the Contract with the Vendor to ensure compliance. The Committee expressed frustration with delayed repairs on missing Banner arms and Poles. Staff replied repairs were hindered by slow production (by the Manufacturer.) Richard Tindell will contact vendors who have produced similar lighting. William Deyo moved to grant the Contract (Bid #09 -5264) to Florida Land Maintenance (d/b /a Commercial Land Maintenance) in the amount of $117,001.58. Second by Cherryle Thomas. Cherryle Thomas added the stipulation for Staff and JRL monitor CLM closely to guarantee Contract and deadline compliance. Motion carried unanimously. 2 -1. Andrea Halman voted no. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM -None VII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Richard Tindell reviewed reports #15 & 16: (See attached) '161 1 Ag Report #15 • Photo #3 - Hanging Power Transformer is a safety issue • Photo #4 - Suggested upgrading the chain link fence at the Cemetery Discussions ensued on the Cemetery and it was perceived as a Historical site. It was determined Parks and Recreation is responsible for Cemetery Maintenance. The Committee was in agreement to mow the area, install a new fence, and prompt Parks and Recreation to assume Cemetery Maintenance. Darryl Richard suggested JRL add Fence options into their Scope of Service. William Deyo moved to request JRL include fence options (for the Cemetery) into the Proposal. Second by Andrea Heiman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. o Photo #5 - Unhealthy Crown of Thom - Auto damage o Photo #7 - Line of sight issue (difficult to see oncoming traffic) - Fading crosswalk lines are safety issue o Photo #8 - Overhead wires collide with Trees - Missing Banner arms Penny Phillippi announced the Bird of Paradise replaced Cornucopia as the Immokalee trademark. It was agreed the CRA and Immokalee MSTU will share cost for new Bird of Paradise Banners (estimate $3,000.00 per Committee.) Report #16 o Exposed Crown of Thom suffered from cold weather (both roadways) - Fungicide will be applied to prevent decay and plant loss o (1) large Flowering Tree (North end of Hwy 29) may not survive o Photos #1- 3 - Damaged Crown of Thom, Plumbago, and Bougainvillea (1St Street) o (2) Dead Foxtail Palms require removal (Main Street) o Photo #5 - Recommended cover water pipes during cold weather o Photo #6 - Tree is cracked (at Triangle) o Photo #7 - Crown of Thom require replacements o Photo #8 - Plumbago should recover from surface bum - Recommend to postpone feeding Plumbago after March 15th Vlll. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker -None IX. Old Business - None El 1611 1119 X. New Business A. Colorado Avenue Sidewalk Darryl Richard reviewed 60% plans for installation of a new sidewalk on Colorado Avenue (9th Street to 151 Street) by Traffic Operations. (See attached) Penny Phillippi noted a Storm Water Retention pond will be installed in the same area as the sidewalk installation. After discussion it was concluded coordination with TECM is needed on installation for sidewalks and Retention Pond. Penny Phillippi expressed uncertainty on MSTU Ordinance interpretation. She perceived the objective of the Ordinance modification was to expand Boundaries and Responsibilities. Darryl Richard clarified the Boundary Expansion did not encompass expanding the MSTU "purpose." Andrea Halman moved to request (from the BCC) expanding the MSTU "Purpose" to include Storm Water, Drainage, and Sidewalks. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. Update Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan XI. Public Comment — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:21 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle mas, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on ,L- a - I o as presented or amended i The next meeting is February 24, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 16 1 1 A 9 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 27, 2010 SUMMARY OF MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Add: X. A. Colorado Sidewalk X. B. Update on Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan Andrea Halman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 28, 2009 Cherryle Thomas moved to approve the October 28, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard Cherryle Thomas conveyed Public request to remove the white barriers on Main Street. Darryl Richard suggested including crosswalk corrections to JRL Scope of Services. William Deyo moved for Staff to (provide) a second proposal (to address crosswalks.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Discussions took place concerning the type of Plantings that will be installed. Richard Tindell confirmed the Plantings installed will be environmentally suited for the area. William Deyo moved to approve Proposal(s) by JRL (for Landscape Design First St. from Main Street to Carver Street) in the amount of $6,514.00 and $5,450.00 (Planting Refurbishment for Main Street-Hwy 29: 1" Street — a Street.) Darryl Richard reviewed the CLM Roadway Maintenance Bid in the amount of $117,001.58. William Deyo moved to grant the Contract (Bid #09 -5264) to Florida Land Maintenance (d/b /a Commercial Land Maintenance) in the amount of $117,001.58. Second by Cherryle Thomas. Motion carried unanimously 2 -1. Andrea Halman voted no. �A9 Discussions ensued on the Cemetery and it was perceived as a Historical site. Darryl Richard suggested JRL add Fence options into their Scope of Service. William Deyo moved to request JRL include fence options (for the Cemetery) into the Proposal. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Discussions took place concerning the interpretation of the MSTU purpose and Boundary Expansion. Darryl Richard clarified the Boundary Expansion did not encompass expanding the MSTU "purpose." Andrea Halman moved to request (from the BCC) expanding the MSTU purpose to include Storm Water, Drainage, and Sidewalks. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. O N CD w to W N M to O LL c � R 1611 , r E O r W O O O O b O O N S O O O O O O O O O N N i(1 O O O O W r N W W O O O O tl M W W O O O O 1100 O W W W O O f0 d O N O G W O G O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O C r W O C O G O tp O T O W O O C O A H Of O O r N O N M � O N lh N W W N O S O W b r W N W W N M tl N N b d� O N d t0 N N' � N d f7 � N N d � tl 10 " t7 d' G O b � iD rr r Tom Q H H H H H N H H N H H H N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H N N N H N M r N 'P W N O O S N N W r 0 W W O W M G O W N O' < r S d d Oi W O W O N M M p O O W W GG Iq r A N W W N d A' N N d W r d M O N N d tl W u c Q g H H H H H H N H H H H H N H H H N H H H H H H H H H N N N H H H N N H H N N O O N N n c c i w3 � of i M pi O O S O O pp O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 p S OO O OO O M 0 g 0 7 O O O O MO O O O O O O O O O O a a O 6 6 W a. 0 O 0 O O 6 O 6 B 6 O 6 O S pp O O W W M O O O d W O h S O O W N O O O W W r r d tl O N N W O 6d � fp �� M w S � l7 N fV � d N O O N N lV r Qm H H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H N H N W 0 0 0 ¢ w � OQQ m w z > W W R O U J W O N K W w Z W w Z W Z u D. d y J W X R' Ww U W 9 UxX Z U W m ~ 61 J J< Z Z~ 7p 7 W w O O Z P W 9 F- Z m J 7 C U' W Z Z N V) F W Z w w Z U' Z W z U Z W o F- U i f c a w o w w w U c7 N w F w¢ w a z w a Z Q ~ O W W Z~ U '� jr K U LL LL F Q Z W H O W D. y} 3 7 N (D Z U oo? o r r a 3 a 3 m c� c� W o m a z W> N = Q o z o z W Z z z o O Z H fD W W K K F y Z? _ U z s w K i a Q" w U' W 7 V) LL Q Q K W D: D: y K w w O 0 J U N a Z i o K P P w p N 1 Z? Q N a Q 2 O 1(y ZL1 Z a Z m K N ^� Z Z Z W 09 H Z U Z W W K 0 aQ QR z ZZ) C7 U' W 6 7 W LL 0 Z Z f U U Z W W? O K z fD J LL J O O O 2— V F- 1- m CD a K F N !'I f tl tl r e0 W 0 N N N N Pl N f N N N tl N A N W N tl N 0 M N N M M M V 1f11 tl !I tl M A M W N N fD 2 �o �N N ~ N W � W C QJ = Y m u 16 1 1 9 All .9 E (O t0 N O O O O O O O v O 00 j O 10 O m V' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 (O o N 0 O r ( t0 O O O r O t0 O O) 0) O C) O 00 M f` N O O O M t0 00 1- O M M M, V 00 M M 00 N N, V M 0) V, N r i V N N N a to to to to (i) t% vi tH V) to tO fA to fA t9 V» fA Vi) tff � O O O O O O O O U N O O m O O J O C, 0 0 (h O C O 0 0 O 00 N N U O O O Q C (D V C O N %`� W O N �- c0 N O N 'D f- -. ()) C:'1 m O � 0 rrJ N Cf- '11 G) iX) tP, ( J N P- cu a) U- Efl V) Vi (J) V) d3 ffl (f) V; U) V3 Y) fA (A V) cP. (fD V) V) O` y N In N CL U E fq — o a) a) a) a) 0 (D U) U) w U 0 N N m m C a) m Cl • m a) N U_ U_ e3. 7 7 7 n. U_ 0 Emm y Z 2 N 0Na77 O C N N d Y d a? U C O U` lCa C L a� U) U) L L L L O °� a) E a c OL Cl v° aZi m a�i C aci O a) C 3 3 Q Q Q Q Cn U U w a m m m 10 M 0 0 y m a) d a) m(D m°� ° o 0 Q. cn � a d� v v v v m o m a CR 0 U C L m L L C N N to rn •m N L 75 W d N« 3 a) O m m m m a) a) N a) O m (L Cn m d' F- F- U J J J J N w to O J F- > p m d1 Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q O O O O M Q 1• O' r Q Q Z Z Z co Z Z Z Z Z � n Z Z O w 6 co Go 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Y V J 0 F- 3 0) O 0) (O 00 M r 0 M N r N O r• O O O t0 O 00 O N N V 00 .- O, V O 00 O M O O M N N 10 t0 O t0 O C M M Iq N to r n N7 N N M N 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 10 N t0 t0 O M N t0 10 M In 0 t0 (0 a) C a�i c c .m U U L cn m U c to (D m m L a) J U C c to a m 0 0 Z m ca Z m o m CL N a N 0) Y 0 c y (A J N c00 a) m (a a a) W O m O C C C C C Q y F C U d d a) a) m m (D Co C _ ") a) E E .12 34 O O O O Q aa) L a) 2 wm `m O E O E a) 0 o o `o o E E 0 4) Y m o= m U U U IL LL c -� -� ' Y J CO CO 16 1 1 9 All .9 fill 0 �w1 N a) C OD M Q O N V o cr) E 0 igOI N O h � b 11 a) m x CL v 0 0 c C tLL LL fill 0 �w1 N a) C OD M Q O N V o cr) � W 0 igOI O 7 7 > > m > Q n a m m a) m x m of v 0 0 c C tLL LL j O O m p y � W igOI W 0) v 0 0 M M m p y � W N m r V C 7 LL N 0 CI W Y O E E w .T c Q 9 C6 0 0 LL m U m m cno rn to o O j N m 0 0 0 O 6 ON O OLn O O N O rn O CD l0 N Oi CO O LO O N th f") 8 O M .4 fH L r EA N O M 1A 6. W ai C7 M/ I- V V Q V' (7 h M � m co r _ O O N O O 0 W ° O N O V Q M O N N f9 M CO O 6 N r- 6% t� m N co !'1 O CD N of f00 r Of LLI GS i cm 611 V� Qz 64 04 vi 40 O C �+ Y w �i > a d E li m m cno rn to 0 CC) N O r0 r rn O CD l0 N 1^ c00 03 cn 00 M co O r O r U N fh Vi to ( e C7 M/ I- V 00Q V' (7 h M � m co r _ fA fA N ffi of 0 W ° CD c N cc c5 f9 fA o a w m m U. a— v m i cm mD Qz r r N NN C O C �+ Y w �i > a d E li 7 N > C W Of C W ~ awi N O F n c o 0 CL >2, a m c c W O w rn N > m o c W CD m d a2i m m m m c U }` CL m N O Ln w > C) X } W �p N N i d W N S tUil C) N N N ii O F- 0 W 0 0 m m m F- 0 0 LL O p�p 00 O M fH 161 1 A9 gcn m cno to n N m � as V m a A m� G w E z e m c N c m co LL LL 0 W ° CD c g cc c5 >2 In o a m m U. a— v m i cm mD Qz r r N NN C O C �+ Y w �i > a d E li IRL O E 8 1 6 N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5'^ AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239- 261 -4007 COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500105395 REPORT NUMBER: 16 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 1/20/10 Weather: Scattered Estimate % Complete: N/A Clouds Time: 1:30 pm Temp Range: 72 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Richard Tindell WORK IN PROGRESS: Unknown OBSERVATIONS: Routine maintenance work not observed - most grass not cut, some trash Project manager notified REVIEWS: Report #15 REPORT: For and away the biggest observation was of the damage done by the recent freeze. There was burn and die back observed on several plants, specialty the crown of thorns (euphorbia millii). Crown of thorns comes from Madagascar and is a tropical species normally rest iced to zone l Ob and 11 with a low range of 35 - 40 degrees. At temperatures below 50 degrees they will often defoliate. It's probably best thought of as an annual after prolonged cold. Damaged stems need to be removed because, as a succulent, rot and disease will travel into any healthy stems, killing the plant. It may be more cost beneficial to let nature take its course and be prepared for extensive replacements in the spring. Cambamium layer healthy in larger woody plants - expect they will recover with exterior die back. It appears that those item previously reported are still in need of correction. Images 1 show damage to crown of thorns from cold and recent tire tracks anf plant removal on first. Pictures 2 & 3 damage to 161 1 A, 9 " W.- 1 L.- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 S^ AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239- 261 -4007 bougainvillea and plumbago. Image 4 show previously reported dead palm, and typical damage to crown of thorns along Main Street bulb outs Image 5 shows typical recent damage to plants and irrigation POC at Main and 7th. Image 6 shows previously reported damaged sabal palm at north 29 triangle Image 7 - previously reported dead boarder plants and damaged crown of thorns at Immokalee sign Image 8 - shows additional damage that is expected to grow back after dead branches are removed Image 9 - existing county electric meter and control at pole T27053 in Immokalee sign triangle - suggested location and power source for future tower and RC link to County wide control system. Image 10 - existing county electric meter and control at pole F9810 near County Tax Office - suggested location and power source for future RC link. Image 11 - existing county electric meter and control at pole T9213 in ROW near Delaware and First. Note freeze damage and CRA sign (1 of 2) - suggested location and power source for RC link Image 12 - existing county electric meter and control at pole T9381 in alley near Main and 71h Street- suggested location and power source for RC link. Suggest the proposed plant refurbishment project reflect existing and ,'master planned" elements. ACTION REQUIRED: Direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 .4 c�*.� � � t � trT y��-y. t • d 8 fir i f -S R �T 4'1 c NV •'� �'ry � � •` f` ,/mot AN ` El 7 wo v k' 1 A 4. i Lit r i 1 � Y MW � k' � � dr s . : •� ?� .y Z k' ♦ .ry r i -•cr _. 7 -�.a. rvXA .+F k' 1 A 4. i Lit r i JRL LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51" AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 161 1 A Iq 0&[fg,C��pQ goga pcpp0Dt COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500105395 REPORT NUMBER: 15 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 10/28/09 & Weather: Scattered Estimate % Complete: N/A 11/10/09 Clouds Time: 1:30 - 3 pm Temp Range: 87 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Jim Fritchey - Commercial Maintenance, D. Richards (Oct) & Richard Tindell (both) WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor workers not present either site visit OBSERVATIONS: Oct - Routine maintenance work has been performed. Nov 10 - most grass not cut. Question what has been done when REVIEWS: Irrigation and bid documentation REPORT: Pre MSTU meeting inspection w Fritchey was routine. Project Manager arrived with new "Bulb Out" grates and installation methods were discussed. Other than mowing, routine maintenance work has been performed however service personnel were not observed this visit. It appears that those item previously reported (10 /28 /09)are still in need of correction. Images 1 & 2 show plant material blocking view at intersection of Highway 29 and First Ave - This is a safety concern previously reported on several occasions and different consultants. Un -even grass at airport triangle. Note tall grass on sign along right -of- way (code issue) and power distribution panel in need of repair. Image 3. Image 4 show un cut turf and general condition at historic site. Image 5 show recent damage to plants along first. Image 6 shows some work on Immokalee north enter - possible 4 JRL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51" AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 ACTION REQUIRED: location for Edgerrin James sign 161 1 A9 Image 7 is a sight line concern - ligustrum tree needs to be trimmed to allow safe negotiation of intersection Image 8 - missing banners and limbs in power lines The last 2 images are suggested starting points for discussion only concerning an approach for the proposed Edgerrin James sign Suggest the proposed plant refurbishment project reflect existing and "master planned" elements. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 1611 A9 Welcometo Immokalee home of Edgerrin James /011� ne to Immokalee home of Edgerrin Jame .0 0 \ \ \ \\ � ORS ji, 1, lz_W 0 2 'J G 161 1 % 999 %gggg d Z o H gigill A F_ 3 C CD �i ®GradyMinor etmtn aw.tm arrs O p n a?� w c O O its, t� O 0--1 O O CD 0 C < l O W M-1 0 C rn oV VJ CD a �N• O �� IyyJ /R \✓ �y O` O G n O G Colorado Ave Sidewalk Improvement Plans °" ' °` M1Ul�C. 12CR 0:h.LL.CWL JOB CYJCM1. 600% Plans ~K uW, or io 161 1 A9 ', IWO A A!! ;. R� i ii R�yg '�m3 Pa�Q§ .Y yab F�Pfi $�NU�� u n3Qg Cy€ $R�F�$F2 n Ego m5� NNA ,G'JR2Fo o cl 9 4Q X83' g� gig ^Mph �� a ml ! im8 og 1 F o ' Nq g§ 9 i Fm N 3 pia w O 4 C s lit , %fil , 11 R R 2 �1 A Jig fag A A% c -a �R� w A� ��"� c 161 1 Ag . 1 6 1 i "A g" 161 1 A9 16 11 �;taia Hakis R CCciV�►i ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE /RESCUE Cn�'tta MAR! 0 2010 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEB. 19 2010 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. B. January 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve January 2010 Minutes by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. ICFD Weather Bug Project. 1. Weatherbug equipment has been ordered. 2. Equipment expected to arrive mid - February. D. ICED Dock Project Update. 1. Q. Grady Minor is working on the permitting phase of the project. 2. First phase is expected to take six months. fi;'isc' Corres; III. NEW BUSINESS .ate (3 I A. Distribution of the 2009 ICFD Annual Report. ierr' h �. _, � �t IV 1611 Ale B. ICFD FYI I Budget Draft presented to the Advisory Board by Barbara Shea. 1. OMB is providing direction for a 10% reduction in property values. 2. 1CFD rollback rate calculation provides for a FY 1 1 millage rate of 2.0. 3. ICFD Budget Draft incorporates the rollback millage rate. 4. ICFD FYI I budget draft presented includes the following. a. Budgeted salary expenses to be reduced by 1.7% b. Budgeted operating expenses to remain equal to the FYI budget. c. Capital expenses to be zero ($25,000 in the FYI 0 budget). d. Projected carryforward on 10/01/10 to be $600,679. e. Total projected FYI I reserves to be $576,179. 5. FYI I Use of Funds Analysis was provided and discussed. 6. Motion to approve the FYI 1 Budget Draft as presented by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. b. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Motion to not reduce the operating budget by 5% by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. b. Motion carried unanimously. 8. A letter to be sent to Dan Summers and OMB. C. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held Mar. 4, 2010. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 7:20 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. Motion carried unanimously. Date: 0 RECEIVED MAR 1 1 2010 aoatd of County Commis51eners Fiala H las a February 4, 2010 Henning Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 8, 2010 LET ]T BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", P Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN Bill Poteet Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Mimi Wolok (Excused) Jeremy Sterk Thornas Sobczak Annisa Karim ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Solecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager Miff. Comet: Dab: 1 Item it J- 1611 All 14 February 8, 2010 1. Roll Call — Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOam Alex Solecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator reported Robert Dorla had resigned from the Committee via e -mail. Chairman Poteet recognized outgoing member Mimi Wolok's 6 years of service to the Committee. II. Committee Elections — Chair and Vice Chair .Mr. Delate moved to nominate Mr Poteet as Chairman of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Mr. Pires moved to close the nomination for Chairman. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 7 -0, Mr. Poteet was named Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Pires moved to nominate Mr. Delate as Bice Chairman of the Conservation C'olli'er Land Acquisition Committee. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Mr. Pires moved to close the nomination for Vice Chairman. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Mr. Delate was named Vice Chairman of the Committee. 111. Approval of agenda Mr. Delate moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. IV. Approval of January 11, 2010 Minutes Ms. Purim moveil to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2010 meeting subject to the following Changes: • Page 4, paragraph 3 -- "Gateway Shoppes, II, LLP" to "Gateway Shoppes, 11, LLC" • Page 4, paragraph 3, bullet point 6 from "There I WHRS classifies..." to "Tile 1WHRS classifies..." + Page 5, paragraph 3, motion - " from "Staff prepare and Initial..." to Staff prepare all Initial..." • Page 6, paragraph 2 -- from "Motion carried..." to "Gateway Shoppes II, LLCmotion carried..." Second by Mr. Delate. Carried uuanimously 7 -0. V. Committee Member Applications The Committee reviewed 4 applications for membership to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee (Clarence S. Tears, h., Robert A. Schultheis, Lauren Barber and Anthony M Ojanovac). 161 A11 February 8, 2010 Committee discussion occurred on whether Mr. Tears, who is an employee of the South Florida Water Management District may serve on the Committee due to his position of employment, or if he will have potential conflicts of interest on parcels that come before the Committee for acquisition. Jennifer White, .Assistant County Attorney stated, (after a brief review of applicable documents,) it does not appear a County, State or Federal employee is prohibited from serving on an Advisory Committee. However, she recommended the Committee consider an alternate should it be determined Mr. "Tears cannot serve on the Committee. S Baker Robert A. Schultheis stated he would like to serve on the Committee as he has a life long interest in acquisition of community properties. He has experience in this area from Boards lie was a member of in a municipality similar to Naples. Mr. Delate moved for the Committee to recommend (to the Board of County Commissioners) a priority ranking for appointment to the Committee offirst, M.s. Barber, second Mr. Tears and Mr. Schultheis as an alternate choice should Mr. Tears have a conflict. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Vt. Old Business: A. Cosentino property appraisal— Mr. Paul Cosentino Alex Sulecki noted Mr. Consentino had requested to address the Committee regarding his recent property appraisal. She provided a history of events regarding the property: • The application for acquisition was received in July 2007. • In December 2007 the Committee and the BCC placed the property on the "B — List." • The property was automatically re- ranked in December 2008 and was placed on the "A — List." • In March of 2009 landowaiers were notified the Program would not be moving foward until the Programs 2010 levy was received. • In J tine 2009, the BCC suspended Cycle 7. • In October 2009, approvals were granted for the Program to move fo%ard on acquisitions of the Cycle G A — List properties. • In November /December of 2009 the appraisals were completed. • An offer on Mr. Consentino's property was tendered on January 5, 2010_ S eaker Paul Consentino, landowner, noted he was originally grouped with the other properties on Rivers Road who applied to the Program for acquisition. His property was removed from the Group and placed on the B -List. The other parcels were purchased utilizing appraisals of 580,000 acre vs. his current appraisal of approximately $30,000 an acre, fie questions the appraised value of his property, (based on the offers to the adjacent landowners, "coinparables" utilized in his appraisal that were not in the vicinity of the property, the lack of consideration of the previous sales data on adjacent parcels.) He Ibi 1A 11 February 8, 2010 provided a handout which documented sales history of properties in the vicinity of his parcel. Roosevelt Leonard, Collier County Property Appraiser provided an overview of the motion in the December 2007, Conservation Collier minutes which verified Mr. Consentino's property was separated from (he other parcels and placed on the "B -Last" The appraisals performed on the adjacent properties were completed in 2008 utilizing 2007 "comparables." The market values for property in the region have declined significantly since that lime. Other appraisers have reviewed the appraisal and have agreed on the value indicated in Mr. Consentino's 2004 appraisal_ Mr. Pires stated Mr. Consentino contacted him via e-mail to employee his services with regards to his property and Mr. Pires told him he could not represent him in the matter. The Committee noted they are required to tender an offer based on the appraisal and do not control the appraisal process. Roosevelt Leonard Mr. Pires noted the offer accepted by the representatives of the Devisse Trust under item VILBA is approximately $27,800 per acre and is in the vicinity of Mr. Consentino's parcel. Alex Sulecki noted the offer has technically expired and requested the Committee officially grant an extension on the offer. Mr. Delate moved to grant a 30 day extension to the offer tendered to Mr. Consentino. Second by Mn Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. B. Real Property, Management Update Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates: • The Murphy's have requested the offer for their property be extended for 30 days, due to a health issue. • The offer on the Joyce property (in Horsepen Strand) has expired, with no contact from the landowner. • The offers cuired on f,cb 40'2010, 30 days after the offer was originally made on January 5 ' 20 10. Mr. Pires moved to grant a 30 day extension for the Murphy parcel. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 7 -0. • Cycle 6 — Kirby offer accepted; 1. Contract — Devisse Trust (Rivers Road) Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 4.84 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $137,000 (Devisse Tr.) "dated February 8, 2010 and attached Agreement for Sale and Purchase." 161 1 11 February 8, 2010 Mr. Delate moved to (recommend the Board of County Commissioners) approve the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the Devisse Tr. As presented in the Executive Sumtna v. Second by Mr. fires. Carried unanimously 7 -0. C. Budget Recommendations Alex S lecki provided the budget document addressing "Conservation Collier Land .Acquisition Fand (172) Ad Valorem Revenue Collections FY 2004 — FY 2009' and Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund (172) Projected Ad Valorem Revenue FY '010— FY 201-1" for review by the Committee. It was noted there was a discrepancy between the Ad Valorem Revenue figures (less debt service) for FY 2010 - 2013 listed on page 1, 2 and 3. Alex Solecki noted the figures have been continually developed and revised over time. She will contact the budget office fiir a clarification. D. Gordon River Greenway Alex Solecki provided the document "Gordon River Greenway Park" dated February 4, 1010. prepared by Kimley -Nom and Associates, Inc. The document provides a timeline for the permitting process for the Greenway. The Committee requested members be supplied with any re -zone applications, CDFS comments and site plans. E. Update—City Gate TDR Donation An e -mail from Roger Rice advising the Committee of no further interest turd thanking them for consideration was read into the record. VII. New Business A. Review of properties currently accepted within acquisition cycle 8 Alex Solecki provided the document " Conservation Collier Cvcle Eight' dated February 8, 2010 which provided an overview of-the status of Cycle Eight properties. B. New Property Applications Alex Solecki presented a Slideshow on the following new applications for proposed acquisitions. For the properties to be considered further, at least 5 members need to vote on a complete evaluation after the presentation. Worth ineton'Collier, LLC The following was highlighted: • The application consists of 3 connected parcels (501 acres /114 acres /47.4 acres) for a total of approximately 662 acres • They are located approximately 5 miles east of hi mokalee on County Road 846. • They are located in the Okaloacoochee Strand in the Area of Critical State Concern • The parcels are within Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) 3 and 5 with development rights removed to Agriculture H level. 1611AfF February 8, 2010 • The FLUCCS (Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System) code indicates it is primarily wetlands with pasture and uplands. • Soils are mapped as primarily wetland. • The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS) 'indicates the parcels are ranked 4.7,8 and 9 out of 10 and borders parcels ranked 10. Speaker Ronald Zul, Worthington — Collier, LLC noted there has been no wetland restoration completed on the property. The property is a portion of property purchased from Baron Collier Enterprises. The other portion was utilized for panther mitigation for - Development of Regional Impact undertaken by Worthington - Collier, LLC Ile estimates there are approximately 180 wetland mitigation credits available for use on the parcels. The parcels are subject to a cattle lease which may be terminated with a 30 day notice. Mr. Pires moved for the Program to move the properties forward,for consideration of acquisition by the Program. Second by Mr. Curl. Curried unanimously 7 -0. Kern The following was highlighted: • The property is 2.5 miles located east ofNaples and north of US 41 off of 6 L's F'arnm Road. • The landowner is willing to sell the parcel less than fair market value. • The FLUCCS code indicates it is wetland and forested. • The soils are mapped as wetland. • The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS) indicates the parcels are ranked 5 and 6 out of 10. Mr. Delate moved not to pursue acquisition of the parcel. .Second kv NIP. Sterk. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Mr. Delate noted the parcel is an isolated parcel and would require the Program to undertake a multi parcel acquisition process in order to manage it properly. C. Coordinator Communications. .Alex Solecki provided the following updates: • Mr. Pires will be recognized for his 5 years service award at the March 9, 2009 BCC meeting. Staff will notice the meeting so Committee members may attend. • The Youth Hunt Agreement for Feral Hog control on Pepper Ranch will be presented to the BCC on February 9, 2010. • There was a public meeting for the proposed Land Management Plan for Pepper Ranch on January 25, 2010 in Immokalee. ]'here will be a meeting on February 11, 2010 at the Vineyards. Staffwitl notice the meeting so Committee members may attend. • Eagle Scout Rolf Anthony has completed 10 picnic tables for the Program. Boy Scout Toni Z.elcnik is constructing hat boxes. 16( 1 `;,q February 8.2010' Pepper Ranch is now open to the public. Staff will contact other organizations of interest to inform them of the hours of operation. There was a Boy Scout Jamboree held at Pepper Ranch on January 30 31 with approximately 120 Boy Scouts between the ages of I I and 17 in attendance. Chairman Poteet presented Alex Sulecki with a certification and plaque from the Alligator District Boy Scouts in recognition of the County allowing them to utilize Pepper Ranch for their Jamboree. VIII. Subcommittee Meeting Reports A. Outreach —Tony Pires, Chair There was a meeting on January 29, 2010 where the "landowner offer letter" was reviewed. Naming a trail or bench after former member Kevin Kaeer was discussed. The next meeting is February 26, 2010 at gam. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Vice Chair Mr. Sterk reported there was a meeting on January 11, 2010 where a draft of the proposed Pepper Ranch Land Management Plan was distributed and there was continued discussion on prioritizing of Preserves. 'I'he ttext meeting is on February 22, 2010 at 3pm. C. Ord. Policy and Procedures — Mimi Wolok, Chair Ms. Karim was named Chairman of the Subcommittee. At a previous meeting Land Development Code Amendments were discussed, the Geo- Caching form was reviewed and fund raising and concession sales at Conservation Collier events were discussed. The next meeting is February 26, 2010 at 10 am. IX. Chair Committee Member Comments None X. Public General Comments None X1. Staff Comments Alex Solecki recognized Ms. Wolok's set-vice to the Conservation Collier Program. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:43 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 1611 A I I February 8, 2010 These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 14w el,` '?, .40/4 as presented— or as amended - v 16 1Al2 �I�C� COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD r�ECEJVED Fiala t MAR 19 2010 Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Halas Henning s;;,;o,nv commissioners Headquarters Library Coyle Colette AGENDA Call to order Approval of Minutes Literacy Program Report Report of Officers Communications a - Written b - Personal Unfinished Business 1. Employee of the Month 2. Senior Resource Center 3. Rose Hall 4. South Regional 5. Public Computers 6. RFI for Automation Services 7. Vanderbilt Beach Branch Extended Hours 8. Library Marketing Efforts 9. Budget New Business General Considerations Misc. Cones: Date: 0 3 -11 tem'I I �� 11—i.es rp. 161 1Al2 � ` -5,C' COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARIPiala REGENE® Halas MAR j 9 20 Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Hennini Coyle „t,rnn,mss;one` Headquarters Library Coletta AGENDA Call to order Approval of Minutes Literacy Program Report Report of Officers Communications a - Written b - Personal Unfinished Business 1. Rose Hall 2. Public Computers 3. RFI for Automation Services 4. Library Marketing Efforts 5. Budget New Business General Considerations Director's Report Report of the Friends Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Director's Report Report of the Friends Adjournment IMC I61 1 1112 1 Naples, Florida, January 20, 2010 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a. m. in the Main Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger - Hennink Rochelle Lieb ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Carla Grieve, Member, FOL Board of Directors Roberta Reiss, Literacy Program Coordinator Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of December 9, 2009. There being none, Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. '�Y1y:IeG11 ]:i�Z�]:�_lf•�ii�ZiT;i Mrs. Reiss reported that the 'USA Learns' program and the Literacy program, are both being promoted on TV. Mrs. Reiss said she has been getting cards and letters from grateful students. She's been getting calls from Ave Maria students wanting more training to tutor Immokalee residents. Mrs. Reiss is planning to get the program 'People in Stories' started again in the spring at the South Regional Library. REPORT OF OFFICERS— None COMMUNICATIONS — None UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously, to select Candice Siverling, Library Assistant at the HQ Library, as EOM for January 2010. Mrs. Matthes stated that she had recently met with the Senior Resource Center's Building Planning Committee. They discussed the plans which will blend well with the rest of the community, according to Mrs. Matthes. She also stated that this group is looking for major donors and some fundraising is being planned. Construction should start in about a year. In reference to the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes reported that the project is just about done. The ribbon cutting ceremony has been scheduled for February 26th, at 10:00 a.m. In reference to the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes stated that there are over 35,000 items now at this location. 161 1 A124 The Board members discussed the nomination of Carla Grieve to fill in the vacancy left by Gina Downs. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously, to recommend Carla Grieve to the Board of County Commissioners for selection. Mrs. Matthes discussed the various scenarios to consider in regards to staff and operating hours, if there are more budget cuts to come in the next fiscal year. NEW BUSINESS — None GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS— None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes reported the following: a). The Fines and Fees changes had been approved by the BCC. b). The Library is still having problems with the computer management system. Therefore, charges for use of computers have not been implemented yet. c). Denise McMahon had been named the County's Supervisor of the Year for 2009. d). State Aid is expected to be about $200,000 for this year. e). Most of the staff currently in the 'Job Bank' have been converted into regular part -time and full -time jobs, including a Reference Librarian. f). 3 staff members are currently on medical leave (FMLA). REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Grieve reported that on January 15, 2010, the Friends held a special event for Friends' members and Library Staff with a special guest speaker, Mr. George Guidell, a famous narrator of books on tape, followed by wine and cheese. There are two more fundraising events planned for February and March for VB staff support. She also stated that the marketing campaign has produced good results, so far. Lastly, Mrs. Grieve reported that she and Mrs. Linda Fasulo had recently attended a Florida Library Association meeting held in Ft. Myers. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:40 a.m. Approved by: Q� ) ��n_ Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board 1611AI2 ' LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD Meetings are held on the 3 d Wednesday of each month in the Main Library at 10:00 a.m. Members serve an original 4 -year term and are eligible for re- election. The annual meeting is held in May. MEMBER Term Expiration DISTRICT Carla M. Grieve 12/2012 2 5601 Turtle Bay Drive, #401 Naples, FL 34108 566 -7211 cmgf I@ncples.net Doris J. Lewis - Chair 12/2012 4 645 Yucca Road Naples, FL 34102 253 -9241 dorisofnaples @aol.com Constance (Connie) L. Bettinger- Hennink 3 4397 21" Avenue, SW Naples, FL 34116 12/2010 784 -2863 chennink @marykay.com Loretta Murray, Vice -Chair 1212010 1 9087 Michael Circle, #1 Naples, FL 34113 417 -9915 bobsai ls@embarkmaii.com 1611A121" Rochelle Z. Lieb (Shelley) 12/2012 5 616 Nassau Street Immokalee, FL 34142 657 -3841 nfn22779 @naples.net 1611 A �2 ,/ Naples, Florida, February 24, 2010 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a. m. in the Main Library with the following members present: VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger - Hennink Carla Grieve Rochelle Lieb ABSENT: Doris Lewis ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Roberta Reiss, Literacy Program Coordinator Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant The Board welcomed the newest member, Carla Grieve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of January 20, 2010. Mrs. Grieve pointed out a minor correction under 'Friends Report', third paragraph, stating that she had attended two more fundraising meetings in February and March for support of VB staff. There being no other corrections, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss reported having attended a workshop set up by the Department of Education to all Literacy Programs in the state to have them offer remedial English classes to those students transitioning from high school to college for a better chance to succeed. REPORT OF OFFICERS - None 1611Al2 It COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Grieve stated that at a meeting of the Pelican Bay Homeowners Association, she was approached by one of the members who was unhappy with the parking set up and the access to bathrooms at the HQ Library. She also commented that this group's support of staff at the Vanderbilt Beach will end in March 2010. Also, at a meeting of the North Naples Community Alliance, someone commented that staff does not encourage the use of volunteers. They also felt that the libraries that are closed other days of the week, besides Saturdays, should be open to kids on Saturdays. Mrs. Matthes explained that we do encourage volunteers and that the reason why some library branches are closed on weekends now is due to staff cuts. Mrs. Lieb commented that the wireless service at the Immokalee Branch is not very efficient. Mrs. Matthes responded that the Library is trying to solve that problem, but that most of the problems have to do with the telephone service in that area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Grieve and carried unanimously, to select the two nominated Library drivers, Tom Siebold for February 2010, and Gary Gonwa for March 2010. In reference to the Senior Resource Center, Mrs. Matthes reported that this group is looking for a major donor. She also stated that the 211 service has been delegated to the Dade County system since they have a more sophisticated one. Mrs. Grieve expressed her interest in helping this group. In reference to the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes stated that the grand- opening had been scheduled for February 26, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. In reference to the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes stated that there are major warranty issues with the main meeting room dividers, which the Library staff is trying to resolve. 1611 Q 1 ?�ft In reference to the public computers, Mrs. Matthes said that the connection has improved and that no charges for their usage have been implemented yet. Mrs. Matthes reported that RFI's for Automation Services have been sent out to about five different companies. Some responses have already been received. In celebration of 'Read an E -Book Week', between March 8`h and the 13`h, the Library will allow patrons to download a -books or audio books directly to a portable device of their choice. In reference to the upcoming fiscal year's budget, Mrs. Matthes stated that it will be 5% lower, including the Capital expenses. The County Commissioners also approved another early retirement program. NEW BUSINESS — None GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink announced that she will be doing the 'Cat in the Hat' program at the Golden Gate Library on March 4, 2010. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes stated that the Library had received a subpoena for records of a patron who had checked out books on boating. She also announced that the next book sale will take place at the South Regional Library starting on March 12, 2010. The Library staff is working on replacement of signs at the Immokalee Branch and possibly at the East Naples Branch, using State donated funds. State Aid will be reduced by an estimated $40,000 next year, unless Legislature is lobbied for more money. Mrs. Matthes encouraged Board members to write letters to the State in support of library funding. Lastly, Mrs. Matthes mentioned that no more complaints about the mail -a -book program had been received lately. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Grieve reported that the Marco Island Chapter of the Friends is having a fundraiser soon. Also, the public relations campaign is doing well. 161 ,2 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:15 a. m. APPROVED BY: 'mil I, Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board Fiala of b I 1 A 13 ✓ RECEIVED Halas MAR 0 2 2010 Henning January 20, 2010 Coyle Board of county Gommissioners Coletta �. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, January 20, 2010 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 David Saletko William Shafer (Excused) 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 Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent Maura Kraus, Principal Enviromnental Specialist Misc. Corres: Do* ItSM a: A131 1611 January 20, 2010 y Call to Order quorum was established. Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:04pm and a q ll. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. Ill. Approval of Agenda Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change: val of Item V1I— Marketing Highlights to be heard after Item IV. - App' December 16, 2009 minutes. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 6 -0. IV. Approval of December 16, 2009 minutes Mr. Saletko moved to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2009 meeting subject to the following changes: Page 3, item V Lb), - strike bullet point 42 "Maintenance crews are necessary o "refurbish" the areas between each use." • Page 3 item VLb, add bullet point ie[d t af f will continue to research a reward systpaufor those leasing playing f Second by M$. Brougham. Carrier! unanimously 6 -0. VII. Marketing Highlights — Peg Ruby www collierparks.com An overview of Inc Collier County Parks and Recreation web site was provided. The site includes a w or Inadable REAL (Recreation Education Leisure) Guide, links to the individual Parks web pages and links to other information useful to the public (Beach Park Regulations, meeting minutes and agendas, etc.). Under Board discussion it was noted Sta, should investigate the possibility of posting the ff meeting packet in advance of the scheduled meeting on the internet. This would allow interested individuals in the public to review the packet, possibly increasing public participation. V. New Business a) Employee of the Month for September None b) Recommendation and Approval to Change $g to Park at Conner Park — Murdo Smith The Board reviewed the Executive Summary "Recommendation is esigne, to approve a beach Chairman to authorize the County Manager, r parking fee of $8.00 at C rove the amendments recognizing onner Park and app revenue." 2 161 A13 , January 20, 2010 The proposed fee is based on the 75 additional parking spaces constructed at the Park and several other Beach Parking Facilities currently charge an $8.00 fee for parking (Vanderbilt Beach, Barefoot Beach, Tigertail Beach, etc.). Mr. Olesky moved to approve the request (authorize the Chairman to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to approve a beach parking fee of $8.00 at Conner Park and approve the amendments recognizing revenue "). Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 6 -0. VI. Old Business a) Goodland Boat Park Plaque/Update — Clint Perryman The Board reviewed a proposed rendering for the Cast Bronze Plaque (designed by William Valdes, job 434173) to be installed at the Park recognizing those involved with the project. An update on the project was provided via a Slideshow highlighting: The site is 5.22 acres in size and the project is 70 percent complete and slated for completion by March 31, 2010. There will be 75 parking spaces for boat trailers and vehicles. There will bel6 parking spaces for other vehicles. The project includes a 2 lane, 37 foot wide boat ramp, boat dock, fishing pier and 12 wet slips, picnic area, Dock Master building and related improvements. • The site will be heavily landscaped with some parking areas surfaced with pavers as opposed to asphalt. The proposed boat docks are permanent as opposed to "Floating." The Board noted ladders, on the docks should be considered, as during low tides, it can be difficult to access a boat. Clint Perryman noted the County is aware of the situation, attempting to address the issue, but expressed concern ladders may create a liability issue for the County. VI H. Recreation Highlights— Sea Turtle Stranding— Maura Kraus A Slideshow Presentation was provided entitled "2009 Beach Turtle Summary" which outlined the results of the 2009 Sea Turtle Nesting Season. Artificial lighting continues to have a negative impact on nesting and related hatches. A "Disorientation Prevention Grant" provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission aided in retrofitting exterior lighting in the City of Naples. The County continues to enforce lighting violations IX. Capital Project Highlight — NCRP Boardwalk - Tony Ruberto The Board viewed a Slideshow on the construction of the Boardwalk in the Preserve at the North Collier Regional Park. The following was highlighted: • 2006 Fstimates obtained by Staff for construction of the project were in the range of $360,000 while the low bid received for the project in April 2009 was $159,193. Construction began on November 16, 2009, with construction duration of 90 days. The project is 95% complete, with the length of the walk being 850 feet long and 6 feet wide (generally). 161 1 A 13 January 20, 2010 X. Adopt a Park — John Ribes Continued XI. Director Highlights — Barry Williams The following highlights were provided: • Staff is in the process of preparing the new budget. The Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to prepare a budget with a 10 percent overall reduction in expenses (from FY 2010.) Staff will propose a 5% reduction in Operating Costs and a 5% reduction in Capital project expense. The reductions were anticipated, and the Department has not filled vacancies created when employees leave their positions. • The Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed ATV Park to be located at the Miami Dade Jet Port. • The cold weather snap did create some stress on the turf of Park Facility playing fields. Staff is attempting to balance the use of playing fields to ensure adequate field conditions are maintained. • An estimate of $70,000 was provided by Consultants to prepare a Management Plan for the Parks and Recreation Department. Staff is evaluating the issue and will provide an update at the next meeting. This may include returning the Board of County Commissioners for direction on the requirement of preparing the Plan. XII. Informational Items Submitted Barry Williams provided clarification on the data shown in the "Parks Operational Data' chart for Fun N Sun Lagoon. Attendance has decreased from 282,489 in 2007, to 150,967 in 2008 to 146,858 in 2009. He noted the 2007 data incorporated attendance from the last quarter of FY 2006; the hours and days of operation have been reduced to conform to weather, consumer demand to assist the Department in meeting operating expenses; there has been a downturn in the economy in 2008- 2009. XIII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments The Board recommended the following changes for the proposed Plaque at Goodland Boat Park: Change member name of "Dave Saletko" to "David Saletko" Identify and list the Chairman and Vice Chairman at the top of the list for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Speaker Margaret Wynn, Friends of Barefoot Beach commended Staff on a well organized and successful release of Sea Turtles at Vanderbilt Beach on January 19, 2010. Mr. Brougham requested Staff to review the priority list for the construction of proposed Community Centers at Parks that do not have said facilities. He recommended consideration be given to construction of a Community Center at Eagle Lakes Community Park if Manatee Park and its related facilities will not be constructed for a long period of time. rd 161 1A13 January 20, 2010 Barry Williams noted Staff would review the recommendation. Ms. Geroy requested clarification on the status of the bottle recycle bins for Bayview Park. Murdo Smith noted Staff is in the process of preparing an order for the bins. The Board requested Staff to provide an update on the status of the Bayview Park parking plans at a future meeting. Meeting Attendance Mr. Schafer was excused There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:40 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Chairmanuohn P. Ribes These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended e . Fiala �F 161 1 A 14 9 RECEIVED Halas PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MAR 0 5 2010 Henning Coyle unicipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit Huard of Co1mry Commissioners Coletta NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 AT 1.:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Wilson Miller Community Improvements Plan Update 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. January 26, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop b. February 1, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Town Hall c. February 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session d. February 9, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop e. February 12, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrators Report a. Independent Peer Review Update b. Clam Bay Maintenance Permit Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairwoman's Report a. Administrator's Contract Renewal b. Announcements 8. Capital Projects a. South Berm Reconstruction 9. Community Issues 10. Committee Reports and /or Requests 11. Old Business 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 14. Audience Comments 15. Adjournment Misc. Torres: Date:_ SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 15 MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 2/26/201011210) AM Resnickk From: Resnk:W $Buff WMne ", March 03, 201010:53 AM To.. Nnl Wo W; Jim Powers; Mary Anne Womble (Teetlupl @ad ^om) Cc. Resni ,M uglu!Wm 5ubje : 3/3 Updateft.M pin re: JoIM WpikshoPW Discuss Pope M Work Up Flag: Follow up atus: Flagg Hello Neil, Jim, Mary Anne, Spoke with Gary McAlpin this morning about scheduling a joint workshop with Coastal Advisory Committee to vet the scope... Gary said the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay Subcommittee would meet with the Services Division Board, not the full Committee. The Commissioners should appoint John Amen to the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay Subcommittee on March 9. Next, the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay Subcommittee will meet on March 18 at 1 PM at North Collier Regional Park. Gary will discuss with subcommittee on March 18, the draft scope and the possibility for a joint workshop with the Services Division. He plans to provide draft scope to Neil sometime after March 18 and finally, estimates scheduling a joint workshop for early April... He will get back to us after March 18. Lisa Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 239.597.1749 Tel, 239.597.4502 Fax I bttp://pelicanbayservicesdivision.net From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:53 PM To: ResnKkL, McCaughb^ry Subject: FW: Peer Review Scope of work ',e w?ll not have aril aft ;rope o sh «re with or Board tosrrlc,rrow but as Doted ii shou Id be received in advance of the sr.lied uIell joint rneetina with the CcastaI Advisory Coilncil. Please fof �,,ard to Fels Womble for her inf I- ation. fled From: McAlpinGary [ mailto :GaryMcA]pin @colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:38 AM To: Neil Dorrill Subject: Peer Review Scope of work Neil, not have The scope of work write up for peer review available for your Iboard to review. 1 will review it with the Clam Bay subcommittee at their meeting later this month. When I do that, l will send it to you for reviiew. Gary 1 of 2 3/3/2010 11:49 AM by I-R 1611 A14 ---'+� TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 • (239) 643 -0166 • Fax (239) 643 -6632 MEMORANDUM To: Pelican Bay Services Division From: Tim Hall Date: March 3, 2010 Subject: Mangrove Flushing Channel Maintenance Permitting At the request of the Board, 1 scheduled a meeting with DEP to discuss the permitting requirements, or lack thereof, for the hand -dug flushing channels throughout the system. Present at the meeting, which occurred on February 10, were Jon Iglehart, the Director of District Management, Lucy Blair, the ERP Environmental Administrator, and Liz Gillen, the ERP Environmental Manager. We briefly discussed the permit history associated with the project and the importance of the flushing channels to the recovery and overall health of the mangroves in this system. I went over the past maintenance activity details and explained that the proposal PBSD was putting forth was to continue with the activities that had been done under the past permit. The DEP representatives clarified their position that cleaning out the channels would be an exempt activity only if the spoil material and debris removed from the channels was hauled out of the system and deposited in an upland area. The methodology employed in the past of digging out the material and broadcasting it out to the sides of the channels would not be exempt and would require a permit. They agreed with my assessment that an individual permit might be the best option to pursue now that the original permit authorizing the activities had expired. An individual permit would allow for the conversion into an operational phase which means that the maintenance could be continued from then on without any future permits. Since the channels were done as a restoration activity, and not as mitigation or compliance for past impacts, the permit would allow for the maintenance to occur, but not require it. In other words, the PBSD would not be obligated in perpetuity to continue the maintenance but would be able to if they so desired. We discussed generalities of the application requirements, such as cross - sections, protocols for determining when, and how much maintenance should occur, protocols for broadcasting or spreading the spoil to avoid creating hills or hummocks where exotic vegetation could get started, good photographic evidence of past activities, good reasoning for the channels to continue to be maintained, and clear and concise permit exhibits for them to review. The fine details of the permitting process will be more described once an application is made and DEP has a chance to fully review the proposal and all of the regulatory and proprietary rules that govern the permitting. A lot of the information that they might want to see are items that have been pretty extensively studied over the past ten years such as, the health and distribution of mangroves, and submerged resources or protected species impacts, hydrology and flushing patterns, and similar types of things. It is expected that we will be able to adequately respond to any questions they might ask without incurring extraordinary additional expenses. That being said, we never know what DEP may 1611 A14' request so while I have done the best I can with estimating expenses for the permitting, everyone needs to be aware that the potential exists for those cost to go higher if DEP or the Corps request information that requires additional studies or modeling. Based on this meeting with DEP, I would anticipate that permitting costs with the Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as an Individual Environmental Resource Permit would cost about $24,710 to $26,810.00. This is broken down as follows; 1. Prepare Individual ERP Application, including required drawings and plans ....................$3,500.00 2. Application submittal costs: Application copies (estimated $100.00), FDEP Application Fee (anticipated $5,610- $7, 710. 00) ........................ ............................... ........................$5,710 - $7,810.00 3. Processing application through Requests for Additional Information ........ (not to exceed") $8,000.00 ** If DEP requests additional studies or research, more funds could be required. 4. Provide post - permit compliance requirements of special conditions ........... (not to exceed) $2,000.00 (does not include any survey costs) 5. Miscellaneous reimbursable expenses billed at cost .......................... ......................estimated $500.00 6. Prepare a monitoring protocol manual for current and future monitoring event consistency in the ClamBay system ............................................................... ............................... ......................$5,000.00 Additional costs should be better known after DEP has a chance to review and respond to the application. If they require topographic information, survey information, or any modeling, this would be expressed in their fast RAI to the application. Time frames associated with applying and completing the permits is problematic with respect to conducting any maintenance this year. I believe that we can get an application submitted to DEP by March 26 (or April 8 if the Board wants to review and approve it first). DEP then has 30 days to review the application and issue a request for additional information (RAI). Depending on the questions asked in the RAI, we would probably need 30 to 90 days to put together a response and submit it bank to DEP. DEP then has another 30 days to review that submittal and issue another RAI or deem the file complete. If the file is complete, DEP has an additional 60 days to actually issue the permit. The Corps permitting would be processed concurrently with DEP but the proposed activities should qualify for a Nationwide Corps permit and their issuance should be prior to or concurrent with the DEP permit. Still, under the best case scenario that I can imagine we would not be able to get the DEP permit before September which puts us into the rainy season and unable to cleanly conduct the maintenance activities. We will be inspecting the channels over the next month and will be better able to determine if this year long delay in maintenance is likely to be a major problem or not. If there are any areas identified as critical, we will endeavor to get DEP and the Corps to allow us to maintain the critical areas on an emergency basis. I'll know more with respect to that once we have completed the inspections. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Timothy Hall 161 1 A 14 " Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet through February 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,150,542.07 Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets $ 2,150,542.07 Total Assets $ 2,150,542.07 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 3,935.71 Accrued Wages Payable _ Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 39,806. 58 Total Liabilities $ 43,742.29 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 1,715,639.09 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 391,160 69 Total Fund Balance 2,106,799.78 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ ,2,150,542.07 161 1 A14 " Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget through February 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Interdepartmental Payment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Training and Education Total Water Management Administration Operating Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Interdepartmental Payment Plan Review Service Utility Division Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Electricity Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance- Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies Budget Actual Variance (10,000.00) 47.60 (47.60) $ 742,500.00 $ 658,376.11 $ (84,123.89) 1,922,500.00 1,704,768.55 (217,731.45) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) 40,500.00 3,087 23 (37,412.77) 2,697,000.00 2,366,231.89 (340,768.11) $ 44,500.00 $ 19,312.95 $ 25,187.05 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 2,050.00 2,050.00 117,600.00 58,800.00 58,800.00 16,600.00 - 16,600.00 21,300.00 5,875.00 15,425.00 4,100.00 958.23 3,141.77 3,000.00 41.20 2,958.80 - 1,081.40 (1,081.40) 13,400.00 6,745.15 6,654.85 1,300.00 650.00 650.00 2,300.00 250.00 2,050.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,261.57 2,067.07 2,194.50 11100.00 139.73 960.27 255,861.57 97,970.73 157,890.84 148,609.00 69,252.08 79,347.92 12,000.00 - 12,000.00 22,500.00 - 22,500.00 21,100.00 1,974.00 19,126.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 42,400.00 17,446.80 24,953.20 500.00 144.16 355.84 - 272.00 (272.00) 8,300.00 3,829.45 4,470.55 - 47.60 (47.60) 2,600.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 3,600.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 4,500.00 2,298.12 2,201.88 2,000.00 3,463.25 (1,463.25) 27,600.00 6,240.00 21,360.00 11900.00 2,073.83 (173.83) 500.00 - 500.00 98,400.00 37,426.86 60,973.14 1,500.00 11091.00 409.00 2,500.00 2,186.26 313.74 161 1 A1414 Total Water Management Field Operations Operating 403,000.00 150,845.41 252,154.59 Right of Way Beautification Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Total Right of Way Beautification Operating Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense White Goods Flood Control Pest Control Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Travel Professional Development Telephone Trash and Garbage Water and Sewer Electricity Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses and Permits Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Landscape Maintenance Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Water Management Administration Other Machinery and Equipment Total Water Management Administration Capital Water Management Field Operations General Improvements 45,600.00 19,733.84 25,866.16 16,900.00 - 16,900.00 4,200.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 28,000.00 6,387.00 21,613.00 3,900.00 958.23 2,941.77 3,000.00 12.40 2,987.60 13,800.00 6,938.74 6,861.26 500.00 250.00 250.00 2,600.00 - 2,600.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,774.26 2,074.65 2,699.61 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 128,774.26 38,454.86 90,319.40 806,700.00 349,340.28 457,359.72 3,300.00 - 3,300.00 130,400.00 72,763.94 57,636.06 61500.00 - 6,500.00 29,500.00 16,973.52 12,526.48 211,800.00 72,903.72 138,896.28 259.00 (259.00). 3,800.00 1,039.50 2,760.50 24,900.00 7,190.00 17,710.00 3,400.00 1,267.52 2,132.48 8.500.00 2,525.59 5,974.41 800.00 216.00 584.00 12,200.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 9,300.00 4,650.00 4,650.00 29,400.00 12,569.40 16,830.60 47,100.00 13,09157 34,006.43 800.00 11 339.78 460.22 25.000.00 31,095.00 (6,095.00) 12,000.00 2,393.63 9,606.37 3,000.00 1,341.71 1,658.29 58,500.00 34,011.66 24,488.34 60,200.00 32,258.45 27,941.55 30,000.00 5,360.98 24,639.02 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 3,000.00 1,861.37 1,138.63 11,500.00 9,823.54 1,676.46 1,536,100.00 679,908.16 856,191.84 2,323,735.83 967,179.16 1,356,556.67 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4 968 00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital Right of Way Beautification Other Machinery and Equipment Total Right of Way Beautification Capital Right of Way Beautification - Field Building Improvements Autos and Trucks Other Machinery and Equipmeny Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital Total Capital Expenditures Total Expenditures Operating Profit/(Loss) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net Net Profit/(Loss) 1611 A14 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 13,600.00 7,221.30 6,378.70 26,000.00 25,462.00 538.00 24,000.00 16,080.00 7,920.00 63,600.00 48,763.30 14,83630 78,800.00 56,995.30 21,804.70 2,402,535.83 1,024,174.46 1,378,361.37 294,464.17 1,342,057.43 1,047,593.26 (82,500.00) (47,262.84) 35,237.16 (75,200.00) (39,949.91) 35,250.09 (140,000.00) - 14000000 (297,700.00) (87,212.75) 230,487.25 (3,235.83) 1,254,844.68 1,258,080.51 161 1 A14 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet through February 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 302,641.16 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets $ 302,641.16 Total Assets $ 302,641.16 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 7,161.61 Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities $ 7,161.61 Fund Balance Fund Balance- unreserved 314,193.43 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) (18,713.88) Total Fund Balance 295,479.55 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 302,641.16 Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies I611g14 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget through February 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Budget Actual Variance (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 255,494.09 $ (30,205.91) 4,600.00 422.89 (4,177.11) 790A00.00 255,916.98 (34,383.02) $ 33,900.00 $ 13,985.87 $ 19,914.13 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 2,050.00 2,050.00 6,700.00 3,350.00 3,350.00 20,800.00 5,875.00 14,925.00 4,100.00 699.24 3,400.76 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 13,400.00 6,522.20 6,877.80 400.00 200.00 200.00 2,261.57 1,761.57 500.00 1,000.00 - 1000 00 Total Street Lighting Administration Operating 108,46157 34,44328 74,017.69 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance -Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast 54,000.00 23,017.14 30,982.86 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,300.00 72.08 2,227.92 44,200.00 14,936.29 29,263.71 800.00 400.00 400.00 1,100.00 550.00 550.00 1,300.00 1,557.55 (257.55) 900.00 216.38 683.62 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 12,400.00 3,593.25 8,806.75 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Opera! 139,500.00 44,342.69 95,157.31 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Other Machinery and Equipment 247,961.57 1611 78,786.57 A14 169,175.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Total Street Lighting Administration Capital 1,000.00 Street Lighting Field Operations General Improvements Total Street Lighting Field Operations Capital Total Capital Expenditures Total All Expenditures Operating Profit/(Loss) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expen 1,000.00 13,200.00 6,997.20 6,202.80 13,200.00 6,997.20 6,202.80 14,200.00 6,997.20 7,202.80 262,161.57 85,783.77 176,377.80 27,&38A3 170,133.21 142, 294.78 (8,800.00) (5,136.16) 3 3,663.84 (5,800.00) (1,139.90) 4 4,660.10 (15,000.00) 1 15,000.00 Net Profit/(Loss) (1,761.57) , 163,857.15 165,618.72 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 16! 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet through February 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 463,917.66 603.76 464,521.42 $ 464,521.42 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 7,795.00 7,795.00 392,850.20 63,876.22 456,726.42 $ 464,521.42 A14 1611 IA14 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget through February 2009 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Fund 111 Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Flood Control Other Contractural Services Post /Freight Other Equipment Repairs Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Gam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Totai Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures Total Revenue /(Expenditures) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expendku Variance $ 350,900.00 $ (350,900.00) 102,400.00 92,224.42 (10,175.58) 102,400.00 (102,400.00) 350,000.90 1,046.33 1,046.33 350,000.00 555,700.00 93,270.75 (462,429.25) R 83,100.00 $ 83,500.00 500.00 2,400.00 500.00 3,300.00 $ 6,240.00 79,800.00 77,260.00 500.00 2,400.00 500.00 170,000.00 9,540.00 160,460.00 25,000.00 16,475.00 8,525.00 350,000.90 - 350,000.00 375,000.00 16,475.00 358,525.00 545,000.00 26,015.00 518,985.00 10,700.00 67,255.75 981,414.25 (3,200.00) (1,844.49) 1,355.51 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5•400.00) 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,379.53) 7,320.47 Net Profit/(Loss) 63,876.22 986,734.72 "'IA141" Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet through February 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,071,858.00 Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 11,844.35 (452.36) 1,030,261,41 1,030,204.60 2,071,858.00 $ 2,071,858.00 11,391.99 2,060,466.01 $ 2,071,858.00 1611 IA14' 7" 7 tit tvork 'Ai 41 evt'. el-lis Ile tE and I*Xftim* availabRipp, ths' e'or'&'vA" 2) nwnthe be rwwo" tm *mw UnV4 emck, is 1, c� C -,I P, I i-' ME- F(A terms and #09-3374 in,6j. ;,Coposol- li�4rie COlUW+IU%t-S, PX-t A thi. aiaeament. 0! 'l' P•MC9 anti Orry �M11til?'Jilf ord the .9er the (D)Mtv PUrchosing Poi-icly' and A,jj-njjji3tra1ive- Are Awh, in elfw at the time ,Jjch r )MR&MI Ul-v The C:,171" ill Q ✓ I'- the .fig,. -!C-nenk �:he;FLln 0-♦ iyl , rile (L .-Al, wrire oi A-2 Cr W six thousand four hundred doflars) ill increase to .100.00) for SubseQuent vearl of thq. contract 1 A 14 TRAVEL AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Travel expenses shall be reimbursed as per Section 112.061 Fla. Stats. Reimbursements shall be at the following rates: 'Mileage $0.445 per mile Breakfast $6.00 Lunch $11.00 Dinner $19.00 Airfare Actual ticket cost limited to tourist or coach class fare Rental car Actual rental cost limited to compact or standard -size vehicles Lodging Actual cost of lodging at single occupancy rate with a cap of no more than $150.00 per night Parking Actual cost of parking ! Taxi or Airport Actual cost of either taxi or Limousine airport limousine j Reimbursable items other than travel expenses shall be limited to the following: telephone long - distance charges, fax charges, photocopying charges and postage. Reimbursable items will be paid only after Consultant has provided all receipts. Consultant shall be responsible for all other costs and expenses associated with activities and solicitations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. 4. SALES TAX. Consultant shall pay all sales, consumer, use and other similar taxes associated with the Work or portions thereof, which are applicable during the performance of the Work. 5. NOTICES. All notices from the County to the Consultant shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the Consultant at the following Address: Dorrill Management Group, Inc. 5672 Strand Ct. Suite 1 Naples, Florida 34110 Telephone: 239- 592 -9115 Attn. William N. Dorrill Fax: 239.594 -4122 Pavc 2 of 9 1611 I, All Notices from the Consultant to the County all be deemed duly served if n� ed tS' , faxed to the County to: Collier County Government Center Purchasing Department - Purchasing Building 3301 Tarniami Trail, East Naples, Florida 34112 Attention: Steve Carnell, Purchasing /GS Director Telephone: 239- 252 -8371 Facsimile: 239 -252 -6584 The Consultant and the County may change the above mailing address at any time upon giving the other party written notification. All notices under this Agreement must be in writing. 6. NO PARTNERSHIP. Nothing herein contained shall create or be construed as creating a partnership between the County and the Consultant or to constitute the Consultant as an agent of the County. 7. PERMITS: LICENSES: TAXES. In compliance with Section 218.80, F.S., all permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be obtained by the Consultant. Payment for all such permits issued by the County shall be processed internally by the County. All non - County permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be procured and paid for by the Consultant. The Consultant shall also be solely responsible for payment of any and all taxes levied on the Consultant. In addition, the Consultant shall comply with all rules, regulations and laws of Collier County, the State of Florida, or the U. S. Government now in force or hereafter adopted. The Consultant agrees to comply with all laws governing the responsibility of an employer with respect to persons employed by the Consultant. 8. NO IMPROPER USE The Consultant will not use, nor suffer or permit any persan to use in any manner whatsoever, County facilities for any improper, immoral or offensive _ purpose, or for any purpose in violation of any.. - federal, state, county or municipal ordinance, rule, order or regulation, or of any governmental rule or regulation now in effect or hereafter enacted or adopted, In the event of such violation by the Consultant or if the County or its authorized representative shall deem any conduct on the part of the Consultant to be objectionable or improper, the County shall have the right to suspend the contract of the Consultant. Should the Consultant fail to correct any such violation, conduct, or practice to the satisfaction of the County within twenty -four (24) hours after receiving notice of such violation, conduct, or practice, such suspension to continue until the violation is cured. The Consultant further agrees not to commence operation during the suspension period until the violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of the County. 9. TERMINATION. Should the Consultant be found to have failed to perform his services in a manner satisfactory to the County as per this Agreement, the County may terminate said agreement immediately for cause; further the County may terminate this Agreement for convenience with a thirty (30) day written notice. The County shall be sole judge of non - performance. Page 3 of 9 161'1 'A14 10. NO DISCRIMINATION. The Consultant agrees that there shall be no discrimination as to race, sex, color, creed or national origin. 11. INSURANCE. The Consultant shall provide insurance as follows: A. Commercial General Liability: Coverage shall, have minimum limits of $1,000,000 Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Consultants, Products and Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. B. Business Auto Liability Coverage shall have minimum limits of $1,000,000 Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include: Owned Vehicles, Hired and Non -Owned Vehicles and Employee Non - Ownership. C. Workers' Compensation Insurance covering all employees meeting Statutory Limits in compliance with the applicable state and federal laws. The coverage must include Employers' Liability with a minimum limit of $500,000 for each accident. D. Professional Liability: Coverage shall have a minimum limit of $1,000,000 S ip EsQuirements: Collier County shall be listed as the Certificate Holder and included as an Additional Insured on the Comprehensive General Liability Policy. Current, valid insurance policies meeting the requirement herein identified shall be maintained by Consultant during the duration of this Agreement. Renewal certificates shall be sent to the County thirty (30) days prior to any expiration date. There shall be a thirty (30) day notification to the County in the event of cancellation or modification of any stipulated fnsurance coverage. Consultant shall insure that all subcontractors comply with the same insurance requirements that he is required to meet. The same Consultant shall provide County with certificates of insurance meeting the required insurance provisions. 12. INDEMNIFICATION. To the maximum extent permitted by Florida law, the Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegals' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally Wrongful conduct of the Consultant or anyone employed or utilized by the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement: This indemnification obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or reduce any other rights or remedies which otherwise play be available to an indemnified party or person described in this paragraph. This section does not pertain to any incident arising from the sole negligence of Page 4 of 9 Collier County. 161,1 A14 13. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of the County by Pelican Bay Management Services Division. 14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, nor give the appearance of conflict of interest either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required hereunder. Consultant further represents that no persons having any such interest shall be employed to perform those services. 15. COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT This Contract consists of the attached component parts, all of which are as fully a part of the contract as if herein set out verbatim: Consultant's Proposal, Insurance Certificate, RFP #09 -5174, Exhibit A Scope of Services and Addendum/Addenda. 16. SUBTECT TO APPROPRIATION. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties herein that this agreement is subject to appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. 17, PROHIBITION OF GIFTS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES No organization or individual shall offer or give, either directly or indirectly, any favor, gift, loan, fee, service or other item of value to any County employee, as set forth in Chapter 112, Part Ill, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 2004 -05, and County Administrative Procedure 5311. Violation of this provision may result in one or more of the following consequences: a. Prohibition by the individual, firm, and /or any employee of the firm from contact with County staff for a specified period of time; b. Prohibition by the individual and /or firm from doing business with the County for a specified period of time, including but not limited to: submitting bids, RFP, and /or quotes; and, c. immediate termination of any contract held by the individual and /or firm for cause. 18. DMGRATION L&W COMPLIANCE By executing and entering into this agreement, the Consultant is formally acknowledging without exception or stipulation that it is fully responsible for complying with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 as located at 8 U.S.C. 1324, et seq. and regulations relating thereto, as either may be amended. Failure by the Consultant to comply with the laws referenced herein shall constitute a breach of this agreement and the County shall have the discretion to unilaberally terminate this agreement immediately. 19. OFFER EXTENDED TO OEM& GOVERNMENTAL EN-T -U S Collier County encourages and agrees to the successful proposer extending the pricing, terms and conditions of this solicitation or resultant contract to other governmental entities at the discretion of the successful proposer. 20. AGREEMENT TERMS, If any portion of this Agreement is held to be void, invalid, or Otherwise unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining portion of this Agreement shall remain in effect. page 5 of 9 1611 14A' 21. ADDMONAL rrFMSi1MVICES, Additional items and) or services may be added to this contract upon satisfactory negotiation of price by the Contract Manager and Consultant. 22. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Prior to the initiation of any action or proceeding permitted by this Agreement to resolve disputes between the parties, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any such disputes by negotiation. The negotiation shall be attended by representatives of Consultant with full decision- making authority and by County's staff person who would make the presentation of any settlement reached during negotiations to County. for approval. Failing resolution,, and prior to the commencement of depositions in any litigation between the parties arising out of this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute through Mediation before an agreed -upon Circuit Court Mediator certified by the State of Florida The mediation shall be attended by representatives of Consultant with full decision - making authority and by County's staff person who would make the presentation of any settlement reached at mediation to County's board for approval. Should either party fail to submit to mediation as required hereunder, the other party may obtain a court order requiring mediation under section 44.102, Fla. Stat. Any suit or action brought by either party to this Agreement against the other party relating to or arising out of this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate federal or state courts in Collier County, Florida, which courts have sole and exclusive jurisdiction on all such matters. 23. KEY PERSONNEL/PROTECT STAFFING: The proposer's personnel and management to be utilized for this project shall be knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. The County reserves the right to perform investigations as may be deemed necessary to insure that competent persons will be utilized in the performance of the contract. Selected firm shall assign as many people as necessary to complete the project on a timely basis, and each person assigned shall be available for an amount of time adequate to meet the dates set forth in the Project Schedule. Firm shall not change Key Personnel unless the following conditions are met: (1) Proposed replacements have substantially the same or better qualifications and /or experience. (2) that the County is notified in writing as far in advance as possible. Firm shall make commercially reasonable efforts to notify Collier County within seven (7) days of the change. The County retains final approval of proposed replacement personnel. Page 6 of 9 1611 A14' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Consultant and the County, have each, respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year fast above written. ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts By: aYuf_L1. -- Dated: 01 1510 5 (SEAL) ''�- No>aryPuc!ic- SWeolAodo� G0MMtN" *M642M YYCMq��tsboi4ptuApEtY4i018 • ` Bondnd Thru PiOnrd jmu.yru;C i �< 4n--� irst Witness Type/ print witness name • �. fNl�i�F?A/1�1i Second Witness _ 61 1 sae, C M e nn az1 Type / print witness name Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney Jennifer White Page 7 of 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMIYUSSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Donna Fiala, Chairman By: Dorrill Managemerd Group geil Dorrill, ?resident Typed signature and title 1611 A14' Exhibit A Scope of Services This Scope of Services addresses the duties and responsibilities of the newly titled Administrator of the Pelican Bay Services Division, hereinafter called the "Administrator ", formerly titled "'Manager", effective DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR The Administrator's duties and responsibilities include the following: 1) It will be the Administrator's main responsibility to implement the policies of the PBSD, as directed by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. 2) The Administrator shall prepare the necessary organizational structure and interview and recommend personnel to be hired and employed by the County for the PBSD. The Administrator shall supervise the personnel employed by the PBSD in accordance with all Federal, State and County laws, rules and regulations where applicable. The Administrator shall request approval of the PBSD Board for any significant changes in size or makeup of the organization. Currently, the Administrator has the following people reporting to him - one (1) Superintendent, one (1) Operations Analyst, one (1) Administrative Assistant and sixteen (16) field employees. 3) The Administrator shall implement all policies established by the County in connection with the operation of the PBSD. 4) The Administrator shall be expected to make recommendations on a regular basis for programs to improve the Pelican Flay Community 5) The Administrator shall participate in meetings, discussions, project site visits, workshops and hearings as may pertain to the.administration of the services being provided and report results to the PBSD Board. 6) The Administrator shall attend regular and special meetings of the Board of County Commissioners when issues arise regarding PBSD activities and report results to the PBSD Board. The Administrator will suggest that a PBSD Board member join the Administrator at the meeting if the Administrator deems that such joint representation would be desirable. i The Administrator shall review outside contractor bids and make recommendations for approval or disapproval to the PBSD Board. 8) The Administrator shall work with the Chairperson of the PBSD Board in the preparation of the Board's agenda and collaborate with the Chair in selecting items and priorities. Page 8 of 9 161 1 A141 9) The Administrator shall prepare and administer the PBSD's Annual Budget(s) in accordance with all Federal, State and County laws, rules and regulations where applicable. 10) The Administrator will have an understanding of Florida County government operations, good management principals and skills, as well as knowledge and skills in personnel relations, public relations, and accounting and computer software operations. 11) The Administrator's performance may be critiqued by any Board member at a regular monthly Board meeting. Any Board member may meet privately with the Administrator to discuss Administrator's performance. 12) The Administrator shall devote such time as necessary to complete the duties and responsibilities assigned according to the specifications of this RFP. The Administrator shall spend a minimum of three hundred twelve (312) hours a year on the duties specified. Hours spent over the minimum are not entitled to extra compensation unless approved in written by the PBSD Board. The Administrator should detail on a monthly basis the time spent in the performance of these duties. The PBSD currently provides an office and staff for the Administrator in Pelican Bay, but is not contractually required to do so. 13) The Administrator shall respond to any rcqucst for information or data from the County Managers office. 14) The Administrator may be called on to provide assistance to any or all other committees that are currently and may be created by FBSD Hoard. Pa�c 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A -1 Contract Amendment ho. l to 16 09 -5174 "Management Services for Pelican Bay Seri ices- This amendment, mated . 20119 to the referenced agreement shall be by and betvicen the parties to the original agreement, Dorrill Management Group, (lo be referred to as "Consultant ") and Collier County, Florida, (Io be referred to as "Counts "). Statement of Understanding RE: Contract ir09 -517.1 "Management Services liu Pelican 13ay Services" I lie following change to the above referenced Agreement has been nntttuall) agreed to b) the ConSUhanl and the Count". The additions to the existing language in the Agreenent are shm%fl herein by underlininu: deletions from the Agreement are sh(mn bg strilietbraau gl . 3. THE CONTRACTSUNI. the Counts shall pav the Consultant for the performance of the Agreement the sum of ($42,300.00) (fork- tiro thousand three hundred dollars) for the period of time commencing on July 1, 2009 and ending on June 30,'_010, payable at ( ' .. ,° "" ":.c " rs}(3 )three Utousand_li�e the rate of -ltuc iheusatxlfi14a . hundred tusrnh fit c dollars (53525.001 per month, subyoct to Change orders as approved in advance by the. County. I his price shall he fixed and firm for the first year duration but %rill increase to fifty six thousand four hundred dollars (556,400.00) for subsequent years of the contract. Any pre - approved travel expenses shall be paid at actual cost with no markup for travel outside of Lou and Collier County. Pavnnent will lie mane upon receipt cif a proper invoice and in compliance with ec ion 218.70, Fla. Slat., ofhenyise known as the "Local Coyernment Prompt Pa} moat Act ". All other ternns and conditions of the agreement shall remain in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Consultant and the Cuunn hale cash, respcctivels. b\ an authorir_ed Person or agent. hCl "elindtr set their hands ;Inc[ seals on the datc(s) indicated below. CONSULTANT: Dorrill ManagementZroup, Inc. By: UU , ty t (bpr Vic,, Print"Name and Title Witness By: Print Name and Title Accepted: ___.... -2009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUINTY. FLORIDA By: Project Manager By: '\ DEPARTMENT DIR _GTOR 1 Dianna Perryman. CONTRACT SPECIALIST IRM �' M 61 1 A 1 ENGINEERS RUNNERS SUM/EYUHS LANDSCAPE PAMM TS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34110 • Phone; 239,254 2000 - Fax: 239.254.2099 February 23, 2010 VIA EKAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples, FL 34108 Re: Pelican Bay South Berm HM File No.: 2009.077 Dear Mr. Lukasz: Enclosed is the report summary you requested based on our meeting on February 18, 2010. Study Obiectives: The berm is the water management containment facility running from the Pelican Bay Commons south to the Naples Grande Resort, approximately 4,000 feet long. At the top of the berm is a 10' wide walking/bicycle path. The objective of the study was to investigate the berm's integrity in terms of settlement and drainage performance /efficiency related to adjacent swale elevations. Study Findings: 1. Berm integrity. We visually inspected the berm, control structures and the 15 outfall pipes. The berm adjacent to three of the outfall pipe locations appeared to have noticeable settlement. Soil borings were taken at these locations and analyzed. The borings indicate that a peat layer was removed in the irmnediate area beneath the pipes. The peat layer was present in the boring locations approximately 15' -25' from the pipes. Differential settlement occurred due to the different subsurface soil conditions. The sideslopes of the berm along the east side appear to be in relatively good shape. There are many sections along the west side of the berm which have eroded. From the toe of the berm up approximately one foot there is typically no vegetation due to fluctuation of the water levels because of tides and rainfall events. Based upon the age of the walkway (30 years) and the light traffic loading typically experienced on the walkway, it is estimated that a majority of the settlement to the pavement section has occurred and the integrity of the berm will not be compromised provided that the eroded banks are repaired. Recommendations: A. The elevation changes at the three locations do not pose a safety problem and do not warrant repair at this time. The path was overlaid approximately 10 years ago and is in H:\2009\20090771WP\LD \Berm Report\KL100223berm report summary.doex Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division Re: Pelican Bay South Berm HM File No.: 2009.077 February 23, 2010 Page 2 161 1 R14.. good condition. Whenever the path is overlaid again, it is suggested that the pavement 20' to 30' each side of these pipe crossings be removed to allow a slighter elevation transition than currently exists. Other pipe crossings should be checked to see if a slighter transition is warranted as well. B. Erosion control tubes should be installed along the longer stretches of the eroded west side of the berm. Riprap rock should be installed in the smaller, isolated erosion areas. The berm should be inspected regularly to identify and repair any eroded areas. 2. Drainage performancelefficiency Elevations of the upstream (east) side of the berm were obtained at approximately 100 -foot intervals and at the water control structures. The permitted elevation of the top of the Drainage Basin I flashboards is elevation 1.6 NAVD88 (2.9 NGVD29). The permitted elevation of the top of the Drainage Basin 11 flashboards is 2.6 NAVD88 (3.9 NGVD29). The elevation of the spreader swales upstream of the structures is generally less than those elevations; therefore, flow does not appear to be impeded. On the downstream (west) side of the berm there is an existing spreader swale which receives the discharge from the 15 outfall pipes and spreads the water out to flow into the mangrove forest to the west. There are two sections totaling about 500 feet where the swale is not as deep as adjacent areas. Recommendations: A. Consideration should be given to excavating the shallow west side Swale sections. If the swale cannot be excavated without compromising the berm slopes then it should remain in its present condition. Approximately 90% of the spreader Swale is functioning at its intended depth. The shallow sections will not cause drainage outfall problems since the water will rise to the elevation of the mangroves and overflow without causing a backup to the interior drainage systems. The full report provides detailed information regarding settlement evaluation and analysis of the performance of the water control structures and swales. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this summary. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. %d%TW. Te Cole, P.E. Vice President H:\2009\2009077\WKLD%Be ReportVKL100223b=r report su",wy 4o Hafa y iialas V Henning ► I A POCtIVED Coyle V. PELICAN MMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN TOWN HALL MEETINWAR O 5 2010 SUMMARY MINUTES rtoarn of County commissioners FEBRUARY 1, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Foundation conducted a public meeting February 1, 2010,2:00 pm. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples with the following Foundation Strategic Planning Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman John laizzo Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Michael Levy Geoffrey Gibson Gerald Moffatt Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Ronnie Bellone, Co -Vice Chairwoman Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhaltey Co -Vice Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Gwen Rasiwala, Communications Manager Presentation By Kevin Mangan, Principal and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner, Wilson Miller Approximately twenty (20) people attended. Mr. Lickhalter introduced the Community Improvements Project briefly, stressing the collaboration between the Pelican Bay Foundation and Pelican Bay Services Division. When he queried the audience of twenty, seven admitted to being aware of the Community Master Planning project. Ms. Bellone explained that the focus is on safety and security. She tried to quell rumors this is all for a special assessment. They have been vetting the process at Board and Committee meetings. Mr. Mangan gave a brief presentation about developing Community Improvements Plan projects followed by audience comments. A woman said why the focus on safety and security and would they be considering the environment. She asked why are they doing this project and where did they receive information that warrants the expense. Ms. Bellone said the scope percolated from community input. For example, they have received numerous complaints about the North Tram station crossing being dangerous for pedestrians. Ms. Murray said they conducted a community survey and the ideas came from results of that survey and the consultants. Misc. Cons. A man asked if they had plans for Oakmont Park. They do not want to lose their privacy. DOW---. 70 11071 Pelican Bay Foundation Community Improvements Plan Town Hall Meeting 'j A 1 Summary Minutes 1 February 1, 2010 Mr. Mangan said they are addressing issues and developing ideas in the Oakmont area. Mr. Lickhalter said they have not made any decisions and ideas are still evolving. A man asked when costs would be available. Ms. Bellone repeated they have not made any decisions regarding any projects. Madam Chair Womble said this is a long -term project over five, ten, twenty years. They do not want to implement any projects that the community does not want. They cannot make everyone happy, but the plan is to improve Pelican Bay, but maintain as a viable, healthy place, Mr. Lickhalter said costs and financial responsibility would come, once they begin to prioritize ideas. Madam Char Womble said they are using their monies as efficiently as possible. Mr. Mangan said there might be many options however, the focus is on pedestrian safety and security. A man asked if they would be considering restrooms along the berm. Mr. Mangan said that is something to consider, but not developing. A man asked if they were looking into storm mitigation. Mr. Lickhalter said the Foundation Board authorized expenditures to harden beachfront structures and they can now withstand a category three storm, but not much mitigation is feasible. Madam Char Womble explained that the Services Division Board represents the County. The community pays for a higher level of services through the non -ad valorem assessment. After Hurricane Wilma, Pelican Bay Services Division's field staff cleaned up the community faster and better than anywhere in the County. The community was almost up and Winning within half a day. A man asked if the process would allow the mangroves to stay in place to inhibit storm surge. Mr. Mangan said landscape maintenance helps in emergencies. They are considering solar lighting in places that make sense. They plan to keep the landscape healthy and private property is not on the table. A man asked when projects would be presented to the community. Ms. Bellone said when the information is vetted through the Board and Committee. It is an enormous amount of information. Mr. Lickhalter estimated February or March. Ms. Bellone said they have a joint workshop on February 9. Mr. Mangan said they are working with the Committee and Board, then they will vet to community. 71 Pelican Bay Foundation Community Improvements Plan Town Hall Meeting 161 1 A 141 Summary Minutes February 1, 2010 Ms. Bellone sad there are certain projects that the Services Division will be taking care of, i.e., public property. The Foundation would be taking care of other projects, i.e., on Foundation property. Projects will be prioritized and implemented over time. The Services Division and the Foundation might not be doing projects at the same time. A man asked if the consultant fees are within the budget. Mr. Lickbalter said yes. A woman speaker asked if they expect a large assessment. Mr. Lickhalter said no special assessments would come from the Foundation. Mr. Dallas said the Services Division has been saving and have set some funds aside for the short and long term for Capital projects. Mr. Lickhalter said the Services Division has deferred capital expenditures because they want to implement projects in line with the comprehensive master plan. Madam Chair Womble said the Services Division's budget committee is very pennywise. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m. a�L Z 9 7 VA 72 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 312(201010:26:33 AM Fiala Halas l b l 1 A 177-G v l Henning MAR 05 2312 Coyle SUMMARY MINUTES ColettaP VICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Board of County commissioners FEBRUARY 3, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 1:00 PM in Regular Session at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Gerald Moffatt Tom Cravens Hunter Hansen absent; excused Geoffrey Gibson Theodore Raia John laizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Community Improvement Plan Update Presentation Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: I . Roll Call 2. Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Update 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 9, 2009 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. December 21, 2009 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop c. January 6, 2010 Regular Session d. January 11, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Session One e. January 11, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Session Two 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Independent Peer Review Selection Process & Timeline b. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairwoman's Report a. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Candidates Discussion i. Candidate Introductions ii. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Candidate Forum T. Raia iii. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Responsibilities b. Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Protocol Discussion & Approval T. Hall Terrell, Hall & Associates c. Announcements 8. Capital Projects a. Lake Bank Enhancements b. South Berm Reconstruction 9. Community Issues 10. Committee Reports and/or Requests Budget Committee a. Funds for Community Improvement Plan Discussion - M. Levy b. Mangrove Restoration FY 10 & FY 11 Funding, Services, & Permitting Discussion — M Levy 11. Old Business a. Further Discussion of H.R. Wanless Submittal - T. Raia 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet Misc. Correll: 14. Audience Comments 15. Adjournment Date: 8306 Item N:. 16 A 14 � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes + February 3,2010 ROLL CALL All Board members were present with the exception of Mr. Hunter Hansen, excused, and a quorum established. WIISON MILLER COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE Mr. Kevin Mangan said the Community Improvement Plan project is on schedule in phase two of three. The second set of Community Improvement Plan Town Hall meetings was January 1 I and announced they will make a presentation to the Man's Coffee on February 9. Following the Men's Coffee, they will meet again for a workshop with the Services Division and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee. The ongoing focus of the project remains safety and security of both commercial and residential areas, including crosswalks, pathways, lighting, and community edges; landscaping for sight visibility and safety; and irrigation for water management and conservation. Madam Chair Womble said at the January I I town hall meetings, Wilson Miller set up "stations" with landscape architecture designs and safety and security aspects of transportation improvements. They gave people time to go to each station to discuss their plans and offer suggestions. She asked Mr. Mangan if he received a lot of input. Mr. Mangan said yes. Town hall meetings and community site walks provide a unique opportunity exists to gain insight and include the community in the process. From now through April there will be additional meetings and site walks. Madam Chair Womble asked when the next site walk is. Mr. Mangan said the goal, as it has been all along is to look at different areas within the community and March 18, the plan is to walk the Oakmont area Mr. Gibson said Ms. Resnick seam an email to query the Board's availability for several specific dates and times to hold additional Services Division and Strategic Planning Committee joint workshops and were they scheduled. Madam Chair Womble asked Mr. Mangan if the workshops were scheduled. Mr. Mangan said no. The next scheduled workshop is Tuesday, February 9, but between now and then they would try to schedule their. Mr. Gibson suggested the February 9 meeting scheduled for 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. extend until 3 p.m. Mr. Mangan explained the purpose of the additional meetings is to prioritize recommendations and other related project issues, but they were not firm dates yet. Ms. Bellone said the existing meetings on the calendar are still "on." Some Board and Committee members suggested scheduling additional workshops because they are concerned about naming out of time to complete their job to prioritize recommendations and would not meet the deadline. 8307 161 1 A14 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3 2010 Madam Chair Womble said Ms. Resnick gave her information about how many members are and are not available for several dates and times. Out of the ten responses, February 12 and February 25 look better for most in the afternoon, and March 5 looks better for most, morning or afternoon. Ms. Bellone said the meetings should be held sower rather than later to start prioritizing options. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Dallas said the sooner the schedule is determined, the better. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Moffatt asked for clarification of agenda item "seven, a, two, Chairwoman's Report, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Candidate Forum," requested by Dr. Raia. He said he did not want to approve an item that he did not understand and wanted to know what Dr. Raja's intent is. Madam Chair Womble said she did not know and Dr. Raia was not present to answer. Mr. Moffatt suggested they remove the item from the agenda He said he also did not understand the intent of item "seven, a, three, Charwoman's Report, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Responsibilities." Mr. laizzo asked why Mr. Moffatt could not wait until they get to the agenda item before challenging it. Mr. Moffatt said, "because if you recall the last meeting where we were sort of criticized approving an agenda and then getting to an item that we should not be covering anyway. The point was made that why did we approve it." Mr. laizzo said, "That isn't necessarily the procedure you are undertaking right now. I suggest we go down a list and bang out whatever we don't feel is a part of the agenda" Mr. Moffatt suggested removing items "seven, a, two" and "seven, a, three" from the agenda. Mr. laizzo and Mr. Cravens agreed they should wait until the items come up before removing them and proceed. Mr. Gilson said, "Omen we can't approve the agenda." Mr. levy asked what the point of "item three, agenda approval" is. Mr. Cravens said one of the purposes of approving the agenda is to insert items that may have arisen between the time the agenda was prepared and the meeting convened, more than trying to remove items before getting to them. Mr. Moffatt said the criticism from the last meeting came from approving the agenda and when they got to the item, they realized should not have been on the agenda in the first place. Mr. Cravens said he thought the criticism was invalid. Madam Chair Womble said the person who made the comment was not there to defend himself. She asked if anyone wanted to add an item not on the currant agenda She asked Mr. Dorrill for advice. Mr. Dorrill said the Board should approve the agenda 8308 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes lbl A 1,4'' February 3, 2010 Mr. Cravens made a motion to approve the agenda. Dr. Raia arrived at about 1:15 p.m. and seconded. The Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda. Mr. Cravens made a motion to opproue the agenda. Dr. Raja seconded The n*w* of Ae Board voted jor the motion; Mr. MOOkit d wNfing. The motion carded by Board vote of 7— ],and the ends qMroved Mr. Dorrill said he had a prior commitment and would be leaving meeting early by 3 p.m. and in his absence, he offered Mr. Lukasz' and Ms. McCaughtry's assistance. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. Cravens made a nnodom to opprove the December 9, 2089 Pedaaa Bay Services Division Board and FoaadaUon Sltrategie Planning CaraaWee Canmm usky MWovemment Phan Joint Workshop Hhudes. Mr. Gfton seconded Tke Board void umomnausly to approve the December 9, 2809 Pdican Bay Services Division Board and Fouft"On Strategic Planning Mr. Cravens made a modon to approve the December 21, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundadon Strategic Plaumdng Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Workskap Minutes Mr. Levy seconded The Board voted nmambnously to approve the nation JANUARY 6. 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Mr. Cravens motioned to approve the January 6, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes. Mr. Gibson seconded. Mr. Dallas said he and Mr. Hansen also voted "nay" against Dr. Raja's motion on pages 8299 — 8300, so the vote should be three for the motion and six against it. Madam Chair Womble agreed and confirmed the motion did not carry by vote of three to six. Board consensus determined a typo on page 8278 and "...opposed tone individual" should read, "...opposed to one individual." Mr. Moffatt said they dedicated six pages of minutes and a great deal of time was spent discussing Dr. Raja's add-on item regarding "Collier Canty and installation of aids to navigation in Clam Bay." He said, "I want to know how that got interpreted by one of our members as being `thwarted' by the Administrator, Chairperson, and rest of the Board. It seams like we had a full discussion, there was a vote taken, and the vote went against the individual. No one was "thwarted" I am just a M l 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 1 6 1 A .4 February 3, 2010 little concerned that a letter would be written publicly before the community taking shots at a full discussion and very valid vote. Just because you don't win the vote doesn't mean that you go out on your own and categorize what occurred as not being appropriate." Dr. Rain asked Mr. Moffatt if he was, "correcting the minutes, or making some statement" Mr. Moffatt said, "There's obviously something wrong in the minutes Dr. Raia said, "No, I think the minutes are perfectly correct. So, what's your point? Are you concerned that f said something later to the public? If you want me to address that I'll address that now." Mr. Moffatt said, "I'm concerned that you did not report accurately on what occurred at the meeting." Dr. Raia said, "Are you objecting to what it states?" Mr. Cravens said, "Madam Chair, I suggest we proceed with approval of the minutes if there are no more corrections." He called for a question on the motion. Mr. Moffatt said, "If we certain that the minutes are correct, because I thought maybe the minutes were wrong because they don't reflect what is in the letter." Dr. Raia said, "Why don't you make the correction if there's something wrong with it" Mr. Moffatt said, "I didn't write the letter." Dr. Raja said, "If you want to discuss the letter, we can bring it up as another item.- Madam Chair Womble said that would be in their best interests. There was no further discussion and the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Cravens rude a m orlon, .seconded by Mr. Gibson to approve the Jamaiy 6, 2010, Pelican Bay Services Dinsion Board Regular Session minntes as amended The Board voted aaanlmoasly to ve JANUARY 11 2010 PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING SESSION ONE Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. DAUM to approve the Jamey 11, 2010 Pelican Bay Coommr unW Improvement Plan Session One Town Hall Meeting Minutes. The Board voted L::= to JANUARY 11.2010 PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING SESSION TWO Mr. Cravens made a notion, seconded by Mr. Dallas to approve the January 11, 2010 Pelitnn Bay Conaeamlly Imgtr01ement Plan Session Two Town Hall Meeting Minutes. The Board voted 0 8310 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board 1 6 1 1 A 14 y Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3, 2010 Mr. Bob Naegele said commercial interest's candidate, John Baron was present, but needed to return to work shortly. He asked Madam Chair Warble if they could introduce the candidates at this time. Madam Chair Womble queried the Board and there were no objections to adjust the order of the agenda. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD CANDIDATES INTRODUCTIONS Madam Chair Warble welcomed and introduced Mr. Joe Foster, candidate for Collier County Commissioner, District 2. She invited the Pelican Bay Services Division Board candidates one at a time to the podium. Mr. Johan Domenic said he was a resident interest's candidate who had served nine years on the Services Division Board previously. He resigned in July 2008 because he felt he could better serve the community working with the Foundation on problems with Clam Bay without the restrictions of the Sunshine law. The Foundation has been very successful "thwarting" the attempts by the City and County to access Clam Bay. He is grateful because the Foundation has "set the stage," and feels he can now cone back to the Services Division and carry on within the Sunshine law confines. The Services Division has many responsibilities involving the U.S. 41 berm, striping, crosswalks, lighting, lakes, beautification, and Wilson Miller's planning study. There is a reserve for capital improvements, but it has not been determined what projects the funds will be spent or how much. He is concerned the Wilson Miller report will not be complete until summer, and as a result, they will hear from the community, "it was done behind our backs, so we have to be very careful about how we act on that." By resolution, this Board is an advisory board to the County Commissioners solely. "I feel very strongly that by representing the people of Pelican Bay, we have a duty to speak up at the Board of County Commission meetings." Madam Chair Warble said Mr. John Baron is a commercial interest's board candidate. Mr. Hunter Hansen is a commercial interest's Board member whose term is expiring March 31. Mr. Hansen has reapplied and the Board will recommend reappointment to the Commissioners. She welcomed Mr. Baron, Mr. John Baron became General Manager of the Waterside Shops in November 2009. For six years, he was Assistant General Manager of Sax's Fifth Avenue. He worked with the Forbes Company on the expansion of Waterside Shops, building the parking garage, and oversaw the Sax's Fifth avenue construction project. He understands the challenges facing construction issues. He has been to many County Commission meetings. He lived in Pelican Bay for two years when he moved here six years W. The prior six years, he was Assistant Manager of Sax's Fifth Avenue in Palm Beach. He looks forward to attending meetings and serving on the Board. Dr. James Halikas is a psychiatrist with a full -time practice in Naples. In 1998, he moved to Naples from Minnesota and has lived in Pelican Bay full -time since. Prior to moving to Naples, he was at the University of Minnesota for thirty -five 8311 16$1A14 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes years in the academic medicine and psychiatry field. He is Medical Director of the Willows and his specialty area is addiction medicine. His primary concem is Clam Pass and Clam Bay issues, but he is interested in maintaining the quality of all aspects of Pelican Bay. Mr. John Chandler said he is running for the Services Division Board because he retired last April and is looking for something constructive to do in the community. He has lived in Pelican Bay for eighteen years on and off. There is no single issue in which he is concerned, but he loves living in Pelican Bay and he wants to ensure it stays that way both in maintaining good infrastructure and in preserving conservation areas. What might make him an effective Board member is forty years experience in the automotive and trucking field and for a time, served as chief executive officer and chief financial officer. He understands the Board is a `team" and effective Board members come to meetings well prepared, presents views succinctly and listens respectfully to others views. Although one may come to a meeting with certain opinions on certain topics, it is important to keep an open mind. When new facts become known, not hearsay, that make a persuasive case, it is important to be able to put pride aside and vote accordingly. During his business experience, he reviewed many investment proposals covering billions of dollars. Wilson Miller's proposals could recommend spending a considerable amount of money and this Board should consider what the proper investments are very carefully. When evaluating a proposal, it is important to make sure all of the costs are included. It is also important to determine the investment's benefits. Other characteristics that might make him a good Board member are his commitment level, ability to make fact -based decisions, and reliability. Preparation is the key to success. Mr. Jerry Moffatt said he is completing an eighteen -month term on this Board. He and his wife have been full -time residents since 1948. He is a Certified Public Accountant and former partner of a major public accounting and consultant firm. He spent his last few years working the business consulting side and that experience will help him sort through the Wilson Miller recommendations. He does not view all Wilson Miller recommendations as a way to spend a lot of money unnecessarily, but as a future planning framework Capital improvement expenditures decisions are made understanding the total community and not forced into undoing or redoing short -term decisions that might not have considered the framework. Spending limits should not result in any major assessment because the projects will implement over a period of three years, five years, and ten years to ensure appropriate property owner representation. Of significance, he participated in the interview and selection process of the Services Division's new administrator, Mr. Dorrill. From what he understands, most are happy with the new administrator's performance to date. He is Co -Chair of the Budget Subcommittee with Mr. Levy. Given the current economy, their goal was to keep the assessment at a flat level and the 2010 adopted budget did not increase over the prim year. He also served on the Foundation's Audit and Budget Committee and worked hard to keep assessments minimal. 8312 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes years in the academic medicine and psychiatry field. He is Medical Director of the Willows and his specialty area is addiction medicine. His primary concem is Clam Pass and Clam Bay issues, but he is interested in maintaining the quality of all aspects of Pelican Bay. Mr. John Chandler said he is running for the Services Division Board because he retired last April and is looking for something constructive to do in the community. He has lived in Pelican Bay for eighteen years on and off. There is no single issue in which he is concerned, but he loves living in Pelican Bay and he wants to ensure it stays that way both in maintaining good infrastructure and in preserving conservation areas. What might make him an effective Board member is forty years experience in the automotive and trucking field and for a time, served as chief executive officer and chief financial officer. He understands the Board is a `team" and effective Board members come to meetings well prepared, presents views succinctly and listens respectfully to others views. Although one may come to a meeting with certain opinions on certain topics, it is important to keep an open mind. When new facts become known, not hearsay, that make a persuasive case, it is important to be able to put pride aside and vote accordingly. During his business experience, he reviewed many investment proposals covering billions of dollars. Wilson Miller's proposals could recommend spending a considerable amount of money and this Board should consider what the proper investments are very carefully. When evaluating a proposal, it is important to make sure all of the costs are included. It is also important to determine the investment's benefits. Other characteristics that might make him a good Board member are his commitment level, ability to make fact -based decisions, and reliability. Preparation is the key to success. Mr. Jerry Moffatt said he is completing an eighteen -month term on this Board. He and his wife have been full -time residents since 1948. He is a Certified Public Accountant and former partner of a major public accounting and consultant firm. He spent his last few years working the business consulting side and that experience will help him sort through the Wilson Miller recommendations. He does not view all Wilson Miller recommendations as a way to spend a lot of money unnecessarily, but as a future planning framework Capital improvement expenditures decisions are made understanding the total community and not forced into undoing or redoing short -term decisions that might not have considered the framework. Spending limits should not result in any major assessment because the projects will implement over a period of three years, five years, and ten years to ensure appropriate property owner representation. Of significance, he participated in the interview and selection process of the Services Division's new administrator, Mr. Dorrill. From what he understands, most are happy with the new administrator's performance to date. He is Co -Chair of the Budget Subcommittee with Mr. Levy. Given the current economy, their goal was to keep the assessment at a flat level and the 2010 adopted budget did not increase over the prim year. He also served on the Foundation's Audit and Budget Committee and worked hard to keep assessments minimal. 8312 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board 16 11 A 4 y Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3, 2010 His combination of experience would continue to be helpful. One of his goals is to facilitate the process of returning responsibility of maintaining the mangroves to Pelican Bay Services Division as they did so successfully for many years and he believes based upon informal discussion that that will happen. He said the Foundation has dace a wonderful job on the marker issue. In his spare time, he is a member of the Club Pelican Bay Finance Committee, a cabinet member of Concerned Citizens, and active participant in the AVOW Promise Campaign. Madam Chair Womble explained residential and commercial Pelican Bay property owners would receive a ballot by mail. Residential owners may vote for two of the four residential candidates and commercial property owners may vote for one of the two candidates. She encouraged the audience to be informed voters. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mrs. Marcia Cravens said, "I am a little appalled with the agenda today which did not include the Warless review, which went into discussion at the last meeting when I presented it to this Board and requested for it to be accepted." Mr. Cravens said, "It is on the agenda" Madam Chan Womble said the subject is on the agenda in two places. Mrs. Marcia Cravens said, "1 thought it was not on there, so thank you." Ms. Mary Bolen, Pelican Bay resident alleged according to the January 14 executive summary that the Coastal Advisory Committee or CAC is moving rapidly to approve a scope, approach, and timeline for a Clam Bay peer review. The Services Division is providing funding and "rubber stamp" approval, but not active participants in the decision making process. By going along with the County blindly, the Services Division is undermining the Pelican Bay community. She congratulated the Board for restoring the mangroves and urged them to "have the guts" to'save the mangroves. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW SELECTION PROCESS & TIMELINE Mr. Dorrill carified the timetable in the executive summary was done at his suggestion. Tiffs Board seems to want the peer review selection process and timeline to happen sooner rather than later. He met with Ms. Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator and Mr. McAlpin's boss. The approach is to follow the County's purchasing policy and develop a Request for Qualifications or RFQ with approximately a ten -day turnaround time for anyone who is interested to submit to the County's Purchasing department. The schedule Ms. Bolen seems to be concerned abort is an internal schedule for CAC. Based on his understanding that this Board would like to see all resumes submitted at least two weeks in advance of a meeting, they may need to schedule a special meeting in March or wait until the April 3 meeting. The County Commission has determined this is going to be a joint decision and in the event that it cannot be, it will have to go back to the County Commission. This Board 8313 j P Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes -' February 3.2010 made it abundantly clear at the last meeting that this Board would select its preferred candidate, not Services Division administration or County staff. Mr. Cravens expressed his concern that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board is not an active participant in the process of developing the scope of the peer review. The scope will stoer the review. Mr. Dorrill said, "I can't imagine a general scenario where you would. Without sounding disrespectful, it is generally the County Purchasing department and the administrative head to develop bid specifications and requests for proposals or qualifications." It is not typical for the Board of County Commissioners or advisory boards to develop technical specifications and he did not recall a single time in his career as County manager that the Commissional or an advisory board participated in the described procedure. He is happy to make an inquiry. Madam Chair Womble asked if the CAC and this Board could meet and if so, could it make a difference or help. Mr. Dorrill said it is possible. Mr. Cravens said the CAC is developing a scope of work for the peer review and the itern is on their next agenda "You said that is not something that an advisory board would do. Apparently that advisory board is doing it and we are not." Mr. Dorrill said that could very well be, but he and Ms. Ramsey are supposed to receive the scope prior to the February CAC meeting. He does not believe the CAC is intending to review or authorize the scope. Mrs. Cravens said she felt compelled to speak an behalf of the Mangrove Action Group or MAG. Many people have expressed to MAG that this is a bad deal. The County is manipulating this Board by creating an outward appearance that the Services Division Board is working cooperatively with the County and Coastal Zone Management department and in support of their projects. What this Board is doing is eroding the authority of the Foundation and she urged the Board to withdraw from the agreement. Madan Chair Womble asked Mr. Dorrill if the Services Division could withdraw from the agreement at any time for whatever reason they are not comfortable, along with the monies they agreed to contribute to the pee review. Mr. Dorrill said the reason they are going through this process is that people in this community believe that the PBS & J report is a flawed report and this Board directed staff to express this Board's concerns to the County. "We are the ones who have asked the County for permission to perform a third party peer review. Now it seems like we are arguing with ourselves. I frankly don't understand it Mrs. Cravens interrupted and said, "I'm sorry Mr. Dorrill, but you brought up this issue," Mr. Dorrill said, "Wait a minute, let me finish my thought if you will. This was our idea. We went to the County Commission and said we have serious concerns with the way in which the Post Buckley report was done. Now we want to call 8314 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 1 A14 aIl' February 3,2010 a time out, find someone with an academic and non - consulting background to do a review of not only of the Post Buckley report, but also of the historical work that we have performed. This needs to be done in a way as to legitimize our role in the Clam Bay system in the future. We have been criticized that we don't know what we're doing taking water quality samples and been accused that the people taking them haven't been properly certified. We have been maneuvering a systematic process in order to legitimize our protocols, our technicians, and now our desire to select someone to review the work that we are highly critical. If you don't warn to do that, now would be the day to tell me that and we'll go back to the County to find out how they want to proceed." Mr. Moffatt said, "The suggestion that was made is that we just walk away from the water quality report, let them do whatever they want to do, and we'll live with it That is not an acceptable answer. The peer review gives us some teeth to get into that report to determine whether it is flawed or not flawed. I can't imagine why we would want to walk away. Let's get down and work through the process. We ought to be looking at the scope of the work. If someone has developed it, let's get it, so we can review it and change it if we don't agree with it." Mr. Levy said according to the executive summary, the scope of work for the peer review was to be complete on January 21 and approved by CAC on February 11. "We haven't seen the scope of work. Why haven't we seen the scope of work for the peer review?" Mr. Moffatt said, "We need to be a part of that process. It needs to come here and be approved by us also." Mr. Dorrill said none of this has taken place. This executive summary shows their internal schedule. He has not seen a draft RFQ or scope of work yet. Mr. Cravens said, "It appears to me that candidates are going to carne out of Purchasing. We are going to be handed a list from the County from which we make a selection. To me, that is not acceptable." Mr. Dorrill said, "I don't think that is the intent. Although the County prequalifies consultants who do various types of work, that's only for the purpose of their receiving advanced invitations to bid. This solicitation will also be advertised in the Naples Daily News and by email to other individuals qualified to do this. The County is in no way limited to those pre qualified consultants already registered in their system." Mr. Levy asked if this Board would have any input on the scope of work. Mr. Dorrill said, "As I told Mr. Cravens, you wouldn't typically, unless you tell me today that you prefer to." Mr. Levy said, "If we're going to help hire this person, l would think that the scope of work is something that we should see." 8315 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reeular S e s s i o n Summvry Minnrnc 1 b 1 1 A 14 February 3, 2010 _ Mr. Dorrill said he wasn't against it; it's just not typical work for an advisory board. Doing so would push back the period to April or May by the time this could go before the County Commission. Mr. Cravens said the CAC is no more qualified than this Board to develop and approve a scope, yet it is on their February 11 agenda. Mr. Dorrill said from his understanding, the February 1 I CAC meeting has been cancelled, perhaps because they hasn't seen an RFQ or draft scope. Dr. Raia said he agrees with Mr. Dorrill, however it is one thing for the County to prepare the scope of work and saying take it or leave it because they have the ultimate authority to go forward. What is worse than that is the fad that the Services Division is paying for it. He is a scientist and he looks at this issue from a science perspective. Data can be skewed in any direction and he wants it skewed in a direction that will benefit Clam Bay. He made a motion to withdraw the request to cosponsor a peer review. Mr. laizzo seconded the motion and asked for clarification of whether the Services Division's monies were going to benefit someone else's project. Ms. Bellone said the Strategic Planning Committee collaborated with Wilson Millar when they developed the Scope of Service for the Community Improvement Plan and the County should be working together as a team with the Services Division to determine the selection of qualified individuals that respond to the RFQ. It should not be a me -sided decision. If the Services Division is providing monies, they should be active in the selection process. Mr. Dorrill clarified all they are trying to do right now is solicit resumes based on qualifications to come up with a short list of candidates who are recognized as experts in coastal back bay mangrove systems, preferably on the west coast of Florida, not directly tied to any of the consulting firms that have been involved. In order to have a thorough, transparent, and public discussion of their proposed contracts and scope of work, you would see that anyway. His concern is that they are trying to predetermine the scope of work before they have any shordisted qualified candidates. Typically, in County government, it is not done that way. Mr. Gibson asked if they would have opportunity to review the RFQ. Mr. Dorrill said, "No, not you. You made it abundantly clear to me last month that you are going to select your preferred candidate, not the staff." Mr. Cravens said, "But we are going to be given a list from which we make that selection. We have no input on determining that list Mr. Dorrill said, "No sir, you're going to see them all, even if there are 150 of them." 8316 �Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 1 s � 001 F.t.... —a 701n Mr. Moffatt asked if they could contact people they feel are qualified ensuring awareness of the process. Mr. Dorrill said absolutely. Mr. Iaizzo said the County pre - approves candidates. Mr. Dorrill said no. Anyone can submit a proposal to a public invitation to bid. Mr. Cravens said, `only if they are a Ph.D." Mr. Dorrill said anyone with qualifications. He explained he said the term "PhD" because it usually means coming from academia, not tied directly to a consulting firm, such as PBS & J. He suggested Mote Marine or University of Miami. Mr. Cravens said he was afraid they would be paying their money for a peer review done by a group that the County has put together that are going to reach the conclusions the County wants. Mr. Dorrill said why agree to a pea review if they wanted to fast lane the Post Buckley report. Mr. Cravens said because there was overwhelming criticism and they could not stand the heat. Now they are trying to get around that by having the Pelican Bay Services Division agree to it This review will not be objective. Going back to the sea grass study, at first everyone thought it was wonderful because it made Clam Bay look so good, then realized that the consultants redefined and expanded the geographic area of the Clam Bay Estuary and he tears history will repeat itself. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Cravens what the alternatives were. If they do not pay for this or participate, how could they have opportunity to correct deficiencies? Mr. Dorrill said one of his strategies is to try to isolate the Services Division from unfounded criticism. At the end of the day, the Services Division wants to be the recognized authority for water quality sampling, mangrove restoration, and other issues to be determined. Any issues pertaining to navigational dredging or beach renourishment have been taken out of our hands and been given to somebody else. Mr. Cravens said the County wants the Services Division to contribute money, but not have any control over the independent peer review process. Madam Char Womble said, "We are the ones that put this on the table." Mr. Cravens said, "I believe Mr. Dorrill is the one that put this on the table." Mr. Dorrill said, "I'm just trying to get you back in the game because right now you're not in it." Mr. Moffatt said the Board voted on it. Mr. Dorrill said the Board vote was unanimous. Mr. Cravens acknowledged the vote was unanimous. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Cravens what the alternative is. 8317 Pelican Bay Services Division Bird Regular Session Summary Minutes 1611 A14 February 3, 2010 Mr. Cravens said the alternative is to walk away and not fiord, so the County cannot say Pelican Bay endorsed it. Mr. Moffatt said that approach doesn't solve the problem. Dr. Raia said there is no problem. Mr. Moffatt responded, "There is no problemr Dr. Raia said if the County would define what the problem is, maybe they could offer solutions. "We are dealing with something very nebulous and they are not saying what the problem is." Madam Chair Womble said they are piling into question the Post Buckley report results and are trying to find a way to denigrate that report. Mr. Cravens said the County hired Post Buckley to create this report. Madam Chair Womble said that the County is willing to go back to the drawing board, "with us and see what we can do to rectify the situation," Mr. Cravens said, "We didn't create this situation, the County did." Madam Chair Womble said, "Well, we are the County." Mr. levy said the Post Buckley report has received much criticism by many credible people is he believes it is viewed upon as a product with ulterior motives. Madam Chair Womble said, "I don't think it's tarnished enough." Mr. Chandler said the Board made an agreement to select a peer reviewer jointly [with the Coastal Zone Management department] and suggested the goal now is to make an agreement to review the scope jointly. He asked Mr. Dorrill if it would be appropriate for the Chairwoman to contact the Coastal Zone Management department to discuss. Mr. Dorrill said no. M opportrtity to discuss would be at a joint meeting steer this Board chooses an individual they deem is qualified. Mr. Chandler said no. The current focus should be on the scope. He added that if they can jointly agree on the scope and individual, then they will achieve a jointly agreed upon study. The candidate list should include Dr. Warless and any other individuals recommended by an entity such as the Conservancy. Mr. Dorrill said any interested, qualified individuals should preregister with the County as consultants in the appropriate field in order to be under consideration. Dr. Raia said that if this Board and the Coastal Zone Management department cannot agree on an individual, then the Commissioners would determine the selection. That makes this Board vulnerable. He said Post Buckley condones campaign contributions and he cannot support any product produced by this company. 8318 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board L6 I 1 A 14 y Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3, 2010 Madam Chair Womble said, "We don't," and why they are working with Coastal Zone Management to find someone that they both can agree is qualified to do a peer review. Mr. Iaizzo said the issue is if they are taxing the Pelican Bay Community for a report that they have no control. Mr. Dallas said he believes they do have some control because no matter what the proposed scope is, if he does not agree with it, he will not vote for it. If they do not like the scope, then the Board does not have to agree on the peer reviewer. He recommended moving forward otherwise they will not have any input. Mr. Levy asked if there would be another chance to vote on this. Mr. Dorrill said yes. The Board will see the list of candidates and proposals. If the Board would like to see the Purchasing department's draft proposal, he would be happy to provide in advance when available. Mr. Levy said what happens if they don't like any of the candidates. Mr. Dorrill said they would have to go back to the County Commission and let them know this Board is not satisfied and reached an impasse with Coastal Zone Management, and would like to withdraw from the agreement. Dr. Rain said he would be better able to evaluate the scope of work to achieve the goal, if he knew what Coastal Zone Management's goal is. The Post Buckley report criticized "our water collection, but we did not falsify any data 'There was a quasi - technical mistake in that the reports were not dually stored in the State's archive, but there was no intent to deceive and the water samples we got did satisfy the need we were faced with in restoring the mangroves." If the goal was to correct the report, it could be fixed easily however, he doesn't understand what the purpose in doing this is. Mr. Cravens said, "I'm not sure if we win either way. It appears to be a lose -lose situation" Madam Chair Womble said, "If I remember correctly, Tom pointed out the real crux of the problem," when the Board voted to select a peer reviewer jointly. If they do not do this then the "PBS & J report stands as it is, we do not have any way to combat it, we are walking away and so behaving as though we accept it." That was the total idea behind finding our own consultant with the Coastal Zone Management department and then going forward. There are other considerations. In so doing this, and having some little more good faith than what we are showing right at this moment, we also have the possibility of vilifying our [historical water quality collection protocol and data] will be vilified and indicated to be as true, as fair, as just, as right as it possibly could be. We are not talking about one single thing here. We are talking about a way to give ourselves a justification that needs to be before the Commissioners, before the community and before this County, so there's more than just a little bit going on here." Dr. Raia said there is another way to do this and that is to have this Board vote to present factual data for a reputable scientist to perform a peer review. "If the Canty insists on going their direction, let them come up with their own facts. Once 8319 161 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessiou Summary Miames February 3, 2010 Mr. Hall said if they collect data appropriately according to the statute, all "appropriate" data has to be included. They have just started doing that. It is a requirement now and in the future. Madam Chair Womble asked what the process is to register data into STORET. Mr. Hall said it is not rocket science, but it is time consuming and diligence needed to enter correctly. The work is something that a third party, or "Lisa can be trained to do." It is a matter of what is the most reliable and cost effective way. Mr. Gibson gave kudos to Mr. Hall and said as they are "holding hand grenades with the County," they need to ensure this Board continues to challenge and direct appropriately. CHAHtWOMAN'S REPORT Madam Char Womble announced upcoming events. February 9 in the morning, Mr. Mangan will make a presentation at the Men's Coffee and in the afternoon, a joint workshop where Wilson Miller will provide a Community Improvement Plan update. On March 1 at 9 a.m., there is a Community Improvement Plan joint workshop and on March 3, a Services Division regular meeting. The Community Site Walk, location to be determined, is March 18. A Community Improvement Plan 90% Design Review Workshop is March 31 at 2 p.m. A Community Improvement Phan town hall meeting is on April 5 at 2 p.m. On April 7, the Services Division Board will hold a regular meeting, and the final Community Improvement Plan workshop is April 14. Mr. Moffatt asked Ms. Resnick to send out an email with updated meeting calendar. Madam Char Womble said the Services Division website calendar lists upcoming meetings. Mr. Moffatt said February 10 at I pm. there is a budget subcommittee meeting. Madam Chair Womble said the budget committee meeting is here at the Community Center. Mr. Gibson said they should firm up the schedule for the additional Community Improvement Plan workshops, so they can decide on which projects to vet to the community. He suggested extending until 3 p.m. the February 9 meeting. Ms. McCaughtry said they would schedule the additional workshops based on the February 12 and February 25 dates that Wilson Miller is available and try to accommodate as many people as possible. CAPITAL PROJECTS LAKE BANK ENHANCEMENTS Mr. Lukasz said the latest lake bank enhancements project along the entire east side of Crayton Road is complete. He explained the process. They lay two geo- textile tubes along the lake bank and they dredge and pump sediment into the larger geo-textile tube. They drain the water and lay a second, smaller tube of lesser quality across the geo-textile tube. They pump 9331 Pelican B a y Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 1 6 1 1 m* C 14 February 3, 2010 sediment into the second tube, drain the water and then slice it open. They use the contents for backfill and grade it out and blend it into the existing grade, add a layer of sod, and the sod goes down to the water's edge. The original higher quality tube stays in place and prevents erosion. Mr. Cravens said there is trash and Brazilian Pepper overgrowth at the boardwalk at Clam Pass Park. He asked if who is responsible have addressed the problems. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division would address exotic growth at the beginning of the boardwalk along the southern edge of the berm to the Naples Grande as part of their normal maintenance. He has notified Parks and Recreation department of the exotic growth at Clam Pass Park because that area is their responsibility and can make another call regarding the trash. As reported earlier, W. Lukasz said Hole Monies is evaluating the south berm settling and surveyed the swales to determine needed maintenance. He expects that the full report should be ready by mid - February and he will provide report to Board on March 3. There was no discussion. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS BUDGET COMMITTEE Mr. Levy said there was an article in the mid January issue of the Pelican Bay Post regarding the Community Improvement Plan. He referred to the article and statement made that there was funding available and set aside for recommendations that will cane from the plan. To clarify, he said although the Services Division has identified $2.1 million capital funds available, until they know the tasks and associated costs, only then can a plan to implement including funding sources be determined. MANGROVE RESTORATION FISCAL YEARS 2010 & 2011 FUNDING. SERVICES & PERMITTING Mr. Levy said regarding mangrove restoration fimding for fiscal year 2010, there is $200,000 budgeted, mainly for Turrell, Hall & Associates and other Services Division staff to perform biological monitoring, mangrove water level logging, hydrogrephic monitoring, exotic and invasive control, interior channel maintenance, water quality testing, beach tilling and submittal of an application for permit exemption to the DEP. He requested a status update. 8332 Pelican Buy ervices Division Board °"� A 1 4 y Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3, 2010 Mr. Lukasz said the water quality testing is budgeted under water management. All tasks mentioned above are on schedule to do or already complete. The water quality protocol manual and data logging projects are in process with Turret], Hall, & Associates. The maintenance of interior channels is up in the air pending permitting requirements. Mr. Levy asked if permitting would address fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Mr. Hall said his intent is to get an operational permit that operates in perpetuity. Mr. Cravens asked what beach tilling they are referring. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division funds a portion of beach tilling prior to turtle season, south of the Ritz Carlton Mr. Cravens asked if this occurred after the beach restoration and if it is an annual expense. He said turtles have been laying their eggs for centuries and it is ludicrous that they are tilling the beach so the turtles can lay their eggs. Mr. Lukasz answered yes to both tilling being done after beach restoration and being an annual expense. The reason for they are tilling the beach is it is a permit requirement of the beach renourishment. Mr. Levy asked about fund 111, the shared funding between the County and Services Division. Have they received the funds and if not, did he know when? Regardless, do they have cash flow? Mr. Lukasz said they have not received any fund 11 I money yet. In the past, they typically received 50 % at the beginning of the fiscal year and the other 50019 about midway through the fiscal year. Last year, receipt was delayed. The budget was prepared in anticipation of receiving S 102,400 in assessments from fund 111. They do have the cash because they probably will not do all of the capital improvements that are budgeted Mr. Cravens asked when the berm north of the commons was constructed. Mr. Lukasz said he believes they constructed the berm in the early T 980's. Mr. Dallas said in regards to capital budgeting, they should be thinking about which capital projects to do this year and next year, and refine as necessary because he believes the County will pressure them if they do not allocate it. Mr. Levy said they do not need to allocate the capital fiords to any project. He asked Mr. Lukasz if they have to identify the projects that they will spend that money. Mr. Lukasz said as long as it is in Capital projects it will stay part of the budget. Mr. Levy said the capital funds are reserve funds. Dr. Raia asked if the capital funds earned interest. Mr. Levy said yes. 8333 Pelican B a y Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 1 6 1 1 ; ; 1 February 3,2010 FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE H.R. WANLESS SUBMITTAL — T RATA Regarding the H.R. Wanless report, Dr. Raia said he spoke with Mr. Dorrill about what the Board decided at the January 6 meeting. The Board did not vote on the H.R. Warless report, so it was not accepted or rejected, and is still on the table. The Board did decide to `table" recommending H.R. Warless as an independent peer, pending further review at a future meeting. Madam Chair Womble said that if anyone in the audience has anyone they would recommend performing a peer review, to please contact the office and provide the information. She thanked Dr. David Rcelig for his years of service on the Board and trying his hardest to point people in the best direction. Dr. Rcelig said regarding the peer review, it is a good idea if it can produce facts, but enough criticism has generated surrounding the Post Buckley report. From his observations, the County appears to be "shopping" for a Committee members and consultants who would come to intended conclusions. Dr. Raia asked if the Board had a chance to review the H.R. Warless report and if so, he would like to make a motion to recommend Dr. Warless' report. Mr. Dallas said if they recommend him, his name may be tainted and that he should apply through the process. Dr. Rain made a motion to recommend the H R. Wanless report. Madam Chair Womble said if they do not take action, Dr. Wanless would have better odds for consideration. Dr. Raia asked what direction they decided to go in regards to this Board participating in the scope. Madam Chair Womble said Mr. Dorill would find out what they need to do and provide report on March 3. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Ms McCaughtry said the Ongoing Projects Status sheet is self- explanatory. If there are questions, let staff know. ADDITIONAL MEETINGS SCHEDULE Ms. Resnick provided Ms. McCaughtry with the additional Community Improvement Plan joint workshop schedule. Ms. McCaughtry announced the existing February 9, 2010 workshop will begin at noon and would extend to 3 p.m. Two additional workshops will be February 12 and February 25. Both will begin at 8:30 am. and end at 12 p.m. Mrs. Marcia Cravens said, "I find it unfortunate that audience comments come at the very beginning and very end, so that we are not able to participate while the meeting is going on. Today was a little more flexible.,' She referred to today's peer review discussion and said the peer review would not level criticism made, nor would it vindicate the Services Division's reputation. To deal with the criticism against the water quality sampling and monitoring data, they could audit the results. She 9334 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 1 A14" suggested having Mr. Hall or the County's Pollution Control department perform an audit. Post Buckley has included "alarming nutrient loads" data that is in obvious error. This Board do not need to "buy into" the agreed upon peer review process because it would not "eliminate the PBS & J report." There has been enough professional criticism made about the PBS & J report and another critique and expenditure of funds is unnecessary. She agrees with Dr. Roelig. She asked the Board to consider withdrawing from the agreement made with Coastal Zone Management to select jointly an independent expert to perform a peer review. The County and Coastal Zone Management are only trying to make it appear that the Services Division is "on board." Mr. Moffatt asked Ms. Cravens if she was recommending the Services Division go to another County department to review and audit data? Did she do this and what are the results? Ms. Cravens said the Pollution Control department is not under the same Division as Coastal Zone Management department, and therefore unable to influence them. Pollution Control and Turrell, Hall, and Associates have the ability to look at the dataset to determine and remove reported errors, so that Post Buckley cannot use the data in future reporting. Mr. Moffatt asked Ms. Cravens if she has gone to Pollution Control and asked them to audit the data? Ms. Cravens said she does not believe she has the authority to do so. This is the Services Division's responsibility as part of monitoring the mangroves. Mr. Moffatt said, —Me Mangrove Action Group doesn't have the ability to go and ask for that review?" He again asked if Ms. Cravens or Mangrove Action Group has requested data analysis, and if not why. Ms. Cravens argued that it is the Services Division's responsibility to have Pollution Control or Turrell, Hall & Associates to analyze the data to identify erroneous results. She has not asked anyone to analyze the data because it is not under the Mangrove Action Group's realm to request someone analyze data This is the Services Division's responsibility. Dr. Rain said a motion for the Services Division to request an audit of the data is not out of the realm of possibilities. Madam Chair Womble asked Mr. Hall for his thoughts. Mr. Hall said he is leery of throwing out data. Typically, they enter qualifiers on a spreadsheet and highlighted, and identified as to why the data is erroneous, i.e., equipment failure. This data has not gone through a quality assurance, quality control process, but he could audit data from the 1980's and 1990's to qualify erroneous errors. Turrell Hall & Associates has not discounted or thrown out any data, nor have they released qualifier dab to any other consultant, so no one but Turrell, Hall & Associates has the historical data to explain anomalies. If the Board directed him to do so, he would audit the data and provide to the Services Division and this Board could then determine whether to distribute and to whom. Madam Chair Womble directed Mr. Hall to audit the dab, invoice appropriately, and provide report to the Board 8335 i ` il9'IC ', i3Jt34 R� >ik_'�f 11 4jr. e ra+pb c name a motion 1" dt. urq, aWi -, sl+d"d xf. tla,fr(x# • ;r4r 7f nmfik. the IirI,rrd I IIfol ailmti,m)" 1; f,, a lfu,iro rf a 0" t az I h. 1611r�14� '.n -•, •1.•.. ,I,IC ..Intl LiG[id _.. ... ,tins ,qll. 1 ... ,.. ❑! rrr :., l , .. 1 r�l�.:f , ., ( IIiH {�1,. i311 I P• : : I (t,I �... II __. .... :I!';i '' +'.. F:1 �,iIIL.I�Ids. it .•':pol II h_.. >6at'. •,i It 1. ... P.IA- 6r � -, :..!I il` - -I , ¢ 'P.,i. , I{ rl . r I i ` il9'IC ', i3Jt34 R� >ik_'�f 11 4jr. e ra+pb c name a motion 1" dt. urq, aWi -, sl+d"d xf. tla,fr(x# • ;r4r 7f nmfik. the IirI,rrd I IIfol ailmti,m)" 1; f,, a lfu,iro rf a 0" t az I h. Pelican B a y Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 1 6 1 1 A 1 4 "' February 3, 2010 Mr. Hall answered the original design of the Swale was deeper than it is now. Since construction, there has never been any mainteriance of the Swale, so there is thirty years of sediment there and eventually needs to be done. In order to pursue, that is a maintenance activity of the storm water management system. It would involve engineering and drawings to determine what it would take to get back to original permit conditions. It may be more cost effective to consider as work on the berm as part of the master planning study. Mr. Larkasz said Hole Monies is evaluating the south berm settling and surveyed the swales to determine needed maintenance. Hole Montes took core bore samples and the initial indication is a layer of peat beneath the berm moved when the pipes were installed and the berm did not settle evenly. The layer of peat has settled as much as it will He expects that the full report should be ready by mid - February and he will report to the Board on March 3. Mr. Hall said Mr. Domenie reminded him that they did some swale maintenance on the north end of the berm. Mr. Moffatt said the water quality sampling protocol did not cover two areas. One area not covered is what the lab does. Are the labs inspected to meet standards? Mr. Hall said yes, but they are different standards. The lab must be state certified and part of that certification requires periodic reviews. Mr. Moffatt suggested Mr. Hall include obtaining the lab certification reviews at the appropriate time, otherwise there is a "hole." Mr. Hall said it should be in the protocol that the Services Division would deliver samples to a lab with the appropriate certification. Mr. Moffatt said they should confirm the labs are certified and that no weaknesses exist that could jeopardize the credibility of their data. "It's all about building trust and responsibility. Second, you have nothing in here about input into the system. It could screw up everything by not having the right controls over the input. The protocol should address inputting the data We can take all the best samples in the world and screw it up on the back end by inputting the wrong data Mr. Hall said he would obtain the protocol from STORET and add a separate chapter or standalone document about data storage and data entry into STORET. Mr. Moffatt asked who does the input now. Mr. Hall said Turrell Hall has been collecting the data and entering it into a spreadsheet, and summarizing into the annual report over the past ten years. Dr. Raia asked if entering the data into STORET was now required. 8330 Pelican Bay ervices D:r:sao Board � � A 14 y Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3, 2010 Mr. Hall said he has received concerns about areas of the mangroves and he would get with Mr. Lukasz to address. Due to the reduced scope, he is not in the field as often as in the past, and is reading to concerns rather than actively investigating. Madam Chair Womble asked if he was concerned about the mangrove die-off areas that he said were a result of the hurricanes of several years ago. Mr. Hall said most of the literature says they should see the effects for three to five years following a storm, so the end of the die-off is near. The other concern is they are in a gray area in regards to being able to maintain the hand -cut channels they put through there. He believes because of the way they handle debris and spoils, they need a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection to cut new and to maintain the hand -cut channels already dug. They do not pull debris and spoils out of the system and dispose of it. Instead, they broadcast the debris out to the side because it is the most environmentally friendly and cost effective way to remove from the system. Bringing in a "sled," filling it with debris, and dragging it out would create "drag" areas and cause more damage than doing good. The way they remove debris, however does not meet exemption criteria cited by some of the other County Divisions and his opinion is they do need to pursue the final resolution of that question. They could ask the Department of Environmental Protection or DEP if they need a permit and the DEP will respond by telling them to complete an application and explain what they are doing, then DEP will respond whether they need a permit and nobody has done that. Madam Char Womble said she believes the Services Division would be the one to initiate. Mr. Hall said there has been some confusion as to who is responsible, whether it is the Services Division or Coastal Zone Management. Mr. Cravens said it is the Services Division because mangrove maintenance is their responsibility. Mr. Hall said if they are certain it is the Services Division's responsibility, then he needs permission to go to the DEP to initiate a permit application. First, he would prefer to have a pre- application meeting with DEP to determine the scope of what they will require then he could obtain a cost analysis. Then the Board will have the information it needs to decide whether to move forward with the application. Madam Chair Womble said a motion was not necessary and directed Mr. Hall to set up a pre - application meeting with DEP to determine the scope and cox analysis and report to the Board, preferably at the March 3 meeting. Mr. Cravens referred to a conversation he had with Mr. Hall regarding Mr. Hall's suggestion to improve the water flow they should dredge along the west side of the berm. 9329 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 1 A14 February 3,2010 Madam Char Womble asked about field certification requirements. Mr. Hall said three Services Division employees took the training certification course at University of Florida. 'three employees are certified to perform the water sampling and monitoring protocol. Madam Chair Womble said the training for this is in the budget. Mr. Hall said they received a draft and there are typos and grammatical errors, and now is the time to give any suggestions. Mr. Levy referred to the organizational chart and asked whom the "Pelican Bay Board of Directors" is and if the Pelican Bay Services Division directly underneath is the organization itself. Mr. Hall said he would correct the organizational chart to reflect properly, "Pelican Bay Services Division Board" and "Pelican Bay Services Division Staff." Mr. Cravens referred to the ten -year management plan. He asked what the requirements were for water sampling data collection and submitting to the State. Mr. Hall said the current regulations were not in place at the time of the permit. Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hall to confirm his understanding that there were no requirements and the Services Division was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing. Mr. Hall said yes. Mr. Cravens added, "Then the criticism that has been leveled has sort of a motivation to taint and is realty unfounded Where did this criticism arise and who hired that firm?' Mr. Hall said criticism originated with a Seagate resident, David Buser and once the County and other groups became involved it just "snowballed." Mr. Cravens summarized that criticism cast doubt on Turrell Hall & Associates and the Services Division for "not complying with a standard that was non - existent" Mr. Moffatt asked when the State standard carne into effect. When did the standards become applicable to the Services Division and are they currently required to meet the standard. Mr. Hall said in 2002, the State enacted the requirements, however in terms of permit compliance, no; the rules did not apply at that time to the Services Division. If the Services Division undertakes future permitting, or future activities utilizing public funds for establishing water quality criteria, especially if it is site specific criteria, that data is required to follow the surface water sampling & monitoring protocol and subject to meeting State standards. Madam hair Womble asked if Mr. Hall would like to share anything else. 8328 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 1 A14 February 3, 2010 Dr. Raia said yes, he has. Madam Chair Womble said, "I just wanted to check." Dr. Raia said, `But this is so blatant and created such a big problem. All we're asking for is a little letter about your little concern." Madam Char Womble said, "Well, it's been voted down repeatedly." Dr. Raia said, "That's the part I don't understand." He acquiesced. Madam Chair Womble said there is an ordinance that outlines the Board's responsibilities. Dr. Raia, addressing the candidates said the ordinance contains a clause that says, "We are also an advisory board to the Commissioners to advise them on the concerns of Pelican Bay. That is the only semblance of real democracy that we have, so please keep that in mind." Madam Chair Womble concluded the discussion and moved on to the next agenda item. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT SURFACE WATER SAMPLING & MONITORING REPORT PROTOCOL DISCUSSION & APPROVAL Mr. Tim Hall said he developed a draft "Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Report Protocol" that contains requirements to enter appropriate water quality data into the State's storage and retrieval archives or STORET. The State defines appropriate water quality data as water collected under certain conditions, processed in certain ways, and entered into STORET in certain ways. This document outlines the procedures necessary to meet the State's standards. This is specific to how to collect samples, the training needed to be able to collect it, and how to maintain and document the reliability of the equipment and field measurements taken. The manual does not include what happens when the samples reach the lab or what happens when the lab reports come back The labs have their own protocol. It also does not include the actual data entry procedure for entering into STORET Madam Chair Womble asked Mr. Hall ifhe was confident that if the Services Division follows the protocol, the data would meet standards, and be entered into the State's storage and retrieval archives or STOREY. Mr. Hall said, "Having the documentation that the samples were collected according to these protocols and processed at the lab correctly would give me all the confidence in the world that the data meets the definition of reliability appropriateness." Madam Char Womble asked what lab do they use and how do they transport it. Mr. Hall said the Services Division collects the water samples, performs the field calibration, stores samples, and delivers samples to the Collier County Pollution Control lab. 8327 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 16 11 A 14 February 3, 2010 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill asked if the Board would defer discussion of the monthly financials until the March 3 meeting because it was time for him to leave. Prior to the March 3 meeting, the instant they become available, he would distribute the drafts of the request for qualifications or RFQ, scope, and contract. Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Drill if this Board would like, could they participate in developing the scope. Could they schedule a governance discussion workshop? Mr. Drill said if they choose to discuss developing the scope, then they could place it on the March 3 agenda Regarding a governance discussion, "1 said that last summer before you hired me." Mr. Dallas agreed they should schedule a governance discussion workshop as soon as possible to determine whether it is feasible. Dr. Raia said the governance workshop could include discussion of benefits of both becoming an independent district and of incorporation. Mr. Cravens said Mr. John Petty would be a valuable participant at the governance workshop and suggested inviting him to give a presentation. Madam Chair Womble directed Ms. McCaughtry to find out possible dates to schedule a governance workshop. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD CANDIDATE FORUM R_E UESTBD BY RAL4 Madam Chair Warble referred to Dr. Raia's item to discuss the candidate foram. She explained that the item was unclear and there was a debate to strike the item when the Board was approving the agenda. She asked him to clarify what he would like to discuss. Dr. Raia said he has already said what he needed to say, but had one question. "Why does a false Army Corp of Engineers report bother me and it doesn't bother you." Madam Char Womble said, "No one has said that it doesn't bother us." Dr. Raia said, "Well, it doesn't bother you enough that you don't want to respond it. I just don't understand that." Madam Chair Womble said, "There are other ways to convey things that don't have to be in front of the entire world and don't have to be in letter form. Sometimes it is valuable to strike a compromise with someone and talk to him or her about what is going on and let then know from a personal standpoint what is happening. Have you not eve gone to a Commissioner and talked to then ?' 8326 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 A14 February 3, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said most of his clients are Chapter 190 Community Development Districts. Community Development Districts require 100' /o approval by the landowners and they own everything within the boundaries of the district. Mr. Cravens said there is a motion or the floor and the issue they are discussing is a separate ore. He called for a question on the motion. Dr. Raia repeated his motion for the Board to withdraw from the agreement made with the County and Coastal Zone Management to select and fund jointly a third party expert to perform an independent peer review. Mr. Moffatt said, "That means we accept the Post Buckley report, they run with it, and whatever happens, happens." Mr. Cravens said no. "It means the County selects someone to do a peer review." Mr. Moffatt said, "Mey don't need a peer review. They have their report and we don't like it." Madam Chair Womble said the County is doing a pee review at this Board's request. Mr. Cravens said, "We do have the Mangrove Action Group's report, we have a seventeen page critique written by the Conservancy's senior scientist, Kathy Worley, which I think is highly critical of it [Post Buckley report] and ► think the community as a whole realizes that it is not a very sound report." Dr. Raia said, "Mr. Moffatt, the problem is that if we agree with the scope, no only will we have the PBS & J report, but a peer review sanctifying it." Mr. Moffatt said, `Scientists should no assume, right? We don't know how it's going to cone out. We are hoping how it is going to come out." Mr. Cravens said scientists always hypothesize. Mr. Moffatt said, "CPA's don't. They work with facts." Madam Char Womble called for a Board vote on Dr. Raja's motion, seconded by Mr. laizzo, to withdraw from the agreement made with the County and Coastal Zone Management to select and fund jointly and independent expert to perform a peer review. Mr. Cravens called for a `roll call vote." Dr. Rasa made a mutton, seconded by Mr. IalAo, to Wffidraw from the agreement made with rye County and Coastal Zone Managemeat to adeet andfand joimly amt iadepndem eyiett a perform a par renew. The Board took a "roll call" vote Mr, laizro, Dr. Raia, Mr. Levy, and Mr. Cravens voted in favor of the motion. Mr Dallas, Madam Chair Womble, Mr. Mg off, Mr. Gibson voted at the mdon. The vote was I — 4. a the, and the inudan did mat 8325 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board , ^ 6 141 y Regular Session Summary Minutes -� �, J February 3, 2010 Mr. Cravens said the County wants Pelican Bay's money and symbol of legitimacy. "We sanction it, therefore it is good. That is all this is." Dr. Raia referred to earlier comments made about him "thwarting" the Board. When he has expressed his opinion publicly, he has stated he was not representing this Board and feels that this Board is thwarting him. This whole issue stems from the County removing Clam Bay from the Services Division's purview. The County has the authority to do so, and he has no problem with that. The problem is that the County based their decision to remove responsibility on misinformation and the Services Division Board should address this issue. Mr. Dorrill said the long -term goal of the Pelican Bay Services Division should be to revet to an independent district because as it stands currently, the Services Division dependent upon the County. The County is the governing authority that determines at their discretion the Services Division's structure and responsibilities. to this particular argument, the Services Division has no authority and they must rely on the Foundation to fight the good fight to resolve. If the Services Division was a Chapter 189 district, independent from the County, the fad that this is occurring within the boundaries of Pelican Bay, they could do as the Foundation is. The intention is to restore the Services Division' credibility by supporting the Division's historical work, "poke holes" in the Post Buckley report if they can find an unbiased third party peer reviewer, and if this Board also gets to participate in the selection process, agree to split the cost. Mr. Iaizzo asked Mr. Dorrill what the process and timeline would be. Mr. Dorrill said independent districts require a special act of the Legislature. The Legislative Delegation would probably like to see some evidence of support from a referendum. This could occur as early as November. Madam Chair Womble asked what the percentage of votes needed to move forward. Mr. Dorrill said the Legislative Delegation would determine the parameters, but if this Board would like to pursue and make happen this year, they should schedule a governance discussion very soon. Mr. Cravens suggested scheduling a special workshop to discuss. W. Dorrill said the County Commission may net be receptive, but if they went about this the right way, they may not Oppose it. If they want to be truly independent, then would own the roadways, medians, master drainage �' Ys, ag system and other public works. Saying, "We want the deed to Clam Bay is net going to happen." The Florida Statute describes the process and the Legislative Delegation would want to see some evidence of support to do that. Pelican Bay was an independent district and he believes they should explore this option to find out if it is in their best interests. Mr. laizzo said the County is responsible for Pelican Bay's roadways and pathways, but provide little support. 8324 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 16 I February 3, 7010 Mr. Cravens said although it would be a nice gesture, the County would not go along with Dr. Raia's proposal to fund two studies, and the County would decide to go with the selection made by Coastal Zane Management. Dr. Raia said there are two options. One is to withdraw and the other is to go along with the County. Mr. Cravens called for a question on the motion. There was no further discussion. Madam Chair Womble called for a Board vote on Dr. Raia's motion that this Board change the agreement made with the County to select and fumd an individual to perform an independent pea review jointly with Coastal Zone Management. The new agreement would be for the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to develop a scope of work jointly with the Coastal Zone Management department, and with that common scope, each body would select their own candidate to proceed, The motion failed by Board vote of 7 — I. Dr. Rain cast the sole vote in favor of the motion. Madam Chair Womble called for a Board vote on Dr. Rota's nation that this Board ekange the agreement made wink the County and Coastal Zone Management to select and fend jointly an individual to perform an independent peer reviews The new agreement wordd he for the peBcen Bay Services Dimom Board to develop a scope of work jointly with the Coastal Zone Management department, and with tkat common scope, each body would select their own candidate to proceed The motion failed by Board vote of 7— L Dr. Rasa cast the sole voee in favor of th......a.... Dr. Raia made a motion to withdraw from the agreement made with the County and Coastal Zone Management to select and fiord jointly an individual to perform an independent peer review. Madam Chair Warble consulted Mr. Dorrill if the Board could withdraw from the agreement. Mr. Dorrill said they could ask the County Commission to reconsider, but "I'm not completely sure what our rationale would be considering it was our proposal and our idea to begin with. They are all going to think we are nuts." Dr. Raia said, "I think they will focus their contention just on me, so you have nothing to worry about Mr. Cravens said, "I wonder, it seems to me it is foolish for the County to pay a company to do a study and after they do the study say, well, we need to pay somebody else to evaluate that study." Madam Chair Womble said maybe the County has noticed there are concerns and they are trying to rectify. Mr. Dorrill said pear review of scientific wok is standard practice, especially in anticipation of further permitting applications. "A record is being built and I'm trying to get us track in the game. Clearly, the alternative is similar to what our Position is on navigational markers. Our 8Wpoand gorilla in the navigational marker issue is the Foundation's restrictive covenants that encumber the County's deed of that parcel." From a clearly adversarial standpoint, the appropriate party to dispute the Post Buckley findings is the Foundation. If the Board's goal is to try to establish credibility, he does not suggest they approach by withdrawing. 8323 1.61 A 14 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3,2010 Madam Chair Womble asked Dr. Raia to clarify his motion. Dr. Raia said there should be a common scope used by both the Services. Division and by Coastal Zone Management If the Services Division and Coastal Zone Management select the same expert, it would be "miraculous," but if they reach an impasse, based on the abovementioned common scope, the Services Division and Coastal Zane Management can each choose their own expert and conduct separate independent peer reviews. Mr. Cravens said Dr. Raia's motion is inappropriate because this Board has already voted to select and fund jointly an independent expert and peer review with the Coastal Zone Management department and "you are proposing something that would necessitate doing away with that previous agreement" Dr. Rain amended his motion for the Board to change the agreement made with the County to develop jointly a scope of work from which each body selects a candidate to proceed. Mr. laizzo seconded the motion. Mr. Cravens clarified Dr. Raja's motion. This Board has an agreement with Coastal Zone Management to select and fund jointly an independent expert to perform a peer review, and Dr. Raia's intent is to modify that agreement. Dr. Raia explained that instead of jointly selecting an expert, this Board would select its own and proceed and Coastal Zone Management would select their own and proceed. Madam Chair Womble recommended they continue with the current agreement, contact individuals they believe are qualified and may be interested in performing the peer review. If at some point, if they became unhappy with the way things are going, they could withdraw their money. Mr. Moffatt said in regards to Dr. Raia's proposal, how would they pay the expert they select for their services because this Board does not have authority . Dr. Raia said the County must agree with the proposal, but if not, this Board can withdraw, or let the County dictate. Mr. Levy said regardless of who makes the selection tint individual would work for the County, Dr. Raia said it is "similar to what we have now. We pay Mr. Dorrill's salary, but he works for the County." Mr. Cravens said, "He also works for us." Dr. Raia said, "No, he has tree priorities. First, he does what the County Manager tells him to do. He advises us on policy and guides us toward what the County Manager wants, and whatever is leftover, he advises us independently. Let's not fool ourselves. He is in a tough position because he has to answer to the County Manager. This proposal would be a little different. The County would authorize the payment and that pecan would work with the Pelican Bay Services Division." 8322 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes �j 1 q 1 February 3, 2010 VV j 1. 4ir Mr. Gibson said the purchasing selection process is a good, fair system and he is pleased they used it to find Mr. Dorrill, Services Division Administrator. He is inclined to move forward with the procedure until or if they reach an impasse and reevaluate. Madam Chair Womble said, `R think the major bone of contention at this point is whether we can have input in the process of writing the scope." She asked Mr. Dorrill to facilitate making this happen with the Coastal Zone Management department. Dr. Raia said his concern is beyond the scope, "but if that does not bother anyone on this Board then fine. It is beyond the scope where a problem is going to occur. We can develop a joint scope and then observe how the County proceeds with the scope of work and how we proceed with the scope of work and where we arrive at, is that fair? We have agreed on a scope of work. The problem with doing a scientific study is after the scope of work. If we agree to a scope of work then the issue is closed. You're buying something but you don't know what it is." Mr. Cravens said the County selected PBS & J and they work for the County, so whomever the County selects is going to work for the County. Madam Chair Womble said, "Well, whomever we select we hope are going to work for us." Mr. Cravens said, "If we select someone who won't work for the County, then they will be rejected. And we, in my opinion, may not even have a choice that will enable us to select someone who will not work for the County." Dr. Raia said, "I think it pays to invest. Let us do the common, show our cooperation with the scope of work, but at that point, we take that scope of work to those we consider independent scientists to proceed and Ict the County go ahead and let's hope and pray they both come out the same. 'That would be wonderful. If they don't, I'm not ready to yield on my reliability of what should be derived from that scope of work, and I would seriously question the County. The County has not come clean on this to why they are doing it" Mr. laizzo said there is a motion on the floor and asked Dr. Rain whether he was going to withdraw it. Dr. Raia withdrew his motion to withdraw from the agreement to select an independent peer reviewer jointly. He made a motion for the Board to develop a common scope of work and implement it. Mr. taizzo clarified that this Board would developing a common scope and go about its business independently to implement it. Mr. Levy said they are still bound by the County's procurement policy, so even if they have their own scope of work, they have to hire a consultant through the County's purchasing department. Several Board members agreed with Mr. Levy. 8321 161 1 A1444 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes February 3,2010 we have two sets of facts, one set that I know I can trust as being scientifically sound then we might discuss how we are going to rectify the difference. Right now, we are going to and up with one package. The scope of work does not cane into the data that is collected and more importantly, how the data analysis was made, that is what is going to be given to us and I am song, we have to be careful of what we wish for. That is why I made my motion that we are better off getting out and hopefully if we're going to spend any money, we move ahead and get a good scientific study ourselves." Mr. Dallas said Dr. Raia's approach would create "dueling consultants." It is highly probably that this Board and the County will come up with different consultants with opposing views. Dr. Raia said if that happens, as a scientist, he is very concerned. Mr. Dallas said it probably would happen. Dr. Raia said, "Then let it go out to the public to see what is going on, then we will get a really independent report." Mr. Dallas said that would not be productive. Dr. Raia said if the Services Division did a peer review, then they would have data and analysis to compare. Now they do not have anything but a theoretical scope of work. Madam Chan Womble gave Dr. Halikas an opportunity to speak. Dr. Halikas said from his understanding the Board is discussing three separate issues simultaneously. 'Die first is scope of work, second is candidate selection, and thud is fiscal responsibility. The assumption is that a report will be generated. The scope of work really determines what questions to ask and the answers to obtain. The request for proposals is comparable to the scope of work and that is what the study tries to answer. The Services Division should participate in developing the scope of work. The concept is to determine what the questions are this Board wants any consultant to answer. The candidate selection process sounds like an open process and if people in Pelican Bay have qualified individuals in mind they would like to encourage applying, that's great. The Services Division must ensure that they ask the proper questions and this requires this Board's participation in developing the scope. Madam Chan Womble gave Mr. Domenic an opportunity to speak. Mr. Domenie said if Pelican Bay is going to pay for half of the peer review, then they might as well pay for it all and conduct their own independent peer review. According to the executive summary of the since canceled Coastal Advisory Committee it states clearly that they will develop the scope for an independent peer review and this would eliminate any objectivity. Mr. Dorrill said that Mr. McAlpin would no be unilaterally developing the scope and sending it to the purchasing department. Mr. McAlpin's boss, Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Dorrill agreed the scope is subject to this Board's review and consent. 8320 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summary Minutes 161 7 A 14 W" February 3, 2010 Mr. Hall said it would take time and would not be available by March 3. Mrs. Cora Obley referred to Mr. Dorrill's suggestion for the Services Division to become an independent improvement district. This is what the Pelican Bay Services Division was before it became dependent upon the County. "It requires 100% vote, and I guarantee you won't get it" Such a situation would only work in a gated community. Discussion ensued amongst Board members that the type of district Mr. Dorrill was referring did not require 100° /v. Dr: Halikas said this Board should convey to the County than the Services Division expects to participate in the formulation design, and development of the scope; expects to participate, nominate, and evaluate candidates and selection process-, and expect to participate in discussion of the fiscal aspects of the study. If the Chairwoman and Administrator convey to the appropriate parties their expectations, if the County says no, it emancipates the Services Division and allows withdrawal at any time. Madam Chair Womble agreed. Mr. Cravens made a motion to a4aurn, and seconded by Madam Chair Womble. The 'I Board voted unanimously to adiourn at 4.09 a m. 8336 Mknaes by Lisa Resnick on 2/23/201011:02:14 AM Fiala s�- - RECEIVED Hein L q I R 05 2010 Henning V 1 (,`oyie 6dara or County Commissioners Colette PELICAN BAY SERVICES (VISION BOARD AND PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 9, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted public workshop, Monday, February 9,2010,12:00 p.m., at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8%0 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman John laizzo Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Michael Levy Tom Cravens Jerry Moffatt Geoffrey Gibson Ted Raia Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Bob Uek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chair Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chair Ralph Ohlers Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Gwen Rasiwala, Communications Manager Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner, Wilson Miller Ms. Bellone provided project introduction and recap of lighting projects, landscaping projects, and safety concerns and noise abatement solutions along the U.S. 41 bens. Madam Chair Womble read letter from resident concerned about safety and noise along the U.S. 41 berm. Mr. Gibson asked what the goals are of the next few meetings. Mr. Dallas said to come to some consensus regarding what are the most important projects, determine whether the solution is simple or complicated, then direct Wilson Miller to provide recommendations with costs. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Dallas agreed that crosswalks should be the number one priority. Mr. Dallas said they would address one project at a time, one -step at a time. Mr. Lickhalter said the goal is to produce an integrated plan, implemented over time. Each sequential improvement builds on the prior one. 73 Misc. Corret: Date: Item # Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Co i it f 1 1 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop Mr. Uek said there are two sides to the plan. The Pelican Bay Services Division would handle decisions and financial responsibility for public property improvements. The Foundation Strategic Planning Committee would handle the property owned by the Foundation. Wilson Miller would provide a range of costs for doable and successful projects. Safety and security is top priority. Mr. Mangan said some safety and security projects could be determined very quickly. At the North Tram station, the priority is safety, but one solution could produce other benefits. All crosswalks should be uniform to the extent that they display the uniform traffic standard amongst striping and signage. Due to existing structures and safety factors, some improvements at some locations would be unique, but overall crosswalks would be uniform. Member consensus was that not every location needs to have an elaborate solution, but in order to make informed decisions, the members requested they see the designs and cost for additional options. A basic crosswalk contains the standard high visibility striping and standard signage. A basic midblock crossing contains the standard, and they could add an additional element for higher visibility. Optional features beyond the standard might include flashing lighting. Tier two, might include the standard, flashing lighting, and different color pavers. Tier three, might include the standard, flashing lights, different color pavers, and high friction tactile surface or HFS. Regarding priority, consensus was that midblock crosswalks are most important, followed by crosswalks at intersections, and pathways are third. The intent is to recommend solutions that improve safety, produce a traffic- calming effect, reduce maintenance, provide consistency, and be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Mangan said at the February 12 add -on meeting, Wilson Miller would provide designs and costs based on today's consensus to narrow down what the members want to vet to the community. V � /... LC,A, . ��.1 I1 I . 74 Minutes by Usa Resnick 3/2/2010 8:35:33 AM Fiala l .IG , IREGcVcD Halas 161 A1 ` Henning MAR 0 5 2016 Coyle Coletta i3oard of County Commissloners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 12, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted a public workshop, Friday, February 12, 2010, 8:30 am. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Jerry Moffatt Tom Cravens Ted Raia Geoffrey Gibson Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Bob Uek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chair Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhaher, Co-Vice Chair Ralph Ohlers Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner, Wilson Miller LIGHTING Members discussed current lighting issues, including "canopy" trees blocking light and North Pelican Bay Boulevard at electrical capacity. Recommendations made for possible solutions were trimming, moving or relocating palms. If recommendations were made to lower the lights, the poles and electrical wiring would need modifying and such solution is not only impractical, but also less effective, producing less light onto the ground. They could also add additional poles, or add longer arms to existing poles by retrofitting them. They are available as kits, like a ceiling fan. They could switch out the fixtures to install LED bulbs on existing poles, or implement new poles and lighting designs that are aesthetically pleasing. LED does not necessarily need to be for all lighting but must be consistent along the main boulevards. Consensus for most important was to extend the arms. Mr. Mangan recommended they first look at components and then choose a lighting solution, then choose which areas or sections of roadway to implement solutions. He recommended implementing solutions one section at a time. For example, Pelican Bay Boulevard is three times as long as Gulf Park Drive. hr year one, they could Misc. Corres: Date: 75 Item ,-0,-Aft t4: 1611 A14 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop Summary Minutes February 12,2010 implement lighting solutions along one "chunk" of Pelican Bay Boulevard, in year two, another "chunk," until complete. Next, they could implement lighting solutions along Gulf Park Drive. Factors to consider when prioritizing might depend upon use and high visibility, i.e., entranceways. He stressed that the lighting solutions should be done in a balanced, contiguous way. They are recommending areas where lighting is needed, such as pathways at night. BOLLARDS A bollard is a short fixture coming out of ground that might provide better lighting and broader distribution of light along pathways. Factors are location(s) and costs. The bollard that looks like "R2D2" from Star Wars is expensive, but may provide ultimate solution. They need to consider all components of lighting structures including poles, arms, and fixtures. Discussion ensued regarding where along the pathways was appropriate to install bollard lighting and whether existing pole lighting should be replaced with bollards. Pathway widening necessitates moving utility and irrigation underground. Mr. Mangan explained that lighting solutions should be consistent because the pattern of light distributed is always the same. LED requires less power and provides better lighting. Bollard lighting solutions should be unobtrusive and provide consistent lighting levels. Based on light meter data, the San Raphael pathways is the place where lighting is needed the most, as well as areas under canopies. He recommended placing bollards along the side areas for safety and feeling of security. They could install bollards in line with existing lights. They should consider the material that bollards are constructed. The "R2D2" bollard is made of copper. Other considerations are bollard cost per unit and energy efficiency over time. The LED bollards like "R2132" distribute light better and broader, so they would not need to purchase as many units as traditional metal halide units. An "R2D2" bollard unit costs approximately four times as much as a traditional lighting unit. Sensor technology is used that brightens when tripped and the level of light produced can always be controlled. Traditional lighting could provide the same amount of lighting as bollard lighting however, the quantity of units is greater. New electrical wiring would be needed to install bollard lighting and at that time, they could create additional conduits to use later. New incandescent, metal halide fixtures cost $1,000 - $2,000. LED fixtures cost ten times as much. LANDSCAPING Recommendations made for landscaping in medians were to relocate or replace unhealthy and maintenance intensive vegetation with "decorative" vegetation. Aesthetics may not be as important as benign effective. VV ;g�,.+J� 1 A 14 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Indl k Committee Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop Summary Minutes February 12, 2010 Landscaping should address ground covering by layering vegetation at a low level for safety and visibility, as well as address best management practices. Vegetation could also be set to bloom during season for effect. They have identified dead oak trees along Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive that could be removed immediately. They can always plant bigger trees to replace the ones removed. Member consensus was for Wilson Miller to bring back specific plants and designs for key spots at entrances and other areas discussed. U.S. 41 BERM BOUNDARIES Recommendations were made to provide a boundary along the U.S. 41 berm for safety, security, and to absorb sound. Regardless of material used to construct a boundary it will not be effective in reducing noise. Solutions might be a six to eight foot high hardscape wall or landscaping. A wall could cost approximately $100 per linear foot. The land is both Foundation property and private property. The land area has been maintained by the Services Division, but the Foundation and private property owners would pay for a new wall. The County plans to install pathways along U.S. 41, so security level may become increasingly important. Regardless of incidents reported to the Collier County Sheriff, safety and security solutions are a high priority. Consensus was for Wilson Miller to come back with solutions that address both security and noise, and price. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. 77 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/2/2010 9:59:41 AM Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level I61 1 A14 Opinion of Probable Costs: Crosswalk - North Tram Station Tier 01 - Thermoplastic Striping with Median Modifications WilsonMiller- February 12, 2010 Demolition $15,898 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,530 SF $0.49 $3,689370 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Light Pole - Remove 1 EA $260.00 $26000 Thermoplastic Striping - Remove 0 LF $2.08 $0.00 Sitework , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $54500 $1,09000 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 SY $32.00 $64.00 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 985 LF $10.50 $10,342.50 Regulatory Signage- Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 453 SY $6.50 $2,944.50 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 137 TN $200.00 $27,400.00 Roadway - Relro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid -24 "Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Landscape $99.567 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Tree Relocation 5 EA $4,000.00 $20,000.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Palm Relocation 19 EA $200.00 $3,800.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 10,470 SF $5.50 $57,585.00 Topsoil (6 ") 200 CY $40.00 $8,000.00 Irrigation 10,470 SF $0.80 $8,37600 • • , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Relocate(Includes condufi, conductor and pull box allowance) 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00 Flashing Light - Motion sensing with solar panel 0 EA $000 $000 Design 800 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $16,300.00 $16,300.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 m A 3 O S ti A N H A 2 y 2 m 0 D Z O 0 n D ti O Z y D C z 0 A py_ D 3 N 4 D y O Z O A O N D z 4,/ 1� Illlllu 11 lllllllllll llll G< FH tm by 14 "' Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Crosswalk - North Tram Station Tier 02 - Decorative Surface Material with Median Modifications WilsonMiller - February 12, 2010 161 1 A 149 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 602 SY $8.00 $4,816.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,530 SF $049 $3,689.70 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200,00 Light Pole - Remove 1 EA $260.00 $260.00 Thermoplastic Striping - Remove 0 LF $2.08 $0.00 Sitework $47,885 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 SY $32.00 $64.00 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 985 LF $10.50 $10,342.50 Decorative Surface Material (applied to asphalt) 642 SF $8.50 $5,457.00 Regulatory Signage- Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 453 SY $6.50 $2,944.50 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 137 TN $200.00 $27,400.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 162 LF $2.01 $325.62 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Tree Relocation 5 EA $4,000.00 $20,000.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Palm Relocation 19 EA $200.00 $3,800.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundeovers, Mulch 10,470 SF $5.50 $57,585.00 Topsoil (6 ") 200 CY $40.00 $8,000.00 Irrigation 10,470 SF $0.80 $8,376.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Relocate (Includes conduit, conductor and pull box allowance) 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00 Flashing Light- Motion sensing with solar panel 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Landscape Architecture MAIN Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $16,300.00 $16,300.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0 m O AO D N C ]J T D n m D ti m A D y 2 m 0 n 0 0 T n D Q Z N z O A x py D 3 ti y D 1 O z n 0 N F x � i £n m� Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1 6 1 A 1 4 Opinion of Probable Costs: Crosswalk - North Tram Station Tier 03 - Brick Paver Crosswalk and Concrete Ribbon Curb with Median Modifications WilsonMiller- February 12, 2010 Demolition 8• Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,530 SF $0.49 $3,689.70 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Light Pole - Remove 1 EA $260.00 $260.00 Thermoplastic Sinning - Remove 0 LF $2.08 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete- ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $54500 $1,090.00 Concrete - Brick Pavers 803 SF $5.50 $4,416.50 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 SY $32.00 $64.00 Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 963 SF $12.80 $12,326.40 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 985 LF $10.50 $10,342.50 Regulatory Signage- Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 107 BY $6.50 $695.50 Roadway - Asphaft(2 ") 137 TN $200.00 $27,40(.00 Roatlway - Retro- renective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $6680 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 162 LF $2.01 $325.62 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Landscape •• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $7,800.00 Tree Relocation 5 EA $4,000.00 $20,000.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Palm Relocation 19 EA $200.00 $3,800.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 10,470 SF $5.50 $57,585.00 Topsoil B ") 200 CY $40.00 $8,000.00 Irrigation 10,470 SF $0.80 $8,37600 1: Lighting $1,250 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Relocate (Includes conduit, conductor and pull box allowance) 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00 Flashing Light- Motion sensing with solar panel 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 s ;C fi { Design Fee Estimates $22,800 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineenng and Survey 1 LS $16,300.00 $16,300.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3.500.00 $3,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 z O A y N y D O 2 n A O O ti f D x 1 N� r P_ n m a n < z O A y N y D O 2 n A O O ti f D x 1 N� Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level L i 411111111 Opinion of Probable Costs: Crosswalk - North Tram Station v ! Tier 04 - Brick Paver Field and Cobble Paver Bands with Median Modifications W ilsonMiller - February 12, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (I ncludes limerock base to 8 ") 602 SY $8.00 $4,816.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,530 SF $049 $3,68910 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Light Pole - Remove 1 EA $26000 $260.00 Thermoplastic Striping - Remove 0 LF $2.08 $0.00 Sitework 1 EA $1,250.00 $79,165 Flashing Light- Motion sensing with solar panel 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Concrete - Brick Pavers 803 SF $5.50 $4,416.50 Concrete - Cobble Pavers 483 SF $9.00 $4,347.00 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 SY $32.00 $64.00 Concrete - Slab(Up to B" thick reinforced) 1,445 SF $12.80 $18,496.00 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 985 LF $1050 $10,342.50 Regulatory Signage- Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,15000 $0.00 Roadway - 8 "Limemck Base 1,911 SY $6.50 $12,421.50 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 137 TN $200.00 $27,40000 Roatlway - Retm- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, While, Solid - 12" Width 162 LF $2.01 $32562 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, While, Solid -24 "Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Landscape $99,561 Tree Relocation 5 EA $4,00000 $20,000.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Palm Relocation 19 EA $200.00 $3,800.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Gmundcovers, Mulch 10,470 SF $5.50 $57,585.00 Topsoil (6 ") 200 CY $40.00 $8,000.00 Irrigation 10,470 SF $0.80 $8,376.00 'Lighting LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,250 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Relocate (Includes conduit, conductor and pull box allowance) 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00 Flashing Light- Motion sensing with solar panel 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Design IONVIVENNAM :11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $16,300.00 $16,300.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 7¢I i:Ai4' o ' z ' I n 1 A I O I N I N D ' 1 s I i 1 I I I i I i I �gP �m sx m \� HUM ® { \� \ �: | � K� $� O. z` k� <| 2 m 2 q 2 O 3 �. m c z. 5 O z � \ 161 1 A14" \\\ Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Tier 01 - Thermoplastic Striping and Median Nosings Modified WilsonMiller- February 12, 2010 )emolition u7 oa/ [item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition - Curb 160 LF $6.00 $960.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 30 SY $12.00 $360.00 Sitework 60 EA $3.34 $6,742 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 SY $32.00 25600 Concrete - Type'A'CurO 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Roadway - 8 "Limereck Base 84 SY $6.50 $546.00 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Roadway - Retru- reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 940 LF $2.01 $1,889.40 Landscape 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Greundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $31,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $17,500.00 $17,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 T F CO vA 9 D z v (1 2 m D C m O D Z 0 c n z 0 A T Z 1 m A m n 0 z 611 A14' m m r C) D Z [n D 0 C r m G D A O �IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ n = ;o GULF PARK DRIVE 2 W < zw v= _ m n3 0 C) �'Illilllllll lllllllllllllllll ��-- Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161! 1 A141 Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Tier 02 - Decorative Surface Material Crosswalk and Median Nosings Modified WilsonMiller - February 12, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition -Curb 160 LF $6.00 $960.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 30 SV $12.00 $360.00 Sitework $25,613 Concrete- Sidewalk (50') 8 SV $32.00 $256.00 Concrete - Type'At Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Decorative Surface Material (applied to asphalt) 2,310 SF $8.50 $19,63500 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 84 SV $6.50 $546,00 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 1 TN $200.00 $20000 Roatlway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 60 EA $334 $200.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 560 LF $2.01 $1,125.60 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CV $40.00 $7,240.00 Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 F 7 a ST Design / Permit Fee Estimates $31,000 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 T F my yc0 C- ii m NA ti m A N m m r O D Z D W O c r m D A O 1 o x m 00O x O vD '0 ADZ O O c W Z 7 D °gym z O a1� GULF PARK DRIVE Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1611 Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Tier 03 - Concrete Paver Crosswalk and Median Nosings Modified WilsonMiller - February 12, 2010 Demolition 0 EA $200.00 $11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt 319 SV $8.00 $2,552.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition - Curb 160 LF $600 $960.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 30 SV $12.00 $360-00 Sitework Landscape Aminiftecture 1 LS $65,900 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Concrete - Brick Pavers 2,309 SF $5.50 $12,699.50 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 560 LF $15.00 $8,40000 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 Sy $32.00 $256.00 Concrete- Slab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 2,871 SF $12.80 $36,748.80 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 403 SV $6.50 $2,619.50 Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Roadway - Relro- reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Thermoplastic Stnping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 560 LF $2.01 $1,125.60 Landscape $77,770 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $000 Shrubs, Grasses, Gmundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53790.00 Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CV $40.00 $7,240.00 Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 9.i W c ."';` l v _ Wr4bW ]va.£ ' Q6,Ifr zvsu:. ui4- wasai..v Design I Permit Fee Estimates ,au .i^�fr m'. >iySi.- .a:�., ... $31,000 Engineenng and Survey I LS $17,50000 $17,500 rr Landscape Aminiftecture 1 LS $9,50000 rr rr Permitting 1 LS ,00000 $4,000, rr m� A� oA m 0 A T D Z m D O D Z 0 c a s 0 A z y m A N n y O z m m r n D Z W D W O C r m C D A 0 W MZO X �p� m m D >mm � -X A �Wn G0 Z W � C D W x � D Z = O 1l6l1l�. :114 GULF PARK DRIVE Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161 1 A14 Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Tier 04 - Concrete Paver Crosswalk & Field, Cobble Pavers and Median Nosings Modified W ilsonMiller - February 12, 2010 !Demolition 111 $19,970 Item Quantity Unit Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 1,497 SV $8.00 $11,976.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition -Curb 160 LF $6.00 $960.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 30 SV $12.00 $360.00 Sitework 111 $182,608 Item Quantity Unit Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Concrete - Brick Pavers 7,875 SF $5.50 $43,312.50 Concrete - Cobble Pavers 4,177 SF $900 $37,593.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 1,405 LF $15.00 $21,075.00 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 Sy $32.00 $256.00 Concrete - Slab(Up to 8" thick reinforced) 5,031 SF $12.80 $64,396.80 Concrete - Type'A'Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Roadway - 8 "Limerock Base 1,495 SV $6.50 $9,717.50 Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 1,098 LF $2.01 $2,206.98 Landscape 111 $77,770 Item Quantity Unit Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 15 EA $30000 $4,500.00 Palms 0 EA $200.00 $0.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Design 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $17,500.00 $17,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $9,500.00 $9.500.00 Permitting 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,00000 mF A� NA m m r n D Z W D 0 O C r m D A O D 0 z0 O z ,0 mA r m om �m M< =m W p 0 A 0 p zN nm c � D 1 Al GULF PARK DRIVE Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161 1 Al Opinion of Probable Costs: Pathways - West Side of Pelican Bay Blvd. (Asphalt) WilsonMiller- January 26, 2010 DEMOLITION $107.452 Demolition - Cleaning and Grubbing 350 SF $0.49 $171.50 Demolition - Cleanng and Grubbing (Palm and slump removal) 19 EA $1,200.00 $22,800M Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Tree and stump removal) 8 EA $2,500.00 $20,000.00 Demolition - Curb 380 LF $6.00 $2,280.00 SITEWORK $294,560 stone x Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly Concrete - Ribbon Curb Headwall Railing (Sand Piper) Root Banner (18" Deep Rigid Panel Type) 56 EA $545.00 $30,520.00 380 LF $15.00 $5,700,00 60 LF $10,00 $600.00 3,050 LF $6.50 $19,825.00 LANDSCAPE Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Irngation(Relre(1) 41,985 SF $0.80 $33,588.00 Sod 41,985 SF $0.35 $14,694.75 Design / Permit Fee Estimates INAMMEMIMMEM $3• 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineenng and Survey 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $4,500-00 $4,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1611, A14' Opinion of Probable Costs: Pathways - West Side of Pelican Bay Blvd. (Concrete) W ilsonMiller - January 26, 2010 • • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway I Path - Pelican Bay BIW (5.0') 7,775 SV $800 $62,200.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 350 SF $0.49 $171.50 Demolition - Clearrg and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 19 EA $1,200.00 $22,800.00 Demolition - Cleanng and Grubbing (Tree and stump removal) 8 EA $2,500.00 $20,000.00 Demolition - Curb 380 LF $6.00 $2,280.00 • Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete Walkway I Path- Pelican Bay Blvd. (6" thick x 8.0' wide) 13,995 LF $32.00 $447,840.00 Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 56 EA $54500 $30,520.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 380 LF $15.00 $5,700.00 Headwall Railing (Sand Piper) 60 LF $10.00 $600.00 Root Border (18" Deep Rigid Panel Type) 3.050 LF $6.50 $19,825.00 LANDSCAPE $48,283 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Irrigation(Retrof0 41,985 SF $0.80 $33,588.00 Sod 41,985 SF $035 $14,694.75 a Design / Permit Fee Estimates $39,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Surrey 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 m . =DD =z m D ;vvl DC DO r D z 0 P O D o m X D Z O 2 D y m D 3 � O v X ~ D 2�D n p 2 A D �Oo x =m0 A CO O G A Z L X D < DDN � voi0 _ z -< A or-f G 2 X D DDO~D� _ �o D z 6 D O a K Z < 2 � 005 >1*< m< E. — oo�xOq =� Amy `C D oozrz,�Am D D ,aom a 3 m ti O O m D m D D D m D *Dm ASK mom �z m 1611 A 14 low oNm 0 P -� m5 4 L S v �N oox m omo z D m A a a a o m o G D y O ti *Dm ASK mom �z m 1611 A 14 low oNm 0 P -� m5 4 L S v �N oox m omo z D m n O 3 3 c S flJ m X n 0 r+ O D WilsnnMiller O c as rD : r 0 3 < rt n rD (D rD Q O c v`L CL o m m � � r 0 x'3 0 ho r a 0 <. w rD sQ v rD ai O c -p -O vii PW a o Q rD y Dm < rD 0 0 3 o L rD 3 rD 3. a, UD CL rD O c 3 O r rp D N 3 N v n — rD v O C n� c Q sCD r c D v CL _. v ro v a D D 0 0 tA O c z � ro rD o D rD < < v rD 0 IA rD a O v rD rD rD j n 0 3 3 v m x rte+ n 0 0 Q 0 0 LA WilsgnMiller 0 c o��. rD 0 (D v O O `G :3 n ,<' c O - s_ O 3 n N M Q 7 rD Q (D 0 c up rD rD S3 � 0 0 °.+ c a a) 3 n 77 0 N ri Q N O (D _N 7 Cl Q fll rh S D) i =! Q o (D v Lr O Q � v S r-h rF -p O °1 3 (D v � o 3 O c 0 1° v � a� CD rDN r: S v rD 0 rD Q3n (D O rD rD D N N �+ o c v s s N S Q v (D O N _ 7 (D 0 c o a rD rD �* O o O c `D 3 0- ID n' 0 O N. (D rNF rD CD CD r4 C N _< (eD C O_ n rD 03 v c .t (D D a v rD G' rt• v v rD Q � (D a WilsonM er e ¢ 7 ] \ ) ± / § \ ƒ f § / A ? \ @hang y Aas §1 � � 9 .\ .2 . , { f \/\ _ _ 0 :E : { + \J� :ID .� , e ; z \\ of \^ §. / } } ) a - a . a _ :� .w. ee % > _ \ � ` / ID $ \ & \ ` . c n | _•Et rD _/ \ _. o '\ \ { \a� \ ~§ `\.0 . Lo 3 x ~x �: 0 (D 2 0 ID _ \ \ La { + \ \ > � LY § \ . ~ < , . . w ƒ< z% . 2 z {�$\ \ \ ID f f © \ rD f \ / . § Z � _ ID y }y± \( - ) - ! , Z 0 r§ _ § y y /;[ 72 - \ \ / `d -: \ 0 \/> \� \ \0 (k� �= . �/\ . �z� \ _ .� ! ^ � v v CD n 0 3 3 c D v v v �c m a) LA rD 3 rD D Co 0 v Q D v G N WilsonMiller Pelican Bay ign on Cn W O 3 o- v r Q n n z m m 0 C co r D co 0 s � c Co X m M w�O CO ° �m 0 u3i BCD o N � C° w N 07 0 07 CD 0 00-0 (n N Q (D O7 N ? (D. O =r - (n r m S 3 D N N = 5 . C7 O — m _ D w m 0 r o N 1� O � C U) Z S > � r S D p G CD -< m D M N Om MoEEn cn rn v' U) m z o En ;u Z m Cfn > 1 cn cn _1 D I m ro rn ba m 0 N N N 0 p O 00 y 0 C7 T N 1 0 C z to 7J v 7D v rD n O E3 c h SL SL T CL CD M ou 0 v CL D v M N cn � Cu o M m G') CD z r c C� s T D 0 C d M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o Q- Cr r O Q O- CD r o O- CD M < < Q co co < 00 n CD CD- CD W W CO r � M Oo (b O O N A N Cli -n = 0C) S S N n 4 rn P 0 � O W CD ..i C CC C C ~ iV � D = W O D T C? ) 7 _ C-) CD 0 0 o a7 0 rn `D r Q m l7 Q O S � C Z r- T r� S 2 S S S D w � 2 =3 0 0 0 0 D rn D N M z z z z z z z 0 z z 0 000 000ZO cf) x M O m c Cf) w A � Oo � Oo N A * * Z RZ Z RZ D m < � va csa Q0 < a v4 {n C.0 o m CO O 4 N O Co Co CCn CD oiva� 0 000) c>> 0 0 o O rn � O T C Z ,��IIHI u WilsonMiller Pelican Bay I Phase 11 100% Schematic Design ® ■ Aff 01 will" M MA Board of March 4, 2010 lb Va0wafiei $Oath Advisory OorNrpittee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, F1, 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 4, 2010 V. Budget Report- Caroline Soto VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard A. FY -2011 Budget Review and Approval VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment YFL15 �- W�'s Henning�l� Coyle The next meeting is April 1, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. Misc. Cones: Oaf: l3 1 i7 11an t T t I n:-, f" Var dwdiei $sack JVt.8.7A Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl, 34104 February 4, 2010 MINUTES Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager Others: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey — CLM, Dick Lydon — Applicant, Joe Foster - Public, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Bill Gonnering moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 7, 2010 Change: Pg. 2, W., paragraph 2 should read: After discussion the Committee was in agreement to continue with the original Switch Box in lieu of the New Design "due to the additional cost of 570,000.00 per unit' for the new design. The Committee requested the following statement be added to the Minutes "It was estimated 7 units would be needed in Phase I." Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 2010 as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Received Ad Valorem Tax $158,043.80 • Operating Expense open P.O. $115,218.39 • Noted comments are to be emailed to Darryl Richard on the Adjusted Balance Sheet (See attached) Bud Martin expressed displeasure in receiving less than 1 % percent on Investment Interest. 166 zK ?V45 VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur reported: (See attached) Channel Drive (Pilot Proiect) • Transformers and Transformer Boxes were in place and some are missing - FPL has reassured there is sufficient equipment available to complete the job • Comcast Installation is complete • The walk through with FPL was less than satisfactory due to the request (by FPL) of adding dimensions for (Transformer) Box clearances - Redefining dimensions will require easement acquisition - Subsequent review with FPL for each location in question was conducted Darryl Richard reported: • RWA Exhibits were requested for each (Transformer Box) location that is under review (See attached) • RWA, John Lehr, Michelle Arnold, and Kate Donofrio will attend the next meeting with FPL Chris Tilman confirmed the center line was marked and caps are in place (by RWA.) VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (VA -32) Conversion of 35 Properties to Underground • Notification Letter to (35) Property Owners were mailed (See attached) • Delivery confirmation was received for approximately half of the Certified Letters that were mailed • A second attempt will be made to contact the remaining Property owners via 2nd Notification Letter and telephone call • Electrical Bid Documents were prepared by Malcolm Pirnie - Bids will be open to all Electricians for competitive Bidding - BCC approval will not be required as it was anticipated the Bids will be under $50,000.00 - Bids are due in 21 days • Contact Information was received by approximately half of the Property Owners (See attached) VA -27) Phase I " Underground Facilities Conversion Aareement" • Cost estimate is required by Corp of Engineers to include the 25% price reduction • Phase I Project: List of Properties was distributed (See attached) VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM -Jim Fritchey reported: • Broadleaf weeds were sprayed • Due to cold weather (plant material) cutbacks were delayed 2 IX. Old Business - None X. Update Report A. Maintenance -Bruce Forman -None B. Tax Analysis -Bud Martin - None XI. New Business �6rI�y�15w RWA Survey was distributed. (See attached) It was noted additional ROW markings were requested by FPL for (Transformer) Box placement. XII. Public Comment Discussions took place on holding a Public Informational meeting on the Project Status for the Underground Conversion. The Committee was in agreement a Public meeting was not necessary. It was concluded an Informational Letter will be distributed at a later time. It was suggested to request the VBRA (Vanderbilt Beach Resident Association) post information on their website concerning the Underground Conversion Project. Joe Foster gave a brief introduction. He announced he is running for County Commissioner. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X_or amended The next meeting is March 4, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 161 � �A 15 VaMd"diei $each JVt.3 Aw Advisory Coomoftittee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 4, 2010 Summary of Minutes & Motions III. Approval of Agenda Bill Gonnering moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - January 7, 2010 Change: Pg. 2, W., paragraph 2 should read: After discussion the Committee was in agreement to continue with the original Switch Box in lieu of the New Design `due to the additional cost of $70, 000.00 per unit' for the new design. The Committee requested the following statement be added to the Minutes "It was estimated 7 units would be needed in Phase I." Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 2010 as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (VA -32) Conversion of 35 Properties to Underground • Notification Letter to (35) Property Owners were mailed (See attached) • Delivery confirmation was received for approximately half of the Certified Letters that were mailed • A second attempt will be made to contact the remaining Property owners via 2nd Notification Letter and telephone call • Electrical Bid Documents were prepared by Malcolm Pirnie - Bids will be open to all Electricians for competitive Bidding - BCC approval will not be required as it was anticipated the Bids will be under $50,000.00 - Bids are due in 21 days • Contact Information was received by approximately half of the Property Owners (See attached) 16111 A1�; Report for: February 4, 2010 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Status (VA -32)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 35 properties to underground (individual meter connection) 01 -19 -10 Certified Letters sent to 35 property owners within Phase One Project who have `existing overhead' meter connection 01 -19 -10 Purchasing Dept. confirms bid will go out to `all bidders' not limited to County Annual Contractors. 02 -02 -10 Staff confirms that only 11 out of the 35 property owner's have not confirmed receipt of the mailing. (staff will continue to track progress in obtaining 100% confirmation of notification of residents) 02 -02 -10 Malcolm Pimie delivers Final Bid Specifications for bid of Electrical Meter Connection Conversion (35 properties) (VA -31)- 90% Completed — FPL Channel Drive Construction 12 -03 -09 ROW Permit has been issued for project; Payment to FPL and Comcast for associated cost in process (pending confirmation with Budget Office) 01 -07 -10 UNDER CONSTRUCTION; Project is under construction 3 of 4 residential meters have been converted to underground; remaining 4" residential overhead to be converted on 01/08/10 (VA -30)- 100% Completed — Comcast Channel Drive Coordination 12 -03 -09 Confirmation of payment to Comcast pending. ($4,000) 01 -07 -10 UNDER CONSTRUCTION; Comcast coordinating underground conversion of Comcast utilities with FPL. (VA -27)- ACTIVE —Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED; UFCA approved by BCC for `Channel Drive' 01 -07 -10 PENDING; UFCA agreement pending for overall Phase One (Engineering Cost Estimate pending from FPL) (VA -26)- ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 12 -08 -09 IN PROCESS; Site Meeting with John Lehr, FPL Senior Engineer Project Manager, reviewing proposed easement sites. Some sites were indicated as not requiring easement while some others require further investigation with updated utilities detail drawing and updated field locating of existing utilities. (site specific detailed survey correlated with field location of utilities) 02 -02 -10 13 Exhibits received from RWA for review of easement areas proposed by FPL. Staff will coordinate in scheduling follow -up meeting with John Lehr to review locations for transformers and switch cabinets. (VA -19) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 02 -04 -10 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering (VA -18) — ACTIVE-ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance `base contract' per Quote 02 -04 -10 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance 12 -11 -07 03 -26 -08 03 -10 -08 1611 Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007 A15 , TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur 06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL 06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008 09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 03 -09 -09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project" 04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for `private property' April 10, 2009 04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within 'easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line to private property connection. 1611 A15 06 -01 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email 06 -25 -09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 06 -26 -09 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' 06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive 07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2ntl SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. 09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. 09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. 09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities 1611'A15'4 10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (d)' 10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub- section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) 10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. * *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. 10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart 10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV 10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') 10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) 10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can Conversion to underground. 10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical 10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009 11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans. 11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting. 1611 A151 11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion' and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require' participation and mechanism to address non - participation. 11 -10 -09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project' 11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur. Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that 'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow - up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm) 12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed; approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (call into Florida One Call system) Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity; additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from Malcolm Pirnie for'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in anticipation of possible requirement for easements. 12 -15 -09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL. 01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection under review 01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction 01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail 02 -02 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL; Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive. 02 -02 -11 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design 02 -02 -12 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors. Collier CoN.nty Transportation Services Division / / /RESIDENT NAME // // / / /RESIDENT ADDRESS /// Mr. ///LASTNAME /// /, 1611 "Alf The Vanderbilt Beach MSTU has been working with Florida Power, Comcast and Collier County to convert all overhead electrical and TV cable in the Vanderbilt Beach area to underground. We are pleased to notify you that this conversion process is about to begin. We are writing you to inform you that you will be included in Phase 1 of the project. Since you presently have an overhead connection from the street to your home, it will be necessary to have this connection converted to underground prior to FPL and comcast putting their actual lines underground. In December, Ordinance Number 2009 -70 was adopted and requires all residents in the Vanderbilt Beach area to convert their individual connections to underground. The Ordinance also allows the MSTU to pay the cost of such conversion. Therefore, you will not be charged individually for this project. converting the power utilities to underground installations will make them more resistant to damage by hurricanes and severe storms, improve service and improve aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. The Project work will be performed by FP &L, Comcast and subcontractors, and paid for by the MSTU. Participation of all homeowners is required for several reasons. In order for the Project to qualify for a 25% discount from FP &L, there must be 100% conversion of all residential power meters within the project area. FPL estimates this savings to the MSTU would be $1,600,000. In addition, any connection not converted to underground could have a negative effect on the other homeowners in the event of a storm or other outage. The only action requested on your part is: Please complete the enclosed information form with all your contact information and return it in the enclosed envelope. Accurate contact information is required to notify you of the actual day your power will be switched to underground as your residence will temporarily be without power for 1 to 4 hours. Temporary Access to Property: During the conversion process a contractor will require access to the 'easement' adjacent to your residential home /structure. This access is temporary and anticipated to be less than 2 days for the installation of conduit and wire to provide power service to your home. It will not be necessary for the contractor to enter your home. Thank you for your support of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU and this very important project. if you have any questions or would like to review the details related to the conversion of your overhead power utilities to underground installations, please call Project Manager, Darryl Richard at (239) 252 -5775 Sincerely, Darryl Richard, RLA, STU Project Manager Telephone: 239- 252 -5775; Fax: 239- 252 -6627 Email:darrvlrichardt®collieraov net MSTU Chairman TrxgzA�ia� Sem es os ai • 2885 sw1h Horseshoe Onve •Naples. Fonda 341M • 239- 252E792 •FAX 239 - 2522726 1 Collier CO- my C0161 Transportation Services Division RESIDENT CONTACT INFORMATION SHEET INSTRUCTIONS: Please enter the requested information on form and return to Attn: Darryl Richard, Project Manager; Collier County ATM Dept. via email /fax/or US Mail. Email: darrvirichard @rnlliereov. net; Fax: 239 -2S2 -6627; j15'f US Mail: Department of Alternative Transportation Modes, 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida 34104 For mailing: A pre- addressed postage paid envelope is provided for your convenience. (See enclosed envelope); place the completed form in the envelope and drop into regular US Mail Delivery. Please call Darryl Richard, Project Manager at 239 - 252 -5775 if you should have any questions RESIDENT NAME: First RESIDENT ADDRESS: ZIP CODE: DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER: EVENING PHONE NUMBER: MOBILE PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: Last Name T asWnao�i SpavrxsIX,rsni , 2885 Spam Ficxsestm prw • Naples. Fbrba 34104.239- 252-8192 • FAX 239 - 252-2726 16,1 1 A� W W W W W W N N N fhl IJ N N N 1I.! N N 1- F+ I-4 N 1-+ N ►-+ I-> P-� �� (n A W N I--� 5 Ln A W N N O l0 w V m U'1 A W N I--� O I'D w V m LM A W N 1, O O C C C 0 to D m TO D o n 07 07 m T1 T m= D> N G) Gl Gl O —�� z r T C W 0 0 m D Z D D D D Z TI W O— m m Z m r r N W W n 0 Z Z Z CD -1 Z - in ;o p` G) C) m v v' m m m O G7 z = D 0 p Z< W ON OW z D o o m D Z m m m r- D O D m W> r O O Z 2 2 2? m< W W m p Z n m D D Z D D D= O 11 11 D v, 3 1 z z Z O = m m 90 Q0 R0 W r D O T m 0<<` Z W r r II II D m N LIM Q0 CO Z D D Z m n X< W go D O r r- 9 r- o r << D Z m W v+ m z Z m r m < r � D O Z r r N< W= D In F' O W D O N N N V N O O O P" O _= 0 0 Z N 0 0 0= W 0 0) 0 V N m 0 w l0 2 -� -� N r 07 w tD O r- W n W W n N O N F, Z O O D �> v' << G1 m D` D O O D D G1 v„ O W D 2 v m m 0 p N X m C m__ m m m T D p O O` >=00 Z p p N W D N 0 0 to to p GDl m m W C z <;; m 30 D 70 m A A _ -� O z m A n 0 m W D = W O O r Z C N mm Z Z m m Gi c C: G) 00 r O N D C T Ta N v 0 m p C --I X A D 00 m N O O N N W 0= m v v W 2 -I D D D m M m 0 -< Z < rn 70 0 m < O z m D 70 7o p 0 0 r X << m m 700 X V m D W < m 3 w Ln 0: c y D D O Z D C m A Z d m m m 3= N to ;- D C C O Z L" m = m D D m n Z � r 0 o Z S p Z N 7z z Z v+ O p O d 0=I Dtn O 70< -� 0 O p= X m 70 m GZ A ' z Z m 0 p ;o 0 Z r- =O D O CL Ln W O 90 p D m O O FA Ln N D C y cln < 3 H 2 Z z n R0 90 D Z Z Z 2 p C m D W m 3 < W 3 m W p m D N D r F� 1-� 1--+ O N Q 7C N W NJ F-+ Z lNO C ON N Z m W W A W n m Ln W G) 1� = N = N << Gl -D< Z Z D D < < C < W m m n m m o m D N 0 0 ** L" * m r 0 0 N m m<< O< < o D n 0 Z m m W m m n v D K O O m < O= m 2 z 70 0 A r' m N m O < W � Ln z loo C LA O C Cw T o N Cf G N m n p =O D Ln N z p D Ao m m D LSD O Z n"i m N � O .Z7 z Z z D z z Z Z W n Z Z Z z z Z Z D Z v+ Z Z n z z Z Z Z z z n Z N n Z n_ D D D Z D m m m m m m m m m m -� m m m m m D m D D D D D D D D D D D D v v v Z m v v Vl VI V1 Y/ 1/1 N IA VI N Vf D V1 N Vf VI VI m VI m N m VI m {A m IA m N m NI m VI m {A m VI m N m {A m V) m m m YI m .-. {A X r m r m m m r m r m r m r m r m r m r m Z r m D r m r m W m m m rr*I m m m D m --I D m N Vf of W N N of W 0 D V1 N N N N Vf N D N Z N In Ut N N N V/ Vf V1 D N _ (n Gi O D D m m m m m m f0 f0 m fp A m N N N m m m f0 f0 IC fp m U M N N m CA 0 < H 0 0 N N N 0 w to {A CA N N NI N IA V1 X cn m = T T T T T T T O T T T T T T T W O. T T T Z T T T T T T T -n T r 0= r- r r- r r- r- N D r r � r r- r rr r r r- r- r— r W W W A W W W W N A W W W W w W W W v W W W D W W W W W W W Z W Pb -i N_ A A A 00 A A A A O A A A A -Pb A A A O A W A 00 A V A � V V V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W m N N N N n m lD 1p 1.0 V O O 00 V V V V V 00 V V V Pb w V V V V V V V V V V V V w w V V V r i N N In A A A Ln A A A A A A A A A A 0 A A U'1 A 0 A A .A A A A O A A A In p N N N W w w w W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 W 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 00 00 W 0 0 0 0 N N 1-- O N I.J Id N A W W W W W O A A O A O N N N N N W O W W A 1-+ O O 1--' N O O 00 00 l0 1-+ N N V V A O In 00 t0 l0 A N N In A O 1-+ m In A W m O A 00 Oi N V 01 N 00 00 O A 0) 01 00 A N M O O N 00 N 01 A -Pb 00 N A A N A N 00 N 00 01 M 00 A A Ol 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O W l0 V O W F+ W V In A W 0 W W W V W W W 0 A V (n N W O F-' M A O W N V w w w !-+ N N N F+ N N N N N N N N F+ N N N N N N F + O A W N O W w O N O w V F+ N W O w 0 O w O w O W Nn N N (n 00 O N O 0 A A w O O N O O w V w O F+ N V N A 0 W N V W N O N W w N W w W W O V VI n 0 0 0 A W W W w W W n n N n n H H H A H vt 00 Vf N W W W W W n n n 0 0 A D C C V D D D~ D D � D D D D D 1.4 C D D 0) D G) 0 D G) � kW << D y c?i D D G) D r. �<<< Z Z W 3 Z� W W W W W � W �<< << Z Z 3 W W C p T T T T mc mc mC n<< T Z Z m (p Z 70 M r 70 -M In m Z Z p Vl y N m M m m m T m m m cm Cm cm m m m 2 O 2 O 2 O S 0 D 0 D 0 D N S D GG D rm- p �, N m N m N� m 2 N m N m CA 2 N m N 2 C c C C r r N m N S m 0 m z 70 W O<<< O<< p >D p >, p 7o D D D O D D O D O<< D D m<< D D p p N m m m m m m m m m m m <<< m<< m < m m m m m 70 7o D D m m m m m m m m m p p p p p C C C 0 to D m TO D o n 07 07 m T1 T m= D> N G) Gl Gl O —�� z r T C W 0 0 m D Z D D D D Z TI W O— m m Z m r r N W W n 0 Z Z Z CD -1 Z - in ;o p` G) C) m v v' m m m O G7 z = D 0 p Z< W ON OW z D o o m D Z m m m r- D O D m W> r O O Z 2 2 2? m< W W m p Z n m D D Z D D D= O 11 11 D v, 3 1 z z Z O = m m 90 Q0 R0 W r D O T m 0<<` Z W r r II II D m N LIM Q0 CO Z D D Z m n X< W go D O r r- 9 r- o r << D Z m W v+ m z Z m r m < r � D O Z r r N< W= D In F' O W D O N N N V N O O O P" O _= 0 0 Z N 0 0 0= W 0 0) 0 V N m 0 w l0 2 -� -� N r 07 w tD O r- W n W W n N O N F, Z O O D �> v' << G1 m D` D O O D D G1 v„ O W D 2 v m m 0 p N X m C m__ m m m T D p O O` >=00 Z p p N W D N 0 0 to to p GDl m m W C z <;; m 30 D 70 m A A _ -� O z m A n 0 m W D = W O O r Z C N mm Z Z m m Gi c C: G) 00 r O N D C T Ta N v 0 m p C --I X A D 00 m N O O N N W 0= m v v W 2 -I D D D m M m 0 -< Z < rn 70 0 m < O z m D 70 7o p 0 0 r X << m m 700 X V m D W < m 3 w Ln 0: c y D D O Z D C m A Z d m m m 3= N to ;- D C C O Z L" m = m D D m n Z � r 0 o Z S p Z N 7z z Z v+ O p O d 0=I Dtn O 70< -� 0 O p= X m 70 m GZ A ' z Z m 0 p ;o 0 Z r- =O D O CL Ln W O 90 p D m O O FA Ln N D C y cln < 3 H 2 Z z n R0 90 D Z Z Z 2 p C m D W m 3 < W 3 m W p m D N D r F� 1-� 1--+ O N Q 7C N W NJ F-+ Z lNO C ON N Z m W W A W n m Ln W G) 1� = N = N << Gl -D< Z Z D D < < C < W m m n m m o m D N 0 0 ** L" * m r 0 0 N m m<< O< < o D n 0 Z m m W m m n v D K O O m < O= m 2 z 70 0 A r' m N m O < W � Ln z loo C LA O C Cw T o N Cf G N m n p =O D Ln N z p D Ao m m D LSD O Z n"i m N � O .Z7 z Z z D z z Z Z W n Z Z Z z z Z Z D Z v+ Z Z n z z Z Z Z z z n Z N n Z n_ D D D Z D D D D M m D D D D D D D m D D D m D D D D D D D D D D D D v v v Z v v v v=< v v v v v v v D v -V v 0 v v v v v v v Z v Z Z v r r m m r m D r m r m r m r m m m r m r m r m r m r m r m r m Z r m D r m r m W m m m rr*I m m m D m --I D m N Vf of W N N of vl 0 D V1 N N N N Vf N D N Z N In Ut N N N V/ Vf V1 D N _ (n Gi O D D N p m 0 < m v cn m = T T T T T T T O T T T T T T T T T T T Z T T T T T T T -n T r 0= r- r r- r r- r- r- D r r r r r- r rr r r r- r- r— r W W W A W W W W N A W W W W w W W W W W W W A W W W W W W W Z W Pb -i N_ A A A 00 A A A A O A A A A -Pb A A A O A W A A V A A A A A A A W A lO N 1--� F-a 0 0 1-a 1 1-a 0 I-- 0 P. 0 0 0 1 P. N O 1--- O O O O O O W N O W W h' O O ►+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 W W A 00 00 O 0� 00 00 m w V Pb w w In Ln w w w V w O w w m w w w w 00 00 00 W Ln N O Oo N N Ln O N N N N A vi N N N N N N N W N W N N l0 N N N N N N N n N N W Pb N O O V W N 1-+ N O lD Ln 11 F-' V V P+ P- l0 O 00 N O V O N 1- O P" P. P- 01 A v, V O v O O N V W w A N N O A A A A A .P N W A N oo N A w N w w A O Ln I-- A 01 M N W 00 00 O W N N N N N N N O) C) V W N V 40 W W O V V V l0 I-- N F, 01 n v v x A m m a rn n f zz z z m m o v FIE?l�IA O O O a ti L7 r m Q7 Z O D C7 700 O r O m nn 00 D CC z z CODI� 0 O < �m Lf)z O m zz m -� M U) o D o z 00 0 0 O m O �m W 3 � C m m x A x x O ± w r p m O Z 0 °o w x 0 1b1l A 1'5 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Y I P 1 I I I Os14MM¢c�¢ e 1 LID ¢0000 OL IE- a "L°Pe ®- 2L- TA®rA O'p( I �� 10000410C.01-00 11 t; II II II II I: 11 II II 1, It 11 I! 11 II II 111A1 11 II '�, - ;. UUfl�� It II II It 11 It II II It It 11 9 11 It II 111 II 111 11 II It It ,1 II II 111 �1 1{ a 11 ;I II �I t I I. 0 II 1 it 11 It 1! 1 P ;I 0 OAAAAAAZI �A A V' CLA DDD(C+O➢�`1?yDp�NI�AmlA'100lAn (m- IAD(my] {O(]? ;Z(m] OlplmmO00�mO��Omgn��Z 00 rrn A C- ix000AOntc'I fOit?x -ZOA�Z C�ASO�ArAZC�n1ACC�A NUN�O�NZFr rm- ��OCGm m nt]c -]n nCZf Y C - -EAU4]O f 'n �D Z 2 nJ A OyCr- L o .] �� - -.---II� '1< � 3 -.� 3' �S'�= ]~�vwin c' fz f lN�lmm VI Uf VIN NIA y'-CCV 3��=j ()�� <<O AAm Zm �1>:^•rL -1 Yr JV� inZ � > mmmmmm m' �� v m�'m pi « Iry Z \Om %rim 1< jpzz Oz m �mtn An 1, si:7 z��rn In ln�vG mp a�omm � mm "�m`O -�I^ iNV$ommmm z to Z >iv Stir; mmmmmmmmmS �mZ A >Zr � y c z� mv,r� Z gcl yr cl O �m➢�i f >c ,.IA �ommm z m0 sm- o So�mr+i �'m �� Z z R Z=? mroimy r' crr. xn �� o> m �.,r m y vm m m m JC J C O A• 1 N Z F m m,z Zv v,'! Lz _� O J< J �vF�o�mfCm� i]�r; 00 r L ,n ^ ii Zu•m _;. z O m N r V 'L '—✓ m m •- UI N ni z C m m N U1 O 3 n �oo m D (m x z O m Z R o I O O O `t i r m CU z D C7 �J Q 0 r- r O m m� C')n —i O O D C C + C� G7 v 00 K:< ;;Z�m U Z O m zz m -� Cn q � G 2 0 m 9 °D 0 < o" Z OR 0 o • m 0 O �J C � N W A O T CD r O m _O Z O O ' O W O 2 N _O O U i h N O 0 S 0 0 n 1611 iA15 " � u D U n p In L o N D r m 0 w I I I I I I I I I I I I �O840VCK;C� 0.9I Loa c. oso 00 me ®.'G,�T Aegg M*X �o 1� Y Y d P � • ®►00 It n n n u n n It r e 1; I; !1 :. .i A A I: t !I h n I f it h !:� II G U O n 11 p 9 0 $1 II It 1. :I I; !. N ,, 1 I- A I: ;: Il k !I It 8 If it '1 ;I !1 C 11 1; cFFFFFFF ooJK±��cF- t•��mm�m 02, FCQ >Dmme- (00(.'17 Zln lz v°mzi �NTri r' ZDDyyyDyDyZm Z -' SrZYS >DpZ pKpA20 -1, :S1� GrrrrZDDA'i t�OpL?�DO -O- OGO °mmm•nm r�im� °fin Fi Fi°��z.�zz_o �i �nmx mr•1°O��'�i�n Om� ccnm °mm000 mz- ,AC�:gw AAAA AAAA AAA =Vyx /A*1 >YDrC. ~ViDDyA<C SOA° (`Cif 71 Z��i��ixmmV�l'✓1D pC(p�Ul �_�r minL Ot�'_'p �i% CCC CSC ZZ., °m,O.1n A<r Sn 7UOZ`_ir�1AC nC� °70�CCOC��mmZGI�xC cC� 7 C A SCLCC '. rS. ;1c zOC yinc __ G?,., :__` ur. .] .n n• nn�ulA ; ;ticcnl OZL�,�T' DC�� (�ovnCy�_0aZ��N mAAVpm z�po iF", 0AG�]3��(�ZZ ozzz yoyaZ=yZ�y�m Farm ,�mi Am m,�mt pmm mpm C ° °OpP0��30 gm ��? <� �pOm Z D/� OG7� ZN m Z� r- %SSSm5m5 rri r, r�D:+�iZA Am, m� °mo nm -=D, g��r„�m'r•tS Nz '_�° o'D"o A0010 nf-fn7 nCJ Ln VI V, V D -i O S N £cz��m -1 on nn io• mn �ytm�n C UDT� �mm� � L Zoi cry$ ,--z °X o p �° c ��m z 1 zr p Z Z - a f• 1< L �vDO7n H. °c m r 1 S <°mrmr^S C << m _ N C C p � m Z m F s o 1 m v in o S n i6!li�A15' �oo m A m o 0 F m Z v ro a 0 0 _H N N ti-P 8 pO 'r 5 tN 3 RE° o' C � SRESP ca YD�� - -� a m z Q O D C) ;:0 O (Dr O m m ;;a Cf) On { 00 D C C + C7 O OO O KG K:m Om I I m� I I I I I I I OOv*lI 8- a"L�- ®- a- 'CL ( 140+004101 ee►Oo li II Ii, i 11 1 It II li II ;I 1 i II f it II A 11 I: I A n CFFFFFFFFFCmmm � ' Z m mD nD l D -A~I Dti> ti tiD D ti y D � Z S �11 - C Z- ;I �>D DD Z��mnnZ� Z VDI US1NS X ° OA�.'(iN m A ZOACCZZm (y�� t�,-9 l pmAmrmmmr �0j0N v 0 mA DmmO p Z tiN�AZcCm � m ��~C CC r m I.Iz zz AAAA ZZ 47 000 _ -C. 7'i- Aw0 4�,,nv 3 OmL3 Orm-rm- O=AZ��z0 zzT W,rz AQ Z cC C CC Lc �c zny yvrcm -ly <� <- 77 n r, -�crJn z mom fC2or v o7777�vc$$o °ccv�r' -Fo unK �o�y �o�n� i��ou Z auNx �� °zu�?° �A mm< m p G fmmmRmRmmRRAmAm" Cho ° =77c n �3�° m�y cam 0 mz �� 00 OG L7- yzm ^�^z� Oy D m�5555��m NmmNm�mn om-y 8m °�aommmvlz Nz z° mz F�0�= m O_ Z A0000 o olrm vUNln v D -som o� xA�mn ;N�O rm$ z v1 >zo �nzo O o mmmrlm �m=z �A Ag. �� y zA_ mogm z N < o p:. <�A <x�� ;D itl' m� mvly ° =�m cNnm_. y- N z i R z =, O m mDti =� y() AZ t•, Tmm mm D O or m m r m K /,) O err- <m mmm�cboy -c. mc��m c � �� Or o Ac m $OG-nm z � zy. W mzA m'_Im R m W la C oN far nm m o m m m z F� c� o 'z � " o mm y r m o - om� z V1 m m z �� i v1 lnm m m o z - v m m v m a T n W = = T m 1 s co _. P o m u' o O z " O � _ O u x 0 n v v m Z _) O Z ri a v v ,ry N O 0 UU VI N O ,yA pp yZ O O O � 2 �F O O O W a IS i � r m CO m 0 .. D C) �7 O Q r O m m cn no � 00 D CC ZZ + 0 G) J 00 cy K:m F�m z cn O m z m -i U) q o m 4 V OD o z 00 0 O w � cf) cu � � C z CO 0; m m \TJ 1 O _T CO:-) F, O Z O P O O X O 1611g15 7 CB26��_ -- 3 ME32A — �---�` EY J TRES YD� a a 1_ - 1 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I L-7 I� I 00 *(* � ®e 10050 A0040 Done la- xi** ®.'Cu-TAoa0�i I �o I �`�� •o►oo II 0 I! 11 n It 11 it 1, $1 li :I .. r :i a E L II b .. �� H n m Ii g U. it ,� f It 11 I; It it !I H P :I 1: I '.I a e .. ., P ij t 1 n c££F FFFF FFr� clop pmc c; Vr cc�oco-•��x �cF��u>m ms�c�c�r.- �n>Dm,m�. �:��, ��- vzu�- , -�vcm z: v%m m-•�m ZDDD DDDD DD Z "r'mlm2 L ZAD AZ A�I�AZO ` !-f�1 CA'- DCrr'rZDD -i rip��xy0 O -n! OGOr p-V-�- �- �- �- �- 1- !-ICnt t'�!.'�O Zy2Zy Ly�LyZ >�Z 02tnZ OVI I/INmKmm00 Af`I !'1-i frl .�pFn -C!m f�l pCJ muO1O �A1A AAAA �A�VV��O47L�4�CtD�n <��- SOA pmO atD-yDC ��CI��a Oiy�mtn V��ViAOtnL�r pn'�n OOpm 000U mmz� m oADr z c c x �i7Ay�n °n urrcc cc - r v>>_��. x�,oms� - CyC SS S C C C LC)� L_vi D ]!r` C Cl n_N 17 �y-L3��p J3j: .T� C <_ O� r 2 ZZr _ K.,= Op pKK K�pC_CiOOnC nK5A5tN/1�- C�?OVI �/1 ANNJ�C Ay~WZN ZC >yLx NNNtn tIl lA 1/>mm CO Sx'�O �� m �IASO(�1 O OZ � � z$O_ Onl7_ ZUlz N- £ mAyyR �9(y>pL mmi�n�N o vy0 8m mo��ov nmz OZzz mz £�o�' =Zm A S X555 ��1/1 L'I UI mt/i D �Omm - OH = y 2 KIm oOmmr y Z N too �; r„ ziA npz m�c,c z� r�*Im$m G ?sz 00 y�C zu�z t7) Ll m 'a tnv D mmmtl7 In Z S� mZN Z i g m v� `"pAp A<�mo nn�ym' cAi�oz"'� 0', - �'�`Z' < o Z O�yp ><>m C4A"1 m m m n= ym T rG+i Om D D vmm' n O m v m p n H n r r m CO z O ;-;1 D C7 �7 O F- E O m -� O O D CC Z Z W v 00 O K: < Km Clf)z O m z m� Cn p O m a A 03 < CD °o, - Z °O o O mmT WN x r Ln C CD °; Dm W A O �+ Oo r O rn _O z O O W O It a 22 1611 A15 J_ ti 1i l� rl cg32 I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I II ,Offic�un*Qc} 1.9 1 O8s6 Anse OL 18 -gi lar� ®�2L��o�oYlbi i; :I II 1! 11 1! :1 :1 1, li II 1; !I :I :! 9 II '�i :I 1: . M Y II :1 I! 1: Ii II I II 11 h f 11 11 : ;I 1: i1 II 1i 9 Il cFFF mA C O C p AA� _.0 Ar .y� At.y.yF_ ..FAy ll��S Ay <F A TT�� SKA F A C SRK c A -r++'-•y1am oimGOA�IoC~ tC~ V cAc'S DLYy^ cmAAc cyyV< �>l 1�rcyy«ln �7 fUN •1 � m� T KtAJa R•I mm,-�c O A a Q Fpp Os� -��'f •Nrm�+� m.5n](r��-ISa7- 7 I Ar`r�i�m nASti °�A C:U, yF Fc hc mmmm C � oSUOM D Zr b n•c n � m Ccl ' s � z�n C y0�- Irp Z TI �f5 V1� -CfOr aNVI= Zi z yy�AjjNNZNZ��A ASSSSSS�NNN�A�_j�Sm Zmmm�n ��m ZmOm�TyGBfU• mn� <OZ VIZZn mz➢yj��SD; �f<i�mF mmm PmZ�mzoA im� bZ� mn � z Fz y ,AZ-PAP rm� ° � � TO nC !'I !'ImmK G1 Z :7 GZ AOCmmmy mGlmn Sm UG pA 1ti Z A�m r m r_01AJ. Z xZ z -: � � !•t�� m0 � �� N AJ< m O� � Z � � x zUyylm -tYi. C5 IS Z_NYrtrl�� OA C c� ONb °'2 `_ rG Z m z c• _ N r m m v z ^' ', O A 2 n m Z z •2: o' o! in I N, n o. O' O ✓ C: ni e,Y . n a o; �i a; k zL— w a; n h 2 i o � m 0 0 4 0 o N H n r r m CO z O ;-;1 D C7 �7 O F- E O m -� O O D CC Z Z W v 00 O K: < Km Clf)z O m z m� Cn p O m a A 03 < CD °o, - Z °O o O mmT WN x r Ln C CD °; Dm W A O �+ Oo r O rn _O z O O W O It a 22 1611 A15 J_ ti 1i l� rl cg32 I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I II ,Offic�un*Qc} 1.9 1 O8s6 Anse OL 18 -gi lar� ®�2L��o�oYlbi i; :I II 1! 11 1! :1 :1 1, li II 1; !I :I :! 9 II '�i :I 1: . M Y II :1 I! 1: Ii II I II 11 h f 11 11 : ;I 1: i1 II 1i 9 Il cFFF mA C O C p AA� _.0 Ar .y� At.y.yF_ ..FAy ll��S Ay <F A TT�� SKA F A C SRK c A -r++'-•y1am oimGOA�IoC~ tC~ V cAc'S DLYy^ cmAAc cyyV< �>l 1�rcyy«ln �7 fUN •1 � m� T KtAJa R•I mm,-�c O A a Q Fpp Os� -��'f •Nrm�+� m.5n](r��-ISa7- 7 I Ar`r�i�m nASti °�A C:U, yF Fc hc mmmm C � oSUOM D Zr b n•c n � m Ccl ' s � z�n C y0�- Irp Z TI �f5 V1� -CfOr aNVI= Zi z yy�AjjNNZNZ��A ASSSSSS�NNN�A�_j�Sm Zmmm�n ��m ZmOm�TyGBfU• mn� <OZ VIZZn mz➢yj��SD; �f<i�mF mmm PmZ�mzoA im� bZ� mn � z Fz y ,AZ-PAP rm� ° � � TO nC !'I !'ImmK G1 Z :7 GZ AOCmmmy mGlmn Sm UG pA 1ti Z A�m r m r_01AJ. Z xZ z -: � � !•t�� m0 � �� N AJ< m O� � Z � � x zUyylm -tYi. C5 IS Z_NYrtrl�� OA C c� ONb °'2 `_ rG Z m z c• _ N r m m v z ^' ', O A 2 n n v v m � vmi 7nC Z � m Z � O E S \ N N D Odd O O N� a m �QO Dr r O m cf) (n On �—i 00 D D C C ' zz ++ 00 00 v 00 (1i Ui < m C/) Z O m z m -� X 0 m �1 C0 D z OO O O o W CZ C O; Dm m w A C) W m O r O O 0 0 w 0 SN,HA G cB 4_ Iy c- 1_ 1611 'A 15 ' DD � N O {n D r iTl � O • oaf � w. J i` 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I ®mac¢ ®vd,4-4 Lo onso *0e®® AM Is•Si�►�tla.a. ®.v- T.oaokh( I �o (��♦��'d �� • ®►oo a u u :1 y a n r, u o y :i 1 n a n u n u u n n cFFF FFFf FFC -c moo cm can ncnACnnn-ajcmmc F-i.v�m m; mvvm�n a>mmcOn�:�nvzu�xr�vcmAiv�:nmT- mmmmmmmmmmO�r'+�'+m om£�oz�zy �p °can °< O r Az��uyimx mmog ��im"�mcom�?s ZCmi i; °�r19O °m�`^o- •x�m °�� °oom p AAA AAAA AA �V�'O�AZ"ZC�rI� yy O+m --ir -1 ti� y n Or„NZZZZ Gi nCCC C ,CrC rC n =Or. t'OnCD.l ty7i m`�yt cA"1D �Si (mtA'�Cn -fix AC �1g C,lI ("1pCCA �Cti�.Z��A'u °D )n"�D U',� \ >OOOm 0, 0 mm$O caz�� l vzzz oGN-i cNTi� ��vizs �� y�VIN �NNNIn UI <K-10V V)m 2mm4 l� mmm. °Oymy DmD ZZZ� mz DZ O�ON; r �A mmm mmmmm mmx�m�}}m,lm,l�� m- ZRp,>A y ZA �m�D �� »AC ZG�Gm JSSmp C<C mm ZOO �n O Z D <�Gm min�JC pmy - mC� C ur °A r O O T Z mA A�A+ImA _.m Vlr Zln Ci'o mp Z m N D m F p L �:k C V, �" Z Om <rZjmrml"5 pm� m C r 1n ^ C U z T c z m $F - � m _ � m m n v v m F _) Q Z v r^ v N N _O O V) N N � 8 O O O O O W �y O a 0 c� 0 v � 8 1 o ,l R �• a / n .1 a 2 t _+ n ti r m aj m O D C) �a p D� Om 9 70 C) l / —i 00 D C C Z Z N + (.D n O O p O K: < �m Cl)z O rT1 zz Fri -� V) 0 m v O z 0 0o p O m co C z CD w A T o 0, r o m o i o C)' °o X O I 1611 q15 ' (7) o A D "O o ° L1 n n m m N O f� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o ,I II 1! 11 I: II fl f b II II II :, ! II II A I, ;1 ;I II II 4 !! M 11 1: II 1! It A 11 II 1'. II 1. II it 11 !I 11 II lilt II II 11 N 1, II 6 A It II II 11 It It P. 4 11 4 II II It C CEt2��ff FgC" ��mC�_O,AOOrnCUfC)VIl/1AC °G�C�T)X �I �1C 21Nmm�^�G7 °fn-1 {�D D!+t CC)f7C:N-ZVi2r^UpmA�NN'.ITT�- °m r•�iymr•DyimZm Z AnYZDZ�o��i�nrA,x�A,moo Zccr�F:o ©moon °mz�'> °cm °�"��000m j� yy pAAAAA.'ImIA GfyACam yy CCrNyy i m � CC�sy � C�jm-C Sm CS n s _ mA�ACGmAAC r- ��— �mm?�aAm °��>[]yyC 7'yZ 7 s➢C'� m 'mCim`mDU y m oi�Az D� -DZi G 'AO� Dm$ �'j �-t C ' AYS°-=i OC rrA' � �°� r1^)�CCy1ON rrnAn i � A(V1)r_r-°mvi ( lIA= •AJ�yZ fO ) 0Z�0lI_� nJ CA ) Art� +�2�Z ° Z _A ° C A°i��A�mmnm1 $ m.m ntz "n ' G�z)VAL1 D FC': C°r' � C�'P zln4muZ-�� m mm mT �0L�D M , �. ZDR•i =pOZD - CO> ?O= -OyCCjCCZ� Dy �0O__r,K«p- °z-v s � z� m ? zo z =z_mn zt ? z >z°o 10 iooD � N mN Z r:y, r<mmQ 0 iA*1 mGA°')G 3r Onto O. "rn� -1 m� � z OF o n c o Z Zm ° A OAm 1 ° a A NO on ' A 0 0 0 <C O A Om < z c 0 D z O z rm 0$C l D0F ns L5 m �, }} O A j z v z a n v v _ � m x z m Z v EI3I�YIs Id Y r m z O D C7 nO Dr om -� O O D C C C + C7 G7 0 K:rn F� C/)z Om zz m -i v 0 m O 8I < 02 O Z 00 0 0 O m O ;;Q co DD C TT1 Z W om D ^ A ) S O m M O m O Z O O O O W O 1611 A15 4 ti 3 a 0 � o C) D � � 2 !n 11 (7 O N Z N O Ln n i r O G Q o Q a 4 L r C f I \N4 xm N 2 O 0 b Q Q I I I I I I I i I I I I i I I 1 %OD40atCK --(* X ®e ( 0000 Jose Ave 13.8d" L- ft0- '0,- TA0%0*}( �0I EF6�Y��l�d fl�� • Ji ►O❑ II II 11 t! 11 I: it II II II II 11 II :; ,i !1 :: K I; �i '.I !; , '�i 11 V 1; II Ii II II II !1 II �� II II !: II II i! it II II 11 1! II .I !I K !; .I II I. II II ;; !I II �� i II .I I; It I, cFFFFFFF FFC- +�- +ciop°mcy�c� cncy�cy�_�x ��,c pF ��ymrn�mc�c�m -I C�aammct�nnln�zln- m�cmz�vl ;nT ��r m o o ya.- alD -aiy -airy mmrrnZy ,,aa ��11`` zDSi'�Zp �n In lnmKmmoO AFI f'I�f`Ij�Ft °CCfn t'IZaaStirnOVDxaOjc C'n ��OGOr mmmmmmmmm �'1 r'l lnmZ�C DZ£��pZyx Tz�z11- 2 pmmOOp mZtiSCma ccCm �AAAAAAA AA�20 =COGaiZ O<m <O nr-��r 3: pA° mAOrAg�xnS�ZAAC `.- 1- �ZN�zppGG)�bOr \�°Opm C - C= ',•' C� O?o OIZTn CmC y(n cv'y:'cZOr<ir ym �� CL �tnn ~�S nn�L� n nn Oran* -�mnZ IT k. -V �'-I �.m z6 1/5" Y C Sm]rc$� �ntA �'a Tm](/p� 05 G<_- .:qT �z R'�Ol O O-FEE., I -a 'yn -j v� y r� r�1 fn< y S{'1�5 �SN�C rp-tn2 ANNJf P_ ~�Z(Cn 02' NV)(/INNNNInNy 2 m ��0 m 7�.mpl��l 2Z, �� Z= OZ22 ZyZm Fmmmmmmmmmrn pp�� vv11 m5SFi =1��Ymmy Smm mm nK'>mp�ym2 ��Or�nmV1 /n G) mZ FAO =�m Ammmmmmmmnimrn 1, 1Z2SAb, - Z.�u O- z ZGN-io ��mm� czi v-i . izO O o �F <Fi f¢£cZ m ona j ^m �',ni ii' Z, ozm�'I nnm to i tr �zz m rA z O S' m CO m A Q? N p< Om < O F m C Z O A r p A Z p _ `r'I fs`nz�ymm 0< m O m mNr �� S z � m rni i m Nm m L y n V1 - m m n v N O - m m A = v v _ x m x z z P m ., v IFI�I�I' I N N N O 0 0 ° 1 ti (7 � r r m CD z O 7� ;:o O O� Om Lo �n ---i 00 D C C • z Z O + Un 0 0 O < �m �;;u LOz Om zz m —+ A O m -�1 k� O < OD O Z O 00 0 O m � � C � m D o =! O m O z O 0 O O O X O 0 v 0 N N O' 41 H V O m 8 0 0 o' °a a tic' p I a i a' 0 1611 A15 ' iT fi jV N I O? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I x ' Xoac¢ ®as¢gcg ®e ®oe I ckx0 ®® o�ase Is- s��ti7.�. ®.v.t.eao�k( I �o�� .oroc li II ;I Y 11 11 11 II 1' I! 11 li :I I: I! II II tl I. '.I .i tl Y II I: II I; II 1; II '.i li ;: :I II 11 ;I I: i; 11 .I :� Y 'r. �: II I; y FFFFFFF FFC L�0p0p0m CUUGJ ttnnA CLyyI CyCy7�CyJmX �i �1Ct�(/'i'm m�mGJ 1,%m y(o7 D�rC n('J C7 VIUZV1xT CmALVJt/�'r'.- m DDDDDDD mmm�O��L��O DmD�ml�t/I�mXmmmpmlI7DnjOnZCCm r+1pW DN O0o0AZaAOC mDO XJ�tiZ `_ M Vm�ntimm. -1 -a -1p ZDZZ_ OO SSS Z y SOA ° tir-i Cy nii xlr�1 In U�Y�OU: �c CO r'INZ000 AA�AAAAA AA,-p zm��DrttA IrNj ~DD'AD�Sr- �AA A ZA A2ZAA ?JS ��C�CCC yC pZOOAOm mZ Z� ��00�I<r_m ova o cic��gOno`�'cc�,�o- .mz'^sJA c�<im�lnr �_D IT1 O' V ZOm_y ULp =C - 3 Omii c�tmn G)GJiDZ�Zm'O n1��CRrtA(7Z ZCCC C C ZmrimL '�O LNCmCi _I <� ��< Db Sm: rtrA,p `�Z�p�R'rC -�Z� °yScSO CC�v — ��o Nn� z o�ti �3� v��_ii =�oN92 'v„0A yy�L1�50cot/ °_1> z DRm m ym �RmmRp my AmA -C � °�mpyy� �Nm m L,1�D nm Z� °m m�$rni 10`I��N -Z. VJZzz C�Zmw_.'onNZm r�5S55555mIn v11.'1 Z�ZvNrnD -Lp�mJ Am Ul mm O(�mGi -tDmS �N�VOAmA mAA m(nC Z Z DOO xD� D OO� � {Z mmmmmmm xmmm m ADPz y < =mmm - Z� m gZm� z- �i ><>F nZ E� £cz�5m Omm C To m mTD S oD mmrCJ� �' Z z r mrti -l-Di CDJAZmmfOnmy �^ Sln O m 1� Z 00 r0- m c m': 2 OO r5*��m03y0rc5Jm H 5 cm m z Om DO S� CO r o Z i N m F Z O mC <�O mm m a mm�m Nr r � r m t/1r m V Z V � m z N Nm V Z 1 — m v v 2 m O 0 �� m v O Z O m o a _. o ro a 0 0 bH ut N 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 1 o �n7 i N 4A om GO 1611 A15 'i o �- T � cg 47 co i I � N O 1 om 1m�u Cf) 00 1 0 D C (— Z z 1 � + (7 C-) 1 W 00 K: m 1 Km �K I I I Om I I I I m� I I I I C/) I I I I I I I I I •a: ®ae ®e I 0 ■ ®i a ®® o sae s•st -7T7v• Joao o •e►o❑ 0 A 0 I �� t kX I 1 0100 #18 Oil A unnu u;:nnr.enuuu xuuo,. .: .�,...Neer,i ��tdnu n,� ,i.'�a 11 Ii aununnn cmi c_FFFFFFF FFC��mciop❑pc�cc)�n �n-�,ccyy)cyy>c)T!: me fp titnm mi rmr c')c')m °anm c�t)�N �z Nxm"ncm A_i NN m-�-ir D mm mmmm mm° FFiH O SEZZ"cfflZ=ImcFU)uDirV-"ZA!mO O�mn nDCmJ�On�Z CC Fi Ft� ©�0000�2 xAC m °N r�y 000m °O�A AAACA CAAA A.CO At =�I.tmlmbD DrCn '- ]`m- t ~ADSr 2GA A�AgZ xn^m1ZZ _AA•mfmmmNUlgON Z "r o�j OG❑m ICCCCCCm��—� AXC Cs �{r _ls`•��i 1On �O -�CA] -� -m ADO �C�O ��Ox�nl�m CLn n'CDmm�O pz�mZ C>Z ICLC C C cZr)c cv) c"•') - ?� D c C �c No_ °b NA c O'-•- Z 5 -z vm z� �p mz- °RNNN`�`�`�N`�oy��0 ° =7 � A� Z�� a- = o��x Kaic g�Zm 00 o ti G D DR55S �K�� mim N <�m r -��"�g ��m °7 yzZ NzZZ mC) NA� - N N mN O Z FAO 2D NAVA) m_m n Dmx O O -y; V AP f7°CI f�f1 CJ -mm �NNN ZmN �/ ANA DA PL�« y • OAm+Oym D �0 F F<.Zl m!'1� A N N �Z° ONp mmm mmmm zmA fA`I rA;m Z�A .,• Z ZZrnF n FNZ Z _ Z <r n {xmon Z Z xC CF Fi F E n m o m z° $ a O� O m mrDy - -D.�AZ mmn ci Sm c').- D rn mp� [>C N oA z r ° m Z O �f'i A j�m <A . I-, °A=M _T> �CF NOA y2< ) A<N Om O Z Z O m ° C D Z z f F z W (� m Z m " Zm ❑ ❑ m ❑ A Z O C n A mmm Nr -0 ° �- V) M. .. m D ° z N m m 'v w T i _ m N O C. o o z o °o o w x 0 � n -- �oo 2 A frl m ? z p FIE� I i�A \ ko, N \ O O Ok k1. + w Y � r m co z O D O �7 O D r O m T1 L n� D CC W 00 O 9 O OD O O o O W z O � m W A O M OD r O m O_ Z O P O 0 X O 00 00 K: < K: m � Z O m z m� U) D Z m CD --j C C0 D F 1611 A15' 0 2 G7 A D O (/j D! r�m P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I 0021*0n ®e l 018 0 ®® O 84018- r... ®�'Cl.�i�O�O�}1( I O • ® ►O❑ II I1 If 1: 11 I II It II I. II 11 II I: 11 II II 1 1'. Ii !Ill M f ;I li II II II ;I It !1 II ;I :1 II II ! Y I� A l� .I 11 if N 11 I% fi II II II p U it !I I' c nm FFFFFFFF c�°ocm��n c��nACC�c>n�,)-n arc F- +�mrl�mc�c�m- +naamr*.c��n mzinx rlvcmzi vl vl �IT�+r °mmmmmmm om ZZ��Zp�o3�zi�o�i �^NmKmmcZ7 o�m�rjtn nam�o�zcc Fi�omw000 °mz��°c lx.,��`a `a °cc °c fTl �.UZ1.'l1Tl.'a ai ai .aA�S2SAOC)m Oyt*1Va =1nA _S Sr { I°*1�o ~.'l�1Ar.R�1gZAC)'�Z2.1~1 A•�mmVI VI�DOC U.L�r °m \DOC °m zsCC� CyC AOOO SI rlmzA <�Op<rr� OV n5sia � °[1 -ICC(�(]ACm�z�uxC� G) OmIN�O:r -C)z p- _l__]-$� ysem 0 `�v; ^c zOm -a n = c�?•.n am��_ z) ; °2 -zi zr�-o ^IZZ �oOp 0......... V v� �-30�` o�c� -i wzmnzQ��z� mmm Ammm mm��Z�� m�Om rni czi7v ur In mzz Nzz� mz Fn O�?ym m�5�r1 mm m +� °�m.� tiamx scn�z°mmr+nC s O i Ammmr"nmmm mm�--- �mZ =�A a�r�� S zz �'o�r�i z Z�� -r°m�� rn czi C, v' <z li�1�F�Pcz� � Omm 1pr mm z �r' r�ln av `r p mm mm^I�� N z z ci i'I ]mac a�mmmS mC $m �,z pM ~, U A� O m _O�T�. z� ZZ '^z nDDAm timer Z. Samna .lm� rl� zl- = mn Zr„Nr.l CC *N8�Np5 ✓I �< Oclli Z N F, �~ r mzlrlll Lay. m m n+tt4� mZ MNPO, 1�„7 �� a m ° oz Z pm <p 5 cm C c c In z m zrtmm v�r _ v o m z NNI^ m m n V) GM> z m S? m III I � R ., .... ..... C) m °o F- 0 m U) co cy) CY) 00 J + + ON 0 C) 00 < m Om z m U) O 0 < CO 0 > 0; 80 0 0 m 0 �u CO U) CD m W I -F � "0 co O , p O 0 O 1611 A15 4 ip =(*a UC14,* 0 0'.. j. Ave 11 R-U** b,-" 0 -tt. T A 0 Q& [a *X 14010041 Oil A k N 1 4 0 Y, 1, 11 1 1, 1, 0 1: .1 :1 j! Y I K j, l: CC g z Z4 00 rV1m 'FN� z F� F i�nZ M OQ z mw 0 ol oz, Z z C-) 0 P, OR, .0 co A 6, 'T po 0 , ') A m *-c z z z 72 Izz o m 0 FI�IE�It 000 ti 0 - r r m m � O D C7 O Or r- Om C)n 00 D C C rn W + � n0 O p U' < �m �z O m zz m -- U) M 2 m 4 OQ < OD o Z Z O o o° m cn co O _ _ c C W `a z 0; m m ^ W A l / O O _O Z pO O O X O 161 1r ^15' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4on4amcf¢¢ 0.9I oeoe Jose OOa20 Ig- s��t��... ®.v.r.eaokl+( I �o I OPOOC' Oil • ®►oo .• � ;I 1! 11 M Y it h 11 II 11 II I'. !I x b !! '•I '.I ;; I ! N b h ;I I ;! •I I; !; II � ii I. II �� ;I II II !I II ;� .I I: i; II ;I ! Y 1 ;! 1. i. ,i . .. ;I y II X II c££FFFFFF£c - •ci000mcuyffOC{,'•�,,nnACOC>n, +x n�c£ (nmm�mnnm�r.Dam Cnnn(n vZ(nxm�°m�i wvlmT„ "DD>D »DDDZmmmZ- ZryADDAZ Xm�mmo CU Orr Z >DA OmDXDO -O- OOOr ° m. m ...ran mmmlr`+�I �+om��°=(�! zz - °�n SEX;-,- Fl�r! <OCm �zcc Fib °m pC�o z�ACmy a `a cccm AAAAAA.1m1A AAA =VVArA1 Zy Zym m"1. ~U ➢ +D mU< 2°x1° °-i l�-i i-°i �(�Amj.(UID m°CV)��r ol'1 (n OCO `� � =`- n`��A Ag An Cz.Tt .11 Q Z �D m y�oA<CSm ov"� nnynn °n c`n °mmz�AACVZ °m z � mr. -ZC CC C "L Cz{, c�Vrc �•'_ z z z�"'' �n OA zz Z�`��77� =c czCy_timz��<y nnK ��yAimya c�i °(nN VI VIN N(n aNO Sr° nCC05 r° mm< ° S �SNr2 OV1 V1 �NN�ZSOCOO .� fmmm m m ° °277n m ?mm°m 00c) rzvyz -tzm m 7< l mmz am y < fZ ° A £-V�V DSS�SSSm 2 -!� �sOyD^IS mll0min MY 00 2D Ammmnnnn mm v(n ut c,�vZT nA �� $ , o� �o m z Z�oo��_ `l- '-^ <zo °NC mmmm Sr ^r'r1 zAn n� 5m > o ° m^I Cc) z z zoi z mm `^ < A° c • ^cD (- c>c °A 0= o 'm' m C 01 V T z z .A AGy mt`�mA��N LN �O m m� Z• 2 1;„m ZmVI (rIR m a <m� fIA � OmZ 7 Om � Zm R O � m An f°n :L 2On ''D (+tO >mO V]pS UI ny <ytN't OA° Slnj 2 G� �Iyx� y�m yV• m fA GG`�r-rrtm� pG A Z A m v VI 1 m J n m N N N %. (D O N m o J U n O j W m O m N U 0) W 7 �:2 m O FOOD _OODD c ?I T -4 W X M m n < w O<) m c c co ID 4 T ° A A U w O 0 m o m A A (.w W W W W W w W W W N N N N N N N N N N+ + O m W V O) D A W N+ O m W V M 0) A W N+ O m ao V O) D A W N+ O m W V M U A W N+ �mMm � � 0-10 0 m 0>1 m mp mT 0 2 r TI) C- DN m cZ n Dm m Om 0 Z R 6 c � z Gm O �0m D D �D �7 m < 21 Z < T r o- >mmaip0 ZZ D0 �2mD- 2m7ZC��7� T)��mmTr r- DCZn °�<CZnVZi m m Wf<ilfGrt m-1 m rm -im�D� ZrZD�T1nD -ni�mm �mmTTmmCCmi,�iCo v�T �� tnO�m pO7nmD Z�mo�G)z"0 o00 mai ��mTTCn- 1zorD� -mi zvZicZn c �N vmr�p (wwC /) 0 mm m A< c�?Zmm 'DO --I c) Z m Z 2Z� Zmmm Aimm_�� Z OO _q D -O ;Z�� > 0M o z m OpZ vci��m C),: MT mm�cm mmmm D Dr m D C)y r�c � zZp� m -4 -4m X N fA Efl EA EA fA fA fA EA fA fA CO fA EA Vi EA EA EA fA fA fA 0 EA 4W EA EA fA fA fA a O 00 O N v, v O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 o A W C 22 U N V U n N N A V W W J V + 0 W Oi (T O -40 O 0) 00 (n m+ U O U (n O O O w O w O O O O V N 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0000"" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o b o o o o 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o O O o 2 a EA EA (A EA 16S 0 fA M fA EA (A EA (A EA fA (A w 0 EA (A EA (A EA (-A fA to fA fA O W m+ W N A W :,4:14 U m A N OD N 00 00 O N E (n N3 -4 W O _j W O _O m O O O+ O N N W U w CO OD O O W 0— 00 W co W W w A ? W O co 06 to 00 (0 O -1I O) O N O A O O fA EAw (A EA fA fA EA 4A 69 Nw fA 41 to to w fA fA w W W fA fA fA fA w fA M oD N O _ d1 W W WP O m _ W O O O) Ow N QN) O W O V 00004 (D N N A V N C) O A V (A T O+ A n N O O O O N N O N V O 8 M O -I N 0 O O O V N U V N O W 0 W W m N W O O O O W A (A 0) 0 O OD O+ O ow N m 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 W A O aD N U -1 0 0) O O U co EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA 69 dw EA fA EA w W EA w fA EA fA EA EA EA to EA EA di (A EA U A A A OD CO 0 + m V -4 Ln U V W (O DJ (0 D W N O) 0 N W V V l O O OD OD O O V OD 00 O O) A 0) (n (n O O (n w (n N N O O w O A m O O o W O W U V do A U OD U N U U N O O O o 00 0 V+ O o O o 0 -) N O O O O O O N N N O O O O O (J U O) V O O A -4 V 00 w w 0 O O O O O O w m o 0 0 0 0 61:-41 N O O O 00 O O O o 0 W U V O 0 0 0 0 U• N °)� °)o,< mc °- ��omooa�a333� D to Dom �' o �' o pw m m n CLnmm 3 3 (� a 5 3 c J 3 3 3 3 (D J m m v J m m x x (D (D A 00 �m�0 vvvv3cD00Ni T. � 03 a3"o v C) 2 0— o 3 3 3 m m n d C Z.� _ J C f Z Z 3' r aa N O N o J J coc Tr- - vcn AA Ac)cn3- C)mmKTmmcn0OG)G)� < < C ^. N (D (D O O o O (q (n O (p (p C (0 (p 7 CD ID N N N N Dw (p °_ N J 3 3 C C O (D 7, N N n N N 0 0) ._+ ,c—+ J _� d J J (w 0 ((�� [[�� D) N? N n N _. N N CL Cl N W — O) (U 91 (DJ (O N 0) o — � .�.. � � � c M ID <A NA (nN Ncn N J N N -D N �0 j' j' M N Zo v w Q° << .... .� (D O (D 2 Z Z Z Z Z 2 (�. n (7 A ((p� fA m O U 01 O O U O U O U 0 U 0 0 U 0 0 U 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 O U 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O Z Z O O OO Z O O O O O O Z 0 C-) 00 O O . 0 O O � m O O V V o J V W A V O + 0) W D1 A V V O) 0) O) N W U N T W m w d1 N O 0 (D O N U U OD O) O 0) N O) V N O U W A N CO (3) U + � 0 0 0 0 00--4--o A A 0 0 0 0 9 O 00 0) V CO U) (n Cn O O (O V V O) W 0) (D (D T d W A U W Z Z W W W 0 U Z Z A Z W Z Z Cn Z (. : (� + ornD U U D� rn(n U J wyyaom0 w 01 0 0 U Dm D] N)0D N OD T N O W co N (n D) O Cl (0 a) O W QD 0) O O w (II V1 (p EA EA (/) U, Vi EO V1 (A (n Eli (n U, (11 (n ID ID N O 0) W N V A 0 A O N N A W O o N O co (O O Cr W y, N O) O O O O O O W W N N J O N 0 O O 0 0 CO m V O 7 O o 0 A U O 0 0 0 .P W OD � o O 0 0 0 4 _1 O 10,010 O O N A O fA EA fA fA EA EA fA EA fA EA EA fA EA fA fA EA fA EA (A (A di 49 EA Hw EA EA fA N N 0) N (n --+ W W (0 A O d N 0) (D (D CC O O (D 0) N) N— W O A CL 0) N m O (n W V N N O O O O 00 D U C) DO N A+ v N OD Q) w N W O O O V U O 0 A 0 0 00 o 0) 6 o m w+ 0 0 A O (n W O O O O O O (n O OD + 0 0) O N (AI fA fA EA EA EAI 6q fA fA (A EA fA A A I a w o D N Ut -+ (D A �I V O N U W O 00 O N N O 0 0 0 o O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O EA I EA fA EA fA (AI fA I fA (A EA fA EA D 3 N 7 a (D CL I I ; FA fA w fA fA EA fA W fA fA fA EA m x aD -ED ID D W C 0) U CL V .p O) C Of w W A W N N OD 41 U 0) ry O m W � O CA EA EA EA W W fA W W fA W EA A A D N U+ U �1 O N rn A CD d m 0 (O 0) w (D in D1 o — G 0 0 0 0 m ? Cl) W W 0 0 0 0 V O m+ W 0 0 CO O M -C O CD Z a p m Z M vCD Gn O __q C � �RUN� ; HIM , | §|.| ! r / t#q ;G ° §ot&_, ; e� :�,m » > §gmrr§ » pAmmumm? * , AWN §'AWN ® «!!alas #!!a! \) \\ \\ / {) !: -� - \ ) }2)\\ ) A) 1611 § ©» 0 E f || | |! % kk]j \j \kj /t k )¥ | : |! � - #p, ;p ��2 ■� ■| �A ;� | i | {D). ! ■| & �� § 7)§ k \ } ƒ » pAmmumm? * , AWN §'AWN ® «!!alas #!!a! \) \\ \\ / {) !: -� - \ ) }2)\\ ) A) § ©» ,�, % kk]j \j \kj /t k )¥ » pAmmumm? * , AWN §'AWN ® «!!alas #!!a! \) \\ \\ / {) !: -� - \ ) }2)\\ ) A) A 15-44 E .Eli {f� !�� § 7)§ A 15-44 E .Eli {f� !�� Fiala 'j 6 1 I R 1 14 Halas r .l u Henning — February 1, 2010 Coyle Coletta Sc MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE �DoFCEIVED INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM MAR 0 5 2010 ..c.,rd cn Caunry Commisslonen Naples, Florida, February 1, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3`d Floor, Collier County Government Complex, 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 Sgt. Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Misc. corres: Date: (� h L�i item r: �Z r:r..pieS to: 161 181 February 1, 2010 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: 9:08 AM RECONVENED: 9:35 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #2, Notice #1360900143535 — BCC vs. Michael Allan Baker • Agenda #3, Notice #1360900075836 — BCC vs. Mark Samuel Barr & Lynn Parks • Agenda #10, Notice #1360900109049 — BCC vs. Walter V. Ciecierski • Agenda #18, Notice #1360900071496 — BCC vs. James J. Hogan • Agenda #19, Notice #1360900131795 — BCC vs. Ernesto Imbriano • Agenda #21, Notice #1360900118230 — BCC vs. Denise L. LaForge • Agenda #23, Notice #1360900135457 — BCC vs. Friedrich Wilhelm Linnenbach • Agenda #24, Notice #1360900127785 — BCC vs. Jeanne M. Litras • Agenda #29, Notice #1360900089621— BCC vs. Daniel A. & Jeanne J. Nixon • Agenda #31, Notice #1360900071561— BCC vs. Luis R. Nunez • Agenda #32, Notice #1360900072858 — BCC vs. Luis R. Nunez • Agenda #33, Notice #1360900130359 — BCC vs. William Oppenheimer • Agenda #36, Notice #1360900129054 — BCC vs. Robert L. Russo • Agenda #41, Notice #1360900122125 — BCC vs. Robert W. Teschke • Agenda #43, Notice #1360900068823 — BCC vs. John Richard & Alice Marie Thorne • Agenda #51, Notice #1360900133874 — Michael Patrick & Patricia Ann Zewalk (b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #1, Notice #1360900067759—BCC vs. Neil Alan & Janice C. Abrahamson • Agenda #5, Notice #1360900107480—BCC vs. John M. Blaine 2 r b 1 1 B 1 February 1, 2010 • Agenda #13, Notice #1360900130938 — BCC vs. Fuller Funeral Services, Inc. • Agenda 416, Notice #1360900035699 — BCC vs. Stephen M. Grogoza • Agenda #17, Notice 41360900120426 — BCC vs. Halitaj Ilirjan • Agenda #26, Notice #1360900112779 — BCC vs. Patricia A. & James W. McNeice • Agenda #30, Notice #1360900093540 — BCC vs. Roya Nouhi • Agenda 437, Notice #1360900086106 — BCC vs. David Sabula • Agenda #39, Notice #1360900091569 — BCC vs. H. Gail Siebenmorgen • Agenda #40, Notice #1360900092815 — BCC vs. David Street • Agenda 944, Notice #1360900143550 — BCC vs. Gelu Topa • Agenda #45, Notice #1360900117042 — BCC vs. Thomas Norman Trowbridge • Agenda #46, Notice #1360900113678 — BCC vs. Constantin Verdes • Agenda #50, Notice #1360900151223 — BCC vs. Jessica L. & Kenneth S. Wilson 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 8,2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on January 8, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 6. Notice #1350900141489 — BCC vs. Dio2enes Carrera The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. Mrs. Janire Carrera appeared as a witness. Mr. and Mrs. Carrera reside at 2016 Stage Brush Circle, Naples, Florida. The Respondent verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Janire Carrera stated she was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. Date of Violation: November 24, 2009 Time: 5:00 PM Location: Intersection of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated she had no opportunity to stop because she was afraid of causing an accident, and the light had just turned from yellow to red. The Special Magistrate again reviewed the video and stated it did not appear as if any 161 1B1 February 1, 2010 cars were behind the vehicle, and the Respondent could not have considered stopping because she did not slow the vehicle as it approached the traffic signal under a visible yellow light. The Special Magistrate further stated the light was fully red as the vehicle entered and drove through the intersection. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 22. Notice #1360900149250 — BCC vs. Brent W. Lambert The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch and Sgt. Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 500 Windemere Way, #105, Naples, Florida 34105, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: December 1, 2009 Time: 7:19 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the traffic signal turned red as the Respondent's vehicle approached the stop bar and ran the red light before the green arrow came on. The Special Magistrate asked the Respondent how he knew when the green arrow would come on. The Respondent stated he drives through the intersection on a daily basis. There is a one - second delay between the time the light turned from red to the green turn arrow. He further stated as he approached the intersection he looked to the left to view oncoming traffic and when he looked up, the green arrow was visible. The Special Magistrate stated at the time the Respondent's vehicle crossed the stop bar, the traffic signal was red and the Ordinance does not allow a driver to anticipate that a light will change to a turning arrow. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 1611 February 1, 2010 28. Notice 1$1360900138709 — BCC vs. Charles F. Nicastro, III The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent resides at 1150 Wildwood Lakes Blvd., Unit #106, Naples, Florida 34104, and stated he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: November 22, 2009 Time: 10:47 PM Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the traffic signal turned yellow as the vehicle approached the intersection. The light went through the full cycle, turned red, and the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through the intersection. The Respondent contended he was driving under the speed limit (39 in a 45 zone), the yellow light "ran quick," and moisture on the roadway did not permit him to make a controlled stop and he "rolled through" the light. The Special Magistrate stated she didn't see the Respondent's vehicle slowing as it approached the traffic signal and noted he had more of an opportunity to stop since he was driving under the speed limit. The Respondent questioned the real time of the video which appeared to run slow, and stated the video did not clearly depict actual circumstances. He claimed his vehicle crossed the stop bar as the light changed. Lt. Minch stated the video runs in real time, the yellow light ran for 4.5 seconds, there was no traffic on the roadway and the Respondent could have stopped. The Special Magistrate stated no brake lights were visible on the Respondent's vehicle. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt ofl the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 38. Notice #1360900132934 — BCC vs. Sally Kramer's Furniture Outlet, Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent stated her name is Sally Conrad, she resides at 128 Barfield Drive, 161 181 February 1, 2010 Marco Island, Florida, and verified she is the owner of the vehicle and the business. Date of Violation: November 19, 2009 Time: 2:00 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop but rolled through a solid red light. The Respondent stated her company owns two vehicles which are driven by five individuals and she did not know who was driving on that date. She further stated if a ticket had been issued by an Officer at the scene, he would have ticketed the driver and not the owner. She contended the practice was discriminatory. The Special Magistrate stated she is unable to rule on whether or not the Ordinance is constitutional. She advised the Respondent she has the right to appeal her decision to the Circuit Court within thirty days after the date of the Order, as allowed by the Ordinance. The Respondent noted a red truck was blocking the view of oncoming traffic and the vehicle went further into the intersection to obtain a clear line of sight. She also noted two quick hesitations. The Special Magistrate stated if the company vehicle had stopped after clearing the red truck, she would have found there was no violation. The Ordinance does not allow "hesitations" as a permitted exception. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a ftne of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 Supervisor Waldron announced the following changes to the Agenda: (a) The County WITHDREW the following cases: • Agenda #8, Notice #1360900136638 — BCC vs. Michael V. Cavaseno • Agenda 927, Notice #1360900087260 — BCC vs. William E. Mountford • Agenda #34, Notice 41360900114916 — BCC vs. Pelican Larry's South, LLC • Agenda #47, Notice #1360900117141— BCC vs. Lucille Dennis Vickers • Agenda #52, Notice #1360900143568 — BCC vs. John F. Zimmerman (b) The County DISMISSED the following case: • Agenda #25, Notice 41360900092708 — BCC vs. Felipe Lopera The Special Magistrate noted the Agenda will be amended to accommodate the February 1, 2010 changes. 11. Notice #1360900122356 — BCC vs. Carollynn M. Fazio The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. David Webster appeared as a witness. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent' stated her name is Carol Lynn Fazio, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. David Webster stated he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident. They reside at 380 Sunrise Blvd., Naples, Florida 34110. Date of Violation: November 12, 2009 Time: 12:04 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road (Sea Gate)/IJS 41- Tamiami Trail Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the traffic signal was red for 122.6 seconds as the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through the intersection. Mr. Webster stated he and Ms. Fazio are snowbirds who recently returned to Naples and did not know about the new law. He followed the traffic and felt it was safe to turn. He expressed regret and stated it will not happen again. He requested a Hearing in order to ask to have the fine reduced. The Special Magistrate stated the law has always required a vehicle to come to a complete stop at a steady red light before going forward. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 4. Notice #1360900124832 — BCC vs. Stephen Glen Berry The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: November 13, 2009 Time: 9:34 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached, entered and proceeded through the intersection under a red light. 161 1 1 February 1, 2010 The Special Magistrate stated a violation was present. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. TotalAmount Due: $112.50 7. Notice #1360900100279 — BCC vs. Alex B. Carroll The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 30, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was found to be in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a ftne of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 9. Notice #1360900166205 — BCC vs. Amy Lynn Chesser The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 14, 2009 Time: 3:25 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached the intersection under a red light and did not stop. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. TotalAmount Due: $112.50 1611 B1" February 1, 2010 12. Notice #1360900023216 — BCC vs. Nicholas Gerard Finn The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: August 21, 2009 Time: 5:33 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light which was red for 137.9 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 14. Notice 41360900090090—BCC vs. William B. Gaughan The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 24, 2009 Time: 3:23 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light which was clearly visible. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 15. Notice #1360900042109 — BCC vs. Debi J. & Milton Gore The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: August 31, 2009 Time: 1:37 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road 1611 BI February 1, 2010 Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 20. Notice #1360900052835 — BCC vs. Jonathan Jimenez The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: September 6, 2009 Time: 9:46 PM 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 which was illuminated for 46.7 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to pay. Total Amount Due: $175.00 35. Notice #1360900081453 — BCC vs. Kessint!er Lewis Rene The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 17, 2009 Time: 5:49 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light which was red for 24.3 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. 10 February 1, 2010 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 42. Notice #1360900067650 — BCC vs. Jerald Dean Thomas The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 6, 2009 Time: 11:22 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached the traffic signal under a clearly visible red light and did not stop. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $175.00 48. Notice 91360900186740 — BCC vs. Douelas A. Walker The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 22, 2009 Time: 11:44 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US /41 Tamiami Trail Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached and exited the intersection under a red light without stopping. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 161 1 81 1 February 1, 2010 49. Notice 01360900092559 — BCC vs. Peter Nicholas Wessel The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 26, 2009 Time: 10:04 AM Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the speed of the Respondent's vehicle was 51 miles per hour with no brake lights visible as he entered and exited the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 53. Notice #1360900080422 — BCC vs. John R. Zoechi The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: October 17, 2009 Time: 9:34 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached and exited the intersection under a clearly visible red light without stopping. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: 1. Agenda #1, Notice 91360900019883 — BCC vs. Roses Food Mart, Inc. 2. Agenda #2, Notice #1360900054799 — BCC vs. Robert Lardie 12 1611 B1 February 1, 2010 Supervisor Waldron stated payment was made prior to the Orders being issued. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion. VI. NEXT HEARING DATE — March 1, 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 of the Special Magistrate at 10:50 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE renda Garretson, Special Magistrate The Minutes were app r ved by the Special Magistrate on M�'(� / t ;,a /O as presented , or as amended _ 13 > . EIVED February 19, 2010 Fiala j3FI . 1 182 MAR 12 20T Henning Coyle Board of Coanty Comtnisstoners Coietta MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, February 19, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secret. tare: Date: 0 3 1 D Item r j 1 a- F —ies to: 16 I 1 B2 w February 19, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:01 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. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:16 AM RECONVENED: 9:34 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (A), "Stipulations" were reached in the following cases: • Agenda #9, Case #CENA 20090010475 — BCC vs. David & Juana Carrillo • Agenda #10, Case #CEV 20090004877 — BCC vs. Elsa Lay • Agenda #8, Case #CEPM 20090016303 — BCC vs. Marcella Robles (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #7, Case #CEROW 20090016239 — BCC vs. Timothy & Beatrice Frank (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #4, Case #PR 043587 — CEEX 20100000414 — BCC vs. Todd Kotzen • Agenda #5, Case #PRB 000778 — CEEX20100000839 — BCC vs. Kelly Thurner (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #2, Case #CEPM 20090011813 — BCC vs. Crystal Pepper • Agenda #7, Case #CEPM 20080006103 — BCC vs. Bertha A. Hall, et al 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 5, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on February 5, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 16112 February 19, 2010 IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 9. Case #CENA 20090010475 — BCC vs. David & Juana Carrillo The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Weldon Walker, Jr., who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 -181 Litter throughout property Folio No: 51040120009 Violation address: 1207 Immokalee Drive A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents on February 12, 2010. Investigator Weldon stated the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove all litter to an appropriate waste disposal facility on or before February 26, 2010, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.47 on or before March 19, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.47 10. Case #CEV 20090004877 — BCC vs. Elsa Lay The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jose Luis Cano, Jr., who was present. The Respondent was represented by Hans Lay, her son. 161182 February 19, 2010 Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Three vehicles that do not have proper tags Folio No: 35648040002 Violation address: 4400 23rd Place SW Mr. Lay stated he resides at 4400 23`d Place SW, Naples, Florida 34116 and was authorized by the Respondent to appear on her behalf. He provided a notarized letter of permission to Code Enforcement. A Stipulation was entered into by Hans Lay on February 19, 2010 on behalf of the Respondent, Elsa Lay. The Investigator stated the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either make the vehicles operable and affix valid license plates to each vehicle, or store the vehicles in an enclosed structure, or remove the vehicles from the property on or before March 19, 2010, or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.38 on or before March 19, 2010. The Respondent is to notes Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.38 8. Case #CEPM 20090016303 - BCC vs. Marcella Robles The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Pool is green and stagnant, needs to be cleaned Folio No: 36119400002 Violation address: 4979 18 `h Court SW B2 161 February 19, 2010 The Respondent resides at 2269 52 "d Lane SW, Naples, Florida 34116. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on February 19, 2010. Investigator Paul stated the Operational Costs of $112.73 have been paid. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and treat the pool water to kill the algae growth and provide hi-weekly treatments to maintain the pool water, or to chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool pursuant to HUD standards on or before March h, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. The Respondent stated the property will be sold as a "short sale," and acknowledged her responsibility to clean the pool. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # CENA 20090000707 — BCC vs. Humberto & Alicia Barco The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. Respondent, Alicia Barco, was present and represented her husband, Humberto Barco. Sharon Barco, the Respondent's daughter, served as translator. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 -181 Litter consisting of, but not limited to, tires, metal car parts, 50 gallon metal drums, etc. Folio No: 38968600006 Violation address: 2821 54th Avenue NE, Naples The Respondent stated she has permission to represent her husband. Supervisor Perez stated the violation was abated as of November 2, 2009. 1611 '" Febru aroy 19, 2010 Fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period from October 10, 2009 through November 2, 2009 (24 days) for a total fine amount of $2,400.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.17 have been paid. The total amount to date is $2,400.00. The Respondent stated there were heavy metal pieces which she could not remove without assistance. The Respondent's husband had recently undergone surgery and could not help, and the Respondent's son was out of town. The Respondents sent a letter to Code Enforcement asking for an extension of time to comply. They called several times and left messages when the work had been completed, but did not receive a response to their calls. Supervisor Perez confirmed the Respondents sent letters as stated and verified the metal pieces were too heavy to be removed by Mrs. Barco or her daughter. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines due to compliance and mitigating circumstances. 4. Case #CEPM 20090004038 — BCC vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company c/o Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. The Respondent was represented by Carter Wheeler. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Unmaintained swimming pool Folio No: 67230080008 Violation Address: 6664 Trail Blvd The Special Magistrate noted Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A. is a law firm and not a party to the action. Mr. Wheeler resides at 630 Palm Circle East, Naples, Florida 34102 and is employed by Amerivest Realty which represents Bank of America. Bank of American services mortgages for Deutsche Bank. Investigator Box stated the County abated the violation as of December 8, 2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period from October 10, 2009 through December 8, 2009 (60 days) for a total fine amount of $6,000.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.61 have been paid, and abatement costs in the amount of $1,200 have been paid. The total amount to date is $6,000.00. Mr. Wheeler stated the Bank was requesting to waive the fines since it did not own 161 1 92 ." February 19, 2010 the property when the violation occurred, and abatement by the County occurred before the Bank was involved. Investigator Box stated the County would not object. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 5. Case #CEPM 20090008288 — BCC vs. Michael DeWitt The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(12)(C) and 22- 231(12)(D) Missing soffits from roof, also some of the windows are boarded up not allowing proper ingress and egress from the structure Folio No: 63405280006 Violation address: 1072 Granada Blvd, Naples The Respondent resides at 1072 Granada Blvd., Naples, Florida 34103. Investigator Musse stated the violation was abated as of January 19, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from December 19, 2009 through January 19, 2010 (32 days) for a total fine amount of $6,400.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have been paid. The total amount to date is $6,400.00. The Respondent stated he left the previous Hearing before his case was heard because he was ill and suffered a heart attack on December 16, 2009. He hired help but they were not reliable and he could not perform the work himself. He requested to waive the fines. The Investigator stated the County would not object. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. Case #CESD 20080013392 — BCC vs. Miramar Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. The County was represented by Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was represented by Benjamin Heatherington, General Manager. Frank Gore, III, appeared as a witness. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Sec(s).10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E) & 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(1) Permit #920004509 for a boardwalk was issued on April 16, 1992 and expired on October 16, 1992 without obtaining Certificate of Completion. Folio No: 54755120753 1 b 1 1 Uuary 19, 2010 Violation address: 105 Shell Drive, Bonita Springs Mr. Heatherington resides at 16263 Ravina Way, Naples, Florida 34110. Mr. Gore resides at 4838 Gary Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and is the Sales Manager for Nelson Marine Construction Company. Investigator Musse stated the Respondent was granted an Extension of Time to Comply on May 15, 2009. The violation has not been abated as of February 19, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period from December 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010 (63 days) for a total fine amount of $6,300.00. Fines continue to accrue until abatement. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.70 have been paid. The total amount to date is $6,300.00 Mr. Heatherington stated the Miramar Beach and Tennis Club hired Nelson Marine Construction Company to install the boardwalk. Mr. Gore stated there were several permitting agencies involved in the project including the Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP "), the Army Corps. of Engineers ( "ACOE ") and the Bureau of Beaches and Shores. A condition of the County was production of the original plans for the initial boardwalk (1992) which were presumed lost until later located by contacting the first contractor who agreed to release his drawings. Collier County issued a Condition Permit and required Nelson Marine to contact the Department of Beaches and Shores to verify their permitting requirements. He has been informed by the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (formerly Beaches and Shores) that a Field Permit will be issued within the next two weeks. He stated as soon as the Permits are in place, the work will be completed by March, 2010. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until April 16, 2010. If necessary, the Respondent may contact Code Enforcement to request an Extension of Time to Comply. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 1. Case #SO 172140 — CEEX 20100000102 — BCC vs. Sondra Schubiner The Hearing was requested by Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Kenneth Robins who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Code of Laws & Ordinances, Section 130 -67 Parked blocking striped access. Handicapped space Violation address: Vanderbilt Beach turn -a- round. Gulfshore & Vanderbilt Beach 161 1 R � ebruary 'I 19, 2010 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on February 8, 2010 but was returned to Code Enforcement as "undeliverable." The address was provided by the Respondent on the Citation. Deputy Robins stated the Respondent had not only illegally parked in a Handicapped parking space, but her vehicle blocked access to the sidewalk. The Special Magisrate requested Code Enforcement to continue its search to find a current address. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. Code Enforcement will reschedule it. 2. Case #SO 168259 — CEEX 20090017150 — BCC vs. Olaf Christoph The Hearing was requested by Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Keller who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Handicapped space; no visible permit Violation address: Waterside Barnes & Noble, 5377 Tamiami Trail North The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on January 25, 2010 to Germany. The Special Magistrate suggested separating the address (Sir. — street) and resending the Notice. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. Code Enforcement will reschedule it. 3. Case #SO 168212 — CEEX 20100001669 — BCC vs. Charles Keefe The Hearing was requested by Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Keller who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Handicapped space. Expiration date not visible Violation address: Pavilion, 817 Vanderbilt Drive The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on February 8, 2010 and was forwarded on February 18, 2010. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. Code Enforcement will reschedule it. RECESS: 10:43 AM RECONVENED: 10:55 AM VI. 1611 ? Fe ruary 19, 2010 V. <aau Tll 4111 LVV /V VIV VJV —.11 1J. Ua ... 1J\ FJ1.11y L11, The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -23] (15) Pool stagnant and not properly maintained Folio No: 23945052608 Violation address: 20 Newbury Place The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on February 8, 2010. Investigator Gomez introduced three photographs of the pool which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated the property is vacant, is in foreclosure, and a Lis Pendens has been filed. He further stated the Bank of America refused to abate the violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and treat the pool water to kill the algae growth and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain the pool water, or to chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool pursuant to HUD standards on or before March 1, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.82 on or before March 19, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.81 NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. Case #CEPM 20090008287 — BCC vs. Eleazar & Maria Ran¢el The County was represented by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. 10 161 1 B? February 19, 2010 The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subsections 9, 12C, and 12I Vacant mobile home with broken windows and exterior electrical outlet that needs repair, and detached garage with roof damage Folio No: 00765040004 Violation address: 17051 Lockhart Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on February 8, 2010. Investigator Mucha stated the violation has not been abated as of February 19, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from January 21, 2010 through February 19, 2010 (30 days) for a total fine amount of $7,500.00. Fines will continue to accrue until abatement. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.36 have not been paid. The total amount to date is $7,612.36 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $7,612.36 and noted fines will continue to accrue. C. Emergency Cases: None VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. None B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None 1611 ?_ '0 February 19, 2010 X. NEXT HEARING DATE —March S, 2010, 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 11:09 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING enda Garretson Special Magistrate The Minutes wer approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented or as amended 12 1611'83 February 26, 2010 j C) � o r Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court C3on Finance Department o 3301 E. Tamiami Trail .0 Naples, Fl. 34112 c =r ,rn p N ro Dear Mr. Brock: N t r' Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Housing Authority's reporting requirements to your office. I contacted the Division of Housing and Community Development at the Department of Community Affairs who works with Special Districts and posed the same question. It is our understanding the following intormation should be reported to the County Clerk of Courts: 1. Any changes in the registered agent or office. 2. The housing authority's public meeting schedule (quarterly, semiannually or annually). 3. Public facilities report, if applicable (initial, annual notice of any changes and updated reports). 4. Upon request, the housing authority's budget. Therefore, we are providing you with a copy of our annual filing notice for the registered agent or office and a copy of the housing authority's meeting schedule for fiscal year 2009 -2010. There has been no change in public facilities. I hope this satisfies our reporting requirements to Collier County Clerk of Courts. If you have any questions, please contact the directly at (239) 657 -3649. MW. CArres: Sincerely, ARralda Serrata, PHM Executive Director Enclosures. ,RE CEiVED-i `'VAR 2 2 2010 board (if County Comrnissionera te:04 3 Collier County Housing Authority ♦ 1800 Pann Worker Way ♦ Immokalee, Flodda 34142 ♦ (239) 657 -3649 ♦ FAX (239) 657 -7232 1611 B3 LORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Invoice No.: 21431 Date Invoiced: 1010112009 /200912010 SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE INVOICE AND UPDATE FORM DCA use only. Post to: 528040, 2- 510080-0010000 istructions: In accordance with Sections 189.412 and 189 427, F.S., and Chapter 9B -50, F.A.C., please remit the fee due payable to the apartment of Community Affalre OR complete the Zero Annual Fee Certification Section, as appropriate. In addition, review the formation below about the district and update as necessary. Provide backup documentation if the district's name or status has changed. y the postmarked due date, mail the payment and this signed form to the Department of Community Again, Finance and Accounting fflce, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.21 GO, Direct Questions to (850) 922 -5431 or SUNCOM 292 -5431. ANNUAL FEE: District's Name, Registered Agent 8 Office': Collier County Housing Authority Me. Esmoralda Sonata 1800 Farm Worker Way Immokales, Fl 34142 rebalte: mall: cchafl @aol.com .------ _- ..----- .. ounty(lss): Collier xal Governing Authority': Collier County inction(a)': Housing Authority ate Established: 07/12/1968 motion Documents': Co. Res. 7112166 tatutory Authority': Chapter 421, F.S. osrd Selection': Governor Appoint• uthorlry to 1"" Bonds': Yes evenua Source: Federal 'Explanations Telephone: (239) 657 -3649 Fax: (239) 657 -7232 Status': Independent Creation Document: On File Map: On File Last Update: 10/14 /2008 eglstared Agent: The person designated by the special district to accept due process on behalf of the special district At": Independent or Dependent - see Section 189.403, F.S. x:al Governing Authority. The governing body of a unit of local general- purpose government mctons: The funchon/purpose of the special district nation Documents: Ordinance, Resolution, Statute, Special Act, Court Decree, Interiocal Agreement, etc. aultery Authority The Flondo Statute governing the function of the special dialect card Selection: Appointed, Appointed /Elected, Elected, Governor Appoints, Local Governing Authority Appoints, Same as Local Governing Authority, Similar to Local Governing Authority, Other Ahorffy to Issue Bonds: Yes or No ovaries Sourced Ad Valorem. Agreement, Ass ssments, Bond Issuer Fees, Co., Donations, Fed, Fees, Other, Investments, Grants, Municipality, Non -Ad alorem, Pdv. narprise, Sales Surtax, Sales/Leases, State, TIE, Tolle, None ERTIFICATION: I, the undo ed regist ient, dzzz the information above is accurate and complete as of Is date. It does _ or t n a to be egistered Age nts Signature: _- Date: _ 4Q63M cRO ANNUAL FEE CERTIFICATION SECTION- If eligible, the special district may request a zero annual fee instead of making a tymenl by having the registered agent certify to the following: I. This special district is not a component unit of a general purpose local government as defined in the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Statement No. 14, issued in June 1991 offecive after December 15, 1992, as amended. 2. This special district is in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Department of Financial Services. 3. This special district reported $3,000.00 or less in annual revenues to the Department of Financial Services on its Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2007/2008 (special district's created after that fiscal year must attach a current income statement verifying $3,000.00 or leas in revenues for the cuff ant fiscal year). S. This certification will be returned to the Department at the address above postmarked by 12/04/2009 and. 3. This special district understands that if the Department determines any of these items to be Inaccurate, this special district must pay the appropriate fee when invoiced. The Department will verify these statements within 30 days of receiving this term. the undersigned registered agent, do hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, ALL of the above statements contained (rein and on any attachments hereto are true, wriest, mplate, and made in good faith as of this date. I understand that any formation I give may be inves' ad antl var6ied with Departmen Financial Services and the Auditor General. GN ONLY IF ELIGIBLE F R ANn ^ =1UE5T 1 E: sgistered Agent's Signature: r Date: apartment Use Only _Verified and Approved) enied - Reason(s): TACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT. DCA -SDIP -001 Effective 09126/2007 ------ --- --- -- ---- - - -- ------- - _ -.. _ _ - -._ _. - ___._._-- _-- __-- _- _._._. --' TACH AND KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS. -ORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Invoice No.: 21431 Date Invoiced: 10/0112009 r 200912010 SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE INVOICE AND UPDATE FORM RECEIPT Postmarked Due Data: 12104/2009 oilier County Housing Authority ANNUAL FEE LATE FEE RECEIVED FEE DUE 5175.00 $0.00 20.00 $175.00 161 1 83 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETING 2009 -2010 August 25, 2009 (annual) November 24, 2009 February 23, 2010 May 25, 2010 August 24, 2010 (annual) November 23, 2010