The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 07/27-28/2010 Item #16IBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 161 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE July 27, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: 1) Quarry Community Development District: Proposed 2010/2011 FY Budget. B. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of April 12, 2010; May 10, 2010. 2) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010. Minutes of April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010. 3) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 11, 2010; April 8, 2010. 4) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of April 22, 2010. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of April 15, 2010 regular and special session; May 6, 2010. 6) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of May 19, 2010 regular session; May 19, 2010 workshop. 7) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 5, 2010. 8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 3, 2010. 9) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Amy: Agenda of May 19, 2010; June 16, 2010. Minutes of April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010. 161 10) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of May 19, 2010; June 16, 2010. Minutes of April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010. 11) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 10, 2010. 12) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of May 19, 2010. 13) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Minutes of April 7, 2010; April 7, 2010 special workshop; April 13, 2010 Budget Subcommittee; April 14, 2010 joint workshop; April 19, 2010 public workshop; April 28, 2010 special public workshop; April 28, 2010 workshop; May 5, 2010; May 18, 2010 Community Improvement Plan workshop. 14) Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of December 14, 2009. C. Other: 1) Collier CountySpecial Magistrate — Intersection Safety gram: Minutes of May 3, 2010. QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 16/ c/o Special District Services. Inc. D 2501 Burns Road. Suite A F'�V Palm Beach Gardens. Florida 33410 "� � - JUN 9 20 (561) 630-4922 n o comm�°em Fax: (561) 630 -4923 v C of county ;1K o co rn June 1. 2010 0 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6`" Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Quarry Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2010/2011 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1, 2010 — Sept. 30, 2011) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. -n Laura J. Arch6r ` Enclosure Mac. Ccnvo ; Dde: 07 27 2- U ( D ^ies to: 1 Al 1611 I Al Quarry Community Development �/)ls� l iL't Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 CONTENTS 1611 �+1 I PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) III PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (B BONDS) IV ASSESSMENT CALCULATION V DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET VI DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) VII DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (B BONDS) QY Proposed Budget Contents 2010 -2011 5/27/2010 3:50 PM PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 1611 Al r— REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ANNUAL BUDGET ON ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 43,061 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 94,959 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - A BONDS 1,562,207 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - A BONDS 2,741,793 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - B BONDS 3,025,575 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,467,595 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 ENGINEERING /MAINTENANCE 8,450 MANAGEMENT 36,000 SECRETARIAL 0 LEGAL 6,450 ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 AUDIT FEES 5,700 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 5,000 INSURANCE 5,000 LEGAL ADVERTISING 2,000 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 POSTAGE 500 OFFICE SUPPLIES 500 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES - 22,800 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 6,000 CONTINGENCY 20,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 134,575 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 7,333,020 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE A BONDS 4,179,023 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE B BONDS 3,025,575 BALANCE $ 128,422 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 64,211 DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 64,211 EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 OY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 OY Operating Fund Budget 2010 -2011 527/2010 3 -.50 PM PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (A BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 1611 Al REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 0 NAV Assessment Collection 1,437,230 Developer Direct Bill Assessment 2,741,793 Total Revenues $ 4,179,023 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments Al 965,000 Principal Payments A2 70,000 Interest Payments Al 2,960,513 Interest Payments A2 183,510 Total Expenditures $ 49179,023 Excess /Shortfall $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 QY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 VW Debt Service (A) Fund Budget 2010 -2011 5/27/2010 150 PM PROPOSED BUDGET 16 I IA 1 QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (B BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 0 NAV Assessment Collection 3,0257575 Total Revenues $ 3,025,575 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 0 Interest Payments 370251575 Total Expenditures $ 390259575 Excess /Shortfall $ - QUARRY QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 QY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 (� I QY Debt Service (B) Fund Budget 2010 -2011 512712010 3'.50 PM Quarry Community Development District Assessment Breakdown 2010-2011 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Calculation 161 1A1 'otal Net Operation & Maintenance (t of Total Net 0 &M Grossed up for Fees & Lots X Amount per Lot) Discount (Net O &M X10.921 Total County Fees Total Discounts $39.616 $43,061 $1,722 $1.722 $94.959 $94,959 N/A NIA $134.575 $138,020 Number of Units for Fiscal Year Number of Units for Fiscal Year Total Net Debt Grossed up for Fees & Operation & Maintenance 20102011 Discount _[A Debt )(/0.921 Total Countj _Fees Total Discounts Platted 466 $1,562.207 $62,488 $62.488 Unplatted / Direct Bill 1,117 $2,741,793 N/A N/A Total 1.583 $4,304,000 161 1A1 'otal Net Operation & Maintenance (t of Total Net 0 &M Grossed up for Fees & Lots X Amount per Lot) Discount (Net O &M X10.921 Total County Fees Total Discounts $39.616 $43,061 $1,722 $1.722 $94.959 $94,959 N/A NIA $134.575 $138,020 Number of Units for Fiscal Year Total Net Deck (s of Lots X Amount per Total Net Debt Grossed up for Fees & Debt - A 2.010 -2011 Loth Discount _[A Debt )(/0.921 Total Countj _Fees Total Discounts Platted 466 $1.437,230 $1,562.207 $62,488 $62.488 Unplatted / Direct Bill 1,117 $2,741,793 $2,741,793 N/A N/A Total 1,583 $4,179,023 $4,304,000 Total Fees and Discounts $64,210 584,210 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Comparison Final FY 2008/ 2010 Proposed FY 2010 1 2011 1 Year Chanae Net O & M Assessment Per Unit $8501 $85.01 $0.00 O &M Amounts per unit (Total O &M Expenditures / 1,583 Lots) = $85.01 'Note: No Fess or Discounts have to be Collected for Direct Bill Assessments. All B Bond Debt Payments are Paid Directly By the Developer. Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 QY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 IV Q Y A ssessment Breakdown 2010 -2011 52712010 3 .50 PM 1611A1 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 f REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS SON ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 40,003 43,061 # of Platted Lots X $69.60 /.92 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 97,762 94,959 It of Un latted Lots X $69.60 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - A BONDS 1,616,932 1,562,207 Payment To Trustee /.92 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - A BONDS 3,442,232 2,741,793 Estimated Payment To Trustee DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS B BONDS 3,293,325 3,025,575 Estimated Payment To Trustee OTHER REVENUES 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 0 No Change From 200912010 Budget TOTAL REVENUES $ 8,490 254 $ 7,467 595 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 0 Supervisor Fees ENGINEERING /MAINTENANCE 6,000 8,450 Increase of $2,425 From 2009/2010 Budget MANAGEMENT 53,500 36,000 $3,000 Per Month As Per Contract SECRETARIAL 4,800 0 Not Charged Separately As Per Contract LEGAL 3,190 6,450 Increase of $3,260 From 2009/2010 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL / METHODOLOGY 12,000 15,000 As Per Board Request AUDIT FEES 5,500 5,700 Engagement Letter Amount for 2009/2010 Audit + $500 for Reimbursable ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 3,000 5,000 Amount Paid in 2010 INSURANCE 6,000 5,000 Amount Paid in 2010 LEGAL ADVERTISING 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2009/2010 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 1,000 No Change From 2009/2010 Budget POSTAGE 0 500 Not Budgeted in 2009/2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 500 Not Budgeted in 2009/2010 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 175 No Change From 2009/2010 Budget TRUSTEE FEES- 11,400 22,800 Amount Paid in 2010 = $22,627.50 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 6,000 6,000 No Change From 2009/2010 Budget CONTINGENCY 20,000 20,000 Decrease of $10,000 From 2009/2010 Budget TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 134,565 $ 134,575 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 8,355,689 $ 7,333,020 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (A BOND) 4,680,738 ) (4,179,Mj 2011 Principal & Interest Payments PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (B BOND) 3,293,325 3,025,575 2011 Principal & Interest Payments BALANCE $ 381,626 $ 128,422 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 203,966 64,211 Four Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 203,966 64,211 Four Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ 26,306 $ CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 O Carryover From Prior Year NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ 26,306 $ Quarry QY Budgets OY Budgets 2010 -2011 OY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 V 512712010 3.50 PM QY Operating Fund Budget 2010 -2011 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (A BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 1611A1 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 0 0 Projected Interest For FY 2010/2011 NAV Assessment Collection 1,487, 577 1,437,230 Net Debt Service Collection Developer Direct Bill Assessment 3,166,853 2,741,793 Net Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 4,654,431 $ 4,179,023 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - Al 915,000 965,000 Amortzation Schedule Principal Payment Due In 2011 Principal Payments - A2 180,000 70,000 Estimated Principal Payment Due In 2011 Interest Payments - Al 3,037,375 2,960,513 Amortzation Schedule Interest Payment Due In 2011 Interest Payments -A2 548,363 183,510 Estimated Interest Payment Due In 2011 Total Expenditures $ 4,680,738 $ 4,179,023 Excess /Shortfall $ 26,307 $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 QY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 QY Debt Service (A) Fund Budget 2010 -2011 W 5/2712010 150 PM PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (B BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 1611A1 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 0 Projected Interest For FY 2010/2011 Developer Assessment 3,293,325 3,025,575 Net Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 3,293,325 $ 3,025,575 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 0 0 Principal Payment Due In 2011 Interest Payments 3,293,325 3,025,575 Interest Payments Due In 2011 Total Expenditures $ 3,293,325 $ 3,025,575 Excess /Shortfall $ - $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2010 -2011 QY Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 v2 QY Debt Service (B) Fund Budget 2010 -2011 VII 5/27/2010 3:50 PM 1611A1 CITY GATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1415 Panther Lane • Naples, FL 34109 June 4, 2010 Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 State of Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 RECEIVED JUN 14 1010 Board of County Cononissimem RE: City Gate Community Development District - Collier County, Florida Designation of Registered Agent and Registered Office To Whom It May Concern:: In accordance with Chapter 189.416 Florida Statutes, enclosed are copies of the resolutions designating the registered agent and the registered office for the City Gate Community Development District. If you have any questions regarding this matter please call me at (772) 345 -5101. Sincerely, g d Nanc E. Vogel enclosures 10807 SW Tradition Square, Port St. Lucie, FL 34987 (772) 345 -5101 (772) 345 -5104 1611' Ai RESOLUTION 2010 -16 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE DISTRICT'S REGISTERED AGENT, DESIGNATING THE DISTRICT'S REGISTERED OFFICE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND DESIGNATING THE LOCAL OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT; REPEALING RESOLUTION 2010 -11. WHEREAS, Section 189.416 of the Florida Statutes requires each District to designate a Registered Office and a Registered Agent upon whom may be served any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the District; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to designate the below -named individual as its Registered Agent and designate the address set forth herein as its Registered Office and to designate a local office of the District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CITY GATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: Donald A. Pickworth, whose business address is: Donald A. Pickworth, P.A. 5150 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 502 Naples, FL 34103 and whose telephone number is (239) 263 -8060 is hereby designated as the Registered Agent of the District for the purpose of Section 189.416(1), Florida Statutes. The Registered Office of the District for service of process is the office of Donald A. Pickworth, as set forth above. 2. The Local Office of the District is hereby designated as: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane Suite 345 Naples, Florida 34109 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The District Manager shall transmit certified copies of this Resolution to the Clerk of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, and to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. 161 1A '4 RESOLUTION 2010 -11 A RESOLUTION .DESIGNATING THE DISTRICT'S REGISTERED AGENT, DESIGNATING THE DISTRICT'S REGISTERED OFFICE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND DESIGNATING THE LOCAL OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Section 189.416 of the Florida Statutes requires each District to designate a Registered Office and a Registered Agent upon whom may be served any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the District; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to designate the below -named individual as its Registered Agent and designate the address set forth herein as its Registered Office; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CITY GATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: Donald A. Pickworth, Esq., whose business address is: 5150 Tamiami Trail North Suite 502 Naples, Florida 34103 and whose telephone number is (239) 263 -8060. is hereby designated as the Registered Agent of the District for the purpose of Section 189.416(1), Florida Statutes. The Registered Office of the District for service of process is the office of Donald A. Pickworth, P.A. set forth above. 2. The Local Office of the District is hereby designated as: 9010 Strada Stell Court, Suite 207 Naples, Florida 34109 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 4. The District Manager shall transmit certified copies of this Resolution to the Clerk of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, and to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. Adopted this 4th day of March, 2010 1611 Al ? e Chai an S'ecretary 1611A1 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630 -4922 Fax: (561) 630 -4923 June 8, 2010 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building "L ", 6a' Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Ave Maria Stewardship Community District To Whom It May Concern: I RECEIVED JUN 14 2010 Board of County Commissioners m � o 0 C) o o � C7 c = 'C n �' 0 CD Ca • �� c'., Misc. Comes: 17 Item �: copies tw Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Stewardship Community District: 1.) Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (Oct. 1, 2010 — Sept. 30, 2011) Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. Arc e Enclosure 1611 A I PI Ave Maria Stewardship Community District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 20.10/2011 October i, 2010 - September 30, 2011 1611 Al ' CONTENTS I PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET III ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN IV DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET V DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET VI PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUDGET AMS Budget Contents 2009 -2010 6/3/2010 4:50 PM 16 ! 1 Al .rep PROPOSED BUDGET 366,187 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT 762,781 OPERATING FUND 1,294,232 FISCAL YEAR 201012011 2,227,819 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 0 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET O & M ASSESSMENTS 366,187 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 762,781 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR O & M 1,294,232 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 2,227,819 OTHER REVENUES 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,651,019 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 8,000 ENGINEERING 20,000 MANAGEMENT 70,216 SECRETARIAL 4,500 LEGAL 20,000 ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 AUDIT FEES 8,600 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 2,500 TRAVEL 8 LODGING 2,000 INSURANCE 7,500 LEGAL ADVERTISING 3,000 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 POSTAGE 1,750 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,000 DUES, LICENSE, & SUBSCRIPTIONS 500 MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS, NOTICES, ETC. 2,000 WEBSITE HOSTING FEES 1,000 TRUSTEE FEES 12,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5,000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES $ 187,566 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES MAINTENANCE 1,445,389 MAINTENANCE /INSPECTIONS /ADMIN 0 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES $ 1,445,389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,632,955 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL $ 3,018,064 PAYMENT TRUSTEE 2,93 91 BALANCE $ 84,673 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 39,514) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 45,159 NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ 0 Ave Mane Stewardship AMS Budges AMS Budgets 2010 -2011 AMS Proposed =9412010.2011 AMS OpeMln9 Fund Budget 2010 -2011 07312010 4:50 PM 1611 Al PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUALBUDGET Interest Income Bond 40,000 Interest Income (BAB) 0 NAV Collection 705,572 Developer Contribution 2,227,819 Total Revenues $ 2,973,391 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments Bond 420,000 Principal Payments (BAB) 0 1,294,831 1,258,560 Interest Payments Bond Interest Payments (BAB) Total Expenditures $ 2,973,391 Excess /Shortfall $ Capitalized Interest Carryover Bond 0 Capitalized Interest Carryover (BAB) 0 $ - Net Excess /Shortfall Aw M.- AMS =11 AMS BIdg- 2010 -2011 AMS Pmpo 91d9M 201P2011 AMS O bt U— 8.dg1t 2010 -2011 B/DI2010 ♦ BD PM Ave Maria Stewardship Distrkt Assessment Breakdown 2010 -2011 Operation a Malnter"Me Assessment Number of Units Platted for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Per Residendial 299.37 5 38 523.14 Townhome l Condos 122 Unit Ifie ABadYed Villa 94 Unit Detached Villa 46157 488 Unit SiVie Famity 52755' 43 UM Sn le Family 00'185' 103 Unit Sn N Fa ' 70'R5' 52 Unit S' le Family 90' 0 UNl 30,690-80 0.24 $ 12 388.98 jPer 98 777.00 0.73 Low Affordable Housina 328 Unit ALF Apartments 0 Urn ewmEmnslnm.mrs.r�e. 126,520 Sq. Ft. Professional Offices 51,529 Sq. Ft. Hotel 0 Room Medical Facilibes 10 904 Sq. Ft. baaauenrW - AM 700 Student Private K.12 Schod 180 Student Total Ave Maria Stewardship Distrkt Assessment Breakdown 2010 -2011 Operation a Malnter"Me Assessment Total Operation 6 Malitte once Aeeessmerd Number of Bond prepsymerits Total Debt Assessment Prepaymeeft 299.37 5 38 523.14 299.37 1 28140.78 $ 299.37 $ 148,092.58 299.37 12 872.91 299.37 S 30 835.11 299.37 S 15 587.24 299.37 46,908 OD S 959.00 $ 487,992.00 74.85 24.335M 17.77 959.00 0.29 30,690-80 0.24 $ 12 388.98 S 311.13 98 777.00 0.73 S 7,969.92 15.82 10 934.00 24.17 S 3857.20 49 888.00 959.00 5366,186.52 Amounts par unit shown are grossed up for 3.5% County Fees and 4% for nary payment discount. 'Nob: 87 units incnded in Detached Was 48757 are clasaW just as "Sing@ Family" in Liberty Park. 1611A1 Debt Assessmsnt per Unit TOM Debt Assessment Number of Bond prepsymerits Total Debt Assessment Prepaymeeft Total Dept Assessment Ion Prepaymerits 499.00 W.878.00 80 878.00 499.00 48.N6.00 46,908 OD S 959.00 $ 487,992.00 3 S (2,877.00) $ 485,115.00 959.00 S 41 37.00 i $ 41237.00 S 959.00 98 777.00 $ $ 98 777.00 959.00 49.M.00 49 888.00 959.00 S 3 S S s i 766,868.00 3 S (2,877.00) 6762,761.00 The actual and types will be detemined at a future date, but they will be single fatuity so they we have the same assessment as the other single family properties. YYYY e�iYYY�Y rYY euy.. »turn r was •Ar...a raa,i ]MO -for r IMa �,N M�YEwn A10.rn1 YI emote Yao nM 161 I Al PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS O & M ASSESSMENTS 381,418 366,187 366,187 See Detail on Page 3 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 762,781 762,781 762,781 See Detail on Page 3 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR 0 & M 918,607 1,294,232 1,294,232 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 1,011,796 2,223,703 2,227,819 OTHER REVENUES 2 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES 3,072,604 S 4,646,903 S 4,651,019 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 5,400 8,000 8,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget ENGINEERING 11,308 20,000 20,000 No Cha From 2010 -2011 Budget MANAGEMENT 58,8031 70,216 70,216 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget SECRETARIAL 2,625 4,500 4,500 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget LEGAL 15,849 20,000 20,000 No Cha a From 2010 -2011 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 15,000 15,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget AUDIT FEES 8,300 8,600 8,600 No Chen a From 2010 -2011 Budget ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 1,575 2,500 2,500 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TRAVEL & LODGING 335 2,000 2,000 No Chan a From 2010 -2011 Budget INSURANCE 1,740 7,500 7,500 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,718 3,000 3,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget BANK SERVICE CHARGES 15 0 0 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 1,671 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget POSTAGE 1,280 1,750 1,750 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,406 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget DUES. LICENSE & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 500 500 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS, NOTICES, ETC. 0 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget WEBSITE HOSTING FEES 150 1,000 1,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TRUSTEE FEES 10,500 12,000 12,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5.0001 5,000 5,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TOTAL ADMINMTRATNE EXPENDITURES S 143,849 S 187 668 $ 187,666 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES 'MAINTENANCE 1,152,123 1.445,389 1,445,389 Total Maintenance - See Detail On Page 6 MAINTENANCE/INSPECTIONSIADMIN 0 0 0 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES S 1,162,123 S 1,446 389 $ 1 446 389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 1,296,972 S 1,632,956 1,632,965 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL $ 1,776,631 S 3 013 948 $ 3,018,064 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE - 1,746,583 $ 2,929,276 $ 2,933,391 2011 Principal & Interest Payments Less All DS Interest Earned BALANCE $ 30 048 $ $4,673 $ 84,673 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 29,337 39,514 39,514 Thrss Ana One IUM P--t Of Tool Tae RW (2 % Prop App -tu.l 5% T- Coeeclor) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (19,5D3)1 45,159 )l (45,159)1 our Percent Of Total Tax Roll NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL S 18 792 $ 0.00 $ 0 Are Marl. Stewardship AMS Budgets AMS Budged 2010 -2011 AMS Proposed Budget 2010 -2011 AMS Operating Fund Budget 2010 -2011 6/312010 4:50 PM 161 1AI PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 200912010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income Bond 20,000 40,000 Interest Income (BAB) 20,000 0 NAV Collection 705,572 705,572 Developer Contribution 2,223,703 2,227,819 Total Revenues $ 2,969,276 $ 2,973,391 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments Bond 395,000 420,000 Principal Payments (BAB) 0 0 Interest Payments Bond 1,315,716 1,294,831 Interest Payments (BAB) 1,258,560 1,258,560 Total Expenditures $ 2,969,276 $ 2,973,391 Excess/Shortfall $ • $ Capitalized interest Carryover Bond 0 0 Capitalized Interest Carryover (BAB) 0 0 Net Excess /Shortfall $ i An — AM B ftOb ": &.a- 2010 -2011 AM P—.d 9~ 20102011 AMS DIM Swim 0~ 20101011 W=10 4 S PM 161 jAl "" PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2010 • September 30, 2011 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 200912010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ANNUAL BUDGET ELECTRIC STREETLIGHTS, LANDSCAPE 105,623 95,000 95,000 STREET SWEEPING _ 0 _ 5,000 5,000 STRIPING & TRAFFIC MARKINGS 138 2,000 2,000 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE 26,196 30,000 30,000' SIDEWALK /CURB REPAIRS 1,769 3,000 3,000 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (ROADWAY, ENTRIES): MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 485,240 530,000 530,000 TREE TRIMMING 0 15,000 15,000 STORM CLEANUP 2,010 75,000 75,000 PLANT REPLACEMENT 20,930 40,000 40,000 MULCH & MISCELLANEOUS 67,155 75,000 75,000 MISC. UTILITIES 0 5,000 5,000 ELECTRICITY 0 0 0 IRRIGATION WATER 86,062 100,000 100,000 IRRIGATION REPAIR 52,060 12,000 12,000 _ ENTRY FEATURE WATER 0 0 0 FOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE _ 15,478 15,000 15,000 RODENT CONTROL 544 1,000 1,000 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,155 1,000 1,000, SIGNAGE REPAIR 1,868 5,000 5,000 WATER MANAGEMENT 6 DRAIN 4,300 1,000 1,000 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 0 10,000 10,000 DRAINAGE I LAKE MAINTENANCE/ LITTORALS 44,749 50,000 50,000 AERATORS 3,625 6,500 6,500 AQUATIC REPLACEMENTS 0 5,000 5,000 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 15,559 40,000 407000 TAXES 8 LICENSES 0 0 0' INSURANCE 0 0 0 SMALL TOOLS 1,238 1,000 1,000 MISCELLANEOUS MAINT. 0 0 0 MISC. REPAIRS _ 9,892 5,000 5,000 _ VEHICLE LEASE / FUEL / REPAIRS (MAINT TECH 4,559 5,000 5,000 MOSQUITO CONTROL _ _ 35,711 80,000 80,000 FISH STOCKING 0 5,000 5,000 TEMP FIRE FACILITY OPERATING COSTS 40,085 36,000 36,000 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLIES 164 500 500 OFFICE LEASE 0 0 0 OFFICE UTILITIES 0 0 0 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS 61,710 60,000 60,000 BASE MANAGEMENT FEE 16,665 16,667 16,667 ADMIN PAYROLL ALr2L7 79,722 79,7221 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES s 1,152,123 i 1,410,389 i 1,410,389 RESERVE FUND 0 20,000 20,000 CONTINGENCY FUND 0 15,000 15,000 TOTAL S 1,152,123 1,445,389 $ 1,445,389 Ave Men. 9le -datsp AMS Budges AM$ Budgets 2000-2010 AMS P,op -d Budget 2010.2011 AMS Maintenance Budge 2009 -2010 813RO10 4.50 PM 161 IAI M • PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AVE MARIA UTILITY FISCAL YEAR 2010=11 October 1, 2010. September 30, 2011 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 200812009 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 200912010 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS AMUC Income 267,006 180,000 240,000 2/3 Expenditures Developer Contribution 118,324 180,000 120 000 113 Expenditures Total Revenues $ 385,330 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 EXPENDITURES OMI Operating Fee 216,5151 240,000 240,000 Estimate of $20,000 per Month AMUC Bulk Water Charge 129,404 120,000 120 000 Estimate of $10,000 per Month Total Expenditures $ 345,919 360,000 $ 360,000 Excess/Shorftll $ 39,41 $ My M18 YW S.. pw� M1! � At0.2p11 IRIS lI1Xy FnFI gNyN 1010.ip11 Iva VYM BIeaM IOOPM�a � IIYI010 W RI RECEIVED MAY 142" Board of County C0010'ss'on ers Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ` 161 6� April 12, 20�W—, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 12, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby (Excused) Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin (Excused) John Cowan Christian Davis Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters Bradley Schiffer Larry Wilcoxson Stuart Warshauer — Alternate (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager Margo Castorena, Federal Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Misc. Cones: Dube: 7 2� Z 6 1 Iben, t 1 Copies ±o: NO 161181 April 12, 2010 1. Call to Order — Acting Chairman The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Kenneth Kelly at 3:01 PM. Acting Chairman Kelly read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. 2. Roll Call of Committee Members The roll was taken and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Minutes —March 8, 2010 Corrections: • On Page 2, under Collier County's Reaction, the spelling of SHIP was corrected • On Page 5, in the second paragraph, the amount of funding provided to "Habitat for Humanity" was corrected to $9M • On Page 5, under Banking /Financing Subcommittee, the Loan Consortium was founded in 1996. John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes for the March 8, 2010 meeting as amended. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. 4. Approval of Agenda Christine Jones moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Sally Masters. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. 5. Information Items A. NSP Update — Buddy Ramsey Project Summary Report for the period from March 9, 2009 through April 2 2010 was distributed to the Committee members. 35 properties have been acquired $4.6M has been obligated (on track to meeting deadline) o Vacant land has been acquired First home is under contract for sale B. Subcommittee Update: Chairman /Frank Ramsey/Marcy Krumbine • Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee o Previously scheduled meeting was rescheduled to Friday, 04/16/10 Banking /Financing Subcommittee met on March 26th o A Presentation on Credit Issues was made by Lisa Carr, Housing & Human Services, and Cathy Guararro (spelling of name), Housing Development Corporation (of SW FL, Inc.) - How credit scoring has changed - How to improve credit scores - Who are the clients and what are their credit problems - A list of questions for future speakers was drafted o Guest Speaker was invited to next meeting - Lending officer from Community Re- Investment Act Lending (should be lending officer who does Community Re- investment Act Lending) 161181 April 12, 2010 o Will provide more information on Loan Consortium and issues of having a banking partnership • Next meeting: April 29, 2010 6. NPS Amendment — Buddy Ramsey A PowerPoint Presentation was given. • Purpose: to revise Amendment to increase eligible Target Areas beyond three zip codes (34120, 34116, and 34112) • Challenges in target areas from investor activity and problems in activity multi - family properties(the need to purchase multi - family properties) • Inventory of homes has been exhausted (inspected and bought or rejected) • Presentation will be made ( should be — Item will go )before Board of County Commissioners on April 27, 2010 • If approved, the revised Substantial Amendment will be forwarded to HUD with a request for expedited approval • Three areas will be proposed for inclusion in Target Areas: East, South and Central Collier County • HUD has revised the definition of "abandoned/foreclosed" — less restrictive Bradley Schiffer moved to recommend approval of the Revised NSP Substantial Amendment, as presented, and forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by Stuart Warshauer. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. 7. Action Plan Presentation — Margo Castorena, Federal Housing (Grants Operation Manager) Manager Timeline: • March 17, 2010 — 30 -day Action Plan Public Comment period began • March 26, 2010 — Action Plan public meeting was held • April 16, 2010 — Public Comment period ends • April 27, 2010 — Final Action Plan will be presented to BCC for review /approval • May 15, 2010 — Deadline to submit Action Plan to HUD • June 2, 2010 — Receipt of HUD Funding Letter (approximate date) • July 1, 2010 — Entitlement begins Allocations (2010 -2011 figures): • CDBG - $2,532,752 • HOME - $ 748,202 • ESG - $ 95,087 TOTAL: $3,376,051 Provosed CDBG Proiects. • Collier County Transportation Department - $ 810,538 o sidewalks in Naples Manor • David Lawrence Center - $ 221,000 o beds for Critical Stabilization Unit • City of Naples (entitlement) - $ 96,347 • City of Marco Island (entitlement) - $ 61,900 3 1611 • Immokalee Housing & Family Services - $ 70,000 o Job creation project • Immokalee CRA — Job /Business Incubator - $ 212,000 • Goodwill Industries - $ 174,503 o Roberts Center — substantial renovations • Administration (H &HS) - $ 506,550 Proposed Public Services Proiects: • Senior Meal Program (3 sites) - $ 95,000 • Guadalupe Center — Education Program - $ 86,000 • Shelter for Abused Woman & Children - $ 118,600 o Legal Assistance program • Housing Development Corp. ( "HDC ") - $ 80,312 o Shifting Program Proposed HOME Proiects: • Big Cypress — "Main Street Village" - $ 223,823 o Energy efficient upgrades /renovation • Habitat for Humanity - $ 132,907 o Foreclosure rehabilitation • Immokalee H &FS — "Timber Ridge Manor" - $ 170,000 o Energy efficient updates /renovation • Administration (H &HS) - $ 74,820 CHDO ( "Community Housing Development Organization'): • Florida Non - Profit — Operating Fund - $ 30,000 • EASF — Operating Fund - $ 37,410 • CHDO Set Aside - $ 112,230 SHIP Program: • EASF Homebuyer education - $ 35,000 • HDC /SWF Homebuyer education - $ 35,000 Emergency Shelter Grant Program: • St. Matthew's House - $ 92,719 • Administration - $ 2,377 B1 f April 12, 2010 Bradley Schiffer moved to recommend approval of the Updated One Year HUD Action Plan, as presented, and forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by Stuart Warshauer. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. 8. SHIP Local Housing Assistant Plan ("LHAP") — Buddy Ramsey • A new SHIP LHAP is to be submitted to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation every three years o Establish general program provisions for Fiscal Years 2010 -2011, 2011 -2012, and 2012 -2013 o Define eligible activities to be funded 4 1611 B1 April 12, 2010 • Identify incentive strategies (purchase assistance for 1St time homebuyers, rehabilitation, disaster relief) • Include exhibits (timeline, budgets, etc.) • Submission deadline: May 2, 2010 (Tallahassee) • Target: very low, low- income and moderate income persons • Purchase Maximum Award: up to $50,000 (Subject to local policy) o Rehabilitation Maximum Award: $50,000 o Disaster Relief Maximum Award: $15,000 • Loan Terms: 15 years, zero interest, deferred payment • Loan may be forgiven if home is sold due to death, divorce, or long -term disability • One third of loan is forgiven every five years only if the home is occupied by buyer for the fifteen year period • No funding has been allocated by the Florida Legislature to date • Remaining surplus must be spent by June 20, 2011 (Sally Masters left at 3:56 PM) The Board of County Commissioners revised the down- payment assistance policy and funds are matched to buyer's down payment on a 3:1 ratio. Bradley Schiffer moved to recommend approval of the SHIP Local Housing Assistance Plant, as presented, and forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. 9. Committee Member Comments (None) Next meeting: • May 10, 2010 — BCC Chambers (2nd Monday of the month) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:02 PM by order of the Acting Chairman. Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Kenneth Kelly, Acting Chairman 16 l:1 B1 �i122010 The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on % 4 / , 2010, as presented ] , or as amended [_] . t' I JUN 16 2010 Board of County Commissioners Fiala -- Halas Coyle Colette 161181 , May 10, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 10, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby (Excused) Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin (Excused) John Cowan Christian Davis (Excused) Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters Bradley Schiffer Larry Wilcoxson Stuart Warshauer — Alternate (Excused) (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services (Excused) Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Misc. Corres: Date: Item " Copies to: V, 1; 1 611 B1 May 10, 2010 1. Call to Order — Acting Chairman Acting Chairman Kenneth Kelly called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM. 2. Roll Call of Committee Members The roll was taken and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Minutes —April 12, 2010 Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the Minutes for the April 12, 2010 meeting as submitted. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. 4. Approval of Agenda Christine Jones moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Sally Masters. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. 5. Information Items A. NSP Obligation & Expenditure Update — Buddy Ramsey A copy of the Project Summary Report (March 9, 2009 through May 3, 2010) was distributed to the Committee members. • 55 accepted offers • Average purchase price is approximately 83% of appraised value • $5.3M — estimated acquisition and remodeling costs (spent) • Acquired 41 homes o successful relationships have been built with Wells -Fargo Bank and Bank of America • Approximately $1.5M remaining funds to be obligated o Anticipated to be able to acquire 10 more properties o figure does not include approximate 10% allocated for Administrative costs • Sale of first home has closed (after Report was completed) o 9 are under contract and will close in the near future • Goal of obligating remaining funds by deadline is anticipated to be met The accounting system was explained. Profits from the sales of rehabbed homes will be redistributed to the County to be utilized over the next 18 months (for example: "Fund B "). When a new property is purchased, the money in "Fund B" will be drawn first before the NSP funds are used. Questions from Committee Members: 1. Why has it cost twice as much to remodel homes in Zip Code 34116? • Older homes — wood frames — required more extensive renovations o Negative: Investors have purchased the better quality homes o Positive: Location is good — investment is excellent 2. Is the County allowed to purchase vacant short-sale properties? • HUD has revised the definition of eligibility, regarding foreclosed and vacant properties, but Collier County has not yet implemented because to change will require revising the Administrative Plan and approval from the BCC. There are also concerns regarding the Uniform Relocation Act. 1611B1 May 10, 2010 Mr. Ramsey noted there is a separate page on the H &HS website (colliergov.net /housing) for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that contains an application form, the quarterly reports submitted to HUD, photographs of the available properties, and a link to "YouTube." Mr. Ramsey was asked to note the Administrative expenditures on future Project Summary Reports as "paid" and "pending." B. NSP Substantial Amendment Update — Buddy Ramsey A copy of the Executive Summary presented to the BCC and a map of the 2000 Collier County Census Tracts outlining the proposed revised Target Area was distributed to the members for their review. • The request to submit the Revised Substantial Amendment to HUD to increase eligible Target Area beyond the three current zip codes (34120, 34116, 34112) was presented to the Board of County Commissioners together with the supporting recommendation from the AHAC • The Request was approved by the BCC on April 27, 2010, and forwarded to HUD for expedited approval C. Subcommittee Update: Buddy Ramsey/Ken Kelly • Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee — Buddy Ramsey o The scheduled meeting (April 16, 2010) was cancelled due to lack of quorum o The date for the next meeting will be emailed to the members • Banking /Financing Subcommittee — Ken Kelly o Met on April 29, 2010 o General public consensus: homes are now more affordable o The Subcommittee's concern: are there still "roadblocks" to individuals obtaining affordable housing (rental or purchase) o A Wells Fargo Loan Officer attended to answer the Committee's questions o Questions posed: • What is your opinion on why it is harder to qualify for a loan? • What can potential homeowners do in the future to obtain mortgage approval? • What is Wells Fargo Bank doing to expedite short sales? • How is Wells Fargo Bank working with homeowners to modify existing loans currently in default? • How many CRA loans are in or have been in foreclosure or are 90 days past due with Wells Fargo Bank? - Were applicants who went through a more rigorous approval process able to keep their payments current? • What percentage of loans (FHA, owner- occupied, investment, or second homes) is in default? - Second homes were the largest category in default 1611 B1 May 10, 2010 • Why have "disconnects" occurred during a loan modification process? - Example cited: Homeowners were in Court trying to save their homes but were still foreclosed upon by the Bank. • Why are banks holding onto "bad assets" and not releasing foreclosed properties to the market? • Explain how credit guidelines have changed in the past year. • There is proposed legislation in Florida to remove the foreclosure process from banks. How will this impact Wells Fargo Bank? Mr. Kelly noted the Loan Officer concurred credit has been affected the most. An applicant's credit history is more rigorously reviewed than in previous years — the "no doc" loan does not exist. FICA score requirements have been tightened. Loans are carefully scrutinized and no longer "wholesaled." The Loan Officer indicated banks were not prepared for the numbers of foreclosures and are not "holding" properties from the market — it is taking longer to release the properties because there was no process in place previously. Additionally, HUD guidelines change on an almost daily basis (22 times in one month). Loan officers, when approving a mortgage loan, attach that day's guidelines to the documents. D. Foreclosures on Assisted Units — Buddy Ramsey A copy of a Memorandum concerning Foreclosure Related Actions, dated May 7, 2010, was distributed to the members. Increases and Projections • Notification is received when a property that received assistance from the County is foreclosed • Staff provides a pay -off figure to the County Attorney's office • In 2007, there were 5 households in foreclosure ($33,715.80) • In the First Quarter of 2010, there are 24 households in foreclosure ($398,247.79) • Potential (projected) foreclosures for remaining quarters - $1,592,991 in losses to the County • 10 of the 24 households are Impact Fee liens and must be covered by County from General Fund revenues - Fund 111 ($65,600) • The County can filed a claim to seek repayment if excess funds are available • If Impact Fees are recovered, the money is returned to the Trust Fund for the specific Impact Fee • Legal Expenses o $1,640 for full process (includes filing fee, Summons fee and service of Summons, publication fee) o Charges are not eligible grant expenses and must be paid by the County Mr. Ramsey will contact the County Attorney's Office to determine if deficiency judgments will be filed against the property owners. 4 1611 B1 May 10, 2010 E. Rental Apartment Foreclosures — Buddy Ramsey Copies of "Properties Pending Foreclosure " from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation website were distributed to the members. • The Florida Housing Finance Corporation administers the State's affordable housing grant programs (funds the SHIP Program and the C -Whip Program) • The Florida Housing Finance Corporation ( "FHFC ") will buy out a first mortgage lender when a property funded by the FHFC is in risk of foreclosure. • Two apartment complexes were recently taken over by the FHFC: Heritage Apartments in Golden Gate City and Turtle Creek Apartments • The complexes represent approximately 15% of the affordable rental property in Collier County • Apartments are 1 -2 -3 bedroom (Heritage: 320 units // Turtle Creek: 268 units) • HUD may be in the process of taking over another complex in Collier County (not yet confirmed) • Each complex will be sold at auction to the highest bidder o the affordability requirements will be removed at sale • A private investor interested in purchasing one of the complexes approached H &HS and it was suggested he partner with Collier County since his goal was to retain the affordability component • NSP funding could be used o first floor units to be renovated to become ADA- compliant Mr. Ramsey will keep the Committee informed of future developments. F. Staffing Update — Buddy Ramsey • A position was opened for a "Grant Support Specialist" o two vacant part-time positions were merged into one full -time position • Four qualified candidates were interviewed (42 applications were submitted) o an offer was made and accepted — start date may be the end of May • The position will be funded by the new DRI Grant (Disaster Recovery Initiative) Program - $9.9M • Five projects were approved by the BCC to be completed over the next two years • Purpose: to repair damages caused by Tropical Storm Faye or to mitigate against future storm - related damage • Projects: o a storm water project with the Bayshore /Gateway CRA o a storm water project with the Immokalee CRA o a hurricane "hardening" and mitigation project with the Goodlette Arms Apartments (affordable Senior housing complex) o completion of a hurricane hardening project started at the Immokalee Apartments — will install new doors and new a/c units o designated shelters at the Junior High School and High School in Immokalee — a new generator will be installed 161161 + May 10, 2010 6. Housing Element Review (Goal One, Objective One) — Buddy Ramsey A copy of the Collier County and City of Naples Comprehensive Plan — Housing Element was distributed to the members. • The County's goal to create affordable housing units has not been met o 15% of units approved to be built or not less than 1,000 per year averaged over a 5 -year period • Unemployment • Collier County's unemployment rate was 0.7% higher than the State's average • The figure does not include individuals who have exhausted their benefits • There will be continual need for affordable rental units as well as for home ownership • Shimberg Center for Housing Studies o "Cost- burdened" —households spending more than 30% of income for housing and related expenses o A Report of projected housing need was prepared; data utilized 2000 Census figures • The need exists but 1,000 units may have been too aggressive • A more realistic figure may be 750 units per year Collier County has approved approximately 3,900 affordable units to be built o Unknown as to when, if ever, the units will be built Wells Fargo Housing Index (percentage of homes sold in a quarter that are classified as "affordable" by a household earning the local Area Median Income) • in the 4`h Quarter of 2005, 16.3% of houses sold were affordable • in the 2 "d Quarter of 2009, 68.1 % were affordable • in the 4d' Quarter of 2009, 60.8% were affordable The homes sold during 2009 as "affordable" did not have restrictions attached and may be sold if /when the market recovers without limits on appreciation which may deplete the "stock" of affordable units Recommendation: Reduce the number of units in the 5 -year cycle to 750 with at least 10% classified as affordable. A suggestion was made to review the trend of decreasing affordability of units and convert the figures into a graph to illustrate the percentages more clearly. A member suggested retaining the 15% or inserting "no less than." Methods for tracking and capturing data were also discussed. Mr. Ramsey suggested revising the report to include rental units. Under paragraph entitled, "Housing Price Decline," insert the word "units" between "housing" and "approved." Mr. Ramsey will revise the Report and present it to the Committee at the next meeting. 7. Committee Member Comments (None) 161181 Next meeting: • June 14,2010—BCC Chambers May 10, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 PM by order of the Acting Chairman. Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Ke y, Acting Chairman The Minutes wee approved by the Board/Committee Chair on j , 2010, as presented PIO , or as amended " . 1611 B2 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda April 21, 2010 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman - Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheriff's Office CERV Fire Chiefs CERT CAP USCCA 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 • Recovery Guide • Training Opportunities 3:20 Old Business • Membership • Shelter Managers • Recovery Guide 3:35 Next Meeting /Adjourn May 19th Chairman Rick Zyvoloski Chairman Jim von Rinteln Jim von Rinteln Chairman Chairman Misc. Correa: Date: 0-71Z-7 201 D item 9: L �! 2 Copies to: 1 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda May 19, 2010 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman - Opening Remarks -Roll Call 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 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update Sheriff's Office 3:15 New Business Chairman • Report on CERT Drill Joe Frazier /Chairman • Deep Horizon Spill Jim von Rinteln • Hurricane Season Rick Zyvoloski • Hurricane Seminars Jim von Rinteln 3:30 Old Business Chairman • H IN 1 Update Health Dept • Membership Chairman • Shelter Managers Jim von Rinteln 3:45 Next Meeting /Adjourn Chairman (June 16? ) Fiala Halas 1611 Henning Coyle Coletta Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee May 19, 2010 Voting Members Present: Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff's Office Dr. Joseph Neiweem, Medical Reserve Corps Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Voting Members Absent: Captain Castillo, Salvation Army (Excused Absence) James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Expert Consultants Present: Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Kathleen Marr, Department of Health Chris Nind, Salvation Army Brian Kelly, Retired Senior Volunteer Program Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Voting Members Absent: (Non- Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes 82 14 RECEIVEd JUN 18 2010 Board of County Commissioners Motion to accept the minutes of the April 21, 2010 meeting, with a correction to the Recovery Guide section, next to the last sentence to include the wording "at a future date" made by Russ Rainey and seconded by Dr. Neiweem. 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. Recommend everyone remain vigilant. On another note, the tar ball found at the Keys was not related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. New Business Report on CERT Drill Joe Frazier reported that 7 of the 13 County teams participated in the CERT drill on May 1. This tornado drill was broken down into 4 scenarios that ran for 45 minutes each. There was a discussion to hold these drills quarterly in order to keep folks well- trained in the event that they are needed in their communities. If anyone has any training suggestions, please let Joe know. Joe thanks the Red Cross and Salvation Army for their work in this drill. Greg Speers agreed that a fantastic effort was made by everyone. Greg, Jerry Sanford, and Russ are team leaders for their respecV&q46T. teams. Jerry suggested that the next training could be "CERT and the Media ". He has a Power Point presentation for this — it is important for CERT members to get the right information out to the public. Debbie Horvath she Red Cross would like Item # Copies to: 16 11 B2, 2 to participate in this exercise as well. There are lots of subjects to rotate through. As a note, Jerry gave certificates to his folks who participated — Joe did certificates for the students that helped out and has the template if anyone needs it. Joe will do ICS 100 and 700 training sometime mid-June. Kathleen Marr would like to include the new group of Medical Reserve Corps folks. Debbie said a Damage Assessment training will be held on June 8t1' and 9"' at Longshore Lake. If there is any interest, contact Andy Jerant at 596 -6868. Russ brought up the fact that the Marco Island, Fiddler's Creek, and Port of the Isles CERT groups all have different radio procedures. These communications issues need to be looked at and addressed sometime soon. Deepwater Horizon Spill Per Jim vonRinteln, there are no current needs for CERT teams to conduct cleanup —just be on alert. He had two handouts for the group. No volunteers are being utilized at this point — if you are not trained in hazmat, BP is responsible for the clean up and hiring of people who are displaced from work. At this time, the oil spill has not made its way to the beaches, nor has it been plugged — it is still spewing oil. We don't know how this will affect SW Florida. Key West has had a long history of tar balls, and those found so far are not from this oil spill. We won't see an oil slick here — it will be more Vaseline - looking or tar balls. This oil is low sulfur oil, which is less toxic. Greg asked about the loop current — Jim said that the spill will eventually be affected by the loop; however, the loop current is our friend in Southwest Florida. A list of volunteers is being cataloged, and leaders of the various volunteer agencies are taking the information. Don't discourage any volunteer interests — we don't need them now, but may need them for miscellaneous jobs, i.e. supporting paid staff, running for food, etc. The procedure at this point is if you spot something, record it with a GPS device and get the information to the State. The area should be treated like a crime scene. Per Jerry, www.northngplesfire.com has links — the EM website has information as well. Suggest you check these rather than the media sites. Doug Porter said that CAP is doing beach patrol flights every two hours, as is the Coast Guard. Hurricane Season Per Jim, Dr. Gray has predicted a higher than average season. Last year was predicted to be busy as well, but it was quiet here. Jim has never seen 3 years with no activations. This year there are 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and 4 major storms predicted in the Atlantic. Remember to have a plan and be prepared! New SLOSH models are out which extend flooding in Collier County. All shelters are safe. Per Debbie, some folks who never needed flood insurance will now need it. Jim said the EOC procedures and staff are ready. Hurricane Seminars Two general public seminars are scheduled — June 2 at Gulf Coast HS and June 16 at Golden Gate HS. Both are scheduled for 7 p.m. There will be one in Immokalee, one in Marco, and one in the Lely area to be scheduled. The information will be posted on the EM website and there will be advertising as well. A 30- minute special will be on CCTV over the summer. We will make this DVD available for Homeowner Associations — it should be ready by our next meeting. The Citizen Corps can help hand out DVD's, perhaps have an information table at the various seminars. Russ said he would support this. Red Cross, Jerry and Russ said they could be available at the seminars. Jim asked that everyone take the new All Hazard Guides to pass out. Old Business HINI Update Kathleen Marr reported on H1N1. There have been no reported cases in the County or in Region 6, with just a little bit in the State. The World Health Organization has worldwide information (who.or ). Shots are still available through the Health Department. The seasonal flu shots given in September /October timeframe will have H1N1 included. Remember that H1N1 is still occurring — continue washing! Membership Per Russ, Debbie is leaving on June 1 — she will take over as Executive Director of the Ronald McDonald House in Gainesville. Debbie 7was a charter member of the Citizen Corps and got a new location for the Red Cross and brought this chapter to the forefront. She has been through lots of storms, wildfires, 9/11, etc. Per Reg, the Red Cross is holding interviews- for.a=vv.CEa- :Captain Castillo is going to head up the Port Richie Salvation Army — Chris Nind will be his replacement on the board. Jim had a plaque for Captain Castillo — Chris will give it to him. RSVP is looking for a member 161182 1 3 for the board as well. Jim reminded everyone that we need more non - voting members to attend (cities, EMS, hospitals, etc.). They are important to the group. Jim Elson is still one of our representatives; however, he is no longer the President of the Veteran's Council. Shelter Managers Debbie said there will be shelter management training in July. Many managers have been here 15 years and are aging. Talk with the Red Cross office, Jim, Reg Buxton, or Joe Frazier — get people trained. We can never have too many shelter managers. Other Jerry said the flag has been painted on the Freedom Memorial. A banner has been prepared and will be hung tomorrow on Golden Gate Parkway. It asks for help in completing the project, includes a phone number and email address. Bricks were bought two days ago— 498 of the $100 bricks and 130 of the $300 bricks. They still need $1.2 million —Jerry will keep us all updated on the project. A reminder that Monday, May 31 is Memorial Day. There will be a ceremony at 10 a.m. at Naples Cemetery (I I Vh and Vanderbilt Drive). Marco will also have a ceremony at 10 a.m. on May 31. Jim and Reg will be attending the Governor's Hurricane Conference next week and will report back at next month's meeting. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 16th at 3 p.m. at the EOC. Jim asked the group to get any agenda items to him before then. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 p.m. made by Lt. Jones and seconded by Jerry Sanford. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Acting Chair: Russell Rainev Date 1611 62 Tropical System Impact on Oil Spills A compilation of theories Major contributors: Jeff Masters, Weather Underground and Dennis Feltgen, National Hurricane Center A major concern with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the possibility for the oil to move southwards and become entrained into the mighty Gulf of Mexico Loop Current, which would rapidly transport the oil through the Florida Keys, impacting northwest Cuba, South Florida, the western Bahamas, and the U.S. East Coast all the way to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. As summer gets closer, the incidence of cold fronts making it far enough south to bring an extended period of offshore northerly winds to the Gulf of Mexico decreases. That makes a tropical storm or hurricane as perhaps the most likely weather event to push a significant amount of oil, even heavy concentrations of oil, into the Loop Current. A tropical storm hitting the Panhandle of Florida would do the trick, by bringing northerly winds over the oil spill location, thanks to the counter - clockwise flow of air around the storm. Looking ahead to June, June tropical storms tend to form in the Gulf of Mexico, and we've been averaging one June storm every two years since 1995. This year, the odds of a June Gulf of Mexico storm are probably a little lower than usual. While Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures are near average, wind shear from our lingering El Nino will probably be above average. Since 1995, there have been three June tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico that have followed a track capable of pushing oil into the Loop Current. These storms were Hurricane Allison of 1995, Tropical Storm Allison of 2001, and Tropical Storm Arlene of 2005. From May 6, 2010. A comparison of the size of 2008's Hurricane Gustav with the size of the Gulf oil spill. The spill is only about 60 miles in diameter, while a hurricane like Gustav is typically 400+ miles in diameter. 161182 With hurricane season fast approaching and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico likely to still be around once hurricane season starts in June, how will oil affect any hurricanes that might traverse over the spill and how might a hurricane's wind and storm surge affect the spill? From the time of the ancient Greeks to the days of the wooden ships and iron men, mariners dumped barrels of oil onto raging seas to calm them during critical moments of violent storms. Oil does indeed calm wind - driven waves, thanks to the reduction in surface tension of the water that oil causes. The reduction of surface tension impacts the flow of air above the water, and reduces the amount of sea spray thrown into the air, both of which could affect the wind speed. Oil also helps calm raging seas by switching off of the wind energy input needed by the wave to break. This occurs because the surface film of oil prevents the generation of ripples on the exposed crests of the waves, and this smoother surface makes the wind less able to grab onto the wave and force it to break. So, what would happen to a hurricane that encounters a large region of oily waters? A 2005 paper by Barenblatt et al. theorize that spray droplets hurled into the air by a hurricane's violent winds form a layer intermediate between air and sea made up of a cloud of droplets that can be viewed as a "third fluid ". The large droplets in the air suppress turbulence in this "third fluid ", decrease the frictional drag over the ocean surface, and accelerate the winds. According to this theory of turbulence, oil dumped on the surface of the ocean would reduce the formation of wind - whipped spray droplets, potentially calming the winds. However, the turbulence theory has been challenged by other scientists. Turbulence expect Julian Hunt at University College London, UK, remarks, "I am very doubtful about this approach." Hunt studies turbulence both theoretically and in the laboratory, and believes that the high wind speeds in a hurricane are not caused by sea spray. Oil reduces evaporation: Hurricanes are sustained by the heat liberated when water vapor that has evaporated from warm ocean waters condenses into rain. If one can reduce the amount of water evaporating from the ocean, a decrease in the hurricane's strength will result. Oil on the surface of the ocean will act to limit evaporation, and could potentially decrease the strength of a hurricane. However, if the oil is mixed away from the surface by the strong winds of a hurricane, the oil will have a very limited ability to reduce evaporation. Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT performed some tests in 2002 to see if oil on the surface of water could significantly reduce evaporation into a hurricane. He found that the slick quickly dissipated under high wind conditions that generated rough seas. Conclusion A tropical cyclone in its formative stage - -as either a tropical depression or a tropical storm with 40 mph winds - -might be adversely affected if it encountered the Gulf of Mexico oil slick, due to the reduction of evaporation into the storm. However, a full- fledged hurricane would mix the oil into the ocean to such a degree that the storm would not see any significant reduction in strength nor have an impact on a hurricane's path or storm surge levels. Oil would also not have significant effect on water temperatures, which need to be about 80 degrees for hurricane formation. The oil slick is currently Puerto Rico - sized. While a hurricane tends to be Texas - sized, the oil slick at its current size is not large enough to have a significant impact on a hurricane's intensity. The heavier concentrations of the slick are about 60 miles across, and it would take a hurricane about four hours to traverse the spill at a typical hurricane forward speed of 15 mph, which would be an insufficient amount of time to have any appreciable impact. Furthermore, the slick is within 50 miles land, and interactions with land will dominate the behavior of a hurricane that gets that close to the coast. A hurricane would significantly dilute the oil, but it also could scatter the oil over a wider area. If the layer of oil is thin, high winds and seas will mix and 'weather' the oil, which helps accelerate the biodegradation process. However, there is the chance for windborne oil particles from sea spray to be moved inland. Also, strong winds and the resulting wind driven storm surge could potentially move large quantities of offshore oil closer or even onto shore. It would likely be in the form of tarball or tarmats since rough wave action would likely break any large segments or oil apart, but if a large storm surge impact was expected, tarballs could be carried as much as 2-6 miles inland, which could pose significant ecological impacts. Unfortunately, there is a chance that we'll get a real -world opportunity to see what will happen. June tropical storms tend to form in the Gulf of Mexico, and we've been averaging one June storm every two years since 1995. This year, the odds of a June Gulf of Mexico storm are probably a little lower than usual, but Jeff Masters believes there is a 20% chance that a June tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico could interact with the oil spill and transport more oil into the Loop Current. Other scientists place the odds at little higher around 40 %. Charlie Crist Governor Situation Report # 21 Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 1200 hrs EDT Weather Summary: • According to the NOAA oil plume model, the oil spill is 75 miles southwest of Pensacola, 140 miles from Port St. Joe, 270 miles from St. Petersburg, • The oil plume is more than 75 miles from Florida and no oil impacts are expected upon any part of the Florida coastline within at least the next 72 hours. A stalled frontal boundary over the central Gulf States will inch slightly north, shift light winds to the southeast this afternoon, and may produce isolated showers and thunderstorms across the northern- central gulf this afternoon. Light winds and seas are generally expected until Friday, which will be favorable for surface oil recovery operations. A portion of the oil, scattered light and very light sheens, have been observed moving to the southeast over the last few days. A general consensus of the forecast models indicate some portion of the oil may stay in a small eddy to the north of the loop current and move back north, while some of the oil moves south into the loop current. Current Situation: • Florida beaches are open. • Unified Command estimates release rate of oil from Deepwater Horizon at 5,000 barrels per day. • This event has been designated a Spill of National Significance. • Unified Command continues with a comprehensive oil well intervention and spill response plan following the April 22 sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles southeast of New Orleans. • Approximately 19,400 personnel are working the on and offshore response. • Oil -water mix recovered: approximately 7.87 million gallons • Response vessels in use: 970 • Dispersant (in gallons): approximately 600,000 deployed / 310,000 available • 17 staging areas are in place to protect sensitive shorelines: • AL — Dauphin Island, Orange Beach, and Theodore • FL — Panama City, Pensacola, Port St. Joe, and Carrabelle • LA — Amelia, Grand Isle, Shell Beach, Slidell, Venice, St. Mary, and Cocodrie • MS — Biloxi, Pascagoula, and Pass Christian Florida Soecifrc: • Oil Containment Boom (in feet) 0 214,800 total deployment in Florida o Florida staging areas: approximately 27,250 staged • In accordance with established plans, protective booming and boom maintenance is being conducted in the coastal areas of Bay, Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties. • 538 BP and contract personnel are working on the effort in Florida. • BP issued a $25 million block grant to Florida; first priority is costs associated with booming. • BP has issued a second $25 million grant to Florida for a national tourism advertising campaign. • 128 of 454 contracts have been activated for the Vessels of Opportunity program in Florida. • Representatives from BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are stationed at the State EOC and at staging areas and incident command posts in Florida. • FDEP has issued an Emergency Final Order authorizing suspension of certain parameters, allowing for an efficient and timely response to oil spill related matters. • BP claims in Florida: 1,680 / approximately $688,639 paid • Wage Loss: 765 claims / $225,160 • Loss of Income: ■ Commercial: 162 claims / $36,249. ■ Business Interruption: 66 claims / $17,900 • Shrimper: 68 claims / $163,750 ■ Fishermen: 175 claims / $112,999 ■ Oyster Harvester: 1 claim / $2,500 ■ Crabber: 4 claims / $5.000 ■ Recreational Fishermen: 2 claims / $5,000 ■ Rental Property: 232 claims / $12,280 ■ Charters: 129 claims / $106,120 ■ Maintenance Company: 4 claims / $1,680 1611 82 David Halstead State Coordinating Officer State Actions. • State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is at a Level 2 (Partial) with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as the lead agency. • Govemor's Executive Orders 10 -99 and 10 -100 declared a state of emergency for: • Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf (10 -99) • Franklin, Wakulla, Jefferson, Taylor, Dixie, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota (10 -100) • Governor's Executive Order 10 -101 established the Gulf Oil Spill Economic Recovery Task Force, which will facilitate efforts by Florida businesses and industries to recover from the loss of commerce and revenues due to the oil spill. • Conducting daily conference calls with: county and emergency management partners, the Federal On -Scene Coordinator, and Mobile Unified Command. • A 33- member Forward -State Emergency Response Team (F -SERT) is on- scene at the Unified Command in Mobile. • The State Emergency Response Team is supporting efforts with 9 personnel at Unified Command Sector St. Petersburg and 2 personnel at Unified Command Sector Key West. • ESF 15 — Volunteers and Donation is providing consistent messaging to Florida volunteers, "All oil- contaminated materials will only be handled by trained, paid workers and not by volunteers." 1,689 volunteers worked 7,528 hours for clean- ups along 135 miles of Florida's beaches. • The Boom Coordination Cell continues to coordinate additional requests. • An Innovative Technology Cell is assessing alternative clean -up technologies suggested by the public and stakeholders. • ESF 10 —A website to view all of the consolidated State sampling data that is being collected along the Gulf Coastline is at www.nrdata.ora, • The Small Business Administration has issued an Economic Injury Disaster Loan Declaration for the State of Florida. Florida Information Lines • ESF 14 — The Florida Oil Spill Information Line (FOSIL) is available from 8am- 6pm EDT daily at (888) 337 -3569. • Mobile Unified Command has established two public hotline numbers for oil spill investigation and cleanup: • Impacted Wildlife: (866) 557 -1401 • Oiled Shoreline: (866) 448 -5816 Small Business Administration, Disaster Loan Outreach Centers • Escambia: Small Business Development Center, 401 E. Chase St, Suite 100 • Bay, Level 1 (Full) Pensacola, FL 32502 • Santa Rosa: Navarre Beach Chamber, 8543 Navarre Parkway • Escambia Navarre, FL 32566 • Okaloosa: Community Center Annex, 108 Stahlman Ave • Gulf Destin, FL 32541 • Walton: Walton Area Chamber of Commerce, 63 S Centre Trail • Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 • Bay: Panama City Beach Chamber of Commerce, 309 Beckrich Ave • Taylor Panama City Beach, FL 32407 • Gulf: Chamber of Commerce, 150 Captain Fred's Place • Walton Port St. Joe, FL 32456 • Franklin: Apalachicola Bay Chamber of Commerce, 122 Commerce St Apalachicola, FL 32320 • Wakulla: Wakulla Agricultural Center, 84 Cedar Ave Crawfordville, FL 32327 Local States of Emergency County EOC Activations • Bay • Bay, Level 1 (Full) • Dixie Gulf, Level 2 (Partial) • Escambia Franklin, Level 2 (Partial) • Franklin o Okaloosa, Level 2 (Partial) • Gulf o Santa Rosa, Level 2 (Partial) • Okaloosa Wakulla, Level 2 (Partial) • Santa Rosa • Sarasota • Taylor • Wakulla • Walton - 88.361572, 28.752686 Light Oil Slick -87,22998, 27.901245 Top of Current -86,27.5 344 Miles Bend on Current -85.5,24.5 Curve in current 6.5 1 191 miles 1 1611 82 '1 97 miles Current -81,24.5 161182 C0E,R COUNTY CHAPTER . DISASTER CLASS SCMDULIE June - Oetober 2010 Ail classes are offered at the Collier County A m erican. Red Cross office at 261 o Northbrooke Plaza Drive in North Naples, unless otherwise noted. Where is no charge for disaster classes, but all participant are expwied to phone the office at 596 -6868 to regiateir. Classes with insufficient enrollment will be cooelled four days befoz+e the scheduled class. If you wish to take a class, it is important that you sign up ahead of time. We urge new volunteers to begin with an on -line session ofIntroductionto Disaster Services at http: /bEffm l.redc ooss.org/tluh/couneoi y01/ ARC 3089 -4 COLLABORATING TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE, SERVICE DELIVERY Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:30 an — 4:30 pm This class is designed to prepare volunteers to establish collabom ive relationships wvMin the local community m order to improve service to those impacted by disaster. Techniques and tools are preseuied to help Red Cross workers connect in a positive way with other agencies involved in. disaster response. These cooperative and collaborative connections will ensure effective service delivery in a disaster response. Prerequisite: Fulling Our ,tLlission, DSGEN200A FUL UA,ING OUR MISSION: TRANSI.,ATING YOUR COMPASSION INTO COMAKUNM ACTION TueWay, July 139, 2010 . 6:00 P.M. w- 9:00 PAL This basic course introduces potential disastr volunteers to the principles, .values, . and mission of the American Red Cross. Participants are encouraged to assess their skills and determine potential areas of service witinn the fire nawork of the Red Cross. The course is also helpful in clarifying the work of the American Red Cross for other service agencies who assist in developing effective partnps in community response to local disasters. This course helps to answer the question "What would T do as a Red Gross volunteer?" No prerequisites. DSMCC200A►. MASS CARE: OVERVIEW Thu mday,�July 29,.2010 6:00 p.nt. — 9:00 p.m. This course introduces participants to the,several activities of Mass Care, ohielly feeding, bulk . distribution, and sheltering. Video and discussions assist new volunteers to develop an awareness of the Red Cross response needed when a brush fire strikes a limited area of the community or a hurricane threatens. Prerequisite; Fulling Our Af4sion. DSIMSl.00A. DISASTER ASSESSMENT BASICS Thursday, August 12, 2010. 6 00 P.M. — 9:OO.P nL This workshop prepares volunteers to provide an orderly survey of d=ne to the community following a flood, hurricane, or other emergency which eattses.residential.property damage. The iofornnation gathered through this fuacticm allows Red Cross to make, a clear estimate of damage and recovery.needs.. Volunteers actually count the numbers of homes destroyed and homes with major damage. Prerequisite: Fulfilling Our Mission 1611 62 3068 -11 SHELTER OPERATIONS Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 P.M. Shelter Operations trains volunteers to run efficient shelters, should our community be threatened. Notification of volunteers and client registration procedures acre discussed, workbooks are provided Video segments, showing feeding and sheltering situations, provide the basis for group discussion. Shelter kits are examined. Experienced shelter workers wiU relate experiences from recent local hurricane shelter experiences. Prerequisite: Mass Care: Overview. LOCAL DISASTER REPORTING: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 6:00 p.m. — 9:00 P.M. This locally developed workshop provides Collier County workers information for preparing and filing the kinds of reports required during a local disaster by national and regional Red Cross offices regarding local impact and services provided participants will learn to use required paper -acid- pencil reporting forms and to access computer databases for NSS (National Shelter System), CAS (Client Assistance System), the summary of operation control (5266), and the organization of Disaster Assessment tallies. Prerequisite: Fulfilling Our Mission.. . DSCLS 202A CLIENT CASEWORK:1PROVIDING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE two sessions Tuesday, September 14 and Thursday, Thursday, Sept. 16, — both nights' 6 :00 p.m. -- 9:30 p.m. Participants must attend both sessions of this course. The class enables Red Cross volunteers to meet the emergency disaster- caused needs of families on an individual basis following a fire, flood, or other disaster. The course is designed to develop interviewing shills and assure familiarity with Red Cross procedures acid policies in providing £sod, clothing, and housing for disaster victims. You learn exactly what you can offer disaster vietims to help in the recovery process. Role- playing, video, textbook, and discussion are components of the class. This course is required for all new members of the Disaster Action Team. Prerequisite: Fulfilling Our Mission. DSGEN200A FULFILLING OUR lfflSSION: TRANSLATING YOUR COMPASSION INTO COMMUNITY AC'T'ION Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6 :00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. This basic course introduces potential disaster volunteers to the principles, values, and mission of the American Red Cross. Participants are encouraged to assess their skills and detern a Potential areas of service within the framework of the Red Cross. The course is also helpful in clarifying the work of the American. Red Cross for other service agencies who assist in developing effective partnerships in community response to local disasters. This course helps to answer the question "What would. I do as a Red Cross volunteer4" No prerequisites. ARC3071. -1 LOGISTICS: AN OVERVIEW Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 p.m. — 9 :00 p.m. The purpose of this course is to provide basic information to participants about the activities and processes of Logistics — the Material Support Services group in supporting a disaster relief operation. The Logistics function deals with facilities, transportation and supplies for every disaster function. Logistics provides the equipment and materials needed to abcomplish the task of disaster relief; every other function is dependent on the efficiency of the Logistics workers. Prerequisite: Fulfilling Our Mission . 16 I 1 B 2. Collier County Government (O'60i"O" Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 May 10, 2010 Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 www.colliergov.net www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, May 19t4 at 3 p.m. in the 3rd 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 at (239) 252 -3600. -End- Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee April 21, 2010 2 :, 16 I IRECEIVED1 MAY 2 6 1010 Board of County Convn"onars Voting Members Present: Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff's Office Dr. Joseph Neiweem, Medical Reserve Corps Voting Members Absent: Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross (Excused Absence) James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Expert Consultants Present: Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Maria Bernaldo, Department of Health Chris Nind, Salvation Army Brian Kelly, Retired Senior Volunteer Program Voting Members Absent: (Non- Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes Fiala Halas Henning 1 Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Motion to accept the minutes of the March 17, 2010 meeting made by Walt Jaskiewicz and seconded by Jerry Sanford. Approved unanimously. Threat Update V/ 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. Recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business Recovery Guide Judy Scribner sent out a request for crisis information to the private, non - profit organizations, as well as the places of worship and received 27 or 28 responses. Eventually, we will have a Collier County Recovery Resource Guide which will include a spreadsheet to show the contact information for these organizations. Copies will be given to all the organizations that responded, as well as others who can use the information. Per Russ Rainey, the CERT grant will close in mid -May, which is before we can finance this project. The idea came out of the National Conference he attended last year. Russ will still submit this as a project from the Citizen Corps group at a future date. If anyone has additional suggestions, please let Russ know. Training Opportunities Rick Zyvoloski shared handouts with various trainings being offered in Fort Myers: L -967 Logistics Section Chief Training May 3 -7; ICS 100, 200, 300, 700 and 800 June 7 -11; and L -954 Safety Officer Training July 26 -29. Call Lee County to sign up for any of these trainings. More people are needed to sign up for the Logistics training. There will be four Skywarn Trainings June 1 and 2 — information will be forthcoming. 1611B2 -Per Russ, CERT training videos are being downloaded to DVD's to share with all CERT units. It makes training a bit easier. Old Business Membership Per Jim vonRinteln, there are a number of changes in the Citizen Corps group — we need to continue to get the committee up to full strength. Since Debbie Horvath is leaving the Red Cross, they will need a new representative. Chris Nind will take over the Salvation Army position from Captain Castillo, and we need to get a representative from RSVP. We don't have many non - voting members attending the meetings, so if you know any of them, please encourage them to attend these meetings. A plaque has been made for Debbie, with a thank you for her work with the Citizen Corps. She was a charter member. She will be here at our next meeting, so that we can present this to her. Shelter Managers Jim gave his annual plea for assisting the Red Cross in recruiting shelter managers and shelter workers. They can never have too many of them, and they must be put through a 2 -hour training with ARC. After the third hurricane in 2004, the volunteers were worn out. When there are no volunteers to take care of the shelters, the onus falls on the Sheriff s Office and the County, and that takes them away from their jobs of safety, etc. Walt asked when people could train and what shelter would a person work at. Jim said to encourage people to contact the Red Cross — now is a good time to get the training, and a person can pretty much go to any shelter that opens. The Shelter Manager is the "top dog ", and they like to plan on ten shelter helpers. The schools are well staffed during an event, with the principals, law enforcement, paramedic, and maintenance person always there. The County is responsible for identifying what shelter will open and work with the schools — the Red Cross is responsible for running them (held - harmless, through the Good Samaritan law). Other Maria Bernaldo gave an H1N1 update. The National level has decreased and Florida is sporadic with cases. Locally, there are no cases reported. The Health Department is still asking folks to get their shots, which are being given at their office at the main County campus. They are looking at combining the H1N1 and seasonal flu shot for the 2010/2011 season. It was reported that there were 7 contact cases of TB at Edison College. Per Dr. Neiweem, contact TB is mostly transferred by coughing. These cases could be that people are testing positive, but do not actually have the disease. Jerry brought up the May 1 countywide CERT drill being held at Mosquito Control at the Naples Airport. He has 30 members available, and has invited Lee and Charlotte folks as well. At this point, people are needed for moulage. Suggestions included students, CAP cadets, Lely drama club, or the Criminal Justice group at Lely High School. Greg Speers will check to see if any of them can help. Twenty or more victims are needed. Jerry will get the information to Brian Kelly for possible assistance. This starts at 7:30 a.m. Jerry said 11 people showed up to paint the Freedom Memorial the other day - they got good media coverage. $450,000 has been raised (half is a Tourist Development Council grant), with $100,000 in the "kitty". $70,000 must be spent by September 30, and it has to be spent before it can be matched. Jerry said they would try to spend it on the mast. Another $1.2 million is needed for the flag — they have been working on this since 2004. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 19th at 3 p.m. at the EOC. Jim asked the group to get any agenda items to him before then. Russ will have a report on the upcoming drill, but will speak with Jim before then. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p.m. made by Lt. Jones and seconded by Dr. Neiweem. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Acting Chair: Russell Ic- I -1 Date 1611 B2 � '� £y Request to conduct NIMS ICS All- Hazards 41YVD S`' Position Specific Training Class Note: all agencies desiring to offer All- Hazards Position Specific classes in their jurisdiction will route their request to their respective EM State Training Officer via this (completed) form. No classes will be recognized for the purpose of either receiving g_ redit in the national database or receiving EMI Certificates of Completion unless this form is completed transmitted to the STO and then forwarded to EMI for administrative registration. Completed request forms should be transmitted to EMI via the STO at least 30 days prior to the start of the requested class. Course to be delivered (use a separate form for each course): ❑ L950 Incident Commander ❑ L952 Public Information Officer X L954 Safety Officer ❑ L956 Liaison Officer ❑ L958 Operations Section Chief ❑ L960 Division & Group Supervisor ❑ L962 Planning Section Chief ❑ L964 Situation Unit Leader Scheduled Class Dates: July 26 — 29, 2010 ❑ L965 Resources Unit Leader ❑ L967 Logistics Section Chief ❑ L969 Communications Unit Leader ❑ L970 Supply Unit Leader ❑ L971 Facilities Unit Leader ❑ L973 Finance / Admin. Section Chief ❑ L975 Finance / Admin. Unit Leader Class Location and Contact Person with Phone Number: Lee County, FL Emergency Operations Center Terry Kelley, Emergency Management Coordinator (239) 533 -3610 tkelley@leegov.com Class Location Address: 2665 Ortiz Ave, Fort Myers, FL 33905 Projected Number of Students: 24 Instructor (Lead): William (Bill) Miller Instructor (Support): Bob ALbanese Questions or concerns, contact: Robert L. Ridgeway, Training Specialist/EMI robert.ridgew!1ygdhs.gov (301) 447 -1142 161182 Request to conduct NIMS ICS All- Hazards Position Specific Training Class Note: all agencies desiring to offer All- Hazards Position Specific classes in their jurisdiction will route their request to their respective EM State Training Officer via this (completed) form. No classes will be recognized for the purpose of either receiving credit in the national database or receiving EMI Certificates of Completion unless this form is completed transmitted to the STO and then forwarded to EMI for administrative registration. Completed request forms should be transmitted to EMI via the STO at least 30 days prior to the start of the requested class. Course to be delivered (use a separate form for each course): ❑ L950 Incident Commander ❑ L965 Resources Unit Leader ❑ L952 Public Information Officer ❑ L954 Safety Officer ❑ L956 Liaison Officer ❑ L958 Operations Section Chief ❑ L960 Division & Group Supervisor ❑ L962 Planning Section Chief ❑ L964 Situation Unit Leader Scheduled Class Dates: May 3 — 7, 2010 X L967 Logistics Section Chief ❑ L969 Communications Unit Leader ❑ L970 Supply Unit Leader ❑ L971 Facilities Unit Leader ❑ L973 Finance / Admin. Section Chief ❑ L975 Finance / Admin. Unit Leader Class Location and Contact Person with Phone Number: Lee County, FL Emergency Operations Center Terry Kelley, Emergency Management Coordinator (239) 533 -3610 tkell6y@iee og v.com Class Location Address: 2665 Ortiz Ave, Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Projected Number of Students: 24 Instructor (Lead): Dan Frazee Instructor (Support): Stu Rodeffer Questions or concerns, contact: Robert L. Ridgeway, Training Specialist/EMI robert.rid eway Zbdhs.gov (301) 447 -1142 161 182 Additional FY2010 Lee County Incident Command System (ICS) Training Lee County Emergency Management is sponsoring National Incident Management System (NIMS) required Incident Command System (ICS) training sessions for ICS -300 Intermediate ICS and ICS -400 Advanced ICS. Each course requires certain Independent Study courses for successful completion. We are also sponsoring ICS -402 for Elected Officials and Senior Management that will not necessarily participate in the Incident Command System process, however do need to know how it works. Because of the regulatory nature of this training, documentation of any prerequisite courses is required before a Certificate of Attendance will be issued to a participant. Copies of appropriate certificates should be provided to Lee County Emergency Management prior to attending the ICS -300 and ICS -400 classes. We do have a large amount of certificates of training, so please check if we have your certificates on file. Seating is limited to 30 students per class, so please register as soon as possible. Also please provide as much prior notification as possible, if unable to attend as registered. To register or have any questions, contact Terry Kelley by Email (preferred) at: tkelleyglee og_v.com or by telephone at (239) 533 -3610. Please fax prerequisites to (239) 477 -3636. ICS -300: Intermediate ICS Date ` Time s , I,ocahtiia r ` !here -in esW=` June 7, 2010 0830 to 1630 Daily Lee County IS -100, IS -200 & June 8, 2010 0830 to 1630 Daily EOC IS -700 June 9, 2010 0830 to 1200 Required ICS -400: Advanced ICS Date Time Location Prerequisites June 9, 2010 June 10, 2010 1300 to 1700 0830 to 1630 Daily Lee County EOC IS -100, 200, 700, 800 and ICS -300 Required 16 11 B2 1 ICS -402: ICS for Executives and Senior Management Date Time Location Prerequisites June 11, 2010 0900 to 1200 Lee County EOC None Location of Training Classes will be conducted at the Lee County Emergency Operations Center (EOC), 2665 Ortiz Ave, Fort Myers. NIMS training is intended for the following personnel: Middle Management: Strike Team Leaders, Division Supervisors, EOC Staff, etc. IS- 700.x, IS- 100.a, IS -200.a and ICS -300 required Command and General Staff, Area, Emergency and EOC Managers IS- 100a., IS- 200.a, ICS -300, IS- 700.A, and IS -800.13 ICS -402 is intended for Board, City, and Fire Commissioner's, Senior Law Enforcement Officers, mayor's and senior management as an overview of the Incident Command System. We also review how Lee County manages large incidents with multiple jurisdictions. Note: Please understand we will accept Middle Management personnel first for ICS -300 and Command and General Staff personnel for ICS -400. Also, be aware personnel working at the Lee County EOC and Lee County Geographic Division EOC's have first priority for this training. Note: Personnel must attend a minimum of 90% of the course to receive a certificate. Please talk to the instructor for any time you will miss for the class you have selected. 7 ;1B2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 FEMA t V U " J� April 13, 2010 Mr. David Halstead, Interim Director Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Attention: Mr. Miles Anderson Reference: Collier County Multi jurisdictional Local Mitigation Strategy Dear Mr. Halstead: We are pleased to inform you that the Collier County Multi jurisdictional Local Mitigation Strategy is in compliance with the federal hazard mitigation planning standards resulting from the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as contained in 44 CFR 201.6. The plan is approved for a period of five (5) years, to April 13, 2015. This plan approval extends to the following participating jurisdictions that provided a copy of their resolution adopting the plan: • Collier County (unincorporated) • City of Everglades City • City of Naples The approved participating jurisdictions are hereby eligible applicants through the State for the following mitigation grant programs administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM) • Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) We commend the participants in the Collier County plan for the development of a solid, workable plan that will guide hazard mitigation activities over the coming years. Please note that all requests for funding will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and other requirements of the particular program under which the application is submitted. For example, a specific mitigation activity or project identified in the plan may not meet the eligibility requirements for FEMA funding, and even eligible mitigation activities are not automatically approved for FEMA funding under any of the aforementioned programs. In addition, please be aware that if any of the approved jurisdictions participating in this plan are placed on probation or are suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program, they may be ineligible for certain types of federal funding. 161182 � We strongly encourage each Community to perform an annual review and assessment of the effectiveness of their hazard mitigation plan; however, a formal plan update is required at least every five (5) years. We also encourage each Community to conduct a plan update process within one (1) year of being included within a Presidential Disaster Declaration or of the adoption of major modifications to their local Comprehensive Land Use Plan or other plans that affect hazard mitigation or land use and development. When the plan is amended or revised, it must be resubmitted through the State as a "plan update" and is subj ect to a formal review and approval process by our office. If the plan is not updated prior to the required five (5) year update, please ensure that the draft update is submitted at least six (6) months prior to expiration of this plan. The State and the participants in the Collier County plan should be commended for their close coordination and communications with our office in the review and subsequent approval of the plan. If you or Collier County have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact Gabriela Vigo, of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, at (229) 225 -4546, or Linda L. Byers of my staff at (770)- 220 -5498. rel , Robert E. Lowe, Chief Risk Analysis Branch Mitigation Division 16118 Coffier County Govemment Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 April 12, 2010 Contact: (239) 252 -8848 www.colliergov.net www.twitter.com/CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, April 21" 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- PHTIZEN CORPS MNSIO 164482 STA.YEMEN The mission of Citizen Corps is to harness the power of every individual through education, training, and volunteer service to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to the threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds. Goals For € flzen Coro Councils The Citizen Corps mission will be accomplished through a national network of state, local, and tribal Citizen Corps Councils, which will tailor activities to the community and build on community strengths to develop and implement a local strategy to have every American participate through: © Personal responsibility: Developing a household preparedness plan and disaster supplies kits, observing home health and safety practices, implementing disaster mitigation measures, and participating in crime prevention and reporting. a Training: Taking classes in emergency preparedness, response capabilities, first aid, CPR, fire suppression, and search and rescue procedures. v Volunteer service: Engaging individuals in volunteer activities that support first responders, disaster relief groups, and community safety organizations. Everyone can do something to support local law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, community public health efforts, and the four stages of emergency management: prevention, mitigation, response and recovery efforts. Local Citizen Corps Councils will also promote and strengthen the Citizen Corps programs at the community level, such as Volunteers in Police Service programs, CERT teams, Medical Reserve Corps units, and Neighborhood Watch groups; provide opportunities for special skills and interests; develop targeted outreach for special needs groups; organize special projects and community events; encourage cooperation and collaboration among community leaders; and capture smart practices and report accomplishments. December 4, 2002 RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2010 Board of County COMMMIoners ✓ 1 �3 Fiala 61 1 Halas March 11, 2010 Henning Coyle � Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 11, 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 Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Jim Burke Ted Forcht Victor Rios Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland John Arceri ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Comet: 27 2-011"-0 1 Item it: 1 ^iE$ to: 161183 March 11, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. It was noted this is Mr. Forcht's last meeting as a member of the Coastal Advisory Committee and Chairman Sorey recognized his service to the Committee. Mr. Hendel moved to appoint Mr. Arceri to the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8- 0. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted the following additions to the Agenda: Item VIII.9 — CAC Workshop with Pelican Bay Workshop Item VIII. 10 - Consulting Services with James Lee Witt Associates Item VIII. 10. a - Backup Material Item VIII.11 - Vanderbilt Beach Parking Services Item VIII. IL a - Backup Material Mr. Arceri recommended the following items be deleted from the Agenda, as the PBS &J Report and related recommendations have already been acted on by the Clam Bay Subcommittee, the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. Item IX. 2. - Wanless Report Item IX. 2. a - Marcia Cravens a -mails Item IX. 2. b - Wanless review of PBS &J Report Mr. Pires objected noting he requested the item be placed on the Agenda for informational purposes since the Clam Bay issues are still relevant to the Committee. Mr. Rios agreed. Chairman Sorey polled the Committee on Mr. Arceri's recommendation and requested members who did not want to hear the item indicate by declaring "no." Mr. Arceri, Mr. Forcht, Mr. Raymond, Mr. Hendel, Mr. Burke and Mr. Moreland voted "no. " Mr. Rios and Mr. Pires voted "yes. " The items were removed from the Agenda. Mr. Hendel moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Rios. Motion carried 8 yes - I no. Mr. Pires voted "no. " V. Public Comments 2 1.6 J J. �3 March 11, 2010 Mike Field, Gulf View Beach Club Assoc. appeared in front of the Committee providing photos and testimony regarding a severe beach erosion problem from an area South of Doctors Pass to the frontage of the Beach Club. The problem has intensified since January of this year until now. He expressed concern if the area continues to erode, there will be property damage. Bill West, Indies West provided photos and testimony of a similar problem on the beach frontage area at Indies West. Gary McAlpin noted the area was last subject to maintenance in 2005 when a major re- nourishment of County beaches was completed. The area was re- nourished to a width of 100 feet and is now severely eroded. The County is aware the area is historically a "hot spot" (area subject to high erosion). It is intended to address the issue during the next Re- nourishment Cycle. If directed by the Committee, an intermediate maintenance plan may be developed. It would take approximately 6 -9 months to implement a plan which would require engineering studies, Florida Department of Environmental Protection approvals, etc. Margaret Grant, Indies West verified the comments of Mr. Field and Mr. West and added the surge caused by the last two hurricanes was less than what has been experienced this winter. In addition, the Sea Oats planted have been lost due to the erosion. Discussion occurred on the ramifications of waiting until the next Re- nourishment Cycle as property damage may occur. Chairman Sorey is extremely concerned as the erosion is the worst he has seen. The area by the Naples Beach Hotel is suffering the same erosion. He recommended the item be placed on the next Agenda. Gary Strauss, Le Pare Condominium Complex addressed the Committee noting there is a similar problem north of Doctors Pass to Clam Pass Beach. It is affecting the public beach access due to the lack of beach width and recommended immediate maintenance be undertaken or the public access be closed off. Discussion occurred on the ramifications of undertaking an emergency repair without properly addressing the problem over a long -term basis. Mr. Hendel moved to direct Staff to prepare a preliminary emergency maintenance plan including identification of the root cause of the problem, the alternative solutions, the cost of the alternative solutions, the length of time the alternative solutions would address problems and an analysis of future conditions of the area should no maintenance be undertaken at this time. The item to be placed on the next meeting Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 9 -0. VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 161183 rch 11, 2010 1. January 14, 2010 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2010 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 2, Item VI.1 line 5 - from "County Clerk" to "County Clerk as interest income to the Office according to the Florida Statute." • Page 8, paragraph 5, and bullet point #3 — from "The PBS &J Report and the three recommendations..." to "The PBS &J Report was reviewed and their three recommendations..." Second by Mr. Forcht. Carried unanimously 9 -0. VII. Staff Reports Gary McAlpin noted, in relation to Doug Finlay's concern outlined at the previous meeting on the Jetties at Doctors Pass, the permit is valid for 1 -2 more years and he will address the concern at next months meeting. PBS &J has updated their Report on the Clam Bay System and requested Committee members submit their comments to Staff. 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2009 — 2010 " updated through February 2010. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 200912010 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through March 1, 2010. VIII. New Business 1. Appointment of Marco Representative to CAC — This item was heard directly after Roll Call 2. Appointment of CAC Member to the Clam Bay Subcommittee Mr. Sorey moved to appoint John Arceri to the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Second by Mr. Forcht. Carried unanimously 9 -0. Speaker John Domenie, Pelican Bay Resident addressed the Committee offering Mr. Arceri a guided tour of the Pelican Bay Community with its relation to the Clam Bay System. 3. April 8, 2010 Agenda Item: Fiscal Year 2011 Proposed Budget Plan; Grant Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Application Presentation; Forecasted Revenue Fiscal Year 2011 Update the Coastal Advisory Committee on Revenue /Budget items scheduled for the April 8, 2010 CAC meeting" dated March 11, 2010. He noted the item is provided as a primer to next months meeting when the budget will be presented for review. rd 161 1 B3 March 11, 2010 Mr. Hendel requested an update on the Grant funding the re- vegetation proposed for the condominium complexes of Park Shore, Le Parc, etc. Gary McAlpin noted the Grant application is being prepared by Pam Keyes of Coastal Zone Management and he recommended Mr. Hendel contact her regarding its status. Most of the plantings occur east of the erosion line, on private property, and are not required of the landowner. The landowners provide easements to the County for the plantings and the Program is a benefit to the County in protecting the beaches from storm erosion. 4. FEMA Reimbursement Update and Status of our Mandatory Reserve Accounts Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "FEMA Reimbursement Update and Status of our Mandatory Reserve Accounts" dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material The document "Tropical Storm Gabrielle, hurricanes Katrina & Wilma storm impact re- assessment report 1995 -1996 Collier County beach nourishment project" Prepared for: Collier County Coastal Zone Management, Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc." dated January 2010 was presented for review. He noted the item was for informational purposes and the FEMA re- imbursements are intended to be utilized for the County's Beach Re- nourishment Program. 5. Wiggins Pass Subcommittee Update /Status Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Wiggins Pass Subcommittee Update /Status " dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material Correspondence with State Agencies and minutes from the Subcommittee meetings. He noted: • The Subcommittee has met 3 times • The JCP (Joint Coastal Permit) application for the proposed improvements to the Pass has been reviewed extensively, and submitted to FDEP and the USACE. Agency comments are expected within 30 days. • The Florida Park Service is not supporting the permit application at this time and is in the process of outlining concerns to be addressed. • FDEP is now requiring a complete rewrite to the Inlet Management Plan as part of the permit application. • Staff has applied for FDEP cost sharing funding to help pay for this activity, which is expected to cost $250,000. 5 16! 1 B3 March 11, 2010 A work team to address the rewrite of the Plan is being proposed for the CAC and BCC consideration. A meeting with CDES was held to determine the requirements for issuance of a "consistency letter." Gary McAlpin noted the issues with the Florida Park Service revolve on remedial improvement actions to be undertaken to protect the Delnor- Wiggins State Park property should certain events occur following the improvements (remedial dredging may need to occur if certain conditions dictate, etc.) 6. Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Work Team Recommendations Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend that the Coastal Advisory Committee approve the structure of the proposed Inlet Management work team for Wiggins Pass as recommended by the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee " dated March 11, 2010. He noted it is Staff's recommendation to appoint the following members to the Work Team: Joe Moreland — Chairman of this committee and Collier County representative on the CAC Victor Rios — Marco Island representative on the CAC Bob Raymond — Naples representative on the CAC Nicole Ryan — Representative of the Conservancy of SW Florida Dick Lydon — Representative of the Vanderbilt Beach TBD — Representative of the Boating Community Tom Crowe — Representative of the Friends of Barefoot Beach Jeff Raley — Representative of the Florida Park Service (DWSP) Jack Kindsvater — Representative of the ECA Mr. Moreland confirmed Staff s recommendation is consistent with the direction provided by the Subcommittee. It was noted the Work Team will operate in accordance with the Sunshine Law. Mr. Moreland moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint the Work Team to develop the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan as outlined by Staff. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 9 -0. 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Update /Status Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Clam Bay Subcommittee Update /Status" dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material Minutes from the March 1, 2010 Subcommittee meeting. He noted the Subcommittee has met one time, developed a Mission Statement and defined the boundaries of the "Clam Bay Estuary System" (CBES). B3 1 March 11, 2010 Chairman Sorey recommended in addition to a written definition of the CBES, a map be developed delineating the area. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the Clam Bay Conservation Area and Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) define the Coastal Barrier Resource Area (FL64P) meeting a criteria as "undeveloped." In addition it is identified as an "Otherwise Protected Area" which is the NRPA. The CBES defined by the Subcommittee on February 1, 2010 was the NRPA. The NRPA has never been maintained or managed for navigation. She submitted a copy of an email from Gary McAlpin to Colleen Greene on "how to get over the Pelican Bay Covenants and restrictions" and how to dredge the area for navigation for review by the Committee. Rick Dykman, Seagate Homeowner addressed the Committee noting the community's number one priority is health and safety of the system and requested the County continue to move in that direction. Mr. Pires noted the permitted uses in the NRPA by definition include "boat trails and boat docks not to exceed 500 square feet per dock." Gary McAlpin noted the email referenced by Ms. Cravens was a request for a legal opinion dealing with dredging within Clam Bay. 8. Best Value Offer (BVO) Payment Issues with Clerk of Courts Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "BVO Payment Issues with the Clerk of Courts " dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material Submitted. He noted the item is for informational purposes and the County Clerk has ceased payments on contracts involved in the BVO process. Any consultants affected have been issued a `Stop Work Order." The Order directly affects the work being conducted on the Clam Bay Management Plan and County's physical monitoring of beaches. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group expressed appreciation to County Clerk Dwight Brock whose responsibility it is to scrutinize contract processes including if the BVO is a "legal process." 9. CAC Workshop with Pelican Bay Community Gary McAlpin noted he and Chairman Sorey have determined a public "Workshop Meeting" may be beneficial to all involved to ensure accurate information is being disseminated to the public regarding the actions taken by the 7 l6118.3 March 11, 2010 Coastal Advisory Committee in relation to the management of the Clam Bay Estuary System. Staff will attempt to schedule the Workshop in April. A similar Workshop may be held for the Seagate Community as well. Mr. Pires left at 2:53 pm 10. Consulting Services with James Lee Witt Associates Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation for the CAC and TDC to approve funding in the amount of $25, 000 with James Lee Witt Associates, to provide consultant support to facilitate the resolution of FEMA payments for beach damages during Tropical Storm Gabrielle, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma" dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material "Task Order No. 06- 4056.1 — Statement of Work for P Facilitation and Closure " — James Lee Witt Associates, dated February 11, 2010. Mr. Rios moved to approve (the recommendation in the Executive Summary for the CAC and TDC to approve funding in the amount of $25,000 with James Lee Witt Associates, to provide consultant support to facilitate the resolution of FEMA payments for beach damages during Tropical Storm Gabrielle, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma). " Second by Mr. Forcht. Motion carried unanimously 8 -0. Mr. Pires returned at 2:54 pm Break. 2:54 pm Reconvened: 3: 00 pm 11. Vanderbilt Beach - Beach Park Facilities Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Vanderbilt Beach — Beach Park Facilities for Sharing and Discussion " dated March 11, 2010. a. Backup Material "Landscape Construction Plans for Concessions + Restrooms — Vanderbilt Beach, Collier County Florida — 50% Complete Drawings" Gary McAlpin outlined the County's proposal of constructing new restrooms and concessions stand and related facilities for Vanderbilt Beach at the west end of Vanderbilt Beach Road highlighting the following: • In accordance with FEMA guidelines, the structure for the concessions stand, viewing deck, shade structure and storage area etc. will be elevated approximately 10 - 11 feet above the elevation of the beach. • The structure is 3,800 square feet in size meeting handicap standards and funded by the Tourist Development Council via the Beach Park Facilities account. 161163 March 11, 2010 • The Pelican Bay Foundation is required to approve the project. They have contacted the Vanderbilt Residents Association and Ritz Carlton who indicated they are opposed to the project. • The Associations and Ritz Carlton feel the deck is too large, opposed to concessions and the facility will be an attractive nuisance to wildlife in the area. • The proposed facility would be consistent with the existing facilities at Clam Pass Park, Barefoot Beach and Tigertail Beach. • The proposed facility is substantially smaller than the similar beach facilities provided in the area by the Pelican Bay Services Division and Ritz Carlton. The item is for informational purposes for the Coastal Advisory Committee and scheduled for review by the Board of County Commissioners on April 13, 2010. IX. Old Business 1. Naples Outfall Pipes Permit Compliance Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Naples Outfall Pipes Permit Compliance — Update" dated March 11, 2010 a. Backup Material The report "City of Naples Beach Outfall System Coastal Impact Assessment & Management Plan" Prepared by Humiston & Moore Engineers February 2010. He noted the existing FDEP permit requires the adoption of a Management Plan addressing the removal of the outfall pipes on the Naples beach. The outfalls need to be addressed to FDEP's satisfaction before FDEP will issue a Notice to Proceed for additional re- nourishment activities. A plan has been submitted requesting the permit condition be lifted due to it is "financially unfeasible" and the structures are not causing environmental degradation. Chairman Sorey noted the City of Naples is still committed to removal of the outfalls and is investigating feasible alternative solutions. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group commended the City of Naples for addressing the issue. 2. Wanless Report a. Marsha Cravens a -mails b. Wanless review of PBS &J Report This item was deleted from the Agenda. X. Announcements None 9 1611 B3 March 11, 2010 X1. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Forcht thanked Gail Hambright, Gary McAlpin and Committee members for their assistance during his tenure on the Committee. Mr. Pires noted the Request for Additional Information for the Joint Coastal Permit application for Clam Pass has been completed by PBS &J who confirmed to the FDEP the application is not intended to revise the existing "dredge template." Gary McAlpin noted the County has filed a permit application for a "Letter of Consent' for the aids to navigation in Clam Bay. X1I. Next Meeting Date/Location April 8, 2010 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:31 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ohn Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 10 Fiala _ 161 1 B 3AC June 10, 2010 Halas VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes Henning 1 of 10 Coyle _ RECEIVED JUN 10 2010 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 8, 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 Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Jim Burke Victor Rios Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland John Arceri (Excused) (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Mme' Corms: Deb: ttwe t CT. ies to: CAC Ju 10, 2010 161 IP32 V I -1 ApRoval of CAC Minutes of10 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7 -0. V. Public Comments None. VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. March 11, 2010 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes subject to the following addition: Page 2, item III — Roll Call — Before motion, addition of the statement Chairman Sorey recommended the Agenda be modified for the Committee to hear item VU -l- "Appointment of Marco Representative to CAC before approval of the Agenda. " Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7 -0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2009 — 2010 " updated through March 2010. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 200912010 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through April 1, 2010. The Committee requested: • Staff provide an update on the Clam Bay Aids to Navigation "Letter of Consent" at the next meeting. • A monthly update on the dollar amount of contracts awarded to consultants listed in the Project Cost Report. VIII. New Business 1. Emergency Truck Haul Project - Doctors Pass and Park Shore a. Engineering Status/Permit Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve an after the fact authorization of engineering funds required for the emergency truck haul project for Doctors Pass and Park Shore with CP &E 16 1B 3 CAC Jun 10, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3of10 for time and material not to exceed $41,075 and any necessary Budget Amendments" dated April 8, 2010. He noted: • The project will be funded through the 195 Fund, not directly from emergency funds. • The project will address eroded beach hot spots south of Doctors Pass. • The length of construction schedule cited in Phase I and III of the document (30 or 60 days) will be revised to provide consistency. • The Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act (CCNA), does not apply as the total amount of the contract is less $50,000. Mr. Hendel moved to approve the recommendation provided in the Executive Summary (approve an after the fact authorization of engineering funds required for the emergency truck haul project for Doctors Pass and Park Shore with CP &E for time and material not to exceed $41,075 and any necessary Budget Amendments'). Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 7 -0. b. Conceptual Construction Plan Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve contract expenditure for up to $375,000 as per the attached conceptual plan for emergency truck haul re- nourishment at Doctors Pass and Park Shore beaches and any necessary Budget Amendments" dated April 8, 2010. He noted the current estimate to obtain the permits for the work is 5- 6 months, which is too long given the urgency of the situation. There are 3 options to expedite the permit process: 1. Obtain an emergency dredge declaration. 2. Obtain a CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) permit from FDEP for the project. 3. Amend the existing permit — would require amending the sand source, requesting truck hauling for the sand, and for the work to be completed in the summer (during turtle nesting season). Option 3 is the most feasible and Staff proposes to meet with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection before the application is submitted in attempt to answer all questions, reducing multiple Requests for Additional Information. This could reduce the permit process to approximately 60 - 90 days. The intent is to obtain bids for the work during the permit process, and begin the work immediately after the permit is issued. Turtle nesting should not be an issue, as there is no beach available for nesting. Mr. McAlpin also provided an overview of the construction process which will include hauling sand by truck and delivering it to the beach via conveyors. The solution is expected to last approximately 3 years at which 161 I Approval 0, 2010 I -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4of10 time there will be a major beach re- nourishment. Then a longer -term solution to the problem will be implemented. Speakers Doug Finlay noted a large volume of the sand placed during the last Countywide beach re- nourishment appears to have dissipated. He expressed concern over 10 years Beach Re- nourishment Cycle. He recommended consideration be given to reducing it to approximately 7 years. Margaret Grant, Indies West noted since the March 8, 2010 meeting the beach in the area has eroded approximately 2 more feet. She requested immediate assistance to address the problem. She provided photographs which identified the extent of the erosion. Linda Penniman, Moorings property owner, expressed concern on the length of the permit process noting addressing the erosion is an emergency. Mike Field, Gulfview Beach Club noted the area should be deemed an "emergency situation." Gary McAlpin noted another option is for Collier County and the City of Naples to declare an emergency and sand be placed to the "mean high water" line on the landward side. He expressed concern the sand will migrate to the near shore creating a permit violation. The option could be implemented quickly, but should remain a "safety valve." Mr. Hendel expressed concern on the urgency of the situation and based on the time estimates for receiving the permits, recommended the Board of County Commissioners and Naples City Council deem the problem an "emergency." Gary McAlpin recommended delaying this action temporarily until Staff meets with FDEP Staff to discuss the aspects involved in amending the permit. Mr. Pires recommended the BCC declare the situation an "emergency" at their next meeting, and adopt a resolution requesting assistance in addressing the issue from the Governor and Cabinet. In addition, on page 4 of 8 of the proposal, under "Permit Application and Processing" - Staff should clarify the extent of the berm construction and the work is intended to be completed during turtle nesting season. Mr. Rios moved to approve the recommendation as outlined in the Executive Summary ( approve contract expenditure for up to$375,000 as per the attached conceptual plan for emergency truck haul re- nourishment at Doctors Pass and Park Shore beaches and any necessary Budget Amendments). To recommend Staff attempt to have an item placed on the 161 1CAC J4ne 1 0, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 10 next available Board of County Commissioner's and Naples City Council Agenda to pass a resolution declaring the situation an "emergency." The BCC also make a determination the emergency situation may require a deviation from normal Purchasing Policies. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 2. Fiscal Year 10 /11 Budget Discussion Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary Recommendation to Approve the FY10 111 -195 Fund Budget and Analysis; Fund 195 -10 Year Fund Projections; FY 09110 Grant Applications and the FYI 0/11 Grant Applications" dated April 8, 2010. a. Fiscal Year 10 /11 Budget Analysis Gary McAlpin presented the document "FYI 0 /11 -195 Fund Budget and Analysis" dated April 8, 2010 for review. It was recommended item 8 Projected Expenses, — "Category Pier Reserves " be amended to reflect the item is for the "Naples Pier. " b. Fund 195 10 Year Plan Gary McAlpin presented the document "TDC Category "A: " 195 Fund Projections " dated April 8, 2010 for review. The document provides projected expenses for the Department through 2018 including a FY2012/13 major beach re- nourishment project. He noted without funding from FEMA (or other Federal or State Funds, etc.), the Department will not have enough revenue to implement its required programs. Break: 3: 06pm Reconvened: 3: 07pm Mr. Pires did not return c. Fiscal Year 09/10 Grant Applications with Grant Guidelines Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary Share TDC Category "A " Grant Applications not budgeted in FY 09110 dated April 8, 2010. Mr. Burke moved recommend (the Board of County Commissioners) approve the FY 09110 Grant Applications. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 6 -0. Mr. Pires returned at 3:12pm d. Fiscal Year 10 /11 Grant Applications with Grant Guidelines Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share TDC Category "A " Grant Applications from the City of Naples, The City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY -10 /11 " dated April 8, 2010. 161 1R June 10, 2010 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6of10 Mr. Rios moved to recommend (the Board of County Commissioners) approval of the Grant Applications. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 3. Wiggins Pass Inlet Permit Application Update a. RAI Comments - FDEP Gary McAlpin provided a Memorandum from Jeff Raley, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) - Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources to Dr. Merrie Beth Neely — FDEP — Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Subject "Collier County's JCP application, File No. 012538 Wiggins Pass" dated March 24, 2010 for review. The Memorandum will be addressed in detail at the April 19, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee meeting. b. Inlet Management Plan and Environmental Impact Study Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary Recommendation approval Work Order under Contract 06 -3902 for additional tasks for the Wiggins Pass project for time and material not to exceed $125,178 dated April 8, 2010. Mr. Moreland moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Work Order under Contract 06 -3902 for additional tasks for the Wiggins Pass project for time and material not to exceed $125,178. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 6 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " 4. Uncompleted Work Awarded on BVO Contracts a. North Country Passes — CP &E Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Work Order under Contract 09 -5262 with Coastal Planning & Engineering for North County Passes Survey and Engineering Report for time and material not to exceed $79,935. This is the unfinished work under the BVO contract for Physical Monitoring and a contracting method change to satisfy the Clerk's concerns for the County's contracting method dated April 8, 2010. He noted the policy has been prepared at the direction of the Purchasing Department. It was recommended the line 5 — 6 of the title of the Executive Summary be amended from "... contracting method change to satisfy the Clerk's concerns for the County's... " to "... contracting method change in an attempt to satisfy the Clerk's concerns for the County's... " Sneaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group requested clarification if the work has been noticed for competitive bidding? In the past, qualifying firms have been rotated through the CCNA process. Public records indicate the original sand bypassing project approved in April /May 2008 for Clam Bay was developed by the "Estuary Improvement Discussion Group." The Group 110, 6 r6 20Th 8,3n,'oval of CAC Minutes 7of10 did not operate under the Sunshine Law and, in her opinion, had no authority to make the recommendation for the work. The project has been subject to numerous change orders and questions how any work orders may proceed given the fact they were derived from this original recommendation. Chairman Sorey stated these concerns should be directed to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Burke moved recommend the Board of County Commissioners to approve Work Order under Contract 09 -5262 with Coastal Planning & Engineering for North County Passes Survey and Engineering Report for time and material not to exceed $79,935. This is the unfinished work under the BVO contract for Physical Monitoring and a contracting method change in an attempt to satisfy the Clerk's concerns for the County's contracting method. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 "yes " — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " 5. Dune Restoration Grant Program Policy Proposal Gary McAlpin presented the document "The Collier County Dune Restoration Program" dated April 8, 2010. It was recommended Page 3, Section "Dune Restoration Grants Program" - line 3 be amended from "...15,000 will be allocated for private dune restoration" to "...15,000 will be allocated for private dune restoration on private property for primarily public purpose and benefit" or similar language. Gary McAlpin noted he would work with the Assistant County Attorney to clarify the language. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend approval of the Dune Restoration Program. Second by Mr. Raymond Carried unanimously 7 -0. a. Grant Application from Park Shore Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the installation and planting of native vegetation in the Common Areas within Collier County by Earth Balance for time and material not to exceed $8,060 " dated April 8, 2010. Mr. Rios moved to recommend approval for the installation and planting of native vegetation in the Common Areas within Collier County by Earth Balance for time and material not to exceed $8,060. Second by Mr. Hendel, Carried unanimously 7 -0. IX. Old Business 1. Clam Bay Subcommittee — Update Gary McAlpin 110,2010 61 1 R-t nre v ,J, 1 proval of CAC Minutes 8of10 a. Anthony Pires a -mails dated 3/27/10 and 3/19/10 to Steve Feldhaus Regarding Workshop b. Additional a -mails dated 4/7/10 Mr. Pires noted he had met with Steve Feldhaus to discuss the concept of a public workshop and understands his position for preferring a "private meeting." The Foundation will meet with Gary McAlpin and Leo Ochs (County Manager) to address the issues involved in Clam Bay (Clam Pass Park Expansion, bathrooms at Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Bay, etc.) Gary McAlpin requested direction on the status of holding a public meeting to discuss any issues associated with Clam Bay. Mr. Pires noted following the private meeting, a public meeting with the Pelican Bay Services Division will be considered. Mr. Pires noted there was a Subcommittee meeting where the improvements to Clam Pass Park were discussed. Gary McAlpin noted the FDEP has issued a second RAI for the Clam Pass maintenance dredging JCP (Joint Coastal Permit) application. c. Final Version Proposal to PDSD Peer Review Gary McAlpin presented the document "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work" last revised March 19, 2010 — Rev.I The item was discussed at the previous Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting and modified as requested. The intent is to identify Peer Reviewers based on a list of qualified individuals /organizations provided by both the County and by Pelican Bay Services Division. Once a list has been formulated by the parties, a reviewer would be selected by joint agreement. The document was submitted to the PBSD on April 7, 2010 and was rejected by a vote of 11 -0. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group submitted an email from David Tomasko (PBS &J) to Gary McAlpin dated November 16, 2009, which provided a list of qualified individuals to review his work. She expressed concern the entities would approve his work and the effort will not be considered an "independent review." Dr. Harold Wanless completed a Peer Review which is critical of the original study and no County Committee has reviewed the Report to date. The public has a right to be informed of any reviews of the work completed by PBS &J and requested the review be discussed on the record by the Coastal Advisory Committee. John Domenie, Pelican Bay Services Division stated the Pelican Bay Services Division unanimously passed a resolution to schedule a workshop to discuss the Peer Review Process and will provide names for consideration. They are concerned the Peer Review document does not reflect the resolution approved by the BCC on December 15, 2009 which did not rule out "stand alone academics." The PBSD did not have an opportunity to review the credentials of the individuals /organizations proposed in the "Scope of Work" and expressed concern over a possible ethics violations with Mr. Tomasko 1611 R10 , 201 oyal of CAC Minutes 9of10 recommending the Peer Reviewers. The reviewers identified work in waterways incomparable to the Clam Bay Estuary System. He requested Gary McAlpin meet with the PBSD and prepare a scope of work consistent with BCC direction. Mary Johnson, Mangrove Action Group agreed with the Mr. Domenie's request, which in attempt to reach a consensus, PBSD review the Scope of Work before referral to the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Mr. Moreland requested clarification on the status of the Mangrove Action Group. Marcia Cravens noted it is a non - profit, State of Florida organization with approximately 60 members. Gary McAlpin re- iterated the proposal is for the County and PBSD to submit names of Peer Reviewers be jointly evaluated, and the reviewer be chosen by consensus of both parties. Keith Dallas, Chairman, PBSD addressed the Committee noting the PBSD Board did not have sufficient time to review the document provided on the Peer Review. This was a basis for rejection of the document at the PBSD Board meeting. Gary McAlpin requested Committee direction on how to proceed to resolve the issue. Chairman Sorey directed Staff to attempt to work out the issue through the proposed meetings (the meeting with Pelican Bay Services Division and the meeting between Mr. Feldhaus, Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Ochs). Return the item to the Coastal Advisory Committee at the May meeting. If resolution cannot be reached, the Board of County Commissioners should appoint a Peer Reviewer. The Committee agreed. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland noted there will be an Estuary Conservation Association meeting on April 12, 2010 6:30pm at St. Johns Evangelist Church to discuss the Wiggins Pass Project. Mr. Pires noted Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney provided a memorandum indicating the Sunshine Law does not require an Agenda and/or related documents for a meeting be posted 48 hours in advance. The question arose at the previous Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting where members of the public objected to the meeting R3,;e 10, 2 010 oval of CAC Minutes 10 of 10 based on the allegation the Agenda and backup material require a 48 hours advance posting. He continued to express his concern over the Purchasing Policy as indicated by his negative votes under item VIII.3.b and VIIIA.b. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location May 13, 2010 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:20 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ?.4h. Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on J (,(/h 0)01 1) as presented or as amended V100, RECEN g g 2010 6 ! 1 ,UN U April 22, 2010 ",Of County TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 22, 2010 ,��, Oslo LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code E oard, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Robert Kaufman Herminio Ortega James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Alternate) Ron Doino (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date: 07 27 2-010 Item ^Pies to: T 16I 1B4 -4 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 22nd meeting of the Code Enforcement Board for Collier County. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any persons who decide to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which records include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. UESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminia Ortega? Page 2 1611 q `1 p 122, 2010 MR.ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DUANE: Here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We have full active member board participation. The alternates will be available to participate in any discussions, along with asking questions, but will not have voting rights for today's meeting. With that, I'll entertain an approval of the minutes from last month, March 25th, 2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And it carries. Now for the agenda. You have some changes? MS. WALDRON: We do. We have two additions under stipulations. They will be number four from hearings, CESD20090016332, Luis Valtierra and Armando Valtierra. And number two from hearings, Case CESD20090001803, Felipe and Isabel Christina Ramirez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The agenda that we received in our packet did not have the motions. MS. WALDRON: There are no motions. Page 3 161184 '1 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: There aren't? I have two that were placed up here for continuance. MS. WALDRON: They will be heard at the time of the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. We don't put those up in motions? I mean, we could if -- MS. WALDRON: The time frames weren't met. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I see. Very good. Thank you. With that, any other changes? MS. WALDRON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And second by Mr. Lefebvre. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Okay, moving on to stipulations. First one is going to be Valentina (sic), is it? Valtierra. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. VALTIERRA: Armando Valtierra. MS. VALTIERRA: Jennifer Valtierra. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier 16 � g County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between both parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Have you read through the agreement, do you understand it and do you agree to it? MR. VALTIERRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I have question. You don't think there's a safety issue there, electric being supplied to the mobile unit? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. Their permit is in. They've already applied for it. They took all the walls down and they left it like an open carport; took the electricity out. So no. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, with that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. Page 5 161164 1 April 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stip. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very well. You have 120 days to come into compliance, and that includes a certificate of completion and also to notify the investigators when it's done. MR. VALTIERRA: Okay. Gracious. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is going to be Ramirez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please, for the record? MR. RAMIREZ: Felipe Ramirez. MS. GONZALEZ: Diana Gonzalez. D- I- A -N -A. MR. THOMPSON: Richard Thompson. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. Go ahead. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution Page 6 16 1194 " April 22, 2010 of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Mr. Ramirez, do you understand everything that's in this agreement, and do you agree to it? MR. RAMIREZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is 30 days going to be sufficient? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it 180? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's 180. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think 30 is just for the op. costs. Any other questions? Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Of the county. Why is this one 180 days? I see this one dates back about a year and two months ago. MS. RODRIGUEZ: He has an SIP, a Site Improvement Plan, that just got submitted this week. When you deal with SIPs, it takes a long time. So we figured we'd give him six months now so that he could get it started. And then if he doesn't -- and I'm sure he's not Page 7 161 �B4 01 pril 22, 2010 going to finish within six months -- we could come back to the board and ask for an extension of time, because it's going to take him maybe a little over a year before he can finish and get everything permitted. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that being said, is there anyone on the board who's interested in talking about maybe extending the time now to avoid the Ramirezes from coming back and ask for an extension? MR. UESPERANCE: I would feel comfortable keeping it at the specified time in order to keep a sense of urgency through the whole process. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fair enough. MR. DEAN: And you don't feel there's a safety issue? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, no. He is a migrant worker, and the end of May they leave. And they're gone for six months out of the year, so those mobile homes are going to be vacant. There is people living in them now, but they're only here until the end of next month. So they should be vacant. And they're going to be moved. So hopefully when they move them and they get their permits, when they come back, they'll be okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yeah, I do have a question. Why are they requiring an SIP? Is it part of the mobile home overlay? MS. RODRIGUEZ: None of the mobile homes had permits. He had already started the SIP like maybe four years ago and he never finished it. He never did anything with it. So the original SIP terminated, it expired. So in order for him to keep the mobile homes, he has to go back, redo the SIP and start all over again. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. SIPs don't generally take that long. SDP is a different story. So we are talking about an SIP? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, SIP. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other further questions? OE 1611 APr7(225 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'd entertain a motion to accept the stip. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- a motion? All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Very well. Good luck with your improvements, and if you have any problem with time frames, please come to see us or let us know before this agreement expires. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Someone might want to explain that to him a little bit better. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me just clarify. Basically what will happen is if you go past the 180 days without having your certificate of completion, you will be fined at $250 per day. So we generally ask people to come to us with a set of progress showing us what's going on in that, you know, it's been actively pursued. And if the board finds at that time that it's acceptable, we will 1611' 1 B4 -, April 22, 2010 grant you an extension of this initial order. Okay? Great, thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I think it closes the stipulations. Now we move to public hearings. And the first one is Baigorria. (Mr. Mucha was 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) (1) (a). Description of violation: Unpermitted garage conversion and lanai. Original permit 2002012152 for improvements made was never inspected or received a certificate of completion/occupancy and permit is now voided. Location/address where violation exists: 2197 45th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35742520004. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Pedro Baigorria, P.O. Box 990937, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: June 10th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation posted at the property and the courthouse on December 31 st, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 2nd, 2010. Date of reinspection: February 3rd, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would now like to turn it over to Investigator Joe Mucha. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated back in June 10th of 2009. I believe at the time we were monitoring the property as a foreclosure property for weeds and such. And when the investigator -- the original investigator was Tony Ossoro, and he observed some unpermitted -- or actually some items Page 10 161 1B4 "' April 22, 2010 that had a permit at one point and the permit was expired. And that would be for a garage conversion and an addition of a lanai. And I'd like to submit two photographs and also the original permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MUCHA: This is a photograph of the lanai that was added onto the back of the house. MR. UESPERANCE: Date of the photograph, approximately? MR. MUCHA: This was June 10th, 2009. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: And this is the photograph of the front of the house, showing the garage conversion. The garage has been enclosed into living space. June 10th, 2009 was the date of the photo. And this is a copy of the original permit that was applied for back in 2002. It was never inspected and obviously didn't receive a certificate of occupancy. And permit has since expired. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you say no inspections were -- MR. MUCHA: No inspections, sir. Okay, just to give you a little background. I guess around this time the bank had sold the property, and by the time we kind of caught Page 11 1611 B.� -141 April 2, 2010 up with that, it was -- looks like it was September of 2009 and the case was given to the area investigator from the foreclosure team. Investigator Cano was the investigator working on it at the time. And he met the new owner back on October 16th, 2009 and advised him of the violations. December 31 st, 2009, a Notice of Violation was posted at the property and courthouse. I personally met with the new owner on March 16th, 2010. And basically the situation is he bought the property, didn't realize that this permit was never inspected or C.O.'d, and he's kind of like -- doesn't really have the money to make those changes that's going to be needed to be made. And that was my last contact with him was back in March. So here we are today. MR. UESPERANCE: Question: Does the new owner need to simply reapply for the permit and have things inspected? What's your opinion? MR. MUCHA: I mean, I don't know what the work on the inside looks like. I mean, I could assume that could be a route he could go. And it might not be as costly. And if all the drawings and everything that was submitted back in 2002 is still okay, yeah, it might be a possibility. MR. UESPERANCE: Has he been briefed with that possibility? Has he -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: And his reaction is? MR. MUCHA: I just think he's just kind of overwhelmed. You know, he bought this property and, you know, just didn't realize the issues that were going on there at the time, so -- MR. UESPERANCE: Do you think he needs more counseling or information? MR. MUCHA: It could be a possibility. Page 12 1611611 April 22, 2010 MR. UESPERANCE: It may not be as serious as he thinks. MR. MUCHA: I mean, the fact that he's not here today concerns me a little bit. Because, you know, I had a conversation with him back in March and, you know, I assumed that he was going to be here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just have a question regarding a chain of ownership. The permit shows Orlando Corcoba, and then it was taken in foreclosure; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then the person that was noticed purchased it through a foreclosure; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Through the bank, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make sure that I understand the change of ownership. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Yes, I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor -- oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Ortega. MR. ORTEGA: The route -- would you consider this work complete at this point? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Is he using the garage as a habitable space presently? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Does he know he cannot use it without a Page 13 16 1 B4 '-1 April 22, 2010 certificate of completion or occupancy? MR. MUCHA: He might not understand that. MR. ORTEGA: The other route that he can take is going to be a permit by affidavit. If the work is considered incomplete, the permit was pulled at one time but no inspections rendered, so that means that he's going to have to start all over. Since the work is done, the only route he's got, recourse, is obvious -- well, two: Demo and /or permit by affidavit. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, there is a violation. Do you have a suggestion? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is 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 to abate all violations by: The respondent must apply for and obtain all required permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy for all unpermitted improvements made to the structure within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. Alternately, the respondent must apply for and obtain a Page 14 1611 Rh April 22, 2010 demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for the removal of all unpermitted improvements made to the structure, and return structure to a permitted state within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anybody on the board want to take a crack at it? Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay -- MR. ORTEGA: Before we do that, if I may? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Something I left out. Is this on a septic tank? In the spirit of advising the respondent. MR. MUCHA: To be honest with you, I'm not 100 percent sure. It's in Golden Gate City. And I know sometimes in the city, some areas they are and -- MR. ORTEGA: You may want to start there. Cost -wise, that's what I meant. MR. MUCHA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'm going to try to fill in the blanks for your suggestion. On the abate by, 120 days. And the fine at $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that for both sections, the demo -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, it is. Page 15 161 ►1 ' B4 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. For both sections. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And if you would, try to let the respondent know the suggestions that Mr. Ortega suggested. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case would be Emma Houston. Respondent is not present, but we do have in our packet -- or there was paperwork about a continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to read the case in and then we can discuss it? MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Page 16 1611 SAA i 1 2 2""12010 Description of violation: A single -wide mobile home converted from a single dwelling unit into two dwelling units and an addition added without obtaining building and land alteration permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required. Location/address where violation exists: 415 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 126960008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Emma Houston, P.O. Box 1275, Immokalee, Florida, 34143. Date violation first observed: November 4th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 10th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10th, 2009. Date of reinspection: January 12th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Morad, we'd like to take a look at maybe this motion of continuance real quick. But I do have a question. Is this a repeat or -- okay, we do have another. Because we've seen Mrs. Houston before. MS. WALDRON: We do for other cases. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anybody have any objection to entertaining I guess the motion at this point to extend to June's meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a little bit of reservation due to the fact that she's been in front of us several times. And would have liked to seen this resolved before this point. And I think extending it to June may be giving her a little bit too much of a leeway. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question also. Is this property occupied? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you foresee any health, safety or welfare Page 17 161 pri, 2 2010 issues? MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator. I had the opportunity for a short period of time to get in the unit on the east side, unit one of the two units. At that time I didn't see any structural weakening of the walls, the floor or the ceiling. There's reason to have a concern about the addition added with the additional electric and kitchen area. There's only one means to enter or exit both units and that's through the front door. MR. KAUFMAN: What is the zoning in that area? MR. MORAD: The zoning currently is VR, village residential. MR. KAUFMAN: So should everything fall into place, this could be a two- family structure -- MR. MORAD: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and not violate the zoning. MR. MORAD: A two -unit dwelling is allowed in that zoning. MR. L'ESPERANCE: However, with only one means of ingress and egress, it sounds like a violation. MR. MORAD: There is a violation there, yes, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: An obvious one of only one door and then possibly ones of -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's an opinion of the investigator. I don't want to get too far into hearing the case just yet before we decide what we're going to do with this motion. But is there a reason, do you know, why Mrs. Houston wants this pushed back till June and not our May date? MR. MORAD: I hadn't had the opportunity. All my calls to Ms. Houston has never been returned since I think January 5th, 2010. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that we deny her request to reset the date to June, our June hearing. Page 18 C 1611pril 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll continue to hear the case. Sorry to interrupt your spiel, but please go ahead. MR. MORAD : Thank you. For the record, again, Ed Morad, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090017445, dealing with the violations of a single -wide mobile home, converted from a single dwelling unit into a two- dwelling unit duplex. And in addition, added without obtaining building and land alteration permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required. The location is 415 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. is 126960008. Personal service was given on November 10th. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, 1 through 12. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. All those in favor? Page 19 1611 Rh � '� April 2 , 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. MORAD: The first picture is the front of the structure, dictating (sic) the two means of -- to enter and exit on both units. This is the entrance to unit (sic) on the east side of the structure. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one quick question, if you'd go back to the first picture. MR. MORAD: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: When Mr. L'Esperance asked is there only one door, there are two separate doors to gain entrance. MR. MORAD: Correct. Each unit has a door to enter and exit, only that door. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. MORAD: This picture is the doorway at the west end of the structure for that unit. This is the west side of the structure. As you can clearly see, where the AC unit is is the actual trailer. They did a roof over the mobile home and they added a six -foot wide by 47 feet addition. This is just a closer look at the roof. This is from the west side, taking a picture of the rear of the structure, showing that there's no other doors to enter or exit from the rear. That's just a closer look at the rear, the roof line. This is a picture taken from the east side of the structure, again Page 20 1611 RpA 1 229 010 indicating -- you can obviously see where the trailer ends and the new addition, the front addition, starts. That's just again a closer look at the two structures -- or the one structure with the addition, I'm sorry. Closer look from the east side, indicating there's no doors on the rear of the structure to enter or exit. This is a little sketch from the property appraiser's showing the dimension of the single -wide trailer, which is a 12 by 47 -foot structure, which gives the square footage of 564 square foot of living area. They added a six by 47 addition of living area, which created 200 -- 252 square foot? MS. WALDRON: 282. MR. MORAD: 282, okay. Which gives you a total of 846 square foot. You divide that by two, it gives you a total of 423 square foot of living area per unit. This was a good indication telling me, based on the minimum square footage allowed for two dwelling units, that it was way below the -- I even went back to 1959 zoning regulations, and the minimum square footage back then for each dwelling was 600 square feet. So that gave me good indication the permits were not applied for or permitted for the addition or the change of use being a duplex now. Also, for a secondary kitchen, which both units have kitchens, you need a total square footage of 2,500 square feet before you can get approval for a secondary kitchen. The last photo here is just a crude drawing, obviously not to scale, of each unit. The east unit has two bedrooms, a three - fixtured bath and a full kitchen and a dining room /living room area. West side of the structure, it's the same thing, it's just the bedrooms are on the opposite side. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Can we go back to the pictures of the back of the trailer? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Marino, could you pull your mic just Page 21 1611 ap8 4i 225 '*"1 Zoio a little closer. Thank you. MR. MARINO: My question is, are those four -by -four posts the support for the roof area that is above that? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. That's part of the new addition, yes. MR. ORTEGA: Well, what's the present zoning here? MR. MORAD: Again, the present zoning currently is village residential. MR. ORTEGA: The zoning requirements that you stated were more for -- was defined as a single- family home and not a mobile home, when you speak of the two kitchens having to have 2,500 square foot minimum. Does this really apply for the zoning and certainly to this structure? MR. MORAD: I don't quite understand your question. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. In a single- family home in order to have two kitchens you have to have a minimum requirement of 2,500 square feet, as you stated. MR. MORAD: Correct. And that's what this was originally, a single- family dwelling. MR. ORTEGA: It was? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: I see. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Morad, do you have anything further for your case presentation? MR. MORAD: Not really, other than the fact that I did meet with Ms. Houston. You want me to go on? Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MR. MORAD: Yes, I researched the -- this was first observed on November 4th, 2009. I researched the review of no permits were obtained for the improvements. I met with the owner Ms. Houston on November 10th, 2009, and Notice of Violation was reviewed and issued with a compliance date Page 22 161'1 'B4 April 22, 2010 of December 10th, 2009. At the meeting, Ms. Houston admitted that both units contained a kitchen, three - fixtured bathroom, along with two bedrooms and a dining area. She also verified that the front door was the only way to enter or exit, and she stated her ex- husband did the improvements. December 10th, 20095 I had a phone conversation with Ms. Houston. She stated she decided she would either submit for a demo permit to remove the improvements or submit for a permit to replace the existing mobile home duplex. She requested more time because she was going through personal problems, and also with Christmas fast approaching she couldn't get the permits applied for because of the holidays. She got an approval until January 5th, 2010. From January 5th, 2010 until this hearing, I've made numerous calls to Ms. Houston, without any contact. No permits have been applied for at this time and both units are currently occupied. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 23 16 11 B4 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's a violation. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. That the respondent pay $81.15 within 30 days and -- for the operational costs, and abate the violation by: Obtaining a Collier County building and land alteration permit or a Collier County demolition permit. Request all required inspections to be performed, pass through certificate of occupy /completion as required within the amount of days you give her, of today's hearing or a fine of whatever's determined will be imposed for each day the violation exists. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And now for the board's discussion. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I think it's going to be very difficult to bring that structure into compliance in its current form, especially in light of the square footage requirements. So it appears that going down the road, this structure is going to be turned into a big or bigger one - family home or the addition will probably have to be removed. To do so probably will require probably at least 120 days. It's disturbing to me that the respondent is not here to ask for anything, more time, whatever. So in light of that, if you'd like me to -- unless there's further discussion, I'll take a shot at the remedy. MR. ORTEGA: I have a greater issue with all this. It seems to me there's a life safety issue here. And I can't see from the pictures even if those posts are even connected. And obviously we all know that June's approaching and hurricane season almost here. So I think Page 24 16 I'l ApB42 22, 201.0 there's a life safety issue and I think that's the greater picture here. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there two units there, one is occupied and one is not? MR. MORAD: No, sir, both units are occupied. MR. KAUFMAN: They are both occupied. MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Further discussion? MR. MARINO: Do we know how many people are living in these units? MR. MORAD: No, each visit there was either one person in both units or sometimes there was two people. The one visit that I got inside, there was -- I believe they said there was three or four people living in that unit. MR. LEFEBVRE: In this particular case we're not looking at the addition that was built in front of the mobile home, we're not looking at the roof, we're just looking at the occupancy, turning it from a single- family into a multi - family, two units, correct? MR. MORAD: No, there was an addition added which requires permits, inspections and a certificate of occupancy. By adding that addition, they split the structure down the middle and created two units, which is a land use issue also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the roof that was installed, was that permitted? MR. MORAD: The roof? No, the roof is -- the new roof is part of the addition. It's a roof over the mobile home, and an additional six -foot by 47 -foot additional living area was created in the front. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: I don't think the question was answered, though. Was it permitted? MR. MORAD: No. MR. DEAN: You know, just one comment. It's obviously a safety issue, definitely. And when code enforcement calls and you Page 25 16 1) 1 T4 1 April 22, 2010 haven't received a call back in that amount of time you specify, that's inconsiderate. And it makes me think that she's just there collecting the money until she's thrown out because she's not going to do anything. That's an assumption. But also we have to consider that the hurricane season is upon us, you have an occupied resident that's not supposed to be there. And I really strongly feel about the safety issue of people living in a property that's not permitted. Electrical, plumbing and fire safety. MR. LEFEBVRE: I concur. And again, she's been in front of us several times in different cases. And I feel that this is just a delay tactic by her trying to get an extension until June, her not calling you back and so forth. So I think we do need to be aware of that in structuring this recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The last one speaks is the one that gets it? More than likely she's going to have to probably get a demo permit for this. From what it sounds like it doesn't have the square footage and so forth to make it two families; is that correct? MR. MORAD: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically how long does it take to get a demo permit? MR. MORAD: 24 hours, 48 max. MR. LEFEBVRE: 24 hours? All right, how about 60 days from today's hearing and a $250 fine for each day that the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's in the form of a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. And I'd like to make one comment on the motion. Is it possible that once this motion, if it should pass, notification will be able to be made to the respondent and then I guess the Page 26 16 -!q �� 1 �-1� Ap22, 2010 respondent would have an opportunity to get back to the board in a relatively short period of time? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's going to be pretty hard to do since our meeting is a month off. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, but the motion is for 60 days. MS. WALDRON: The respondent will get a copy of the order in the mail to the P.O. Box on record. MS. RAWSON: And hopefully that will be next week. MR. MORAD: And plus, I will try to notify her again. Plus I also -- her son owns a bail bonds business in Immokalee, and I have tried through her son to notify her of the hearing as well as the violations. So I'll try to do that also. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one further question. Three different individuals on the board at least have expressed their concerns over possible life safety hazard concerns with this property. Do we have it within our responsibility to express a concern for the occupants of the property to be vacated? CHAIRMAN KELLY: My suggestion would be to vote no on the pending motion and then try for a shorter time frame or to maybe ask Mr. Lefebvre to possibly amend his initial motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we could amend the motion to where we can give her a certain amount of time, if I'm not mistaken, to have the units vacated; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just trying to think what might be -- is this migrant housing at all? MR. MORAD: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: It isn't? Okay. Because if it was migrant housing, then end of May typically, from the previous case, they no longer occupy the premises. If I amend my motion -- okay, I'll amend my motion to include I guess -- to include that within 21 days both units must be vacated. Page 27 1611 Sh April 22, 2010 And if they are not vacated within 21 days, a fine of $250 per day will be imposed. Will that be a sufficient period, or would you like it shorter? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's within our power to request that type of action? MS. RAWSON: Yes. If it's a safety issue, sure. MR. ORTEGA: Again, we are assuming it's a safety issue, obviously from the pictures. So is there a possibility of somebody looking at that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we see that it's a safety issue, that there's only one ingress and egress. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Still, would it be beneficial for the community to have some representative from the county make a health, safety and welfare inspection visit? MR. ORTEGA: A structural inspector? MR. MORAD: Sorry? MR. ORTEGA: One of the structural inspectors visiting the job? Since it's a single - family residence, the inspector does have the latitude to look at not just structural but other elements of the structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Whether or not we're on track or not -- I agree with it -- but what I want to say is I don't think this board can ask another part of the county's department to act. We might be able to get -- buy in from this department, but we couldn't go to the health department and ask them to perform an inspection. We don't know what their time frame is, and what if they don't meet what we're trying to propose? We do have a motion, a second, now an amended motion without a second. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need to get Mr. Kaufman to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'll second it. 161 1B4. 4 Apn122, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. So now we have a real motion. So now we have further discussion. Sorry, I want to keep it going right. So to that motion, is the 21 days acceptable? And right now it's so that we are just notifying the respondent to make sure -- Mrs. Houston, if you will -- to make sure that those residents are vacated. Is that acceptable to the board? MR. UESPERANCE: Jean, any other recommendations from you? MS. RAWSON: No, I try not to give you recommendations unless I think you're going wrong legally. You have the right, if there's a -- because of the evidence you've heard that you believe there's a safety issue, you have the right to ask the respondent to vacate those units within a certain period of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which we did in our -- MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- in my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we also have the ability to maybe ask one of the investigators to possibly notice each of those units of the pending non - occupation, I guess? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think he probably will. I don't know if you really have the right to order the county to do anything. MS. FLAGG: It will be in the order. So we'll include that in the order. And as the investigator indicated, he'll pass that on. And he can also contact the building department and have the building department go out there and do an inspection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that acceptable? Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment to make. It seems to me there's two problems. One problem is with the violation and the remedy for that violation. And the second one is a communications problem. Page 29 B 1 §P1,1 i �, Zo 0 Had you been able to contact the respondent within the past 90 days or had a working relationship with the respondent, I think it may be a different situation. But with no response, I think the only way to go is with the motion that has been proposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does everyone understand the motion? MR. DEAN: Twenty -one days. MR. MORAD: Just point of clarification, you want me to have a -- request a building structural inspector and also an electrical inspector or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, you can request whoever you feel would be great to help out in this situation. My thoughts were the health department, only to put it on request. I don't know what their time frame is. But they have also the ability to shut down a dwelling if it's not safe. MS. FLAGG: Migrant housing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, or migrant hou -- there you go. MS. FLAGG: So they do inspections for migrant housing. So we would have the building department do an inspection for dangerous building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. All right, in that case we'll go ahead and call for a vote. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 30 161 1B�122�0,0 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Sixty days, $250 a day, both parts, including a 21 -day eviction on both sides of the dwelling. MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Mr. Morad. It Cherie', are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is Lunski. And this is another one of those where the respondent requested a continuance. The request -- am I right about that? MS. WALDRON: We spoke with the respondent earlier, and he would like to just go through with the hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. So we'll ignore the request for continuance. And Jen? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the record? MR. LUNSKI: Dennis Lunski. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26 -B. Description of violation: Single- family residential structure with electrical being built and storage shed has been erected prior to obtaining a Collier County building permit as required by the Collier County Land Development Code and the Florida Building Code. Location/address where violation exists: 10581 Keewaydin Island, Naples, Florida. Folio 00721360003. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation Page 31 161 IB4 � April 22, 2010 location: Louise D. and Dennis J. Lunski Trust, residing at 375 Germain Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: January 12th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 27th5 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 20th, 2009. Date of reinspection: March 11th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would like to now turn it over to Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080016673, pertaining to violations of a storage shed and a dwelling structure with electrical built before obtaining required Collier County building permits. Located at 10581 Keewaydin Island. Folio No. 007213600003. Service was given on January 27th, 2009. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, it will be pictures 1 through 16. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any more than that, Azure, or is it -- MS. SORRELS: I would. I have another Exhibit C, which would be four aerial photos from the property appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent seen these photos? MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you approve of them? MR. LUNSKI: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. We have a motion, do -- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. All those in favor? Page 32 161 1priB122 201O MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Azure, that's for both. MS. SORRELS: Correct. On January 13th, 2009, I made a site visit and observed storage shed and a residential structure with electrical. The first photo that you're going to see is the storage shed that is on the bay side of the island. On the coastal side of the island, what you're looking at is a residential structure. This is just another view showing more -- or closer up of the sliding glass doors, and another door over there on the side. Showing the stairs. And on this structure you're going to see -- I believe there's another picture -- you're going to see sliding glass doors that wrap around on the other side as well. Construction material that was underneath the structure at the time of my visit. This is looking down the side, looking towards the back of the structure. This is the back of the structure where a storage shed -- what you're looking at there is like a storage shed attached to the dwelling unit, and at the time just had a wood roof on it. This is looking up -- there's actually a sun deck that you're going to see a picture of, what I would like to call a sun deck, just showing there's electrical ran through the structure. Page 33 161 1pril B� ^I 22, 010 This would be the sun deck that's just on the other side of the storage shed located on the rear of the structure where obviously there's a door that you can access the inside of the dwelling from the sun deck, and vice versa. Again, showing electrical ran with the intention for some kind of electrical to be -- or appliances, lighting, outlets, whatever. And this is the other view of the sun deck on the back side. The sliding glass doors that wrap around the front. More electrical. And this is just taken through the sliding glass doors showing drywall and other construction material on the inside of the structure at the time of my visit. On the 15th of January, 2009, I conducted research. I ordered the property card. I reviewed the property card. There was two things that I noted on the property card. One was that in 1971, the property appraisers had picked up a pavilion. The pavilion is indicated as being built with piers, wood piers. The exterior walls are screening. The roof is wooden shingles. The floor is wood as well. And on the property card as well is a 1986 permit. However, when I ordered the permit, it's not obtainable. So I do not -- not sure what that '86 permit covers. However, on the aerials for the property appraiser's between 1985 and 1995, a dock appears. So the '86 permit could very well be for the dock. I contacted Mr. Lunski on the 16th, made him aware of the complaint, what the violations were and what his options were and -- to abate the violation. And that a Notice of Violation would be sent to him by mail, given him further information of the exact violations, the ordinances and how to comply. At this time I guess I'll go ahead and show you the aerial photos. Again, these are four photos off of the property appraiser's website. The first one will be from 2002, and then it will go to 2008, 2009 and 2010. Page 34 1611 B4 April 22, 2010 In 2002 is the first visible, clearly visible structure I can pick up on an aerial. And this is the structure that is on the photo. And I did a measurement on the property appraiser's, you can actually use a measurement tool. And the measurements for that structure comes out to be 18 by 21. And according to the property card, the pavilion that was picked up or is documented to be built in 1971 was 12 by 16. In 2008, the same structure is there, same measurements. Obviously the roof has the -- the metal roof appears to have been weathered and rusted. And then in 2009 that is the aerial at this time -- well, excuse me, in 2009, showing the obvious -- the square footage of the structure being added to. And then in 2010, which is the most current, again is just showing you the aerial of what's existing at this point in time. Mr. Lunski has been very cooperative. He's been doing everything possible to basically make an informed decision. He has requested -- well, first off, he did obtain a permit for the roofing and siding that he was doing at the time of my visit. I spoke with him about that and informed him again that the roofing and siding is great, you obtained the permit for it, however, we're still looking at a structure that's not permitted or the alterations have not been permitted. Mr. Lunski has -- went through a preap. meeting with the building department. He has requested a conditional use preap. meeting. He's asked for a zoning verification. He has used every channel possible with the county to obtain information to make a decision. The county's stance is this: It is unpermitted and that it needs to be permitted. And it's complicated. Right now as it sits, it does not meet FEMA flood level. For him to permit it, it would have to be raised 13 feet. To be permitted as a principal structure, which would Page 35 161 1 ApB4,20 be defined as a dwelling unit, he would have to add a kitchen and a bathroom. If he leaves it at the elevation that it is now, it is permittable as long as he makes alterations to the walls. And forgive me, I don't know all the terms, but from my understanding from Gary Harrison, the building chief, he stated that they have to be breakaway walls. If it's not going to be elevated above flood level, the walls have to be considered breakaway walls. So that's where we sit at right now. We sit at the fact that yes, it does need to have a permit. But Mr. Lunski has kind of run into -- he's not sure where to go. He's already invested quite a lot of money into all the preap. meetings, the conditional use meetings, the zoning letters and things of that nature. So we bring this to you -- we just bring this to you today to hopefully give some weight on -- to Mr. Lunski to help him through. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, this is your opportunity now. You haven't seen any cases prior, but what we need to decide here as a board is whether or not a violation does exist. So if you have any testimony to help us maybe come to a conclusion that would favor you, this is where you would present that. And then we'll also ask questions and have banter back and forth and you're able to ask the investigator questions. MR. LUNSKI: Okay. First of all, I'd like to apologize for not getting information to you sooner, but I just flew in last night and I was not expecting to be at this meeting. But I'm so fed up with all this. I spent a year of my life trying to get this stuff handled with the county. I've talked to every board in the county about trying to get this resolved. Some things I don't agree with the investigator, and I'd like to just go through a chain of events that pretty much happened on this property. And I have some exhibits and so forth that I'd like to show you. Page 36 161 1 B4pril"2'2, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski? MR. LUNSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like to show us those exhibits, just go ahead and we'll have to vote on them. MR. LUNSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the county can put them up on the screen so everyone can see them. MR. LUNSKI: Do you want them over there? CHAIRMAN KELLY: But just so you know, if you do enter them as exhibits, the court reporter will take them and make them part of the permanent record, so you will not get them back. MR. LUNSKI: That's fine. I have 15 copies, so I've got plenty. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the investigator seen them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, have you seen them? MS. SORRELS: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to take a look and make sure that they pertain to this case? MR. LUNSKI: I'm sure she's seen most of it. The first one is -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we can, Mr. Lunski, we'd like to get them approved first. MR. LUNSKL• This is the property appraiser's card, okay? This is an aerial photo -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, you'll need to speak in the mic, because this becomes part of the record. MR. LUNSKI: This is the property appraisal's card. And as Azure indicated, she has more information than what's on this card, which is surprising to me, about square footage and how the roof was made and how everything else was done on this building. Kind of interesting where she got this information. Maybe she can help me with that. Secondly, I have an aerial photo which also came from the Page 37 L� 84 � 1 v �SIpril 22, 2010 Property Appraiser's Office that is dated -- the earliest photos they made on this property was 1975. The photos indicate a structure on this property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can't see those yet until we've accepted them. First we just need to get the county to approve them. And no objection? MS. SORRELS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, in that case I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve respondent's exhibits. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Dean. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now we can go through them one by one, if you'd like to tell us what they are. MR. LUNSKI: Okay, great. After I received notice from the Code Enforcement Board, I went into the county to try to obtain a building permit for this work that supposedly was being done. And I did do the work myself, so I knew exactly what I was doing as far as how much it cost me and everything else. I was under the impression from the county that I could do roofing, siding and minor repairs to the underlying structure as far as Page 38 161 1 R#il 22; Zoio the roof and siding, which is common to the permit. And I was in there to receive a permit. They at that time would not give me a permit because they said well, there is no original permit for the property. But if you can prove to me that there was a property before 1975 or earlier, they would grant permits. However, the permit department said you need to go to planning and obtain approval from planning to verify that it's a nonconforming existing structure. Which I proceeded to provide to the planner and prove that it was there in existence. So that's an aerial photo. 1975 was the earliest photos they had. And I even have an original copy that was signed by the tax assessor. Secondly, now this other photo is the property identification card that we'll put up on the screen. MS. SORRELS: Can I just make a statement real quick on that photo? I'm not saying that I object to it, but I just wanted to point out that that photo does not in any way indicate that the picture that you're looking at or the lot that he is pointing out is actually his lot. It does give a section, a township and a range, but however it does not give a lot number, so there's no way to actually verify that that is the lot we're speaking of -- or his lot that we're speaking of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you're saying it could be a neighbor's lot with a dwelling on it. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the dock as well? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LUNSKI: There again, the property card indicates that this building is a 12 -by -16 structure. And in talking with the county assessor, he said basically we measure the building size. We do not include the decks. At that time they're not including decks, roof overhangs or anything else. So in essence that building, when I purchased it, there was Page 39 1611 B4 ' April 22, Zoio six -foot overhangs all the way around this building. There was decks all the way around this building, which did not show up in this property card. It was also enclosed on two sides with two windows. There was screen on two sides of this structure. So anyway, that's what shows on the property card and that's what Azure is using. As she indicated, she scaled the photo that she has from the aerial, quite a bit larger than that 12- by -16, which indicates that there were in fact large overhangs. And a survey I did in 2000 also showed partial decks around the building. Some were dilapidated to the point where they were unsafe. So in about 2001, after I bought the property I put some new deck boards around the building to make it safe to walk on. Let me go back and start out where I was going to start before I got the exhibits. This structure was in existence since 1972, according to records we could find. And planning actually confirmed that. That property was basically used for day trips to Keewaydin Island. And I don't know how many of you have ever been to Keewaydin Island. You can understand this, probably a property you can visit maybe in the wintertime. You do not go there in the summer, you get carried away by mosquitoes. That's why these things were screened in. I use the property very minimal. I probably go out there in the winter maybe once a month at the most. And it's mainly for -- it's for day trips. We don't sleep in it. It's not intended to be a residence. It has no bathrooms, kitchen. It has nothing in it, just a one -room shack, I call it. My wife calls it the sugar shack. But anyway, that's what we use it for. If it gets -- if we get a stormy weather, we'll go inside and we'll spend the rest of the day, whatever we have to. We have grandkids and they need to go in there. The bathroom is a port -a -potty that we take home with us. And it's never been intended to be a residence, as code enforcement is 161 1 4i 1 22010 intending it to be, and everybody else is intending it to be. The thing is about the size of at one -car garage. I mean, it's a cutesy playhouse is what it is, someplace to spend the day. In about 2005, I had so much vandalism out there that -- it was a well known party spot. I think everybody in Naples used that property for a party on the weekends. Every time I went out there I had beer cans, candles being lit on the property. It was a mess. I'm paying eight, $9,000 taxes on this property every year and I'm having to clean up the mess of everybody else. So I contacted the Collier County Sheriffs Department and they said, well, there's no way, we have no way to enforce this. There's no security out there by the Sheriffs Department. The closest security is somebody coming by boat. And it may take them, you know, half a day to get there in some cases. So he says, all you can do is secure the property. Well, how can you secure a screened -in supposedly called cabana, or whatever you want to call it, everybody's got a different name for it, other than enclose it? So I proceeded to buy three patio doors. Which there again didn't cost me but $1,500. I put them in myself. I took the screens out of the front of the porch and put in three patio doors. Well, I was careful to spend, you know, as little as I can because I didn't want to exceed that $1,500 price point that the county said I, you know, have to stay in. So that's what happened. I put the doors in. It was surprising how much it kept the people out of there. It looked like somebody lived there now or somebody was there and not just an abandoned structure that they could use to have parties. So I proceeded to keep maintaining this property for the next five years. Couple of the footings were being -- were deteriorating, so I put new footings under it. I repaired some of the wood. I mean, this building's 40 years old and on a coastal area. Definitely takes a lot of maintenance. Page 41 161164 14 April 22, 2010 So I have to do the things. Every time I went out there I did a little something. I hauled it out in my boat, you know, two -by -four if I needed one or couple of concrete blocks, and I did it. And pretty soon I decided I need a new roof because there was holes in it. I mean, you could see it was rusting to the point where it was really bad. The thing was leaking. It was just adding to the detriment of the building. So I got some metal roofing from a contractor, they had some left over from off a job and hauled that out there and put a roof on it. Then pretty soon it looked -- you know, it looked pretty nice, you know, with a new roof on it. I thought, well, you know, I'll go to Home Depot and buy, you know, $800 worth of siding, vinyl siding. So I put that on there. Now this thing's starting to look pretty darn nice, you know. And all of a sudden somebody thought it looked too nice and I get a code violation. So there I was trying to correct a problem, doing the county aerobics, I call it, going from department to department trying to understand what I need to make this thing legal. Simple as that. Went through planning twice. I went through environmental twice. I talked to the head building official at least four times. And a lot of them had sympathy with me, but nobody really knew what to do with it, because Keewaydin Island is full of these type of structures. I mean, they have cabanas, they have screen porches, they have accessory structures that don't have residences on them, all this stuff. And I can tell you about seven of them that are within 2,000 feet of my own property that are the same. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, if I could. I don't want to interrupt you; however, we have typically a five - minute -- MR. LUNSKI: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- restriction. Let me just poll the board and see if anyone has any objection Page 42 161 1g4 ' Apri122, 2010 with you going on further. We have no problem extending it; it's actually an interesting story. And I think we have some questions as well. Anyone have any issues with extending the time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Go ahead. MR. DOINO: I have one question. The property, it says on this particular thing that we're looking at is 10580. And just a question, and it's different from the address that is in the -- in our log here. MR. LENBERGER: It's 81 exactly is what it is. They had some confusion about the addressing on it, the county. MR. DOINO: Okay. And it -- MS. SORRELS: To clarify, sir, the addressing on the bottom obviously is incorrect for whatever reason; however, we can identify that the property is correct by the folio number at the top of the page underneath the bar code. It gives the correct folio number to identify that we are speaking of the proper property. MR. DOINO: And my question was, is this provided by the county, this document that -- MS. SORRELS: It is. MR. DOINO: -- is on our screen now? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. DOINO: Or the customer, you know. MS. SORRELS: Well, that copy's provided by the customer, but he accessed that through the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. MR. DOINO: Okay. Just because of the fact that we're showing if it was a different property, that's what I was getting at. MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question that was brought out in some of the pictures. There is no electricity that's on Keewaydin Page 43 161 1 B4 0" April 22, 2010 Island; is that correct? MR. LUNSKI: Absolutely not. MR. KAUFMAN: So the wiring that we see in the pictures, could you talk to that a little bit? MR. LUNSKI: That wiring was basically a part of my security system that I wanted to put out there on the property because I was concerned about the security of it. Later found out that it was too intense to have a battery, photocells and all the other stuff to even make it worthwhile. So it was a prewire that will never be used. Only way you could ever get electricity to it would be to haul out a big generator out there and have a generator with whatever else, a full -blown electrical system, so -- I don't need electrical out there because we don't spend the night there. I have no use for it whatsoever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question of the county. If we had an existing structure and that structure fell into disrepair, you would still need a permit to fix that existing structure, for instance, to replace a roof or to replace structural footings or something along those lines, correct? MS. SORRELS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: He will be allowed to maintain and repair. The biggest challenge that exists is that first of all we don't know it's legal nonconforming. We know it's nonconforming because of the year it was built. What you are allowed to do is that you can maintain and repair. But the minute you alter the structure, which has been altered, now you're required to obviously acquire a permit. The problem that you have there is obviously you're in a V zone. So in a V zone you have different criteria for construction. First of all, as the officer already stated, that the building is below the floodplain. Now, non - habitable structures can exist below the floodplain, we 16 I 1 g 4Apr� z, Zoo know that. But the minute you start putting walls in, now you have to build to that V zone criteria. But as a nonconforming structure you can maintain. You can replace the roof like it was, but you cannot alter anything. That's the only way you can get by in saving the structure. What you've done by doing that now that you've triggered other elements that are going to require you to bring it up to date, and one of those things obviously if it is going to be a habitable structure, obviously because there's presence of potential electric, then you would be required to bring it up to the FEMA code. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that in the form of a motion that a violation exists? MR. ORTEGA: Basically informing so that a direction can be taken by the respondent. MR. DEAN: Well, let me ask one question. It says single- family residential structure. Is it or is it not? Because there's no electrical, there's no overnight. And the Sheriffs Department won't even go there. You can't tell me that's a single - family residential structure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No plumbing. MS. SORRELS: To reply to that, sir, I would have to apologize for me putting that into the wording. It is not single- family because it does not have a bathroom or a kitchen. Is it still considered a dwelling structure? MR. DEAN: Okay, so let's just cross that out and call it a structure. MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir, my -- MR. ORTEGA: It's a non - habitable structure. MS. SORRELS: -- apologies. Correct, there's no bathroom or kitchen, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, does that change the charging documents at all? We could still find the violations? Page 45 1611 RA ri122, 2010 MS. RAWSON: You can. But I think it's a good idea for us to amend the word dwelling. Put structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. MR. DEAN: That kept throwing me off. MR. ORTEGA: There is enough issue, that typically you're not allowed to build an accessory structure without a primary structure. The fact that that exists is because it was built when it was built. So that's another issue. So again, if you maintain and repair, you'll probably be okay. But the minute you alter the structure, now that structure by definition can't really exist. So really it's a question of where would you like to go with this. Because there's going to be cost issues in order to bring it into compliance. MR. LUNSKI: Well, I've researched the residence part of it. First of all, I'm not interested in a residence out there. I wouldn't even use it. I'd be taxed on it. And the cost to even think about raising it, and now they're saying I need to move it to meet codes. We're looking at 10 -foot raising and we're looking at 65 -foot setbacks. The building is not feasible to do that, and cost prohibitive. Secondly, the impact fees alone or twice as much as what the building's worth. And that's what I think, you know, they're shooting for. Like you see the impact fees, all the coastal permits and so forth which I've researched are another $15,000. So to get this to be a residence of one bedroom, septic system, boom, boom, boom, it's 200 and some thousand dollars. MR. ORTEGA: But you understand that the structure may remain, as long as it remains in its exact condition as it was. MR. LUNSKI: Well, there again, I could remove the patio doors. We have put the wood screens in it. Now we're back to the security issue. So I'm back to square one. I might as well just burn it down or have it removed. To remove it like they're suggesting, it's another $20,000 to remove it. Because I need to bring in barges, I Page 46 161 184 April 22, Zoio need to bring in a piece of equipment to knock it down, and so I'm into that situation. I'd like to leave it. If we need to put screens in it, that's fine. We'll have to just worry about it, you know, burning by some partygoer or somebody gets hurt in there, we're going to have to just ensure the crap out it for liability, you know, and have the county say hey, you know, whatever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It seems like the conversation has gone more towards how to rectify the situation. I think that it's best the board find either a violation does or does not exist before we continue with that discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does in fact exhibit. MR. ORTEGA: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed. MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two oppositions. Okay. All right, now we'll talk about maybe -- do you have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we see that; we'll go from there. Mr. Lunski, after she reads this recommendation, we'd like to talk Page 47 161 ' 1 Pp41 2Z,7o10 about what your possible future plans are, maybe we can help construct this a little better. MS. SORRELS: The county recommends that the respondent shall 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: Must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspection, certificate of occupancy or completion for structure with electrical and storage shed, or obtain demolition permit inspection -- sorry, tongue twisted -- obtain demolition permit, inspection, certificate of completion and demolish both structures within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" number amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. You mentioned electrical? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: There is no electric on the island? MS. SORRELS: There is no electric on the island, correct. But the structure itself is wired for electrical. So all that would need to be done was a generator be brought out and connected to and it would be -- then you would have electrical. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So part of the solution could be to remove some of the wires that are in the walls, I guess. Based on the respondent's testimony that it was for a security system that won't work and he has no intention of bringing any generator out there. So if he removed a wiring -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kaufman, is your microphone NOM, 16 11 B ��, 2�' ono close to you? MR. KAUFMAN: Can you hear me now. THE COURT REPORTER: I can, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I won't do a Verizon commercial. So that could be one of the things that Mr. Kelly had mentioned as far as formulating some sort of solution to the existing problem. Also in your motion there was some discussion regarding breakaway walls. Was that part of your motion at all, or is there any description that we can go by? I look to the board for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me take that one, Azure. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think what the county's recommendation basically says is that they comply with either the existing structure the way it was before alterations or bring it up to current code. And by doing so, whatever that prescribed method would be is what they would need to follow in order to get their certificate of occupancy. If we start getting too limited in our order, it might make it difficult for the respondent to do what he needs to do. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, can I add something to that. I just want to get -- I want to make clarification here. In past experience -- I'm not saying it is for this case, everything is case -by -case -- it's been said a couple of times now that if he returns it to the existing structure that it would be okay. That would be the building department's decision to make if he returned it. The discussion would first be well, what's the existing -- what was the existing structure. If we go by what the property card says, it's only a 12 by 16 pavilion. According to Mr. Lunski, when he purchased the property it was enclosed in on two sides that had six -foot overhangs. So to state that it would -- if he returned it to its existing condition, I would have to say the building department would have to � - -4 ,A 1611 X84. -' April 22, 2010 make that determination if that would be an acceptable option for complying with the code. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, I'll recap what was stated. Regardless of the condition of the property when you bought it, you're responsible for any alterations that were performed without having valid permits and inspections. In other words, and this is a horrible thing, if the person who owned the property before you made illegal alterations to the property, for instance, if they enclosed two sides of that pavilion and put in those windows, unfortunately, sir, since you own the property, that violation now carries on to you. You saw in the previous case it was a foreclosure home and they bought it from the bank and they inherited all of the problems back before the bank even owned it. That's just the way it works, and I'm sorry to say that. My question, to help us kind of provide us direction is you have two options, basically: You can try to go the full extent and make this into a more permanent structure qualifying with FEMA and so forth, or you can return it back to a pavilion. Those two different directions could take vast differences in time frames. It would help us to construct whatever our motion -- or our order would be if you were to maybe give us a little direction in the way you wanted to go. MR. LUNSKI: Well, first of all, Azure told us that we don't know what the original condition was. And that's going to be our big problem to go through county aerobics again to try to figure out where we're at. We've also had formal approval from -- I shouldn't say formal approval, but verbal approval from the state as far as leaving the structure the way it is as a nonconforming major structure, and they would permit that as such, what could be left in its condition. However, the county is not in favor of that. So there again, I spent another $2,000 trying to get that thing going through. I can't deal with this anymore. I've spent a year of my life on this Page 50 16 171f i prii 22, Zoio thing. And, you know, I know I'm going to be running through so many more hassles just trying to even put it back to the original condition with the requirements from all the departments. There's going to be -- it's going to be a lot of hassles, and I don't know if I can handle that. I'd love to keep the building, but there again I don't have money to spend $20,000 to haul this thing off. And if we have to have somebody come in from the Gulf side, it's going to have major impact on the shoreline. And then we have shoreline restoration and everything else with barges and equipment and whatever else. It's going to have to be taken down piece by piece and probably taken 900 feet back towards the back waterway and barged out slowly. I mean, that's the only way it could be done without having a major impact on the property. Other -- then basically it's -- it's gone, you know. And I just -- I think this thing was blown so out of proportion, that there are so many of those structures out there. We have all the clubs out there with screened -in roof structures that don't have breakaway walls, they have -- a lot of them don't have conditional uses -- permits out there for all this stuff. There's storage sheds all over the property. I mean, you need someplace to keep your tools, your lawn chairs, your lawnmower or whatever, if you want to at least keep the trail even open so you can go from the back to the front 900 to 1,000 feet. I mean, try to carry an 80 -pound cooler on your back to the front beach. It doesn't work. So there's all kinds of them out there. And for some reason I got singled out, and I kind of know what's happening out there is we've got Rookery Bay out there now in force with four - wheelers and volunteers and so forth going out there that are trying to save the turtles and everything else out there. Which is fine, I have no problem with that. I have turtles at my property and I watch them. But they're the people that are starting to complain about anything and everything on the island. Page 51 1611 apr�i R� 2, ao 0 And nobody can build out there because the restrictions are so great. I mean, you're talking -- I spent the year just trying to run through county just trying to get answers to get a building permit out there. It's a two -year process. I talked to my coastal engineering guys, it's at least nine months to get through the state. So, you know, I guess I'm looking for you guys to try to give me a reasonable solution to the problem. And whatever you decide, I'll do it. But think about it and look at it as I presented it. It's a day place and it's nothing more than a big playhouse. I mean, it looks like some major house. It's not. It's a cutesy playhouse is basically what it is. You couldn't be a car in it. I mean, that's it. And it's been there for 40 years. And naturally it's more structurally sound now than it was 20 years ago. �io -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LUNSKI: -- there I am. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anyone want to take a stab on the order? MR. DEAN: You want to close? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll go ahead and -- good idea, we'll close the public hearing now. Discussion amongst the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Again, I just have a comment. Having a little bit of experience with land and ownership on Keewaydin, what -- I think what we're running into here is what I've seen down there for years is what we called under the table building creep. What you have is maybe a pavilion at one time, and then next year it showed up with screened walls, and then the following year it showed up with solid walls. And this building, looking at it, it's a long way from what it used to be. And I'm just concerned that here again before you know it there's going to be power, there's going to be sewage, there's going to be -- you know. Page 52 161184 April 22, 2010 So I think if we don't take the stand and either remove it or take it back to what it used to be, whatever that was, I think we're just caught up in this building creep and we're going to be here five years from now looking at a habitable structure, in my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jim, you have the floor, if you want to try to mold an order. Any other discussion while Jim's thinking? No? MR. DEAN: Well, my opinion, I think we should give him enough time. I mean, this is a long -going process, and if we give him enough time to work on this, then he won't have the pressure. I was looking at 360 days and $50 a day fine. And that way he's got enough time to go and decide what he's going to do. With all the money he's spent and what it's going to cost him, to give him time to evaluate all that. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. DEAN: Sorry I didn't speak in the mic, dear. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I would kind of agree with that, as long as we leave in, you know, the demolition or returning it to its original state conditions. Because I don't think it's going to go, knowing -- I don't think it's going to go anywhere beyond where it is today without all the regulations in place. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing too is just a little clerical correction here. Description of violation, we want to remove single- family residence and put in there structure, a structure with electrical, just to be clear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. And Jim, is that in the form of a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make that a motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it was 360 days and $50 per day. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Page 53 16x1 a , 2010 MS. WALDRON: 365 or 360? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was 3 -6 -0 is what Mr. Dean said; is that correct? MR. DEAN: Yes, I did. MS. WALDRON: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. Well, any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Why can't we bring this back next month, allow the respondent enough time to think about which way he wants to go. And that way 365 days are not really required. Because the two avenues here that I see is going to be either to demo or bring it back to its original intent. But perhaps the respondent needs a little bit of time to think about it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: And then from that standpoint we don't have to go a whole year, you know, waiting for a decision or an abatement of a violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the intent of the discussion here was to try to give him plenty of time within the order to do whichever, to think about it, to demo, maybe to try keep the structure and go forward. So are you saying that that is enough time or you'd like to keep it shortened? What was your suggestion? MR. ORTEGA: My suggestion was to give him one month to think about what he wants to do, come back to us next month, and from that standpoint if it's going to be I want to put it back the way it was, subject to meeting with the building department, because obviously it's changed. So from that standpoint, he has I think a better idea of what he really wants to do. There's no question that the walls need to come down. It's a V zone. MR. DEAN: See, my point was if he has enough time, and that Page 54 1611P� ' April 22, 2010 let's him go to the building department, planning department and to find out what he can do with this. In a month it's going to go -- it's not enough time to do anything. MR. MARINO: I have a question. MR. DEAN: That's why I gave him enough -- I thought give him enough time to go to these departments and figure out what he's going to do, that's all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Marino? MR. MARINO: I have a question also. Original intent, does that mean if he takes the sliding glass doors off -- was this entire enclosure going to be getting screened in and you put up the exterior walls? There was a roof on it, correct, and you just put a metal roof on it? MR. LUNSKI: As I stated, it was a roof with big overhangs. Like six -foot overhangs all the way around to the porch. And the two back walls were enclosed with windows that you could open up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: He is going to need 360 days. And it's going to -- I don't think it's going to matter which way he decides to go, either with demo or with actually trying to get permits. The permits are going to take quite a bit of time. He may need state and federal permits. And as we know from a previous case, that particular person's been working on them for five plus years. If he decides to go ahead and demo the property, he is going to need that time also, 360 days, because we're getting into the turtle nesting season, and there may be restrictions on what kind of work can be done. I'm not sure, but there may be restrictions on what could be done on the property during that period of time. It's what, five or six months. So I think the 360 days is appropriate, and it's definitely going to be needed in either direction that he goes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to echo Mr. Lefebvre. There's no Page 55 B4 April Za, Zoio plumbing, there is no electrical service out there. Whether there are wires in the building or not is another case. It's a shed that's out there. And I say 360 or 365 days should be no problem. I don't think there are any safety health violations out there. And I think that would be in line. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) MR. LUNSKI: Could I state something? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've actually closed -- MR. LUNSKI: Oh, have you? CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- the public record. If one of us from the board was to ask you a question directly, you'd be able to address that. MR. LUNSKI: Okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion, 360 days with a fine of $50 per day. We do have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. ORTEGA: Nay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have one nay? Did I hear a nay? MR.ORTEGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From Mr. Ortega. Mr. Lunski, what we've done is we've given you 360 days to go Page 56 1611 B4 April 22, 2010 with whichever direction you'd like. It would be the hope of this board that maybe the building department could find some relevance to the state report and you're able to keep the structure as -is. But in either case, within 360 days you have to come up with some kind of permit, inspections and a certificate of completion or occupancy. And then please, let the inspector know that you've gotten to that point so that fines don't accrue. Additionally, if you run into a process, and let's say you decide to take it to the full event (sic), and maybe DEP is holding up permits and you just need a little more time, if you come to us ahead of time before this expires and request and extension, showing that you've made progress and what the holdups are, there are times in the past where the board's granted those extensions. MR. LUNSKI: My biggest hangup is to determine what the original state was. And that's going to be the same today as it's going to be 360 days from now or whatever. But the county inspection and all these departments, I'll be going back and forth through those. And it's not going to be a decision made. I mean, I've already been to that state and nobody knows what to do with it, let's put it that way. And nobody wants to set a precedence out there. Just like you said, they don't want to, you know, let me have something that might burn down the road, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Question for the county. If in fact it shows a 12 by 16 on the 1975 -- I know a lot of dates have been thrown out, 19755 '72 records. If he does in fact show a structure of 16 by 20, let's say, how hard would it be to get a variance or to get that permitted like at this point now? If he was to take it back to the original where let's say it's all screened in or if there's two walls in back, how hard would it be to get a variance? MS. SORRELS: Here's the problem that he might possibly run into and that is the pavilion's not considered a principal structure, it's considered an accessory structure. Accessory structures are not Page 57 161 1 R 4 -' Apra 22, aoio permittable without a principal structure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LUNSKI: But yet there's all kinds of them on the island. So there's numerous violation out there. It's a Catch -22. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Lunski for presenting -- MR. LUNSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- and I wish you good luck. MR. LUNSKI: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, for clarification, there was a lot of talk going on, and I just want to make sure that we touched base on the storage shed. I know we spoke about the dwelling -- or excuse me, the structure, but was the storage shed included in that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: They're part of the charging documents; therefore yes, they're part of the order. MS. SORRELS: Just wanted clarification. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's no disagreement on the board, correct? No, that's it then. Cherie', do you need 10 minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll go ahead and recess for 10 minutes. We'll be back at 10:48. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. I'll call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to amend the agenda -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: To move Mary Edwards, Case No. 20060801227, to be heard now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a Page 58 161 1 R4 '9 April 22, 2010 second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Kaufman. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DEAN: That's being move to when? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right now. It will be number one. We're now moving old business, motion for imposition of fines and liens. And we've moved case number two up to A -1 under old business. So this would be Case 2006080127, Mary Edwards. Also on this case for the board, there was an amended part of your packet. This case is now in compliance. I know your original packet said not in compliance, but we do have an amended ordinance. MR. DEAN: Mine says complied. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. WALDRON: You want us to read that, or not? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, I can preface it. MS. WALDRON: Go ahead and preface it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is a unique case that really shows how government can come to the aid. You know, here we are today deciding the fate of so many homeowners, and it looks in some cases negative. Page 59 1611'34 "M April 22, 2010 Well, this is one of those situations where it's very, very positive. And I'd like to turn it over to Azure Sorrels, the investigator, to talk about the details of this case just to remind us and to show us the update and what's happened. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. Before I read off the imposition, I would just like to kind of remind everyone of the case and Ms. Edwards. Back in 2006 and 2007, two different complaints were made on Ms. Edwards' property. One was for a shed, which is the case that I actually had ended up with. And while working that, I discovered that there was also a prior case for unpermitted additions to a mobile home that another investigator was working. Meeting with Ms. Edwards and seeing the -- seeing her living conditions and that she was only able to access pretty much half of her home due to her handicap, she was not able to get into the mobile home part of her home because there was no ramps, she can't walk stairs. So she was pretty much left to just live in the addition that was on ground level. I'll go ahead and show you some pictures of what her residence looked like with the violations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, are these part of the existing case? Are these all repeat pictures so we don't need to accept them again? MS. SORRELS: Some of them would be repeat pictures, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have new ones as well? MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, just to keep it with the order, we do need to accept those as, if you will, an exhibit. MS. SORRELS: Sure. So it would be Exhibit A, or Exhibit B? MR. DEAN: I make a motion we accept -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DEAN: -- A and B. Page 60 161 I Ph April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to make a correction. On -- the only change from the imposition of fine that we got is both -- it has been complied with, but under operational costs they were not paid in our package and now they have been paid. That's the only thing. MR. DEAN: Mine says paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's the new one. MR. LEFEBVRE: The one we got here today. MR. DEAN: You have an old one, I have a new one. MS. SORRELS: All right, this is Ms. Edwards' prior home. As you see, it's a mobile home with an addition made on the left -hand side and a carport on the right side. This is just kind of looking down the side of the addition. This is a front view of the home, and it's kind of hard to tell with the shadowing, but in the center there where that dark space is, that's an actually doorway that led to a sliding glass door on the left -hand side that she accessed her addition or her living space with. On the property was also an unpermitted -- well, a boathouse and a shed, unpermitted. The boathouse actually stored her washer and dryer. So Ms. Edwards had to actually leave her home, go out, you know, to the back of her property to the boathouse to do her laundry. This was the shed that was on the property that was unpermitted. Page 61 16 ! IR4 And then this is another view of the boathouse. It's kind of like an awning screening type of area that she would wheel herself into the boathouse. And just a far view showing the boathouse and the shed. Working this case and seeing what the situation was, I decided to contact Lisa -- and forgive me, I cannot pronounce her last name -- thank you, Boyan. And I explained the situation to Lisa about Ms. Edwards and her home and the violations and asked if there was anything she could do. Her words were we don't know, but we can always try. I picked up an application from Lisa, I drove out to Ms. Edwards' home, I hand delivered it, told her that if she filled it out the county would be more than happy to do anything possible if there was something to help her with. After a long period of time, I am very, very happy to say she that was approved for some grants and she has a beautiful new home. MS. EDWARDS: Amen. MS. SORRELS: This is the front of her new home. And Ms. Edwards enjoying her front porch. This is on the inside her home. Beautiful tiled floors. A great open spaced kitchen, front room. And one of the best parts about this is it was built to accommodate her needs. The sinks were low for her to reach, the appliances, the cabinets, everything's accessible for her. Just another shot of going into a bedroom, a storage closet. And I have to add, this is one of the funniest things that she said, she was so happy that she didn't have to go outside to do her laundry. Her washer and dryer is located inside. This is actually going into her bedroom. I didn't want to invade too much of her privacy, but this is going into her bedroom. Her bedroom is large, lots of room for her to maneuver. It's got a bathroom attached to it and the bathroom is built to meet her needs. Page 62 161 ' 1 Br 22, 2010 MS. EDWARDS: The old song, I need 40 acres to turn this roof around fits with me. MS. SORRELS: And this is on the side of the home. Obviously ramps to access both her front porch and her back porch and giving her all the freedom in the world. So with that being said, I don't know if she'd like to say anything, but -- MS. EDWARDS: Just that I'm extremely grate -- MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, motion to abate all fines. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Edwards, I hope you enjoy your beautiful new home. I want to let you know that although it took longer than what the original order is, the board just voted to abate all fines. So you do not owe anything to the county. And we hope you enjoy your home for years and years. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. I'm in gratitude to the county. MS. RAWSON: Is there a new mailing address? MS. EDWARDS: No. MS. RAWSON: Same address. MR. HERRIMAN: Stays the same, ma'am. Page 63 1611 Rh "' April 22, 2010 MS. RAWSON: Good, good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, I'd like to thank Lisa Owen, Tammy Hammer and the director of Housing and Human Services, Marcy Krumbine for their help in providing the grants and assistance to help Ms. Edwards with her home. And of course the Code Enforcement Department for going way out of their way and taking it upon themselves to help her through this. That's just remarkable. And Azure, thank you for all your personal attention. Thank you, Mrs. Edwards. Enjoy. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. You can replace that, right? Sorry about that, dear. Thank you again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Have a good day. Okay, moving on to case CESD20090011000, Pamboukis. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SMITH: For the record, Reggie Smith, Collier County Code Enforcement. In reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090011000, Board of County Commissioners versus Agathonicos G. Pamboukis, respondent, violation of Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter One, permits, Section 105.1 and Collier County Ordinance 04 -41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 201 Santa Clara Drive, Unit 9, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 46573004801. Description: Structural, electrical and plumbing improvements made to structure without first applying for and obtaining all required permits to perform such improvements. Past orders: On November 19th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board official record 4516, Page 12 for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 28th, 2010. See 0-M-0 l 16 11 R_ 4Apri122, 2010 official record 4551, Page 1811. An additional extension of time was denied on March 25th, 2010. See official record 4551, Page 1813. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of 22 April, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 26th, 2010 through April 22nd, 2010, 28 days, for the total of $5,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 dollars have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,681.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the respondent in the past 30 days? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And could you describe to the board how those comments went? MR. SMITH: The most recent contact from Mr. Pamboukis was in the form of an e -mail he sent to me. Basically he had gotten his notice of hearing for today, and he didn't quite understand that, he says, which is a common response from this gentleman throughout this case. He then sent me the e -mail asking exactly what is happening here, and asking for basically an extension of time once again. I then forwarded that e -mail to Supervisor Jennifer Waldron for some advice on that. She replied back to me by e -mail. And if you'd like, I can read the e -mail. Basically states that he does once again need to in the form of a formal letter request the time continuance extension. I then forwarded that e -mail back to Mr. Pamboukis, and I do have a copy here that shows that on the 15th of this month I forwarded Page 65 16 1? �!� 4q 20 ril z , 0 that copy noting to review Supervisor Waldron's comments and to follow. To this day we have not received any formal request. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, based on the fact that he has not complied and has not paid the operational costs, I move that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Discussion? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you were on the property? MR. SMITH: Last time I was on the property was when I posted the notice of hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which was? MR. SMITH: Which was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm alluding to is has there been progress made to abate the problem? This is a condo unit that has -- the kitchen was ripped out and is being replaced, he hired a contractor and so forth that took off with his money. Is work being done on the property? MR. SMITH: By talking with the contractor over a month ago, yes, they have now begun to -- I haven't been able to get into the unit. It's not occupied at this time. Again, the owner is out of state, he's in Ohio. Unless I made special arrangements to site visit inside of the condo unit, I wouldn't be able to see that other than peering through a window, which I don't do. I've been basing my reinspections on just the researching of the permit to see what inspections have been completed. As to date, this morning, code number 99, which I believe is the -- basically getting the work started. That's the only inspection that's been passed. Page 66 161 April 284 1 2, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: That last comment, what did you mean by 99? MR. SMITH: I don't have a copy of it here. MR. ORTEGA: Is that a failed inspection? MR. SMITH: Yes, that's one of our building inspections. I believe that's commencement. MR. ORTEGA: The notice of commencement? MR. SMITH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: continue to accrue. Any opposed? The fines will be imposed and will MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And then our last case under old business is Zonia Lambert, Lambert Trust. Case No. CESD20090015245. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. LAMBERT: My name is Julio Lambert. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lambert, are you a member or executor or trustee of the trust? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, the trust was set up for me and my sons. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. As beneficiary, or do you have Page 67 1611 Bpi April 22, 2010 the capacity to speak in reference to the assets and the value of the trust? MR. LAMBERT: Well, it was set up for me and my boys to live, but my sister's executor of the trust and she was supposed to have papers drawn up that I would be able to -- in case any repairs needed to be done to the house, I could have authority to do anything short of selling the house without their permission. And to date I don't have them papers. And I've been trying to get ahold of her for the last two months and she won't call me back, she won't call me back, she won't call me back. And finally she moved my mom to Miami about six weeks ago, and I've been talking to my mom every week, but she's the one that holds the Power of Attorney for everything. And I've tried to get the permits. I've already bought all the material to make all the repairs, but I wasn't going to make them without the permits, because that's illegal. So then they told me to write a letter to the board asking for an extension. And I come to find out that this is -- just a minute ago I found out -- I wasn't aware that this was a board of building, and I sent it to the Board of County Commissioners instead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In either case, because this now could potentially be an issue where if the fines were not paid, technically the lien could go to the county attorney's office and the home could be foreclosed upon. So we are talking about that level, if you will. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would have to say, as chairman of the board, that we would need somebody who was on the trust or a notarized letter from someone on the trust granting you, you know, permission to make decisions in their stead before I could ask for you to make any representation for them. Under these situations, we would entertain any testimony that you have but merely as comments. You couldn't actually make any 1611 84 ' April Za, zoio decisions for the case. More or less like a public comment, if you will. And in cases where typically we're presented with an imposition of fine and it has not been complied with, in other words, the repairs have not been made, the permits haven't been inspected and so forth, we generally rule to impose the fines. Now, that does not necessarily mean the end of the world. What it means now is that these fines will continue to accrue. The county does have the option to forward to the county attorney's office for foreclosure, like I had just stated. But sometimes there's a delay. In those cases, if you were to come into compliance, you could come back in front of the board and ask for a reduction or an abatement of the fines that did accrue. In other words, you could ask us to wipe the slate clean from any fines since you were able to bring it into compliance. Okay? So those are kind of the avenues. But in any of those cases, you definitely would need to have somebody from that trust grant you Power of Attorney or so forth to get the permits and to continue with the work. Okay? I know that's a lot. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. Because there's very little work that needs to be done to the house. The fascia. And I bought all the material. I just wasn't going to put it on there without the permit. And I've tried to get -- I've tried to connect with my sister to please, at least write me a letter so I can pull my permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, a suggestion might be to hire a contractor to pull the permit for you. And in that case all you would need would be a notice of commencement signed by -- if it was over $2,500 you would need a notice of commencement. Less than that $2,500 you wouldn't even need that. And they can do the work for you to come into compliance. MR. LAMBERT: A contractor could pull the permits for me without my sister signing the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you were a renter and you entered in a Page 69 161 1 64 " April 22, Zoio contract to make improvements to a home that would benefit a home, sure, a contractor you would hire, they would pull the permits and they would do the work, get all of the approvals. You would then notify county inspectors and the investigators and you would be in compliance. MR. LAMBERT: If I can go that route, I will go that route, sir. I've got 100 problems, last thing I need is fines that I can't afford. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because we are now forced to make a ruling on this today because it's on our agenda, we have to either say impose the fines or not impose the fines. If we impose them today, I again repeat, you have the option to come back and ask for forgiveness of those fines, if you were to come into compliance here in the next couple of weeks. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, without something signed, again, you couldn't represent the trust. So you couldn't come in front of us to ask for reduction of fines. At this particular point it would have to be done by your sister. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. If I could have got ahold of her, I would have made the repairs to the house then. She's just ignoring my request. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick question. I remember this from I think it was last month. Is this an issue of communication that you can't contact your sister, or is this a money issue? Do you have the money to get a contractor to go ahead and pull the permit, et cetera? MR. LAMBERT: I don't have the money to get a contractor to pull the permits, but I've bought all the material and stuff, and the permits are just a few hundred dollars at the most. But the problem is I was trying to get the permits, I was told that the Power of Attorney or my mother had to get the permits. And I bought all the material. And we're talking about a day's worth of work to fix the house to end up with thousands of dollars in fines. And I did ask for an extension, but I didn't know that this wasn't Page 70 161 l�t pr�.� 122, 2010 the county -- they said I needed to send it to the board. And I wasn't paying attention, I sent it to the Board of County Commissioners. I didn't think that this was a board of building inspectors. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, what's the county recommendation at this point? MS. SORRELS: County recommendations in reference to Case No. CEB -- CESD2090015245, Board of County Commissioners versus Zonia C. Lambert, Zonia C. Lambert Revocable Living Trust. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Codes, Sections 22 -26, Subsection B, and 104.5.1.44. Location is 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 74413960006. Description of violation is Permit No. 930000827. Expired without first obtaining a certificate of completion. Past orders: On January 28th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4537, Page 1731 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB, orders as of April 22nd, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two. Fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 26th, 2010 to April 22nd, 2010, total of 28 days for the total of $5,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five, operational costs of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,681.72. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Page 71 161 1R4 April 22, 2010 Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Just to be clear, it's not just about hiring a contractor. To submit for a permit, you're going to need some plans, some design documents as well. MR. LAMBERT: Well, all I have to do is put the fascia on to finish the job. MR. ORTEGA: Did I read structural electrical? MR. LAMBERT: No, no. There's no structural anything on there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, what we've done is we've imposed the fines. That means they will continue to accrue until it's brought into compliance. And like I said before, if you show progress and come back, there is a chance for reduction or possibly abatement. MR. LAMBERT: Sir, I got a question for you. when I came in front of you guys, you guys gave me 90 days on the main structure, right? This is 90 days. Now, right? So how come there's talking that I owe 5,000 and something when you gave me 90 days to complete the first structure? So there shouldn't be but a day or two in fines. MS. SORRELS: Can I provide some clarification? There's three other cases on this property. I do believe that he's figuring the compliance date of the other permitting case. Page 72 1611 R , April 22, 2 10 MR. LAMBERT: No, of this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The case that I have here originally said 60 days, not 90. MR. LAMBERT: Sir, when I talked to you guys, you guys gave me 90 days to finish the main -- to get the permit on the main structure, and then you gave me 60 days after the 90 days to do the little building, to get the little building inspected. But I had 90 days on the main house and then after the 90 days I had 60 on the second house is what I was told. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can tell you that the case -- in that case they were split, and all we're talking about was the 60 -day portion of it. And that didn't -- it didn't run from the date the 90 was up, it ran from the date of the hearing. MR. LAMBERT: Yeah. But that was still only two days back, right? Because I was told to do the main structure first. I had 90 days to finish the main structure and after the 90 days of the main structure, I was given an additional 60 days to do the second building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was no additional 60 days, it was 60 days from the beginning. So in other words, the original meeting was January 28th. Therefore 60 days would have been up March -- I'm sorry, by the time this was recorded and everything, it would have been March 25th would have been the end of your 60 days. And that's why in this imposition of fines we now have from the dates of March 26th, the next day, through April 22nd, which was the date today. Plus operational costs. So 5681. MR. LAMBERT: Can I ask you a question? Was the last meeting that we went to recorded also? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. And the court reporter has a record of everything. MR. LAMBERT: How do I get a copy of that, ma'am? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie' will work with you. MS. WALDRON: I have a copy of the order too that we can also Page 73 1611 '� April 22, 2010 give Mr. Lambert. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Very good, thank you. That's the end of all of our old business. On to -- there's nothing under the consent agenda. Is there any new business? How about reports? MS. FLAGG: Yes. For the week ending April 1 lth, the banks have abated 1,067 code violations since November, 2008 when we started the Blight Prevention Program. And they have expended one million, 486 in Collier County to abate those violations. In addition, starting January of 2010 we've begun the program in conjunction with Naples Area Board of Realtors where they've changed the disclosure to potential buyers and sellers in regard to informing them of the importance of getting a code inspection. And also doing a code lien search before a buyer buys a home. So that 2009 case where they bought it from a bank and didn't know about the violation, hopefully that won't be happening anymore. We're tracking all of them. We've called the program, To Stop The Bleed. So we track. Every time we get a code violation, the investigator talks to the homeowner, checks all the records, and if there is an issue where the buyer was not provided the information by the realtor, then we follow up with Naples Area Board of Realtors. They have been terrific, very cooperative. The brochure is on the code enforcement website. The meet and greets that the investigators do with the community members, they also hand out the brochure, it's called by Buying a Foreclosed Home or Residential Property. And it tells in the brochure the importance of getting a code inspection and a lien search done before buying a piece of property. In addition, this month three community task force teams had what we call community cleanups, where instead of citing community members for debris, we give them the opportunity -- we work in Page 74 1611 'q Ppii Zz, io conjunction with utilities and the sheriffs office and all the other members of the task force to help committee members take debris and dump them in the dumpsters at no charge. And then those dumpsters are hauled off. This month the community cleanups were in Goodland, Isles of Capris, North Naples and Golden Gate Estates. And finally, we continue to ask our community members' assistance in letting us know if they see a home that looks like it is foreclosed. They can let us know either through the website, Colliergov.net /code. And on the left -hand side they can report a possible code violation and /or they can call the office at 252 -2440. The investigator will go out and look at the home and then start working with the banks and the foreclosure teams to get the green pools back to clear and the grass cut, the windows repaired and anything else that needs to be addressed on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wonderful work. With that, the next meeting date will be May 27th, 2010. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month. Page 75 16! 1priR122h, aoio There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:23 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 76 I/ Fiala Holes Henning Coyyle � ®lotta 1 6 1195 Apr il 15, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2 6 2010 Naples, Florida April 15, 2010 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR AND SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: UY( ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: V -a P Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page 1 Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Misc. Cartes: D* 07 7-712-01 D Coon 1W 16 ! 1B5 Airil 15,2'010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL• Commissioner Vighotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any changes to the agenda? Ray, is everything still going forward as scheduled? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just so everybody in the public knows, we have one continued issue today called the Hickory Harbor Condominium. And after that we will close this meeting, open another one up, which is our continued meeting on LDC amendments, and we only have half a dozen of those to go through today. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting -- my goodness, when's our next meeting, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Well, let's see. We have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be May 6th, wouldn't it? MR. BELLOWS: May 6th would be the next regular one, yes. I was just seeing if there's an LDC one in between. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything down, if there is, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Doesn't look like it, yes, so that's the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody know if they're not going to make it to the May 6th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BRAIN: Then we'll assume we have a quorum. Page 2 16 April 15, 2010 Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 18, 2010 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. March 18th, 2010. They were sent to us electronically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Commissioner Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT —RECAPS —APRIL 13, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps. Ray, April 13th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners approved the reconsideration of the FLOTV communication tower. That was the one, where off of County Barn Road there was a communication tower where the second tower was built and the first one should have come down, so they applied for a conditional use. The board had some concerns about monitoring reports when it was first heard and it was denied. It was placed on reconsideration, Commissioner Fiala agreed to rehear it, and the petitioner brought evidence of monitoring reports and it was approved unanimously in that agenda. The board also heard the PUD amendment for the McMullen PUD off of 951. And that was continued at the petitioner's request so they could better address the concerns raised during the meeting regarding group housing. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Chairman's report. It's been so quiet, there's nothing to go on the -- to discuss, other than the fact that our agenda's been very light. Ever since Nick has taken over, I guess he's discouraged everybody from applying for anything in Collier County. Nick, you had to walk in, I had to take a shot. What can I say. Okay, we have -- we'll go right into the consent agenda item. Item #8A PETITION: RZ- PL2009 -910, PORT OF THE ISLAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 3 161185, April 15, 2010 The first one up is - and it's consent for Petition RZ- PL2009 -910, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. Before we hear this one, Ray, there was two pieces to that one from last time, but we only have one on our consent agenda. Is there a reason for that? Wasn't there -- it was a variance and a rezone both, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BELLOWS: There could be two reasons. One is there were no changes, and I can't recall if there were any changes or not. If there were, and if they didn't have the changes ready to make it on the packet for this agenda, you'll see it in the next Planning Commission agenda as a consent. But I don't know which scenario it was. I don't remember if there were no changes to it so it doesn't come back or if it -- there were changes but it just wasn't ready for this meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There were no changes on that one, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I remember the rezone had the bulk of the issues, so that's fine. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had one question. Is the County Attorney's Office happy with exhibits -- Exhibit B with the map here? Is that detailed enough for what all went on? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I thought that it was, because the issue was to properly designate the CON and the RT. And the map that had been attached, the conceptual map, I thought that could have led to some confusion using that map. So I thought this -- between this and then if someone needs to historically go back and look at the other map, that that provided the best clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I too had a problem with that. Could we not in the upper one put the letter A and in the lower one put the letter B and then be precise? I put a dimension from the top of A to that dividing line, just so there's no -- because this thing the way it's given to us, it doesn't really -- it's just one big grade scale with a line starting outside and coming through it, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So you want an arrow pointing to A? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See down there, just an Ain that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- area and a B -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the other area. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you wanted to get more precise, you put the dimension from the top of A to the bottom. Because I do agree with Donna, it doesn't show anything. It doesn't show that division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the instruction would be that in order to finish this one up, you would label the top square A, and the lower rectangle B. I think the suggestion of a width and length dimension for A which protrudes into the CON both north, south, east, west would probably be useful to B is not as relevant, since it's an RT district anyway. But the CON was the more sensitive district. Would that work for you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would staff see that those two dimensions are added and that the letters A and B are added to the appropriate category? MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. I've got it here and we'll have it done for the board agenda packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions or concerns on this consent agenda item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve with the recommended changes from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Page 4 16 15pril 1512010 Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -918, HICKORY HARBOUR CONDIMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC. Now, our first advertised public hearing is Petition BD- PL200991 A, Hickory Harbor Condominium Association, Inc. This is a continuation from a previous meeting of March 18th. 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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, the applicant can go forward with their presentation. MR. TURLEY: For the record, my name's David Turley, returning on the Hickory Harbor Condominium boat dock extension. I was not well prepared at the fast meeting. I have resubmitted my impact -- native marine impact narrative. And it -- there is a typo on that sheet that I submitted. Apparently one of my fingers didn't work properly. It's supposed to be 279 square feet. What I had done originally was added the two existing walkways. They came up to a total of 132 square feet. And the impact of the new walkway is going to be approximately 147 square feet. This is only for construction purposes. The final impact would probably be closer to around 140 square feet. It's just -- so anyway, that comes up to right at two percent of the 13,909 square feet of mangrove area that's already existing. You -- I submitted -- I submitted a drawing exactly where this walkway was going to impact the mangroves. I believe it was resubmitted to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've -- in our packet we've got the calculations -- MR. TURLEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I believe the paperwork that you submitted to staff. Is that correct? Just nod your head yeah, it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. TURLEY: And I did extensive copying of manatee mortalities, and the area does -- is a low manatee impact area, completely. I believe six within the last -- well, since 1998 were killed by -- or boat related incidents, and other -- oh, let's see. The other seven were natural deaths, et cetera. But, I mean, as far as boating is concerned, I find that that's a very, very low impact area. And the water depths, that bar or shallow area in the center of the bay is actually anywhere from four to five feet deep. I have an aerial of the navigable channel in Little Hickory Bay leading north that shows that that area is much shallower than the area in the center of the bay. Page 5 6 {4� April 15, 2010 So determining water depth, if the boat accepts a two to two and a half foot draft, there's more than ample water in that bay. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're there. MR. TURLEY: I'm there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's see if there's any questions before we go to staff report. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to clarify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, when I was reading your explanation on the mangrove issue, why if the other two docks in combination only required 132 square feet is this new area going to be 147? Is the mangrove depth and width that much greater? Because -- MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is. MR. TURLEY: The other two walkways go through a trimmed mangrove hedge or area. And this one, the canopy of the mangroves extends out about another 10 feet further than the trimmed area. It's not necessary for us to trim those mangroves; it's just making that access through those mangroves for the walkway. And other than that, you should be good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. It's hard -- you can't tell by the drawing, you know, the -- MR. TURLEY: No, no, it's -- I had to -- instead of me chopping a hole through the mangroves to try to actually get a full picture -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I wouldn't want you to do that. That's not the point. It's just hard to tell, that's why I asked the question. MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, in the center of the waterway, I think you said you have it four to five feet; is that right? MR. TURLEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that mean high or mean low water? MR. TURLEY: That's mean low. The way the state -- or when water depths are recorded on charts and whatnot, that's mean low low. That's the extreme low it can possibly be. But the mean low is -- actually the depths were closer to -- yeah, mean low would be a good assumption. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just understand, I see what you have here is approximately mean high in the rest of the document, that's why I wondered if we were going to be consistent. But that's all right. There's four to five feet of water. So that's navigable water. But when we saw the original pictures, it surely didn't give that impression today. MR. TURLEY: No. I have some -- I have the 2009 aerials. I also have the 2010, but it looks like a big flock of birds flying over and you can't see a whole heck of a lot. The 2009 aerial doesn't depict that shallow area very much at all. And this was what I was originally looking at in trying to determine why the -- it looks so shallow. And I have aerials of the navigable channel going from the bridge at Bonita Beach Road south. And that navigable channel marked navigable channel is considerably more shallow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interesting. MR. TURLEY: If you'd like to see -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, you have given us your testimony and that's fine for me. But it's very interesting, isn't it? MR. TURLEY: It is, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Ashley? MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta for the record. Page 6 161 1Aril 15, 2010 Included in your packet was a supplemental staff report. And staffs position has not changed since the last hearing. I also included some information on a conversation that I had over e-mail with Army Corps of Engineering regarding width of waterways and how they measure water depths, and it seems to be pretty consistent with the way that we've historically done it. I've provided that information to you in your packet. And no further information from staff, just here to answer questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, if you could go to Page 4 and 5 of the original staff report, the primary criteria. MS. CASERTA: Okay, I'm there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The criteria number two says whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide. And then the analysis says criterion not met. According to a survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth at the site is appropriate for the proposed facility. Does that mean up against the shoreline in your opinion the water depth was adequate, had they wanted to put docks the full length of the shoreline there? MS. CASERTA: I didn't consider that the -- up against the very shoreline would even be appropriate, because the existing mangroves are there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: So I considered it to be just past the mangroves where it would be appropriate to put the dock. And I think that it's -- it is, according to the application, not too shallow to put in a dock. I didn't even consider where the mangroves are, because I didn't think that would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just trying to figure out where you were thinking when you said this. So basically what that means is if they had came out from the shoreline, instead of putting T docks going a long distance out, they could have put a longitudinal dock matching or mirroring the shape of the shoreline just past the mangroves and there was enough water depth there to keep it in that area. Is that what your (sic) said basically by the way you wrote this? MS. CASERTA: Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to build a pathway out through the mangroves just like these docks have MS. CASERTA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but instead of running a dock straight out you ran it mirroring the shape of the shoreline -- MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but outside the mangroves, there's enough water depth to have done that and kept the docks closer to the shoreline? MS. CASERTA: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number three, whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on the navigation with an adjacent marked, and it says or charted navigable channel. The criterion met says: According to the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not have an impact on any marked navigable channel. Did you check to see if there were any charted navigable channels in that area, or where the charter one -- or even if there is one; do you know? MS. CASERTA: I don't know from personal experience. I was just going off of what was submitted with the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: And the applicant stated that there was no marked or navigable channel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it just says marked or charted. So I didn't know what the chart showed in that Page 7 16 I'l April 15, 2010 area. And maybe the applicant's representative knows. Sir, would you mind coming up and telling us if you looked at the charts. MR. TURLEY: The chart shows absolutely no marked navigable channel in that basin. It's outside in Little Hickory Bay itself that it was a manmade basin, so it was never any concern to any of the local authorities, whether it be the DEP, Fish and Game, or the Army Corps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so there would be no -- there are no charted navigable channels in that bay? MR. TURLEY: Not in that bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when we -- under the criterion met, would there be anything misleading or untruthful if we were to say any impact on any marked or charted navigable channel? MR. TURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody have any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ashley. Any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we approve BD -PL- 2009 -18, Hickory Harbor Condominium, and add that notation about chart to the file. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask a question about the resolution that was attached. And again, I just want to make sure that the County Attorney's Office thinks that this is written clearly enough so that going back there are no issues about what was intended or meant to happen here. MS. WHITE: Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to bring the mic. closer to you. MR. WHITE: Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney. I'm the attorney that reviewed this resolution. I believe that it does meet the intent of the CCPC, as discussed at the last meeting and at this meeting. If you have a specific concern, I can certainly answer that question. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just want to make sure that it's clear to everybody with this language. There is no site plan, there's no drawing attached to this. I'm not so sure that that shouldn't happen, that the drawing that was proposed shouldn't be attached to this so that everybody has a real clear understanding of what has been proposed. There is a site plan. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We can put it on the next agenda on the consent so that it's a completed -- a complete copy should have been included in your package. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. That's all that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the consent agenda, one of the site plans, the most appropriate one will be attached to the resolution, so that will be part of it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, the resolution should have all exhibits attached to it. That should have been in your package. But we'll make sure that a complete copy is included in the consent agenda for the next meeting on May 6th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion for approval, signify by saying aye. Page 8 1611 B5 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. Mr. Turley, thank you for completing the package as well as you did. It was appreciated. MR. TURLEY: Thank you very much, Board. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that brings us to the conclusion of the first meeting of today. County Attorney, does it matter whether we adjourn and reopen for the LDC hearings, or do you want to pro -- is that a process we should follow? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think you need to adjourn. If you want to take a break, we just need to state for the record that it's a continuance from the prior Land Development Code hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with the Community Development group. Before you proceed with the LDC hearings, if it's possible to discuss some business before I have to leave, for -- to submit some documents to you for consideration at a further hearing, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Your mic's not picking you up too closely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm not getting it here either. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is that okay? How about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit better. Your sensitivity, Ray, can you turn that up a little bit? He's got a real, real soft voice, so, you know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. Bashful. As I always have the pleasure of being in front of this commission and the board to do the CIE and the AUIR, I had staff -- one of the first things I did when I took over or worked with the Community Development folks, Mike Bosi and the folks from transportation, and Kim Grant's office, is look at the CIE /AUIR process and the budget process and said why do we do the CIE and the AUIR so separately apart when there's always this conflict with the documents and timing. So I had them do an analysis of what it would take to combine the two processes together. So you'd actually be reviewing the annual update and inventory report and also looking at the CIE at the same time, right after the budget was resolved. And so what I'd like to do is submit an executive summary that's going to be scheduled to go to the board after we get comment from the Planning Commission, along with some backup material for your review. No action needed today, just that you take a look at it, read that and then maybe provide comment at a future Planning Commission, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, sounds good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, are you -- you're asking us to review this and get input to you prior to your presentation to the BCC; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a date for your BCC presentation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not, so if there's discussion at the next meeting, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie' hates it when I do that, ask you off -- without the speaker in front of you, I know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 9 1 5 �� 6 1 1 April 15, 2010 Item #I OA LDC AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that wraps up the advertised public hearings for today's meeting, and we'll move right into old business, and that is our LDC amendments, continued from the April 1 st, 2010 CCPC meeting. So this will be a continuation of those items. And Susan, before we go into all of it, the ones that are on today's agenda, after we get done with these, what's left from that cycle? I know we have Immokalee and the shoreline calculation. There are at least two. MS. ISTENES: Well -- Susan Istenes, for the record. Immokalee is complete. But we have the MPP shoreline calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, it's the GMP Immokalee that we're dealing with. MS. ISTENES: Correct, yes. The LDC Immokalee is complete. Let me take a quick look at the summary sheet. But I will say -- and I realize the MPP shoreline calculations are coming back, but we have exhausted our advertising with this meeting. So if we're coming back again, we're going to have to advertise. I did just e -mail an inquiry to John and Ray about the advertising for the MPP and we can answer that later. But I'm not sure, if we do bring something back, we may have to try to fall in line with that schedule for the MPP so we can kind of capitalize on savings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. And I would suggest we do it at a regular meeting, since we don't have -- our meetings aren't too backed up anymore. MS. ISTENES: Other than that, I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in good shape. MS. ISTENES: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ISTENES: And if you want to go ahead, I'll look through, and I could answer that question shortly after I go through the summary sheet, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's no problem. We'll move right into the Land Development Code 2009 cycle LDC packet number five that was recently provided to the Planning Commission. The first one up is the definition section 1.08.02 and 2.05.01. It's a private petition. Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Duane. And that first item in our packet, it starts on Page 1 and goes to Page 4. So let's -- as soon as staff is ready. MS. ISTENES: This is actually Rich Yovanovich, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you want to brief us on where we left off from last time and then we can get up to speed and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, I thought the amendment I was involved in starts on Page 21. 1 do see there's a definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. It is on Page 21. But you're the first one up. We'll get it right. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a reference that I wasn't aware of on Page 3 that does make some sense for better differentiating between multi - family and other types of uses, and I understand that is -- you're trying to distinguish between a timeshare and a multi - family. A timeshare is primarily intended to be a transient type use versus a multi - family residential type use. I just -- I see that and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the first thing in the packet is that definition. And although it's not the first thing up, because Page 21 is the first thing up, but that definition does have some problems in the way it defines timeshare possibly in relationship to Page 21. In that defmition that you're -- we started with on Page 3, it references timeshare shall be considered as intended primarily for transient occupancy and shall only be permitted in districts where specifically designated. In reading that you would think that it's only allowed in hotel/motel designations. Is that the intent? MS. ISTENES: No, this is left over -- this is leftover language from the definition of multi - family that we're trying to put back into the LDC, as it was not intended to be taken out during the recodification. So this language has Page 10 16'11 �5 '� April 15, 2010 not changed. And essentially what it is saying is timeshare is only permitted in the districts where timeshare is specifically listed, which is RT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is where I'm going to be a practical person versus what I think the law really means. As we talk -- this is a classic example of treating timeshare as a land use, which is exactly the wrong way to go about doing this. But since I'm only here to deal with the RT zoning district, and timeshares are allowed in the RT zoning district, from a practical standpoint, although I don't think this is technically correct, I don't have an objection to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but in light of the Florida statutes' interpretation and reading Pages 21 and the ones that you're here for, it does bring some -- add some confusion on the definition on Page 3. But we'll go back to that when we go back to that particular LDC amendment. And we'll start on Page 21, which is your amendment. Once we refine that, we can go back through the rest of it. So starting on Page 21 and it goes to Page 27. Part of this, if I remember, was a request for some research by the County Attorney's Office involving the reference to the exception in the Vanderbilt Beach RTO for the timeshare to be allocated at 16 units, while the other one, the hotel and motels, are 26. And if I remember the question correctly, the statement on Page 27 was what spurred the question. The timeshare plan is a form of ownership and is not a land use. Collier County is prohibited from applying different standards to a land use based upon the form of ownership as a timeshare. Now -- and that's what concerns me. If we're prohibited from doing that, even though I'm not against trying to get it done for the Vanderbilt Beach overlay, how can we differentiate in that overlay a different standard for timeshare when you've got hotel and motel at 26 in the same overlay? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, we believe that that can be done, that you can regulate timeshare. And that was -- and that's been historically how the county has handled this since 1980 when we added the timeshare into the RT district. And specifically that board at that time had pulled the timeshare unit out of the multi - family, because they felt it was more like a hotel and motel. So we're really not in favor of undoing what was done in 1980, because there were reasons, legitimate reasons, why that was done. So the answer to your question is no, we do not believe we're prohibited from treating timeshares differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then from your comments, are you -- is the County Attorney's Office then seeing that the definition changes on Pages 21 are beneficial, or are you saying that they're not needed in regards to your previous review of the 1980 language? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The definitions on my copy which are on Page 22 are a reinsertion of the language that was left out of the Land Development Code when the recodification occurred. The County Attorney's position on this particular item I think continues to be what Mr. Klatzkow had stated before, that our first preference would be to handle this through a zoning interpretation. Because Mr. Yovanovich had stated that he felt that if his client had a hotel and motel and then they offered timeshare units, that they would trigger the lower density and they wouldn't be able to have the 26 units for the hotel and motel. I believe that's what you said, and you can clarify whether that's correct or not. If that is not the -- if that's not the way that the Planning Commission wants to go, and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners, then the position of this office is to limit it to the Port of the Islands. Because we have very specific concerns with how this is going to play out with unintended consequences with increased density in other portions of the county, and we're not really clear that an analysis has been done or could be done that's truly going to capture what all those implications would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: My preference is to go with the zoning change that specifically says in Port of the Islands you can have a density of 26 units per acre if you operate a hotel timeshare. I can't tell my client that a zoning verification letter will protect him in that particular case, because I don't think that that would be, if challenged, when it so clearly says 16 units per acre, that somehow I made that number go from 16 to 26 for a timeshare in that RT zoning district would stand a challenge. So that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And Mr. Chair -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that's my preference. Page 11 1611 B5 � April 15, 2010 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- we are supportive of an amendment that's limited to the Port of the Islands, as I previously stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this amendment doesn't do that, though. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where I'm getting at, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the earlier iterations did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was going to say, I think it's probably best to make this as narrow as possible. Because nobody has done an analysis of the rest of the county. So I think the County Attorney's Office is right in that respect. I have one question for you, though, with respect to the Port of the Islands. The FLUE says that the Port of the Islands is eligible for all provisions of the urban mixed use district in which it's located to the extent that the overall residential density and commercial intensity does not exceed that permitted under the zoning at the time of the adoption of the plan. So if we increase the density, are we not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you're not. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- doing something? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not. Because remember, I'm a hotel. Hotels -- if I were a -- I could go in in Port of the Islands today and do a hotel at 26 units per acre. And Rich Yovanovich, you know, resort hotel, own it by myself. I could do that same hotel by selling the individual units as a condominium at 26 units per acre. So you're not increasing the density. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So I think then it is really imperative that we make this as narrow as possible. And I think it should state specially that any hotel or motel can have timeshare units as opposed to the other way around, which is what's been said, which is timeshare units can now have the density of hotels and motels. I think we need to go at it from the other way. It gets you where you want to go, it moves us on, and it makes the County Attorney's Office I think happy, and we all sing Kumbaya. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm fine with that, and you probably can do it in that footnote that says -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think you can probably do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You could say any hotel and motel may be owned as a timeshare and it only applies in the Port of the Islands. And you put it in that footnote. I think that's one of the early iterations. I really hate to come back again, because we've seen that language before, and I just -- I'm here for one client, and that's the piece of property, and I want to fix that issue so we can move on. I'm not trying to have any unintended consequences anywhere else in the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and I think we probably can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it means cooperating with Rich Yovanovich, we've got to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel like that hamster. I'm on that wheel that I keep running and running and running. And I need some water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I think we ought to do is we're going to be here for a little while this morning. I think we'll finish up fairly early this morning. But between now and then, the original language, Susan, do you keep all that language with you? I have every packet you've given us in this one book right here. So at break, if you have -- if it was previously issued to us, we ought to take it out of here, make the copies, make sure we're reviewing and approving the right thing and then go forward at that point. What do you think? MS. ISTENES: Are you referring to the reference to the Port of the Islands? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: I don't think that was ever in a document we presented to you. Heidi, did -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe -- MS. ISTENES: -- we just discussed that I think amongst staff and we're drafting it. Did it get distributed? Page 12 16 If April 15, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if it got to the Planning Commission. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, it did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do know that there was a draft with that language in it. MS. ISTENES: I think it was just going between -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe that was just something that Heidi had prepared and submitted -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and was I okay with it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can locate the draft. I think that we are proposing language that's slightly different. So when we take a break, I'll work with Mr. Yovanovich and we'll come back with a proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be good. If you guys could come to a meeting of the minds, we can finish this today. Because it's not -- we're not that complicated any further. We've gotten down to the bottom of it. I do have one thing that might complicate it, just to throw something in to keep everybody on their toes. If this is limited to the Port of the Islands, it may not be as relevant. And if that's what your language does and it looks like you're heading that direction, we've still got this jet -ski operation issue. And I want to make sure that we're not opening up jet -ski concessions or commercial concessions equivalent to hotel/motel operations in timeshares, no matter what they're in. And if we can make sure we resolve that or if that doesn't come into play because the way you write what you're going to propose to us, then that's fine. But I want to make sure we don't open up a Pandora's box with that issue as well. Okay? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only other thing I'll have with it when we get to it. So you're going to have to hang around for a while. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up will be where we started, Page 1, definitions, dwelling, multi - family, and it has timeshare in it as well. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I did rewrite the change and the reason to describe the changes I made to the document between last meeting and today. They -- and as you recall, we're simply attempting to readopt this because it was unintentionally left out at recodification. However, based on our discussion and discussions on this, which makes it a moving target, if you look on Page 3 you will actually see what I attempted to do. Because I think -- and I remember, I believe it was Commissioner Schiffer who started discussing the information or the text in Item A where it talks about multi - family dwelling units may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership, et cetera, et cetera. And so what I did was attempt to distinguish between the various characteristics by putting a header. So it says under the definition, dwelling, multi - family, for purposes of determining whether a lot is for multi - family dwelling use, the following characteristics shall be considered. And then you have the language from the old LDC, Item A, plugged in under there. And then I separated B, C and D under another heading and that heading says, for purposes of differentiating between multi - family residential dwelling units and other similar or related uses and for density calculation purposes, the following shall apply. And then reinserted the language from the -- again, from the old code B, C and D, I believe it was, under there. You talked about timeshare state facilities, Item B, here on Page 3. 1 will caution you that that was in the old code, and I'll caution you also that that gets back to that unraveling effect that I talked about last time where you have timeshare state facilities specifically listed currently as a permitted use in the RT district. And this Item B helps -- ties into that. And that's why we're essentially bringing it -- just trying to bring it back as it was, just with that distinction between the characteristics versus the regulatory provisions of that definition. I agree, it is not 100 percent perfect. I did quite a bit of research on timeshares, looking at what other communities do. I believe the City of Naples, actually, what they attempt to do in their definition, and they call it timeshare lodging facilities, is they attempt to classify lodging facilities into two different classifications: One of them being very short-term, and the other being similar to timeshare where you've actually -- it's greater than short term, usually about a week or two in length, but it is also usually filled or occupied by a preset schedule. So it attempts to try to get Page 13 r 161 i April 15, 2010 away from the ownership issue that I know the County Attorney's Office discussed with you at one of our meetings, and attempts just to kind of classify it as a form of lodging, regardless of the ownership characteristics of it. And I think in the future that might be something that we need to look towards or go towards. But for right now staff would prefer to just reinsert the language back in as it is. Because we do have other provisions in the code that are affected by it. And that's essentially our position in a nutshell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If timeshare is by statute now a form of ownership and not a use, wouldn't though, if you were to eliminate B, wouldn't A take care of it? MS. ISTENES: No, I believe there's a distinction between A and B still. And A is referencing hotels and motels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: And B is referencing timeshares. And we do have that distinction within the code. You have timeshare listed as a permitted use in RT and you have hotels and motels as well. So I'm hesitant to blur the lines between those uses for purposes of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And I'm just trying to solve a potential problem, should someone else come forward and not want to limit it to Port of the Islands because of the ownership status of it. Then we basically have then got to deal with it. And I'm just -- was hoping there'd be a simpler way to deal with it today, head off that. MS. ISTENES: My indications are it's not that simple. And that was based on my research I did between last meeting and today. I would suggest, however, that perhaps you may want to recommend that we do take a look at this for next cycle and we can begin working on it and kind of approach it from your concerns and the other board members' concerns as well and try to tackle it next cycle. I hate to push it off, but I also hate to try to make a Band Aid fix that may not -- may have unintended consequences that we're just not thinking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I actually just was going to agree with Susan. I think that it probably needs to be looked at, but it needs to be looked at holistically and researched that way before we again make a Band Aid fix here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to take B and apply it, what if you have a timeshare that's eight days' duration? MS. ISTENES: Well, I don't know that B -- I mean, B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're just saying all timeshare, even if it's for 14 days or 21 days, is still considered transient? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in A, to be transient, it's basically less than one week. MS. ISTENES: Right. I'm not saying it's perfect, it just -- it is what it is, and we have been living with it this way for quite some time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it only proves it's got to be fixed. MS. ISTENES: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why anybody in this economy is going to bring it up any sooner, but I think if we put it on the slate to get looked at it would probably be a smart thing to do. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, you started out by saying it was inadvertently not put in the new version of the LDC. How do we know that? In other words, what are we gaining by bringing this back in? What are we missing by not having that here? MS. ISTENES: Unfortunately, and what we attempted to do when we recodified, was to take the regulatory information out of the definitions and put it back in other areas of the code. My research indicates that this was simply taken out but it was not put back in other areas of the code. And what we did was contrary to the intent of the recodification, which was not to change the regulatory documents of -- or regulatory provisions of the code. And that's -- I'm probably taking a real conservative look here, but that's my fear. And I believe this -- this is regulatory. I mean, A and B are clearly regulatory. Page 14 161195 Aril 15 2010 P , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And by not having it, what kind of problems do we have? Because, you know, in the regulatory part of the code we do discuss the density, we do discuss how many dwelling units. So, I mean, our land use densities and everything makes sense without this, so what is the need for this? MS. ISTENES: I think you've got especially under A under the second heading there, you've got some issues related to -- or potential issues related to dwelling units that are being rented for shorter periods of time, some potential for some abuse there. And same under B, I think the timeshare state facilities being clearly stated, it's only permitted in districts or specifically designated. You may have some confusion there as well. But I mean, that ties back into the whole intertwining of this issue within the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is that a condo somewhere could be renting less than a week and therefore you would like to control that by pointing out that they're now a hotel or a tourist home or -- MS. ISTENES: Potentially, yes. Yes. And then as you recall, you also in C wanted to add that limit. And I believe you -- my record says we agreed that one unit per dwelling -- or one per dwelling unit for guesthouses, employee quarters and the like, for purposes of calculating density. So there's another provision there that is regulatory that if it went away could potentially be an issue, or at least raise a question about how to apply the code relative to that type of land use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, that's something new we just came up with. That wasn't carried forth from the old one? MS. ISTENES: Correct. Right. I believe I indicated that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I'm still not seeing where we really have a prob -- I mean, Ray, you wanted to jump in. Do we have a problem now with this definition not being in there? MR. BELLOWS: Well -- for the record, Ray Bellows. The recodified version of the LDC has a provision in it that basically indicates that any provision from the old code that was inadvertently left out during recodification is still in effect, because the board didn't officially take action to remove it. So staff has been referring to the old LDC. When questions are asked about this particular issue, they're forced to open up the old LDC to look for these things and compare it with the new. And it takes a lot of research to figure out yes, this was inadvertently left out and this wasn't. So we're just trying to make it easier for everybody to say this hasn't been officially removed by the board, so it's still in effect based on that language in the current LDC that says as long as the board -- it was inadvertently left out, it's still in effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. If you say -- alls you have to say is, you know, we have at least once gone back and had to look at the old code to solve an issue, then I'm with you, I'll pulling it for -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, I've got one more question on C. It says guesthouses, employee quarters and the like shall not be considered as dwelling units in the computation of density and shall be limited to one per dwelling unit. So if you have a 100 -unit condominium, you could have 100 guesthouses and 100 employee quarters, so you'd have 300 units occupiable, but only 100 of those would be counted for density; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: In that scenario, correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, do you like that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's insane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do too. MS. ISTENES: It's one per unit, meaning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: It's not -- you said you had 100 units. So it would just double it, potentially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no -- Page 15 TB 5 �r April 15, 2010 MS. ISTENES: I thought you said 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, it doesn't say or. It says guesthouses, employee quarters and the like. So the way I would look at it is if I had one of these 5,000 square foot high -rise condominiums and I wanted to have a guest quarters, I could have that. And I could also have an employee quarters for my -- you don't call them servants anymore, whatever you do call them -- working staff. So now you've got two more units with equivalent residential computations for ERC's for utilities. You're definitely going -- they're going to create more traffic probably than the owner of the main unit. So we really have more intensity times whatever number of these you want to call because the like could be who knows what that is. So now we end up having a lot more density than we ever planned. MS. ISTENES: That wasn't the intent to be read. In other words, you could have a guesthouse, you could have employee quarters or you could have something else in one unit. It's meant to be one of these per unit. So if I need to put or in there to clarify that, that it's -- I wasn't reading it that way, but it's -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree, that is how we would interpret it normally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: But even that -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- if you have -- MR. BELLOWS: We just don't have a clear -- COMMISSIONER CARON: --a tower with 100 units, I can have 100 guest quarters or 100 employee quarters? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a similar concept in Golden Gate Estates, you can have 100 homes or more on a couple streets, and each one of those, if they meet the minimum lot width, can have a guesthouse and it's not counted as density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, it's only 20 percent of the main house. That severely restricts the impact of that facility. MR. BELLOWS: I agree with that. And I'm not saying this language is perfect. And you make an excellent point, and I'm not very comfortable with it either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And we're also going further, and not just guests who are going to be short-term, but you're talking about employees. Employees are full -time people, they're here all the time. They have as much if not more impact than the residents probably in some of these places. So I think it's very different from having a guesthouse in the -- MR. BELLOWS: It is. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- Estates. MR. BELLOWS: I've worked on a few projects over the years, multi - family projects where they had these guesthouses and things, but it was more like on end units and things. But I agree, it could be interpreted to allow -- but I agree with Susan, it wouldn't have been a combination of all of those. We would limit to the one of those. But I think the language does need to be looked at, I agree with your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me make a case for where this would make sense, is if you're building a large condo, a lot of times there is, especially off the back, a house corridor, an area that is a staff room. It's pretty obvious, separate entrance and everything. So I think this would make that not become an issue as to whether that's another unit for density. Which is all you're saying here is that you don't have to count that part of the unit as part of the density. So in other words, you have a main unit, it could have a guest segment, it could have an employee's segment, it's still one unit. MR. BELLOWS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all it's saying here. MR. BELLOWS: That was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's -- it doesn't have to be read that way, that's the problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's not -- Page 16 16118 5 A it 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's read it the other way: You have a property that allows 16 units per acre. You don't have to count this portion of the unit -- or that unit as two units just because you're providing a guest segment or a staff segment. I mean, that seems fair. I mean, I think if you wanted to limit a percentage so it doesn't get out of hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The out -of -hand thing would be this: You build your 100 -unit tower that Mark wants. In front of that I put a 100 -unit little guest cabana down at the beach area. Essentially I can have 100 guests and 100 people living there at the same time. That's the abuse of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you're making an argument -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what the language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. You're making an argument about an issue that we're not in disagreement on. I don't -- I under -- if it's contiguous part of an internally connected to an existing unit, it's nothing more different than another bedroom with a mother -in -law's unit in it, or whatever you call it. But when you don't signify it that way here -- and we even went further, we took the old language that said guesthouses and servants quarters shall not be considered as dwelling units in the computation of section A above. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was never in the old language. I think it entered into our packet one for the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just read it from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look, it's not crossed out here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is on the bottom -- well, okay, is that part of the old language or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is there. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got to talk one at a time, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is there. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it is part of the old language. In the new language we went further and we restated that. But we also said it would be limited to one per dwelling unit. And that's actually like an invitation to say you get one free unit per every dwelling unit by the way we've restated it. So I'm -- we actually may have done more damage -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by the way we've stated that than leaving it the way it was. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have we considered the implications of additional vehicles associated with that parking as an issue? If we were -- even if we were to allocate that there would be within the structure and it be a section or a part of the unit that would house those people, inevitably some of them at least would have vehicles. So how does that jibe with our parking requirement? Would it even be considered? MR. BELLOWS: They're not -- would not be considered as individual units. I think we're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, sir, I'm talking about the parking, the implications for the parking. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the parking does -- calculations do address guest facilities in quarters and employee like -- in regards to, you know, maintenance type of people who reside on the premises. I think we can address it from that point. But what I was thinking is these units, guest quarters, aren't intended to be rented or sold as regular dwelling units, they are basically incorporated into the dwelling unit. So if they were using their buildable area to add more of these guest units that aren't to be sold, that's going to restrict how much units they can actually sell. If they were marketing all of the units and guesthouses as individual dwelling units, then they could sell those for the fee. But if they're incorporated into the single dwelling unit, you're not getting -- and say if you have 100 dwelling units, you're selling all 100 and you had 100 guest units, you can't sell those guest units and you can't rent those guest units, they are for residents of that single- family unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I agree with you, I think we should go back to taking the unit out of there. I think that is an invitation, and that isn't the intent. Page 17 1611 April 15, 2010 I think Ray, isn't it in the past you would find a condominium might have two or three or four little guest units somewhere on it where guests of the people living there could stay? I mean, I know a lot of condos that have that. I think that was the intent. Mark might be right, that if you do set a limit then you now have code that tells you you can have that many. Prior to that you would have to discuss -- you know, I mean, if you had 100 guest units and 50 units, then obviously something's going down there. So I would suggest we just go back to the original wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I live somewhere where they're -- within my PUD there are guest units within towers. And there's no question. I don't know whether they rent them or not. I have lived other places where the guest units are rented to owners and you have to pay to have your people stay there. So I think, Ray, there is a control issue here. They can be rented. And I don't know how you would control, you know, that they weren't. MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make it clear that any multi - family unit or any single- family unit, you might find the owner renting it out to somebody else. But where I was trying to make the point is the person renting that unit is in control of the guest unit also. So there's not two individual disparate families living in one unit with a guesthouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think where we're at with this is basically C needs to go back to the old C -- actually, the old B. COMMISSIONER CARON: B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take the language in the old B and replace the new C with that language. And that gets us a completed issue for this exercise today. But on the caveat that we do two things: We look at the overall impact of the timeshare changes to the code; not the changes here today but the changes as a result of Florida Statute, and then look at that as potential LDC amendment in the future. And then I would suggest at the same time, now that we've talked about this a bit, relook at a further defining of what is or is not additional density in relationship to guesthouses and employee quarters, as defined in this particular definition. And the reason -- Susan, what I'm referring to is in Golden Gate Estates -- and Ray had a great example. If there's a limitation as to the location, as to the quantity, as to the size, and if we have that specificity in this item here, we probably wouldn't have nearly the amount of problem we've got right now. So I think that's all we need to do is bring that into this code at some point in the future through another amendment when the time is more appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing, when you do go back to the original wording, I think what that really means is that if I had a duplex and then 1 -- one of those duplexes had a guesthouse behind it, I don't count that as a unit in computing the density, thus it's not a multi - family because of that guesthouse. And that's the only thing you would get out of that phrase. It doesn't tell you whether they're allowed, doesn't tell you how to control them. It just says that if you're counting, don't count the guesthouse or don't count the servants quarters. That's all. It doesn't tell you can have them, doesn't set you any regulation on it, just says don't count them when you're working with the definition of multi - family. And that was probably the original of that. We've had more fun with it than we should have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But we do need to narrow that as well. The only change I would make from the old B is we had all agreed to change servant quarters to employee quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's still valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so with that caveat, maybe we can finish with this one today. And the caveat is we would change the servants quarters to employee quarters, move the old B to the new C. Recommend staff look at the overall impacts of timeshare based on the current Florida Statute definition, and relook at the density or the way we describe the guesthouses and employee units in this particular definition. Page 18 ''? April 15, 2010 16�� With that in mind, is the Planning Commission ready to make a motion for Section 1.08.02, definitions dwelling, multi - family? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move, with that in mind, that it's in -- compliant with the Growth Management Plan and we forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. Next item is definition of lots, corner, interior through. It is 1.08.02. It's on Page 5 of our packet. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're having fun today, aren't you? MS. ISTENES: I looked at the agenda and I said gee, these are all mine with the exception of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, this one's Stan's. MS. ISTENES: Yes, it actually is. Okay, let me get my head back in here. Again -- and I'll just -- I'll go ahead and right back on Page 5. We are adding the definitions and we are adding illustrations now for lot, corner lot through and lot interior, again left out of the LDC when it was recodified unintentionally. We are -- however, we are removing them as well. So I'm putting them back, then removing them, because we are modifying them and then adding them back as amended. The substantial modification really is to the definition of corner lot. And the change we have proposed will require that the measurement of the angle of the intersection of the two streets shall determine whether or not a corner -- a lot is considered to be a corner. As a reminder, corner lots have two fronts and two sides, so they have no rears. And that is also being clarified in the definition. We -- the main reason for doing this is really the recognition over the confusion of attempting to apply the old language when it comes to measuring arcs and corners and things like that with a lot versus the center lines of a street. And I know we have one case in particular where that really came to light. And this isn't being changed because of that, per se, but when things like that happen it does cause staff to look at the code very clearly to dissect the issue, where things went wrong and why, who was confused, who didn't do what or did do what, and to try to take a look at the regulatory language and help -- or hope that it doesn't happen again by amending it. I will tell you, in this case the proposal will not address the angle of cul -de -sacs and curves, per se, so there is a shortcoming here. And I'm going to kind of leave it at that and let Stan take over and explain, if you don't mind, Stan, what we're doing here in the shortcoming of this. But that's up for you all to decide whether or not that's important. We feel that the county is essentially what, 90 -- we guess 90 percent build -out and looking at Plats that have been approved, we weren't sure if that was going to be a major issue or not with leaving out the curves and the cul -de -sacs. But that again is for you all to look at as well, please. Page 19 16 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer had a quick question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Susan. One quick thing is why is this important? Because Collier is unique in that every street is a front setback. So what benefit does somebody get by classifying their property as a corner lot? In some jurisdictions where the narrowest dimension is your front, you know, there's a lot of other ways. But Collier is simple, it's every street is a front setback. So what would be the advantage of me determining that my lot's a corner lot anyway? MS. ISTENES: Two things, and I will answer your question. I don't think Collier is unique in that every setback for a front is -- if you are on a street that causes you to have a front setback requirement. That isn't unique. There may be other communities. And even in our own code when it comes to the Estates, we actually allow them to modify frontage on -- front setbacks on one frontage. Some other communities do that, some others don't. But it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I made that point though is that every street's a front setback. So MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So whether there are 100 communities or ours, the only one that's irrelevant (sic). Every street in Collier is a front setback. MS. ISTENES: It really -- I would probably not be the best expert to comment on that, because it really depends on the structure you're attempting to design to fit the lot. Usually the corner lots usually -- obviously aren't perfect squares, especially if you get around a cul -de -sac or the way the Lot lines are drawn out causes a curve on the rear or the side lot line, as you will, if it's a corner lot. But the benefit may be that you do not have the rear yard setback, which is usually larger than your side yard setbacks. So we've seen side yard setbacks as low as five feet. And in that case you may -- and that's for principal structures I'm talking about here. And then you may have a rear yard of 20 feet, for example. So in that case if you had a corner lot you would have two fronts and two sides, and your sides would be five versus having one at 20. Now, there's a disadvantage in some cases to having two fronts, because front yard setbacks are generally a little bit larger than even rears, so if 25 were the case then you would have two setbacks at 25. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: So there could be a tradeoff there. It really depends on the type of structure and what's being designed for that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, one correction I'd like to make. You said there's a current example where this issue came to play, and it was because -- and staff was confused. That isn't the case. Staff was confused on the current example because they didn't even know the old code applied. They had not looked at it and they had not seen how the calculation in the old code applied to the example that they had. And when that was pointed out to them, they didn't seem to have any problem at that point understanding what it meant, so -- MS. ISTENES: I didn't recall it as being that, but I don't know that that's a big issue. But I would ask one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to clarify the record. But you weren't there. MS. ISTENES: Right. Right, yeah. Stan, just out of curiosity sake, I thought when we looked at that one issue, even the layout of the building had the measurement taken in the wrong place; was that correct? Meaning the arc for the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't remember. MS. ISTENES: Don't remember. Okay, I won't bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. The last time I was here I attempted a rather crude on paper drawing with a pencil that probably might have been more confusing than it should have been. What I brought with me this time is a presentation I made to the board many months ago before that other hearing about this item and why it is so difficult. And if you bear with me for a couple of minutes, I will tell you what Page 20 16'11 B5 April 15, 2010 the problems are. Simple geometry. A circle is the lowest of points equidistant from that center point. This is a point outside the circle. If you want to find the farthest point on that circle, on this circle here, if you want to find the farthest point from this point here, it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that that is this point here. That's the arc drawn from here. There is one point on that circle that is the farthest point from this point. That's what they're calling the foremost point of the lot. Because for a lot of any given frontage -- now, can you zoom out a little, Ray? Okay, you have three different shaped lots here. One lot has this, one has that, one has this for rear lots, rear lot lines. But the front is the same. Starts here, comes around a curve and comes to here. For these three different shaped lots you have three different foremost points, the point through the center of the circle to the arc. This is the foremost point of the lot, this being the back corner. This is the foremost point of the lot, this being the back corner, and the other lot, too. Now, when you have the same lot -- and I drew the second one in, just to make it -- and I measured it with a protractor, because that's how the person at the front desk would probably do it. This is a 90- degree -- technically a 90- degree lot. You know, it's a 90- degree corner. The two outside roads have -- intersect at 90 degrees. But when you measure the internal angle, the internal angle is 101 degrees, here at 10 degrees different. And the internal angle on this lot, having the same frontage and the same shape in the front, is 99.9 degrees. There's a degree in the difference. Now, the problem with the code is the code says 135 degrees, which means 135 degrees 00 minutes, 00 seconds, if you want to be really exact. Now, the only way to do that is -- to compute that is by using coordinate geometry. You compute the coordinates of the points, you compute the bearings between the coordinates, and you subtract the bearings from each other to get the angle between the lines. Now, that gets extremely complex when you have different shapes, and also if you're dealing with a lot -- with a very small front radius and very long lines, or if you're dealing with a lot with a very large radius and very short lot lines. You're going to have different angles all the time. It is not something the person at the front desk can do with a protractor easily. However, like Susan says, 90 percent of our lots are probably already built out. And the odds -- everybody talks about redevelopment, but the odds of a standing subdivision being razed to the ground with the infrastructure removed and re- subdivided in a different shape is kind of slim. So -- oh, one last figure. It gets really complicated when you have a lot that looks like that. And I would not inflict that upon the front desk person at all. So they come back to me. And it takes a while to compute that out. That's why I suggested we change it. But the other argument is it's been there for a long time. We've had this problem in a handful of cases; less than a handful. Kind of your choice. I'm just here to explain why the calculation is so different, why it would have been nice back in the old days to have had the definition we have now, but I -- you know, after going through this so many times, do you have any questions? We could get into extremely more complicated shapes. All these lots are 90- degree corners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody got any questions of Stan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's so confusing, I have no question. I mean -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's what I tried to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I cannot imagine a setback -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually, I thought that was very clear. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, your presentation is. But, you know, foremost means the first point. So obviously the si -- I agree with you on the side. I'm not 100 percent sure your -- you're coming up with the longest dimension on the site to determine the foremost of the front of it. Because I think what they were thinking back in the old days -- remember, they were a lot more logical and simple than us. They were thinking you take the foremost point where the side setback hits the right -of -way and then you take that angle, that line to the point where it starts to enter the curb or if it's on a curb and then the other one and see if that's an angle greater than 135. Which it would not be a corner lot then. Page 21 I - 161IT5 .' . April 15, 2010 I can't imagine them proposing to do that kind of geometry, because they didn't even have the skills and the tools really to do it like we do today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm hoping the person that wrote this was not Polish. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Hey. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's irrelevant. You know, I hope they were a surveyor is what I'm hoping. But the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not sure of that either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the thing is that I don't know what the definition means. I'm not sure that's right -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Had they said that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're the guy in charge of it, so I'll bow to you. But again, it doesn't -- what advantage do you get? Like take this thing here, where would the streets be in that? It would be on the curve? Then that whole thing has front setbacks, so it doesn't really matter. You'd have setbacks that would probably -- it's a one, two, three, essentially five, six, seven property line things. So some would be -- some of them could even be a rear, Stan. I mean, if you take the typical rectangle lot. Yes, that gives you two side setbacks. But let's say in the back I truncate one of those property lines. That would then become a rear, so you could draw a corner lot that has a rear setback. No one's ever had trouble with what's side or what's rear because you look at the street you're on. In other words, if the adjacent site, that property line is the side setback, it should be a side setback on the corner lot. I mean, that's always been simple, no one's ever had trouble with that. If there is a fifth property line and it's into the rear property of all the other properties, then that's a rear property line. MS. ISTENES: It gets a lot more complicated than you think. The zoning staff -- and there's a provision in the LDC that says the zoning director has the ability to interpret what the Lot lines are. Fronts are always easy because they're always on streets, so at least you can eliminate that. But you can get some pretty complicated, you know, five, six -sided lots, short little lot lines that nobody knows whether they're sides or rears, and not necessarily on corner lots. Obviously corner lots are a lot easier too. So I just caution you, it can get very, very complicated as to how to lay out a lot and where the setbacks fall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, fronts are easy. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: May I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sides are easy, because they're always the one connecting to the front. It's the rear that could be confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's stick with this definition -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The solution you're giving is the extension of the side -- the extension of the front lot lines toward the -- toward where they meet in front of the arc is the same as we're suggesting the extension of the center lines of the roads. Because the front lot line is parallel to the center line of the road. Had they said the extension of the Lot lines, that would have been clearer. Had they said the midpoint of the arc, that would have been very easy. But they didn't, they said the foremost point. And the interpretation that some previous member of the planning staff gave that was the point that's foremost from the rear point of the lot, which is what we're stuck with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, the intent here is we're going to bring the old definition back. to me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what they're trying to do, which is where my concern is. But when it gets COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done, thank you. Go to your -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm confused as what we're trying to do, but I'll just --I'm just here for the geometry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm confused about the proposed new definition, so that one confuses me. The old one did not. The new one, it says the intersection of the right -of -way center lines of two streets. Where do you consider a center line of a street, Stan? Page 22 B5Aril 15, 2010 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's generally shown on the -- on a straight road -- well, it's -- it's the point -- it's the extension of the line that splits the two side property lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the center line of a street is -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The property lines on both sides of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what do you do on an area like a cul -de- sac? Where would the center -- or the area where you have a property line abutting at the end of a cul -de -sac where they're right up against one another, there's no separation between the two of them? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Generally the -- generally our right -of -way is 60 foot. And the center line on a 60 -foot straight or curved line is easy to determine. It's the splitting of the two sides of the street. But when it comes to the cul -de -sac, every set of drawings on our file shows the center line ending at the point that's the radius point to the cul -de -sac. That's where it ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you -- you'd have to continue an imaginary point beyond that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, there's no -- because none of those are corner lots, there'd be no sense in doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if they're not corner lots -- okay, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What (sic) are we looking for a corner lot on a cul -de- sac? What is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Where the cul -de -sac starts off, if you have a very -- I hate doing this again with a pencil, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How could a cul -de -sac have a corner lot? That's -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, I'm going to draw a little picture and not say anything, because I'm not into multitasking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like a kidney, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. This is the curved street coming into the cul -de -sac. This lot here, because the point from here to here to there, that angle in here could be less than 135 degrees, could be construed as a corner lot by the old definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This lot formed right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what advantage would that give you then? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you know -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- it makes it a corner lot instead of a regular lot. And whatever the rules are apply. MR. BELLOWS: It changes setbacks. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, with the new definition, the setback would be a front yard, which I believe would be greater, which is generally 25 feet. Generally, I think? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a good example we're talking. And the two -- there's two side yards. Those are the guys that are connecting to the right -of -way. And then there's actually a rear yard in your example. So what is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not anymore. It's a corner lot, there's no rear yard. That's the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not -- I mean, that's assuming that every corner lot has four boundaries, I mean. But this one definitely has a rear yard. MS. ISTENES: Not as a corner lot it doesn't. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But with the new definition, it wouldn't fall under the definition of a corner lot, so therefore the entire front yard would be 25 feet and then you'd have to opine what the other two sides are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So on a corner lot -- so here's the advantage. Corner lots never have rear yards. Every other boundary on it, no matter how many or how few, are all side yards from that point on. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though there could be a person living behind you and that property line is his year yard, it's no longer your rear yard, it's a side yard? MS. ISTENES: Correct. Unless -- yeah. Yes, in that case, yes. Page 23 16 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't get it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any other questions of staff or Stan on what to do with the definitions on Page 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Now we need to decide what we want to do. Personally I don't know why we'd want to change the original to something even more confusing. I don't think the original is confusing. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Stan, could I just ask you one question here? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: How long have you been with the county? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It will be 19 years September 30th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nineteen years. And this issue has only come up less than a handful of times? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think three times. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three times in 19 years. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All recently. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and all recently. Hey, I don't know, I see it as full -time employment for you and leave the code the way it's been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have a summary of this, so -- at least in a motion. So does anybody feel like making a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we -- I have no idea what's going on, so I'm a good one maybe to make this motion. The -- and I really feel like I'm missing a trick here somewhere that somebody -- Stan, I hope you teach me some day. I make a motion that we bring back the old definition, since the county's mostly been built out on it, let it go the few remaining plats with the old definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And that's for corner lot, correct? Just for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's for corner lot. The other ones are fine; we've discussed those. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the recommend -- the motion is to bring back the old definition for lot corner, not make the changes on Page 6 in that regard, but leave -- make the changes for lot interior and lot through. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Is there a discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the reason I think the new definition fails is that there are situations in the geometry of lots and platting where you could have other than side yards on a corner lot. And you may then be setting up a situation where a neighbor has to honor a rear setback and the lot with this definition would treat that as a side setback. So I think that has a lot of unpredictable conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 24 16� B5 April 11, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Okay, with that, we will take a break till 10:15, and when we come back we'll resume the deletion of the recreational vehicle provisions. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We were still having fun with the LDC amendments when we took the break, and we're going to continue to have this enjoyable day march forward. So with that in mind, let's move on to Section 2.01.00, deletion of recreational vehicle provisions. This is with Susan and the County Attorney's Office. It's on Page 9. The actual text of what's being proposed is on Page 16 and it goes to Page 20. It is actually not an LDC amendment for those pages, it's struck out of the LDC and moved to an ordinance separate from the LDC. Susan? MS. ISTENES: Correct. And if you recall last time, you had gotten a handout of the revised ordinance. And we had just gotten it a little bit late so you didn't have an opportunity to read it. And so that's why this is back on your agenda today. So that ordinance was handed to you by the County Attorney's Office I believe it was last meeting. And that's why we just went ahead and delayed that, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I could just add to it. What had occurred is that the Board of County Commissioners had wanted to move a permitting process related to recreational vehicles into the Code of Laws, and there was some staff direction to make that change. If you move part of it and not the whole thing, it creates some problems and becomes very complicated. So when I looked at the 08 -64, which had been drafted by Ms. Student, you couldn't have the text in 08 -64, but then the exceptions in the LDC, it became very confusing. So the proposal before you is to take everything out of the LDC, keep it in one place and then at the same time we'll go forward with this proposed 08 -64. And it's partially written for readability. It's not in the form that will go to the Board of County Commissioners. And what I mean by that is I've provided some underlying language, particularly under the definition section, and then again on Page 18 under B -1. That is the language that's currently in the Ordinance 08 -64 in which was moved. And I did that just for your reference so it would be easier to read. The remaining text is essentially the same text in the -- as what is in the LDC. It just moves it out. But then I've provided some italicized areas to draw your attention to to make sure that you understand the applicability of this ordinance, which is how it's being interpreted by the Code Enforcement Department. And they had some questions and wanted some direction, if you would like to provide any direction as to whether or not some of these sections should apply to the Estates or not. The code enforcement had received some direction that some of the sections that deal with mobile homes and single- family homes would apply to the Estates. I don't believe that's how they are currently interpreting it. So we just want to make sure that if you want to provide any direction, this is the proposed ordinance where it says it does not apply to the Estates. That's just for your reference so you can follow. When it goes to the board and is approved in final form, that language will not be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I've got to ask why someone saw the need to take this out of the Land Development Code and move it at all into an ordinance. And the reason for that question is this is an effective impact on the land use. If you for example change the language under Section 7, commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in residential areas, and somehow you insert the Estates in there, you basically wipe out all the small business owners in Collier County who drive their trucks home, who park their vehicles and landscape trucks in their garages or back yards or somewhere in their driveways or a lot of this, or a car with a sign or a truck with a sign on the side or a piece of conduit on the roof. The Estates is full of working people. And I know that's not in here, it's excepted out now. But the change then becomes outside the realm of a Land Development Code change that affects land use. It becomes an ordinance change that can be done on a simple quiet summary agenda at the BCC and then it has an impact that's far reaching. So is it a necessity to take this out of the Land Development Code and move it into a separate ordinance? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, my understanding of the board direction, which was a little bit vague, was that the whole section was to be taken out. Because this item went to the Board of County Commissioners on an Page 25 1611Apri,85 10 agenda item when they were looking at the expedited permitting process for recreational vehicles. So my understanding was the whole thing was to be taken out. And what was presented to the board at that time is this wasn't so much a regulation of land use and land development rights and it's something that could go into the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree that it's not probably intended to be a land use application, but in reality it becomes one because of what it regulates. And that's your -- you know, home operations, home businesses, you -- and that's what this county -- this is how the county works. I mean, we basically rely on those home businesses to keep the prices down and keep the workers here and do the best possible -- least expensive jobs they can. And this helps them do that. And I agree, in some parts of the county, like the coastal area, they can have their rules where they don't want to have commercial vehicles parked in driveways with signs on them or conduit, but that's not offensive in the Estates. And I think that if we move this into a process that doesn't open it up into full public review if there's such a change, we could have things done that we don't expect. And I'm concerned over it and I know -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, any changes would require advertised public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that means the fine print in the legal ads, and it goes on a summary agenda, unless somebody knows to pull it, which all the time is not -- you know, if you read a summary agenda, a lot of times you don't get the succinct information you need to know if there's a problem there or not. So I really think that the multiple public process it goes through by being in the LDC and having it changed in the LDC is more advantageous to the public than a single blind process, let's say, that almost comparatively an ordinance goes through. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I don't know this, did I hear you correctly say that the board decided to move all of this because they were concerned with an issue of expediting permits? And then relate that to me to how it affects Collier County parking storage and use of recreational vehicle control. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: This dealt specifically with recreational vehicles. And the board wanted to move the section that dealt with the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and allow an on -line permitting process for -- I have too many papers here, so let me refer to it. MS. ISTENES: I believe it was to allow like RV's, what have you, to be parked temporarily in the front yard for a period of time, if I recall correctly, and they were going to issue a permit to do that. And then the permit would be visible. So if a code enforcement officer stopped by to check to see if they had a permit, they would know whether or not to issue a citation. I'm not sure how that ties in with the whole thing -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It actually -- MS. ISTENES: -- moving. That's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm trying to get. MS. ISTENES: -- the part I can't answer. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, they directed to take it out of the LDC and put it in the ordinance. And when they did that, they took part of it. And then the whole rest of the section, it makes it very confusing unless we totally rewrite it. And you know when you totally rewrite it, you could have unintended consequences. So they wanted to add another permitting period that would allow vehicles to be parked for 48 hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've just -- I have looked through the Code of Laws, and there are issues in the Code of Laws that are addressed in the LDC, but they're addressed differently in the Code of Laws. Why couldn't we just address what was needed to be addressed in the Code of Laws, which is the process for on -line permitting, say, but not change the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code's language and leave it in the Land Development Code to be dealt with as we always have in public meetings, numerous public meetings, to make a change like this? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And to just further that, all you would have to do in the Land Development Code is note that permitting issues are dealt with in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. So somebody has a reference, they know where to go, but everything else remains in -- in the LDC. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need. Page 26 1 �5 i April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: I just was trying to understand. I didn't see the meeting, I didn't know what the issue was, and I couldn't figure it out from reading this why the change was wanted or needed. And I'm not sure I still get it. But it would seem to me that if it strictly has to do with wanting to have a way to permit something, and that's more appropriate to be in the Code of Laws, that's all fine, well and good. Leave the rest of this alone and just note that issues regarding permitting, you must refer to the Code of Laws. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you take a look at Section 6 and you look at B -1 and B -2, they both have to do with the permitting of recreational vehicles. Would it be your suggestion -- I could try to come up with some kind of proposal to move that portion. Because you've got a seven -day permit and then you've got a 48 -hour permit. What creates confusion is you have a seven -day permit in one and a 48 in the other and you have to go to two different sections. So if, you know, certain things like you can't use it for sleeping, those kind of things, possibly I could take a look at that first under Section 6.A -- I'm looking at the ordinance -- and keep some of that but then allow a -- there's a permitting procedure in the Code of Laws for the temporary parking. And then I guess I could look into pulling just the permitting portions out and put it in the code. Would that address -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might get you something, but why was the advice even offered that that's the better way of doing it rather than just write it up in the LDC like this amendment's doing and be done with it? I don't get it. What was the point of even suggesting it be moved to the Code of Laws or a separate ordinance when we had the LDC already loaded with the language, and if they needed to tweak a paragraph, they could do it just like they're doing today? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can't really speak as to why they -- what different options that they looked at and why. I can tell you that I think options were presented to the board that it would allow it to occur more expeditiously, and the board chose the option to go the most expeditious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like they got there. But we have a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the Chinese drywall issue, you're going to get into a situation here too potentially certainly that's up in Fort Myers, Lee County now, where they had to make an exception to allow a guy to have his -- an RV, whether he rented or not, I wouldn't know, in order for them to rehabilitate the house. Are we going to get into a situation if we go forward with this where they'd have to go in again and again and again, or are we going to see a lot of exceptions? Because I suspect that there's a lot of Chinese drywall. That's an unintended consequence, I surmise. But as I've met, where you have on Page 18, and then you wrote up the issue that I was going to talk about, so long as a permit, you don't define what kind of permit there, not to exceed 48 hours within any given seven -day time period, but under number two below you talk about it's okay to have your -- a temporary use permit to have your vehicle there for repair or cleaning, and then you speak about it having to have it stored otherwise. But that's a land control item, I would think. So I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Strain that this seems to be unnecessarily onerous. And I just think that the impact will be more severe than it needs to be. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So would your recommendation be then to pull the permitting process that was in the 08 -64 and move it into here, or just have two separate processes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we have -- at the minimum in many instances we have it strongly inferred that there are permit activities associated with other things. And so if it needs to be stated or stipulated, that's fine. But I think it needs to come back to where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, why are we reinventing the wheel? We already have a code that has 99 percent of the language needed. There seems to be something somebody wanted to change, like we always have had in our code, two cycles a year, practically. Why don't we just make the change in the code and go on, instead of creating a new ordinance in another document that doesn't have the same level of protection for public involvement or public notification that this one does? This is actually the better of the documents for more public involvement. You have more opportunity for the public to be involved and be noticed of a Land Development Code change than they do of an ordinance change. Page 27 1611 . April 15, 2010 So I think we ought to be working towards what's best for public involvement and leave this in there. It doesn't hurt. I just don't see the need. So, I mean, that's -- I know we have a couple of members of the public who want to speak on this here today, and I certainly think if everybody's in agreement, we'll hear from them now. Peter, do you have anything you want to add? And then Mark. MR. GADDY: Thank you. I agree with the comments that I've heard from the Planning Commission on keeping this in the Land Development Code. I just want to point out that many people moved to Golden Gate Estates and continue to reside in Golden Gate Estates because they can retain on their property a recreational vehicle or a trailer or their own commercial vehicle. It's a very serious matter to take those existing property rights away from people by changing the rules sometime in the future. So I would be in favor of keeping this in the Land Development Code. One technical item I wanted to raise in section five. The words immediately operable. This has to do with inoperable vehicles. It seems to me that if I go home tonight, this ordinance is passed, and I leave my lights on, my battery's going to be dead in the morning and I'm going to be in technical violation of this section of the code. I don't want to open a Pandora's box on the issue of repairs, but I think something needs to be done with this language so that people aren't continuously in technical violation. Because this is the one section that of course does apply to Golden Gate Estates. But this comment really is for all residents of the county. People have a broken vehicle, sometimes they need time to fix it, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, those -- and if that happens, though, the fines start and they're on an hourly basis. That way we have another source of revenue. MR. GADDY: Oh, okay. Oh, great, we're going to need it. MR. BELLOWS: Could you state your name for the record, too, please? MR. GADDY: Peter Gaddy, president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. We have talked about this on a board level, and all the board members are concerned about this ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point too, Peter, thank you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, just to draw to your attention, the language he just read is the language that currently is in your Land Development Code. I just want to make sure you were aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if we're making changes, I think we can make them better. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Certainly. I just wanted to make sure you saw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. Understand. Thank you. Mark? MR. TEATERS: Yes, for the record, Mark Teaters with the Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates. Just to let you know, we have not had a formal meeting about this. However, we have had discussion amongst ourselves over the Internet e-mail about this. And there is concern as well. I think that I do agree with the Chair and everyone on leaving this alone. And Mr. Murray's point is well taken about Chinese drywall. And in Southwest Florida, you know, we still have quite a few areas where people are still recovering from storms and different events where they may need something like that parked in front of their place for whatever period of time. And there was something else. The other thing too is I noticed in here -- and I understand that this isn't -- what I'm going to talk to you about is in the original documentation, but some of this appears to be a little bit convoluted or mixed up. There's a lot of conversation in here about commercial vehicles and recreational vehicles in the same item in here. And I think as it related to Golden Gate Estates -- I was reading through this again last night, and I think -- I'm trying to look and see where that was again. Exempted small commercial equipment and ladders and pipes. But then again they said vehicles or trailers of any type that are not immediately operable or used for the purposes which they were manufactured without mechanical or electrical repairs, or the replacement of parts or do not meet the Florida safety code. It says vehicles or trailers of any type, not just RV's or anything like that. Then it talks about or used for the purpose for which they were manufactured. We have folks out in the Estates that have trailers on their property for storage purposes. You know, if you buy a tractor - trailer or whatever it is, you know, storing something in it may not be the end use for which it was originally intended. Page 28 1611B5 I April 15, 2010 So -- and I understand that that is in the original language as well. That isn't in the changes. But I do agree with you folks about this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mark. Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another thought. A utility trailer; horse trailer is usually a utility trailer. I have seen horse trailers that have a residence, if you will, in the front, isolated of course from the horse area. But that's an RV. So you're going to get into some wacky situations with that. I just think let's keep it where it's sane. That would be where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, first of all, this is -- this document that we're reviewing is a proposed ordinance which the Planning Commission doesn't have any -- weigh in on ordinances, normally. It's here because I think we're trying to be shown than it's complete in regards to removal from the LDC. But I think the consensus from this board, and when we get to the motion maybe that will be the way it will go, is that we're recommending that this ordinance not be adopted and that the LDC -- it contain all the language needed that the commission is looking for and not create a separate document to do that, leave everything in the Land Development Code. Is that seemingly where everybody's going? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other input from anybody or any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I would like -- Mark, would it be appropriate in Section B, it's on Page 18, to add one more thing for the County Manager. There is a group working on how to do housing after hurricanes and stuff. So could we add a number four, which is during times of declared emergencies, which would allow the County Manager rather easily to allow recreation of vehicles for people whose homes are damaged and things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. I think, though, that you wouldn't want -- well, that's in this ordinance, so I guess Heidi, that's a recommendation as to whatever way it goes. If the board insists on letting it remain as a separate ordinance, then Brad's suggestion would probably be a good one to consider. But if it goes back in Land Development Code or stays there when the changes are made that the board is seeking for permitting purposes, we might want to look at further making the code better. And I think Mr. Gaddy's and Mr. Teaters' concerns on over Section 5.A are well noted. And then Bard's point about adding a BA for emergency issues. But I think you'd have to come back anyway so we'd have a complete rewrite to rejudge this thing at that point. To put it back into the LDC. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I think your recommendation would be to deny -- you know, the recommendation of denial of the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ms. Caron, do you have anything -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, l just wanted to comment here. On Page 16 it says what the BCC wanted to do. They wanted to provide additional time for recreational vehicles to be stored or parked on properties within residentially zoned areas, for whatever reason, as well as to provide for a streamlined permitting process. So I think all of that can easily be handled right in the LDC. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not finding anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there a motion to deny this recommendation -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of changes to the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. And I'm assuming it's for Section 2.01.00, and the reason for denial is to retain the consistency with the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is exactly the way I would have said it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? Page 29 B 5 1 Aril 15 2010 April , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. We appreciate it. You might want to keep track of it when it gets to the BCC. I'm not sure how it will get there, so -- MR. GADDY: Thank you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is 4.05.02.M, typical off - street parking design. Stan Chrzanowski. This was a rehash of one he's presented a couple of times. MS. ISTENES: I can present this for Stan. Susan Istenes, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Page 31 is being removed. Page 32 is being readopted. My recollection is you had indicated you wanted to see some changes to the drawing. The location of the handicapped signs was one. I think you thought that was confusing. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ramp. MS. ISTENES: The ramp, thank you. The other discussion we had was with respect to the landscape buffer requirements in the vehicle bumper overhang. I consulted with staff on that. The -- there is actually a reference in the LDC to this drawing with respect to the requirements of the vehicle -- or the allowances, I should say, of vehicle overhang in the required landscape buffer. The text had said that a two -foot vehicle bumper overhang is allowed into any landscape buffer 10 feet or more in width. So where you have a five -foot landscape buffer, you cannot have that overhang. But where you have 10 or greater you may have that overhang. So if you look on the right side of the page around the center, we reworded that to explain that requirement. And so that is how it has been applied. So hopefully that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And sue, what that's saying is that if you had a lesser than 10 feet, you could have the grass area, you just can't count it as part of the buffer. MS. ISTENES: You got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I think -- I looked at everything else, I think this has been well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any comments, questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation for Section 4.05.02.M? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that. I move that we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and we recommend approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second's been made by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 30 161 195 1 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Let's run back, and I notice we can finish up on this -- well, who knows if we can finish up -- timeshare. Okay, Richard, do you want to tell us how much in agreement you are with everything? MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything, or just on this particular provision? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice if it was everything for a change, but let's just move forward. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One thing at a time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe on Page 4, footnote three, you have some handwritten revisions. And those are fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, did you have anything else to add to this? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just on Page 3, footnote four, determination of whether the language that's added, or 26, should stay in. In talking with Mr. Weeks, who was involved in the earlier drafts of this LDC provision, he indicated footnote four only applies to residential. So I think if you delete the "or 26" under footnote four -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't mean footnote for, you mean RT footnote four -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I'm sorry, RT -4 and 17. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the "or 26" comes out where the RT footnote four, footnote 17 is referred to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which would be the seventh line -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- eighth line down. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody have any questions relating to the changes? MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, if you would, because this was a handout, probably would be best to read the proposal into the record with respect to the Port of the Islands addition that you were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, it's your handwriting. I think. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, well the handout is a little bit different in the text of what is in the book. So if you go to Page 4 under footnote three, I'll read what the language should read: A maximum of 26 dwelling units per acre are allowed for hotels and motels. A hotel or motel in the Port of the Islands may offer timeshare units and retain the density of 26 units per acre. Then under footnote four on the same page, I guess I'll just read it for the record: For the RT zoning located inside activity centers as designated on the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Map, residential units, including those for timeshares and multi - family uses, are allowed at a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre. Similarly, for RT zoning not located within activity centers but in existence at the time of adoption of the LDC, October 30th, 1991, residential units are allowed at a maximum of 16 units per acre. And then the remaining addition on your prior drafts is no longer proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under footnote three, after you added the language for Port of the Islands, the last part of that former sentence that was underlined is all struck through now -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and no longer valid. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on Page 3, we struck on line seven the reference to "or 26 ". MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all the changes? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I just want to note for the record on the prior draft under Page 4 for G.G.D.C.C.O., one of the checkmarks was left off. That is -- the checkmark is hand- checked on your draft, but that's not a text Page 31 161195 ' Aril 15, 2010 April change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions of the proposed changes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on this chart, we have three RT's. How do we know where they apply and where they don't apply? Is it -- I mean, we also have it with VR's. So there's no identification. MR. YOVANOVICH: I had the same question. And it made sense the way it was explained to me, so maybe since I had the same question I can help answer the question. It's really the footnote that governs. So for RT with the footnote three, that's the commercial type uses, hotel/motel. RT footnote four applies to residential and capture density at 16. And then footnote five, I don't remember which one that applies to, but it's the footnote that's going to govern. So you'll see that if you're zoned RT, you have to look at the footnotes to figure out what your density or intensity is, depending on your type of use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're allowed -- if I look at a zoning map and it says RT, I can choose out of any one of these three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hu -uh. It says it on the zoning map. I believe -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if you're RT, yes, and you want to be -- if you're RT and you want to do a hotel, you do 26 units per acre. If you're RT and want to do a hotel that's owned as a timeshare, you can only do that in Port of the Islands, that 26 units per acre. Because that's -- the footnote will govern when -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The other footnotes have to do with whether you're in an activity center -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or you're not in an activity center -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And those were intensities -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that's the difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for residential, not commercial uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I still would go look at these three, see which ones apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If two apply, I get to choose what I want, if that's ever the case. Sounds like it might not be, but -- okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thing we are doing is we're only allowing timeshares in Port of the Isles. We're clarifying that they're allowed. So does that mean they're only allowed in Port of the Isles? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're only allowed at an intensity of 26 units per acre as a hotel use in Port of the Islands. If you wanted to have a hotel at 26 units per acre owned as a timeshare not on the Port of the Islands, you're capped at 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until such time that staff comes back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with a rework of the LDC that we requested under the previous definition -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To analyze it in greater detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron. Motion -- COMMISSIONER CARON: LDC 2 --I'm sorry, I guess we have to go --I guess this is just for 2.05.01, because we've already done the definitions. We've already given an approval for that, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we got definitions in here too. It wouldn't hurt to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just do them both. Page 32 B5 4 161 1 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: So for LDC Sections 1.08.02, definitions, and 2.05.01, density standards and housing types, I find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and forward this to the BCC with a motion of approval, based on the changes that we have made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Sorry, Richard, this is a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to miss our time together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, this was a -- this brought the paycheck in, didn't it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're eating this month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one, and I think the last one for today, is 5.05.05.B, automobile service stations. And it's on Page 33. And the language part of it goes to Page 35. Susan, you want to enlighten us as to -- or John or whoever's going to take this? MS. ISTENES: I can do that. We would be done by now if I hadn't picked up this error. But in reviewing the Immokalee overlay standards with Mr. Mulhere, I picked up an error on the automobile service station criteria that was again not intentionally left out during the recodification. It's a very important piece, because it speaks to nonconformities created when this original -- these original automobile service stations were adopted, which I believe was '98, I think, or towards the end of'97. So they've been around for a while. But on Page 35 under P, the exceptions to the standards dealt with certain development criteria that was adopted with these regulations. That potentially could render existing automobile service stations nonconforming. And the intent wasn't to do that. The intent was to essentially grandfather those provisions in that are specified there. What I did do, though, since I was bringing this back, was I did attempt to rewrite them because in my practice of applying these there has been some confusion about how they apply. So hopefully I rewrote them -- did not change the regulatory language, but just rewrote them so it was a little bit more clear as to when to apply. And I'm just simply asking that you all recommend approval of adopting these back in so we don't have nonconforming issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions or discussion from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this one is not as complicated. Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I make a motion to approve, recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that 05.05.13? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL• Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 05.05.B, consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it most certainly is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) Page 33 1 R U 5 April 1, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Okay, that brings us to the end of our LDC. Now, we can't continue because you've got to re- advertise. MS. ISTENES: Correct. And what we're looking at for the MPP shoreline is your regular meeting of May 20th. And it looks like we're going to be able to meet the advertising deadlines for that. So I would expect that you would see that on your agenda for May 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, we can adjourn this meeting. There's no old business, new business. Any business? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Funny business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay, motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you all. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:53 a.m. These minutes approved by the board on corrected CK�71I 1I iAMr1 PL G COMMISSION MARIf STRAIN, Chairman as presented V or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 34 I6J 25 RECEIVED May 6, 201 Fial 0 a —f .... JUN Y _ 2010 Halas TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Henning Board of County Commissioners COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Coyle Naples, Florida Coletta May 6, 2010 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: 1- \QY6l9;1W4aofI CHAIRMAN Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray (Excused) Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Excused) David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, CDES Interim Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 Misc. Comes: Date: Item t C^^Ies to: 161 - B ay 6, 2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. You two guys want to move closer? It's up to you. Anyway, good morning, welcome to the May 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Donna, would you mind doing the roll call this morning. COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Murray is absent. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I believe both the Bobs are absent for reasons they called in for, so they'll be excused. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is addenda to the agenda. I understood there may be a change to 8.B, which is the Immokalee deviation process. Is that a fact, County Attorney's Office? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're asking that be continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any objections from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll discontinue Item 8.13. Any other addenda to the agenda? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. The next meeting we have is May 20th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on May 20th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay, we'll have a quorum that day. 9'y`• Page 2 1k fi9i 161, 65 . May 6 2010 Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES —MARCH 24,20 10 (LDC), APRIL 1, 2010 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1 2010 (LDC) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes, March 24th, LDC minutes. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Karen first and Donna second. So all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. The regular meeting of April 1 st and then an LDC meeting of April 1 st. Both are the same set of minutes, I believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Donna, seconded by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Item #6 BCC REPORT — RECAPS — APRIL 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the recaps on April 27th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board heard the PUD rezone for the McMullen PUD. That was continued from an earlier meeting to allow the applicant to address some of the concerns from Commissioner Fiala. The petitioner revised some of the -- and made more clear what uses were prohibited in regards to some group housing issues, and they approved it on their agenda 5 -0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Ray, could you put that item on the overhead? Let's hope the Page 3 16 UB6,25010 overhead works. MR. BELLOWS: It's not turned on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or plugged in. There we go. That's a new book, and it's by Daniel Mandelker. If you remember the gentleman here, he was a professor who came and helped us wade through the changes to the sign ordinance to make it constitutionally right. He wrote a new book titled, as you see it, Designing Planned Communities. And he did actually mention Collier County. He basically congratulated us for our -- or used our RLSA standards as one example of good planning, and the architectural standards in the regular sections of the LDC. And in doing so he also acknowledged Susan Istenes and Catherine Fabacher for all the work that they did to help through the sign process and all that. And I certainly think we owe all them a thank you and a good job well done. And it's good to see Collier County being recognized as well. So thank you both. Item #8A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -918, HICKORY HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will move right into our regular items. First item up is the 8.A. It's consent agenda item Petition BD -PL- 2009 -918, the Hickory Harbour Condominium Association. Any comments from the Planning Commission on the consent issue? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We had an e -mail on this, I believe, and I didn't understand it. It said some numbers were changed. And I could not find, in looking at the attachment to the e-mail. Did you recall receiving that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I received it. And I think there was a quantity of boat docks was the issue. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, can you clarify it for us. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta. On I believe it was the second paragraph from the bottom on the first sheet, it said that there were 14 slips on the attachment. In the fifth paragraph from the bottom it now says 16 correctly. It matches the application submitted by the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, does that clarify your -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue? Okay, anybody else have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve Petition 8.A? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 4 16 B 1 �ay 6, 2 010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Item #8C LDC AMENDMENT 3.06.06 F — REGULATED WELLFIELDS — ORANGE TREE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is Petition 8.C, LDC amendment 3.06.06.F, the regulated wellfields, Orangetree. I'm not sure what the -- I can't remember offhand why we're hearing this. Susan, this is just one we missed probably doing final approval on during the process? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record. I'm going by memory here, but I think my recollection was that there was an illustration that was presented to you on the overhead that was slightly different from the one in the packet. And the packet was the one that had the error. So what we presented and talked about was correct. And so just in the abundance of caution we just wanted to bring this back on the consent agenda with the corrected illustration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #9A PETITION: SV- PL2009 -2421, TAC HOLDINGS, L.P. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us into our regular advertised public hearings. First one up is SV -PL- 2009 -2421, TAC Holdings, LP. It's for a signage at the -- forgot the name of the -- there it is, the American Monumentum (sic) Center. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the packet I noticed that we did not have the reference to approval that the applicant had said he had from the foundation. So I had contacted the Pelican Bay Foundation and asked them for a copy of their approval. They did forward it to me. So other than that, that's the only communications I had. And it's the applicant's show at this point. Page 5 E 85 1611 May 6, 2010 MR. RIGGINS: Good morning. My name is Jeff Riggins with Riggins Associates, here to represent American Momentum Bank. As you know, our request is to install a non - illuminated monument sign to be located on Oakmont Parkway. The property in question is located on U.S. 41 and Oakmont Parkway. U.S. 41 is the primary traveled roadway there, but there is no entry into the center from U.S. 41. The only entrance to the center is on Oakmont Parkway. The sign we're requesting is to help motorists identify the entry and guide them into the center. We feel it's essential to have the sign on Oakmont, as the road is very heavily landscaped, and the transition from Oakmont into the center will be made much easier by this identification sign. It's also located on a bend in the road on Oakmont. The sign itself will be constructed to match the architecture of the existing monument sign on U.S. 41. The copy size is minimal, with the upper case lettering at seven inches and the lower case lettering at only three- and -a -half inches. The property will be an office center and will also be home to the American Momentum Bank. Of course banks rely on drive -up traffic, and their requested sign will assist in getting customers safely into the bank with positive traffic flow by allowing ample time for them to turn into the center. As mentioned, the property is located on a curve in the roadway, adding to the difficulty in identifying the entrance to the bank. In a word, we call the sign practical. The intent of our request is not just to have another sign or over -sign the property but to rather serve as a practical manner in which to help patrons navigate into the center. It is presented in a tasteful manner, consistent with the balance of the signage in Pelican Bay. To be noted as well, the fact that the center address is a U.S. 41 address, but the entry to the property is on U.S. -- the entry -- there is no entry on U.S. 41, even though the address is U.S. 41. We therefore respectfully request your support for our approval on this project and will be glad to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, one thing is you go to the plan you have of the V- shaped sign. You have a note in there that the angle is to be determined. MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you mind -- I think 90 degrees is the greatest that angle could be. MR. RIGGINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would you mind putting in there less than or equal to 90 degrees? MR. RIGGINS: That is not a problem. It could definitely be less than. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, let's go to that sign on the site plan. MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It seems odd the way you're orienting it. You're -- essentially the public's going to look into the V. I'm not sure why that's -- essentially you're providing signage for the parking lot, not the garage. MR. RIGGINS: No, I see what you're referring to. And that is -- I can't believe I didn't see that before. The orientation will obviously be for the Oakmont direction. That is incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially if you mirrored that over 180 so -- MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that the flat part, the east -west stays the same but the north -south is actually to the -- MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, can you provide a new site plan with the reorientation for the record -- Page 6 6 May 6, 2010 MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by the time we get to consent? MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, second of all, the site plan that you provided, do you have it kind of in front of you? Do you have it handy? MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what the revisions nine and 10 were? MR. RIGGINS: Revisions nine and 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One was dated 11/3/09, the other one's -- MR. RIGGINS: Yes, I had spoke to Nancy. We had -- actually on this site plan we had -- there were a couple of interior directional signs that once they get into the property to identify them how to get to the banking center, to get to the drive- through, we actually had those removed from the plan. That was one of the revisions. The other revision was to add the dimensions as shown on there per our conversation, which is 135 feet, the 348 and the 120. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, by adding those dimensions, you didn't change them, you just were adding them for text to the document. MR. RIGGINS: Yes, this was a request from Nancy when I spoke to her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is because the plan you gave to the foundation, which they approved, was up to but not including those last two revisions. But if the revisions are insubstantial in any manner, which it seems they are, then it really doesn't matter. MR. RIGGINS: That were done strictly for this meeting, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: One of the criteria for variances is that the variances be the minimum required variance. MR. RIGGINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: What makes you determine that this sign is the minimum that you need? MR. RIGGINS: Well, given the copy size, which was what we based it on, we have a lower case lettering of three inches, which in traveling in a roadway to try to determine what your size were (sic), plus the sizes of the signs themselves were actually dictated by Pelican Bay, so we worked within their parameters. And the copy sizes, like I say, were worked all the way down to three inches for the lower case, which is quite small for motorists traffic. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. MR. RIGGINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning Services. And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance today, with one condition of approval, and I would like to change the language on that just slightly by adding one word. The condition of approval is that the sign is limited to the Oakmont Parkway, extra word, and extension entrance. And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the only question is Nancy, don't you think it would be wise if our sign code allowed through lots to have two signs on it? I mean, essentially it's on two roads, two frontages. MS. GUNDLACH: It sounds wise, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put that on our things to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the same time, though, we could even let staff make those kind of judgment Page 7 May 6, 2010 calls when it's an identical scenario and one that is -- I shouldn't say the word identical, but basically lives within the parameters that the signage on 41 would be existing with. So that's a laundry list of things that has been kind of hanging out there that staff could look at as maybe looking at some more administrative processes instead of public processes and simple things like that, so -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, this is another one of those instances where you cannot see -- you won't be able to see this new sign from any other place. You have to be on Oakmont traveling in front of it in order to see it. You won't be able to see it also from 41 or also from Pelican Bay -- I forget -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boulevard. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- whether it's -- Boulevard. You won't be able to see it from there. You'll have to actually be almost in front of the place on Oakmont in order to see it. So just doesn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was that last stipulation you had asked for? MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, just the correct name of the street. It's not Oakmont Parkway, it is Oakmont Parkway Extension. And we'll bring that back to you on the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how many public speakers do we have registered for this? MR. BELLOWS: None for this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good to hear. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made to approve and seconded. I'm assuming that the following two stipulations are to go with the motions. I'll need confirmation after they're read. First one is that the angle will be less than or equal to 90 percent -- or 90 degrees. Second one is that they'll reorientate the sign 180 degrees on Oakmont. Okay, does the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion maker and second accept those? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, except I think we don't want them to particularly -- well, that works, rotating it works. Same as mirroring it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's going to come back on consent, so we can always make sure it gets to the point then. Okay, motion's been made, seconded and the stipulations have been added. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. MR. RIGGINS: Thank you. Page 8 16/185 May 6, 2010 Item #9B PETITION: PUDA- PL2009 -1499, LENNAR HOMES, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is PUDA -PL- 2009 -1499, Lennar Homes, LLC. It's for a modification to some standards in the Heritage Bay planned unit development Ordinance 03 -40. 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 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some communication with Bruce Anderson. I think Bruce was the only one that -- it was just he and I that spoke concerning the standards we're going to be hearing about today. With that, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. With me today are representatives from Lennar, Darin McMurray, regional vice president, Tony Burdett and Scott Edwards. Also with me is my project engineer, David Underhill, vice president of Banks Engineering. This is a minor PUD amendment. It's only applicable to the 26 acres that are depicted in the dark area. It is partially developed and it is in the mixed use activity center there. These 26 acres are the location for a work force housing neighborhood known as The Vistas at Heritage Bay. This amendment is to allow the existing housing to be replicated under a different form of ownership. It would be a change from a condominium ownership to ownership of a platted lot. You may ask why. This change in ownership is because of a more restrictive change in financing requirements for purchasers of condominium units. This is to facilitate the sale of these dwelling units. Because of the change in ownership form to a platted single - family lot, Lennar needed to prepare new development standards and request three deviations from the Land Development Code for platted single - family lots that will allow the new buildings and the street layout to match the existing buildings and street layouts. As you know, the standards in the LDC are different for a multi - family condominium project than for a platted lot. The bottom line, these deviations are necessary to maintain the consistency of appearance in the Vistas' neighborhood. The only change will be in the form of ownership; otherwise, everything will look the same and you won't be able to tell the difference except on the deed to the property. I'd be glad to try to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you'd have some. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, let's start on the ordinance itself. You have a statement you're going to add that the development standards are set forth in table two and/or utilizing the development standards in table 2 -A. Is that so you can mix and match? Can you go into one and pick a number, go into another and pick a number? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's so that we don't make the existing units nonconforming that have already been built under the other standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially F exists already, so maybe this should have been a strike - through. So are you adding this total paragraph or are you -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- enhancing the existing paragraph? MR. ANDERSON: We are adding the entire new paragraph, because before this only applied was the development table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: So now we're putting this in here to make sure that we're not going to make the existing units nonconforming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if I'm a designer of the new units, can I go into one table and grab a Page 9 2611 B5 May 6, 2010 number and go to the other table and grab a number and -- or do I start at one table and finish in one table? MR. ANDERSON: You would go with either /or. And they would look the same, depending on whether you were doing it as a condominium or as a single - family townhouse on a platted wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then let's go to the table itself. The minimum area is 600 feet. I mean, isn't that -- that's a really tiny area. And your drawings show the exact same geometry as the other table provided. So I guess you're testifying that you're going to really essentially build the exact same geometry, there's no -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- sleeper thing in here. MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the 600 is really, really small for a footprint of a building. MR. ANDERSON: These are townhouse units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the 13 feet wide is what you built in the other project? MR. ANDERSON: On the end -- middle units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The middle units or the -- yeah, looks like the middle. Not the end unit. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, and that's a product that you've built and it works. Because it seems really small. I mean, you want to reduce it on a cul -de -sac. You don't show any cul -de -sacs, so I'm not sure why you need that. But that would be like a nine -foot wide unit. Because essentially your footprint is the actual unit, it's not -- there's no yard or anything that's going to grow in dimension as it gets to the unit. MR. ANDERSON: No in width, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, number one down there is to measure the front setback as you measured from -- and you list different places: The back of curb, edge of pavement, right -of -way line, whichever is least restricted. Which is an odd phrase for us, because normally we put conditions in and we go for the most restrictive. But what is really the intent of -- as right on that lot line you're going to be able to build a 35 -foot high building; is that what you want to do? I mean -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, this is going to be a common area. You see there where the cars are parked, all of that will be a common area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And essentially from the roadway edge you're going to go 18 feet for the car. I mean, you're -- the back of your parking space is the roadside of the valley gutter, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it just seems really tight. But I guess your comeback is you built these units, this is nothing new, you're just completing what you already have, and you want to do it, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is what you built. So you really don't have the full height on that property line, which maybe the piece to the right is, or -- is that right? I mean, because what this is saying you could do is you could build, what, 82 feet face -to -face, these buildings, but -- I'll tell you what, let me fold on that. If you want to do it and you know what you're doing, that's fine. I'm done, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the minimum average site depth, why does that change if the actual units aren't going to change? Why does the depth change from 40 feet for these townhouses to 20 feet? How did it suddenly get chopped in half? MR. UNDERHILL: Hi, Dave Underhill for the record with Banks Engineering. The reason that the depth is different is the configuration of the units. The end units have kind of a courtyard between the buildings, and the end units are not a typical townhouse that fronts on the street, if you will, they front on the common area between the buildings. And those units, the orientation of those units is different, so the depth is actually 20 feet. They're actually wider than they are deep, which is why the lot depth had to be revised and reduced. Page 10 16Jy M, 2010 The picture shows the -- that configuration. There's actually two units on the end of the building: One in the front towards the street and one in the back of the building. And those are -- they're just a different shaped unit. And that's why the land uses had to be changed and mixed up, to allow the narrow unit for those and the other, the width to be less for the units that front -- that are more traditional that face the street, if you will. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you've been doing-this before, correct? MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, this exact same building has been constructed. There's about maybe eight of these buildings have been constructed and sold. And the difference really comes that if you do it as a multi - family building and go through the condominium sale process, there is no right -of -way, there is no setback to the right -of -way. So all these land use regulations are really predicated by the creation of the right -of -way to create the frontage for the lots, if you will, and that's what causes all the need for the different land use regulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: But in constructing what's already been constructed as a condominium, you wouldn't have needed the minimum average site depth to read in the current PUD as 20 feet as well, because you're doing the exact same exact thing? MR. UNDERHILL: No, ma'am. The whole 20 -acre parcel becomes your lot -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Gotcha. MR. UNDERHILL: -- and so it meets all the requirements of the old table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just as clarification, the previous way you built these, you were defining the buildings' lot as the dimensional criteria for the table. Now what you're defining as the dimensional criteria for the table is the actual footprint on each unit. So we're not dealing with a lot, really, we're dealing with a footprint of the outside perimeter of the unit, if I'm not mistaken. So the numbers that we have here have to match the width and depth of each unit. So that you've got to go to the smallest unit to get your minimum width and depth and then work up from there. So that's probably an easy way of trying to figure out what it is you're doing. I have a few questions from your table. First of all, though, the parcel that you're asking to modify, you're only showing -- you're not showing the only AC -R3 parcel. The parcel that you're modifying continues to the northwest, if I'm not mistaken. If you go to the original master plan -- or actually you go to Page 3 of the staff report. If you notice, the next down then goes up along the preserve into a large area. And I know on the aerial that you've made that into a lake. According to the PUD amendment, the amendment area is the black area which stops where the neck of AC -3 goes to the northwest. So I'm just making sure that when we get done with this we're locking you in to the AC -3 area as shown, not to the overall AC -3 area. Because someone theoretically could come in and fill in that lake and build something there if they wanted to get away with it somehow. Is that a true statement, you're only trying to work with the area that's in black on the AC amendment -- I mean the PUD amendment? Bruce, you look confused for the first time. MR. UNDERHILL: That was our intention. I mean, certainly I guess I wasn't aware that the zoning line continued up to that lake. But certainly it's our intention to only limit it to the area that we've shown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I'm not -- I mean, I practically don't think you're going to do anything like that, I'm just concerned about making sure we've got all the T's crossed and I's dotted in regards to what we're laying out. No one's addressed that little knob to the north. And I just think before this is over we just need to make sure that somehow it's clarified that that piece is going to be -- going to remain to what it is today and it's not going to be part of this change. So that was my first point. MR. ANDERSON: We'll be happy to insert a legal description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work -- well now, you can't do that. You can't change the zoning of that piece. You can insert a legal description to limit the amendment to the legal described area, but you can't take AC -3 and apply it only to the area you're trying to amend and remove it from the area to the northwest, because then you'd be changing the zoning, which I think would trigger probably a different review. Page 11 &Lat,2010 Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I was thinking an option would be to label the master plan as lake area on that tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to -- see, if they change zoning -- MR. BELLOWS: No, it still would be that same district -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AC /3? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it's just a water retention -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. BELLOWS: -- labeled as lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. Anything, as long as we know -- we get some clarification on it. On your table four, let's start with -- Brad touched on it, minimum lot width. You don't need that anymore with the footnote five. Because these are units you're not going to -- building setbacks on a cul -de -sac always have to start from the setback area, and the building has to have a minimum width and size, and it has to move further back in the cul -de -sac until you get to that. You can't take the building -- you're not going to chop a building and reduce it by, what is it, I forgot the percentage -- 29 percent if it's on a cul -de -sac, because you're building square buildings. So can we drop that footnote from minimum lot width? MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, those notes, the footnotes are carried over from the original table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they are, but that means you guys should have caught it before today's meeting, so now we'll go through each one and correct the ones that were caught. MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, number five can be dropped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go down to number three it says, building heights, see Section 1.6. Is that the right section reference? I think it's 1.8. MR. ANDERSON: It's what we have on ours. That's the new format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see what -- because I pulled the PUD. Only problem is I didn't print the whole thing. County won't give me a printer. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the ordinance it says 1.8, see Section 1.8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I think it should be 1.6. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard just the opposite. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in the version they gave us, it is 1.8 in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You guys are -- here, okay. MR. ANDERSON: It is 1.8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is 1.8. Yeah, I've got the page now. Building height definition is 1.8 on Page 13. So you really want to change that reference in footprint three; do you not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The table four I'm looking at that I thought was provided by you guys shows see Section 1.6. What table four are you looking at? Because that may solve a lot of our -- MR. ANDERSON: We don't -- we're not doing anything with the table four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a table titled development standards for AC/R3 residential district. Is that the table we're working from? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute. What Mark's confused with, on County's stationery there is a table four, which made no sense. And I don't know why that was in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either, but it was in the packet and that's the packet we're reviewing today, so COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you loom at the resolution, the table attached to that I think would be the -- which is a 2 -A. All those references are to 2 -A. MR. ANDERSON: Are they included? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you are right, it says 1.6 on that table four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could someone put the table that -- there's multiple tables in my packet. So could someone put the table that you're trying to get approved on the screen today in front of us here. Okay. So your table says 1.8, mine says 1.6. Let me compare my notes to yours, then maybe I'll have less Page 12 161185 May 6, 2010 questions then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, put the one that's in the resolution, because you get the whole table on one sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Steve. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Strain, if I could introduce -- your table four that you saw, your source of confusion, was the original version. We renamed it to 2 -A. It has been updated. I have a new ordinance for you, if you'd like me to distribute it. And then we'll all be on the same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. And you asked me before the meeting started if you could distribute that and I forgot. So why don't you distribute and we'll just work off of that. That would be great, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this different from the one in the packet? MR. WILLIAMS: Not in substance, only in format. But it does have clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry I didn't -- I forgot our discussion. Okay, then Bruce, we'll just go back and I'll continue with still the new table that was just passed out. I shouldn't say new, but the corrected resolution still has some footnotes I want to question on it. It does have the correct building height reference in the code into the PUD. It has a reference under accessory rear yard setback to item two. That's for a golf course. There is no golf course. Can we for clarity just drop item two as well? Is that a yes or no? MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, we can drop the reference to the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we drop footnote two. Guys, this is going to be painful if we walk through these and it takes a while. If you don't have a golf course, you don't need footnote two. So why don't we drop it. We don't have a -- MR. UNDERHILL: We still need the reference to the lake in that footnote, but we don't need the reference to the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll drop the --just the golf course reference. We move down to 10, accessory use under 10. Can you explain how that would work with this building? And number 11, while you're at it. MR. UNDERHILL: Ten certainly can be eliminated. There is a comment, pool building. We would like to main -- it's constructed. Again, we'd like to keep note 11, only to the extent that we don't make the existing building nonconforming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't build the existing building to table 2.A. So this is only table 2.A. You would use table two. MR. UNDERHILL: Okay. I'll agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we can drop 10, and what did you say about 11? Is that -- MR. UNDERHILL: Eleven, I think we can probably drop that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I'm not trying to mess up your plan. I'm not against it. I'm just -- when these tables are written with all these footnotes, it's not -- we shouldn't just carry over the old notes from another table, we should make sure the notes that we're carrying and using are specific to the new table that we've created. That's all I'm trying to correct here today. So that when staff goes in and they have to find a footnote that applies, nobody's sitting here doing what I'm trying to do, figure out how it applies to this project. It simply either does or does not, and we've got it ironed down to the ones that do. And the last one on this page is number 12, the common architectural features such as archways, arbors and courtyard entry features, aren't those addressed in our LDC as exceptions to the setback standards? I mean, if they are, then why are we being redundant here? And how does that redundancy clash possibly with the LDC? MR. UNDERHILL: Again, I think that we could just eliminate that footnote. I don't think it's going to cause us any harm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that would be a good idea. Because essentially they could build Page 13 16 I IB5ay 6, 210 into the right -of -way area that they're putting if we let that stay there. And again, if you needed it, you could go back to table two, since you can mix and match and get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, how does that apply to this project? At least the table -- how does it apply to the new product you're trying to put there? I understand how part of it does, but I'm worried about the alley. You don't have an alley, so can we clean that up to be more -- or are you considering some of these alleys in some manner? MR. UNDERHILL: No, we don't have any alleys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come back for consent agenda, could you clean up the language in number six to make sure it applies to the uses and the way you're laying out this project? If you don't have an alley, then drop that reference and leave it just so it's what's there. MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's it. So you're going to clean up two and six, and you're going to drop five, 10, 11 and 12. You're going to fix the amended area as we discussed earlier. And I think that's it. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the footnotes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On any of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. You're referencing the table one. We've never seen a table 1. What is table 1? In Section 3 of the development standards you're adding a paragraph A and it says tables 1, 2 and 2.A. What was table one? I mean -- MR. WILLIAMS: If I may. Steve Williams. It is in the general PUD documents. It is the development standards for R -1 residential district. It's just referencing the general PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it wasn't in our copy of the PUD standards, the full Section 1. So that's okay, as long as it doesn't hurt anything being there, in your opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Staff report, please. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. In the newly named growth management division you have before you a staff report that's dated last revision of April 19th, 2010. The staff report goes into detail providing the information such as location, project description, adjacent zoning, noting that it only includes the adjacent zoning to the site where the amendment is to be applicable. It has Growth Management Plan consistency analysis. Staff is recommending that it be found consistent -- it being the petition -- be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You also have the review comments from the various reviewing entities. And you also have the findings of fact for the PUD and rezoning sections of the Land Development Code to support our recommendation of approval. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Kay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the newly named department. Go ahead, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: The deviation from LDC Section 4.05.02.F, which states no motor vehicle shall have to back onto any street from an off - street parking facility. So when these were originally just multi -unit family dwellings, that doesn't apply? MS. DESELEM: Correct. Because they were designed under the auspices of one building and they had a parking lot. Because of the change that they're proposing now, in order to meet the standards, it kind of creates a lot frontage issue and a road access issue. So this is just to recognize what's already there and addresses that particular Page 14 16 1 7 R5 01 May 6, 2010 portion of the code. Because normally if you had a single - family house or a two - family house, you'd have road frontage. And the way these are designed, they spill onto a parking lot, per se. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you're saying, it spills onto the parking area. Okay, thanks. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Kay. Are there public speak -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just have one more question for the engineer from Banks. If you look at your sheet, the site plan sheet one of one, you have a note that says, shaded area indicates proposed right -of -way. And that doesn't make any sense to me. Is that floating or is that -- what is that telling us? Because the shaded area is actually representing your -- or at least the hatched area. MR. UNDERHILL: The hatched area is our proposed right -of -way, if you will. It includes the parking, utility easements, grassed areas. But the shape of it's necessary to create frontage on a street. It also is bounded by the limits of the existing condominiums, which is why it's not concentric or consistent where there's existing buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the right -of -ways is essentially going to include everything but the building. MR. UNDERHILL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And around the perimeters some. Okay, I do think the note should be moved to where the arrow is, makes sense, don't you? It kind of floated, slid down, I think. MR. UNDERHILL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when we call it a right -of -way, it's not a road right -of -way then, because essentially it's going between buildings and everything else, right? MR. UNDERHILL: It's kind of that round peg, square hole thing with trying to meet the rules for -- to create lot frontage on a street and to map the existing development that -- and to continue the existing development pattern that's already there and approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So to get that -- on the end units that one in the rear to essentially front on a right -of -way. MR. UNDERHILL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When people come in to buy these, in the past in the first phase of the project they would have come in and bought a condominium with certain common area rights. The condominium is a piece of the building, and in their condo dock that piece would have been described as a particular unit that they're buying, up to the common walls and all that. And now what you're doing, instead of buying into a condominium, they're buying a fee simple for the footprint area of the unit that they encompass, with rights to the general right -of -way surrounding it. Is that -- MR. UNDERHILL: That's very accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how are you combining the operations of the former phased condominium to the fee simple selling process? How are these -- are they all going to be one HOA? MR. UNDERHILL: There will be several HOA's and -- at least two. I think there's a master and then there may be three. But it's to maintain the consistency and the rights that -- throughout the development. The intent is to try to get give the platted lots the same rights as the condominium lots have and not create any inconsistencies just due to the ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you probably need cross easements and stuff like that back and forth. How do you -- I'm kind of curious, because this is kind of like a really unique animal. You -- the people that own the condominium have to pay condominium fees and dues based upon proposed condominium budget that the developer guarantees for a certain period of time. Now when you get into these fee simple, you're going to set up an HOA, I assume, and use an HOA budget that you're going to have to back for a certain period of time and then they contribute to the HOA budget and the HOA board of directors then decides how to spend the money once they take over. Is that how it's all going to come Page 15 Lay �• 6, 2010 together? MR. UNDERHILL: I think that's appropriate. There is a master fee? Right, there is a master association that includes both the lots and the condos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who gets the benefit, the costs, the maintenance and the other issues involved in the rec area? MR. UNDERHILL: That's going to be one for the master. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the overall. The condo, and HOA are sub to the master. MR. UNDERHILL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty interesting. Great. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the real thrill is the sprinkling of the buildings without going through the party walls. MR. UNDERHILL: There's a number of issues like that with sidewalks and utilities and fire services. And yes, that will have to be well documented in the -- all the documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is solely to create something you can market in this economy? MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does all these additional problems to make this work increase your cost? I mean, I know it does because you're here today. But let's say -- let's forget that. Say you've been set up from this way from the beginning. To build the fee simple on the footprint like it is or the condominium on the parcel like it is, do you have a difference in cost? MR. UNDERHILL: It's all the same hard costs. I mean, it's just the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Legal costs. MR. UNDERHILL: -- soft costs, the legal and engineering to create the layers in the associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's going to set a precedent for sure. I don't think we've had one like this come through before. But now that I think we understand it better, we may see more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's going to cost more. Because you have -- now you have townhouse fire walls between units. The other units didn't have that. The sprinkler system can't go through party wall. All the -- none of the utilities can. You'll enjoy it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting to see how you have to meter it from utilities, water and stuff like that. MR. UNDERHILL: It's all master metered right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole project is? So how do you break down to individual meters in the fee simple product? MR. UNDERHILL: There's not going to be meters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one guy's -- so everybody pays a percentage of the pro rata share of the budget. MR. UNDERHILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone uses 10 times more water than the guy that's up north 10 months of the year, the guy that's down here for two months of the year, he still pays for all that time the other guy uses. Wow, that will be interesting. We'll have to keep an eye on it. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Before we do, maybe for discussion, we had asked that they amend the PUD area to include all of the AC/R3 with the designation of lake for that part that is actually being used as lake in the north. They're going to have to relocate the right -of -way arrows so that they do actually go into the shaded areas on the map in front of us. They're going to drop footnotes five, 10, 11 and 12. They're going to modify the language in footnote two and six. Page 16 161 1,65 ay 6, 2010 1 I believe that's all we discussed. Is there any more for discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if not, is there a motion with those stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. I move we forward PUDA -PL- 2009 -1499, Heritage Bay PUD, with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the stipulations that were noted? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you all. It was a learning experience. For that we actually do enjoy it. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS — CIE /AUIR DISCUSSION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have some new business, but the next on the agenda is old business. Is there any old business today? Okay, new business. Mr. Bosi. The CIE, the AUIR discussion. That was passed out to us at our last meeting. And of course Mike, you probably got a word from Nick. I'd like to know what's so high risk about us. But if he didn't warn you, he should have. Anyway, go ahead. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, with the Comprehensive Planning Section of the EECPZ Department. Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning, Zoning. Transportation in there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you throw utilities and parks and rec in too, just for the heck of it. MR. BOSI: Bill put a limit on it in terms of his expertise. And what was distributed at the prior CCPC meeting was the proposal to combine the AUIR and the CIE. The direction that we had received was to look at the two processes. There was an apparent disconnect within the process based upon a number of the comments, the number of the issues that had arised (sic) over the past couple of years between the budget process, the AUIR process and the capital improvement process. And there's three different phases, three different snapshots in times. And those snapshots in times have -- were leading to -- I don't want to say disconnect, but differences within numbers in revenue streams and projections and costs associated with each one of the projects associated with the capital improvement programs that were contained in the AUIR, the capital improvement programs that were contained in the CIE. Originally when we tried to do the combination, we were thinking that we would have the AUIR and the CIE be heard in the spring because we wanted to -- we wanted a natural progression to the budget discussions that happen in June. The problem with that is we would be working upon one population numbers that were a year old, because the BEBR populations do not come out till the end of March, and we're obligated to use the most currents BEBR Page 17 1611 85 May 6, 2010 populations. To the revenue projections and the costs associated, the impact fee projections, all the revenue fiscal numbers were going to be almost a year old, because budget in O and B utilizes February, March, April and May to coalesce all the financial numbers that go into the tentative budget hearings that go before the Board of County Commissioners in June. Based upon that, we did not want to give up on the idea of combining the two, so we said why not have the CIE track the current schedule of the AUIR. And one of the additional benefits that are provided with that is in 2011 we have to by December 1 st adopt a financially feasible CIE. And the way that we've been adopting our CIE has been in February and March of the year. Well, our CIE was lagging a year behind our actual budgetary process, and the capital improvement programs that have been associated with the programs within that CIE. So with the combination of the CIE and the AUIR being tracked in the fall, we'll be able to attain that statutory compliance with the transmittal of the CIE in early November to the Department of Community Affairs. And one of the main advantages was cost savings. In terms of duplication of meetings, duplications of procedure, and there was an estimation that was done in -house that potentially with the combination of these two processes we may be able to save 23,700 tax dollars that could be reallocated to another specific activity. That's based upon staff hours for the various departments, for utilities, for transportation, for parks, for all the contributing members of the CIE, as well as the time associated and the cost associated with the public hearings, the advertising for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. We've had the internal discussions amongst staff with the County Attorney's Office. We believe that we will still maintain the integrity of the codes as specified and be able to a attain the increase in efficiencies that -- based on this budgetary environment that we find ourselves in we're all striving to do in terms of look at our process and look at where we can maybe improve upon those processes in the terms of efficiency. With that, I would enjoy any questions that the Planning Commission may have about the process and some of the cautions that may be put forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, why do you think we're high risk? MR. BOSI: High risk? I don't think the Planning Commission's high risk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wrote this, the executive summary? MR. BOSI: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wrote the project management plan? MR. BOSI: It was myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you think we're high risk? Page 7, 10.A. Nick didn't brief you on this, huh? He always says we're high risk, but I didn't know it was inherent in the whole department, so -- MR. BOSI: No, sir, I wasn't briefed upon the statement of high risk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Risk management, 10.A. Project scope management talks about the Planning Commission and Productivity Committee. Risk is high. I'd just like to know why these two committees are so high risk. Just curious. Because maybe we should get insurance or something. I'm not sure. MR. BOSI: What that refers to is the documents contained within the AUIR within the CIE. And the amount of changes that can be contained or initiated from the CCPC review, based upon valid concerns, based upon valid analysis that there's traditionally a number of changes that will happen to that document from what staff puts together, based upon the required population, against the level of service standards, the timing of the projects, the location of some of the specifics of the projects, and the recommendations that have come from the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee normally has a tremendous altering effect upon that document. So when we utilized the term high risk, I guess it's not in the traditional sense that there's danger associated with it, it's that the document will be modified substantially from its original base or form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of thought that's the direction you were going, but I kind of -- it was good to hear that you consider us a high risk because we do our job. So that's not a bad thing. MR. BOSI: In terms of --I think they're exhaustive in terms of the job that you --and one thing that I wanted Page 18 16 85 1 May 6, 2010 to mention to the Planning Commission is there's a high degree of probability that you will be reviewing the AUIR/CIE this year on a solo capacity, in terms of my interaction with Ms. Vasey from the Productivity Committee who usually takes the lead in the AUIR/CIE review, based upon the lack of projects that will be put forward in the AUIR, the CIE. And their specific task is fiscal review and fiscal analysis. Based upon the lack of fiscal outlays that they see, they're questioning the value of their time spent in that regard. So at their next meeting I believe they're going to debate whether they want to have one -- you know, their sub - committee reviewing and participating. And I will provide the Planning Commission an update as to whether you're going to have to shoulder that burden all yourself this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I think that's fine. We try to focus more on the zoning issues to begin with anyway, so -- because that is what our -- we're supposed to be looking at. I think that would work fine. Well, you must be working a lot with Nick, because you've gained some of his abilities to say the right things at the right time at public meetings. MR. BOSI: I try to take my lead from the director, without a doubt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Watch -- good way to explain the risk is high. I think that's great. Great job. MR. BOSI: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what's a good reason that we had the two of them separated? I mean, I can't think of one. MR. BOSI: Well, one of the reasons that it was separated -- and I'm not sure what the motivation was behind it -- was within the code it says the AUIR should be approved before the CIE. And that does get into one point that we're going to have to do during these upcoming meetings. We will have to hear the AUIR, as we traditionally do. We'll have to hear the AUIR, convene that meeting, open up the CIE, and on a procedural manner, you know, approve the individual components of the CIE. But I'm not sure why -- well, here's my guess as to why it was separated. Because the Category A facilities are the only ones that are contained in the CIE, but this county has a strong desire to publicly vet the level of service standards that are associated with the Category B facilities, your libraries, your jails, your dependent fire districts, your government buildings, those aren't traditionally heard in the CIE. So they wanted a document where we're going to talk about all the levels of services, Category A and Category B facilities, which is our AUIR, which is unique to this county. And then we'll have the statutory required CIE, which only deals with the Category A facilities, which are the concurrency management component. So I think that's why we had the two separated. But I think you can still gain the intent with the culmination of the two without losing any of the effectiveness of each of those documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So long as you keep the sequence in that order. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. And Mark, I think every document's at risk when it comes before this board, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he could have said that too. Then it would have posed more questions. Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, are you looking for any kind of comments from us or just you're going to -- now that you've heard it you can say we listened to it and you're going to take it to the board, or what would you like? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Consensus, if I could, from the Planning Commission that you think it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we accept it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Caron. Is all -- discussion? (No response.) Page 19 1611 R5 i May 6, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, we'll continue to bring items like this forward. The challenge we face is that we're becoming the change machine. Every time we find something we're trying to fix it. We can only handle so many changes at one time, so we're trying to space these out and looking at the best and most productive way to do our business. But you had mentioned today the sign variance, you've mentioned pool cages in the past. We're working with the County Attorney's Office. So I think, you know, once a month, once every two months we'll bring something forward that makes sense and have you look at it, analyze it with us, and if you agree we'll move forward to, you know, do things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds good. Anything else on today's agenda from anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public's gone. No public comment. Can't be anymore discussion. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 6 -0. We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:37 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Ll� f STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 6 as presented_j�or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 20 1 113 6 Fiala • --- RECEIVED / Henning JUN • —""' May 19, 2010 JUN 16 2010 Coyle Coletta — ._ --- -- Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, May 19, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board 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 ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Lykos Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Robert Meister Patrick White Lee Horn (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer Jamie French, Director of Operations mist Corres: Date: d 7 2.7 I)- D I o 1 Item #: t Copies to: 161 IR May 19,201 1 0 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL Chairman Lykos called the meeting to order at 9:00 am Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. It was noted the minutes will be summary minutes, and any interested party may supply their own stenographer for a meeting or obtain a copy of the audio /video for transcription at their expense. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Michael Ossorio noted the following additions to the Agenda: V. Discussion — (A) - Update on CDES changes — Jamie French VI. New Business — (D) — Bill Daubmann — Request to Address the Board III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Lantz moved to approve the Agenda with the additions outlined by Mr. Ossorio. Second by Mr. Jerulle. Carried unanimously 8 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: April 21, 2010 Mr. Joslin moved to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Lantz. Carried unanimously 8 -0. V. DISCUSSION: (A) Update on CDES changes — Jamie French Jamie French, Director of Operations addressed the Board and provided an update on the re- organization of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division. He noted the following: • The Community Development and Environmental Services Division merged with the Transportation Department to form the Growth Management Division (GMD). • The GMD has two elements — Planning and Regulatory and Capital Construction and Maintenance. • Gary Harrison is now the "Chief Building Official." • Staff continues to maintain a positive relationship with the Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA) and have recently met with their President (David Aldridge). • Even with the County Staff cutbacks, the Staffing levels for the Contractor Licensing Department remain stable. • Staff continues to provide avenues for informing the public on the enforcement activities of the Department (website posting of enforcement results, establishing an online database for Contractor violations, etc.) 2 16 1' 1 B6 May 19 2010 Chairman Lykos noted the Contractor Licensing Board (CLB) Chairman will be meeting with Staff on a quarterly basis to review Department performance and the related budget. The findings will be reported back to the full Board. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (A) Orders of the Board (Signing) Chairman Lykos noted the purpose of the item was for the Chairman to sign Orders for further processing of unpaid citations issued to various parties for violations to the Contractor Licensing Ordinance. Mr. White moved to approve the Orders of the Board. Second by Mr. Joslin. Carried unanimously 8 -0. (B) Sergio Birsa — Waiver of Examination(s) The presenters were sworn in Michael Ossorio provided an overview of the case: • Mr. Birsa had been licensed for over 20 years in Collier County. • He held an "unlimited Landscaping license" which covered Landscaping and Irrigation. • Previous County Codes did not require separate licenses for the two disciplines. • The Code was subsequently updated requiring separate licenses for the two disciplines (Landscaping Contractor and Irrigation Sprinkler Contractor.) • When the County Code was updated, persons holding an "unlimited license" were notified and required to have new licenses issued within a certain time period or their existing license would be "null and void." • Mr. Birsa failed to meet the requirement and his license has expired. • He is now required to obtain new licenses which include passing grades in Pruning and Safety, Irrigation Contractor and Business and Law examinations. Mr. Birsa appeared before the Board seeking waiver of the examination requirements. He noted: • His license expired in 2004. • He had a Collier County license for Landscaping and Irrigation for over 20 years. • He has 20 years previous experience in the field in Italy. Board discussion occurred on charge offs, collections and judgments that appear on the applicants credit report. In addition, status on citations issued by Code Enforcement. Marion Birsa noted there were accounts in collection; however they have been settled with the companies in question. 3 1611 B6 May 19, 2010 Ian Jackson noted the citations were issued for advertising services without a license. Marian Birsa noted the citations were for signs on trailers which were not eradicated. Ian Jackson noted the trailers are now in compliance. Michael Ossorio noted, in his opinion, the Applicant has the experience to fulfill duties required under the disciplines of Landscaping Contractor and Irrigation Sprinkler Contractor and recommended all exam requirements be waived. Mr. Birsa may choose to be licensed for either discipline or both. Further discussion occurred regarding the current items listed on the credit report. Patrick Neale, Contractor Licensing Board Attorney noted the purpose of the hearing is to determine if a waiver should be issued for the examination requirements. An application for new licenses will be required to be submitted, at which time a credit report would be scrutinized before issuance of any licenses. Board discussion occurred noting the Applicant has sufficient experience for the disciplines for Irrigation and Landscaping. Concern was expressed over the applicant allowing a license to lapse, and should he be required to complete the examination on Business and Law. Patrick Neale noted the Board could require examinations in one area and is not required to waive "all or none of the examinations" as requested herein. Discussion occurred on the status of the outstanding balance for the illegal advertising citations issued by the County and the credit report issues. Marian Birsa noted she was informed by Staff she could set up a payment plan. They are in conformance with the requirements of the payment plan. She understands the citations must be paid off before issuance of any licenses. The credit problems were the result of a cascading effect from a Developer to whom they provided landscaping services. Invoices were not paid by the developer for services rendered, and the Birsa's could not pay their suppliers. These judgments and charges have been satisfied by the Birsa's. The Board questioned, if there is a requirement for Mr. Birsa to complete an examination, is he fluent in the English language? Mr. Birsa acknowledged he understands English, on a limited basis. Mr. Lantz moved to waive the all trade tests required for the licenses and require the applicant to pass the Business and Law exam. Said trade test waivers valid for a period of one year. Second by Mr. Horn. Carried unanimously 8 -0. in 6 May 19, 2010 AO (C) Gregory Westgate — Request to Qualify 2nd Entity The presenters were sworn in. Michael Ossorio provided an overview noting Mr. Westgate had previously applied for the 2nd Entity qualification and was denied by the CLB. He has reapplied for the qualification and Staff recommends approval of the application. Discussion occurred noting the applicant indicated on the Application there were not any judgments against the company, however the credit report indicates a 2004 judgment. Mr. Westgate noted the judgment was settled. Patrick Neale indicated documentation has been submitted with the application which indicates the judgment satisfied. Mr. Boyd move to approve the Application. Second by Mr. White. Motion carried 5 "yes " — 3 "no." Mr. Jerulle, Mr. Joslin and Mr. Lantz voted "no." (D) Bill Daubmann — Request to Address the Board Mr. Daubmann was sworn in. Bill Daubmann appeared before the Board requesting direction on how Mr. Ossorio may retract a license based on an applicant's inaccurate statement on an application. He noted he has completed a personal investigation which indicates a person holding a license for a Glass and Glazing Contractor in Collier County may have provided inaccurate information on their original application. The investigation includes review of a Lee County Contractor Licensing hearing where the person in question testified they had no experience in the field and was denied license based on the testimony. Shortly thereafter the individual applied for a license in Collier County, submitted an affidavit from a license contractor verifying the applicants experience. A Collier County license was issued. He has had conversations with various individuals regarding the affidavit indicating the affidavit may not be valid. He requested CLB direction on how Staff may proceed to investigate the previous application and issuance of a license. Patrick Neale noted the presentation is "hearsay" without documentation presented. He expressed concern an investigation may not be in the purview of the CLB as outlined in the governing Ordinance. Michael Ossorio noted the 4.3.3 of the Ordinance states "Upon the submission of a sworn complaint, the Contractor Licensing Supervisor, or his /her designee, shall conduct a preliminary investigation and determine whether the complaint submitted warrants the filing of formal charges. " Before issuance of the license, he personally contacted the contractor in question who indicated the Applicant had worked under his direction. The 161I B6 ,! May 19, 2010 license was issued and there have been no complaints against the licensee to date. Mr. Daubmann will need to comply with 4.3.3 for the initiation of a preliminary investigation. The Board recommended, if Mr. Daubmann wishes, file a Sworn Complaint with Mr. Ossorio. Patrick Neale recommended the Board hear no further testimony on the matter, as the issue may be heard by the CLB at a future date. Break —10: 30am Reconvened —10: 45am VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday June 16, 2010 - W. Harmon Turner Building, 3rd floor (Commissioners Meeting Room) - 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, fl 34112 (Courthouse Complex) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:46 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD --r% These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on J V0& Ib, 20 to , as presented Y_, or as amended 2 RECEIVED JUN 16 2010 Board of County CornmIssionerS P161 V6 Fiala May 19, 2010 Halas 1 Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, May 19, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in WORKSHOP SESSION, at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Lykos Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Robert Meister Patrick White Lee Horn (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer Jamie French, Director of Operations Misc. Corres: i o�te: item #: Copies to: 161166 May 19, 2010 Chairman Lykos called the Workshop to order at 10:50 am following the Regular Meeting. Michael Ossorio, Contracting Licensing Supervisor noted the purpose of the Workshop was to garner Contractor Licensing Board input on amendments proposed by Staff to Ordinance 2006 -46. The Contractor License Board and Staff reviewed the proposed amendments with the Board recommending language and content revisions to the document. Mr. Horn left the meeting at 11:15 am Mr. Jerulle left the meeting at 12:48 pm Michael Ossorio noted the proposed changes to the draft document will be revised by Staff, and returned to the Board for approval or further review at a future meeting. Speaker C.D. Strong addressed the Board noting he attended the Workshop to become better informed on the activities of the Department and proposed revisions to the Ordinance. The Board recommended Staff revise the opening statement for the Contractor Licensing Board Agenda /Hearing to reflect the new transcription policy for the meeting record. Chairman Lykos noted, due to inquiries by members of the Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA), recommended the "Handyman License classification" be reviewed for any necessary alterations. Michael Ossorio noted the License Classification is under the direction of State Statutes and he will address it at the next CBIA meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Workshop was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 1:34 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Thomas 2 161186 May 19, 2010 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on b lb 110 , as presented_, or as amended 3 RECEIVED JUN -4 2010 Board of County Commissioners Fiala �^ Halas Henning Coyle Coletta I 197 y May 5, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 5, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management /Planning & Regulation Division, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar (Excused) Blair Foley (Excused) Regan Henry George Hermanson David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Manager Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist James French, Director, Operations Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study Project/FEMA Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Mist. Comes: Date: 07 27 2 ©1 D 3 7 Copies to: 16 1 IB7 May 5, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Change: • Item VII — `B" under "New Business" entitled LDC Amendment: Manatee Protection Plan/Shoreline Calculations will be heard following Item V, "Staff Announcements/ Updates." Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:06 PM.) III. Approval of Minutes — April 7, 2010 Meeting: Changes: • On Page 8, under Item "G," the last two sentences of the first paragraph were amended as follows: "The Planning Commission did not approve the compromise language and requested new criteria, also not found in the Manatee Protection Plan, to determine whether or not a shoreline should be counted. He requested that other Committees conduct additional hearings to consider the new criteria. • The second paragraph on Page 8, under "G," was amended as follows: "Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton explained that the Planning Committee directed the County Attorney's office ...." • On Page 9, first paragraph, the last line was amended as follows: "... be presented to DSAC prior to any public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners or the Collier County Planning Commission ( "CCPC ") is scheduled." Robert Where moved to approve the Minutes of the April 7, 2010 meeting as amended Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 12 -0. IV. Public Speakers: (Will be heard when Item is presented) V. Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division Update — Phil Gramatges, Interim Director • No new items to report • No questions from the Committee May 5, 2010 B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • The Monthly Report was submitted in the Committee's information packet Chairman Varian noted under the category, "Percentage of First Reviews Approved, " the percentage for Fire Alarm Reviews was 36 %. He expressed concern, stating the percentage appeared to be low. C. Transportation Division Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager • No new items to report • I- 75 /Immokalee — lanes are open D. CDES Update — Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator • The Board of County Commissioners approved the merger of Transportation with Community Development and Environmental Services. The name of the new Division is the Growth Management Division. • Norman Feder, Administrator of the Transportation Department, was named as Administrator for the Growth Management Division. • Nick Casalanguida was named as Deputy Administrator. There was a discussion concerning the new division, shared resources, job sharing, the team approach, and responsibilities. Bob Mulhere noted there were references in the Land Development Code concerning the appeals process, and asked who is identified as the contact. Nick Casalanguida stated the correct reference is "the County Manager or Designee" and the reference has been corrected in updates to the LDC. Mr. Casalanguida met with Kim Grant regarding new teams to be formed to work on various projects. He asked for volunteers from DSAC to work with Staff on the Right -of -Way issue and on the spot - boundary survey /easement issue. He cited an example of a pool at a home in Marbella Lakes that was incorrectly sited and, when constructed, extended over the property line. Reed Jarvi had previously expressed interest in the R -O -W team. George Hermanson volunteered for the survey/boundary team. • Bob Dunn is retiring as Director of Building Review & Permitting. Gary Harrison will serve in the interim until a decision is made regarding a replacement (August — September), as well as the status of the position, i.e., whether a Director or a Manager is needed. • Stan Chrzanowski is also retiring. A search will be conducted first to find a replacement for the position of Senior Engineer /Engineering Review Manager. VII. New Business: B. LDC Amendment: Manatee Protection Plan/Shoreline Calculations — Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist ` May 5, 2010 LDC Section: 5.05.02 Change: To clarify how the County will treat the length of shoreline within conservation easements when calculating the amount of wet slips according to the Manatee Protection Plan. A copy of the revised Amendment was distributed to the Committee. Chairman Varian noted there were multiple Public Speakers for this topic. He asked Steve Lenberger to present first and then hear the Public Speakers' comments. Mr. Lengerger reviewed the transcript of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting with the County Attorney's Office to clarify the Board's direction to Staff regarding the content of the Amendment. "... to exclude shoreline within County required preserves and State and Federal conservation easements which do not allow wet slips within the conservation easements when used to calculate the number of wet slips. " He stated the Board wanted applicants to have the ability, through the Conditional Use process, to request to use the shoreline within a preserve area in calculating wet slips if public access was provided. He further stated the Board also addressed the issue of "vesting." Mr. Lenberger noted the EAC reviewed the revised Amendment and recommended making three changes to Paragraph "G:" • Strike the words "SO percent or more of" following the word "projects" in the second sentence, • In the last sentence, substitute the word "Subsection" for the word Ordinance," and • Add a sentence between the second and the last sentences: "This Ordinance is not intended to allow publically -owned wet slips within natural resource protection areas when the County owns the property. " The EAC requested the County Attorney's Office define the meaning of "existing" and "vested right." Bob Mulhere noted two issues: 1. An existing condition on a property -- where an existing restrictive covenant or conservation easement does not allow wet slips to be calculated or placed within that easement. It is excluded and understandable because there is a prohibition on the property. 2. The other condition is when someone is going through the development process and, if there is no restriction or conservation easement on the property, the entire frontage can be used to calculate wet slips but, as part of that process, there is a request or a requirement to create a conservation easement that will restrict the physical placement of wet slips within that area. 161 1B7 I May 5, 2010 He stated it would not be inconsistent with the Board's direction to still allow the calculation of the entire lineal frontage to place the wet slips somewhere outside of the conservation easement. He supported removing the 50% cap and stated it should be determined during the public hearing. Clay Brooker stated the way the Amendment is drafted, if a property has shoreline within a County preserve -- not necessarily in a conservation easement -- the shoreline is excluded. He asked if the word "preserve" was mentioned anywhere in the Manatee Protection Plan. Mr. Lenberger stated the Code requires preserves to be placed in a conservation easement. Mr. Brooker stated the language was over - inclusive and confusing. He stated the same language was used in the Executive Summary presented to the BCC in April 2008, and it was confusing then. Assistant County Attorney Wright stated substituting "conservation easement" in place of "preserve" constitutes a clarification, not a substantive change. Mr. Brooker also questioned the Conditional Use process. He stated an owner could apply for a Conditional Use to obtain more slips than were permitted by the calculation once the exclusion is applied. Steve Lenberger stated an owner would calculate the maximum number of wet slips, excluding what is in the conservation area. If more were needed and were open to the public, additional wet slips could be requested if you counted the shoreline within the conservation easement. George Hermanson asked if the intention of the EAC, by removing the 50% cap, was to make all the wet slips available to the public or a minimum number. Mr. Lenberger stated it would be determined during the Conditional Use process — to be negotiated with the Board. Reed Jarvi gave an example: If there were 1,000 feet of shoreline and 500 feet was in a conservation easement, only 500 feet can be used to calculate wet slips. Clay Brooker asked if a conservation easement allowed wet slips or was silent on the issue, would a more restrictive approach be taken? Mr. Wright stated a conservative approach will be taken by his office — the current interpretation is to not allow the shoreline. Mr. Jarvi stated, using his previous example, if he wished to use the 500 feet in the conservation easement, or any portion of it, he must allow some public access to the additional wet slips which would be determined at a later date. Public Speakers: Kathleen Robbins, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, stated the language in the revised Amendment was supported by the Association, and she understood many conservation easements permitted certain uses which were outlined in the easement. She stated if wet slips are not mentioned in an easement, they should not be allowed. The purpose of a conservation easement is to "conserve" the land in the easement. George Hermanson noted a conservation easement on a shoreline does not always prohibit the use of boats. 16 I 1 67 May 5, 2010 Richard Yovanovich, Esq., on behalf of Signature Communities, referred to the Dunes Project and stated the Project went through a re- zoning process in 1998, and there were discussions about boat docks when the original PUD was adopted. He stated it was understood the developer would return to the BCC in the future to discuss the actual number of boat docks because at the time of an application for re- zoning, the number and appearance of the boat docks was unknown. He further stated a PUD Master Plan is required to identify a preserve area within the development but he is not aware of a PUD Master Plan that allows boat docks in a preserve area. Mr. Yovanovich continued his narrative of the history of the Project.: In 2000, the Project requested to add one hundred acres to the property which included one mile of shoreline. The former Planning Director stated The Dunes would be allowed to build 10 boat slips per 100 linear feet of shoreline. It was noted a portion of the property would be placed in a conservation easement. The developer stated during the PUD process he would ask for a total of 60 boat slips for the Project. He reiterated neither the Board of County Commissioners nor anyone on Staff advised the developer that the language of the conservation easement was to be drafted to allow frontage to be used when calculating the number of boat slips. He asserted the Manatee Protection Plan permits the calculation of the maximum number of boat slips that could be allowed, but not the number that a developer could request or receive. (Example: the maximum number allowed may be 100 slips, but the developer would request to build only 50.) He stated the concept is the same as a residential PUD. The PUD identifies a preserve area which is counted to calculate density, but nothing will be built in the preserve. The dwelling units will be placed elsewhere on the property. Mr. Yovanovich contended the language in the Amendment will remove the Riparian right of an owner to access the water, without compensation, and will result in lawsuits. He stated the Project received State permits for 49 docks, but the developer may lose an additional 29 if the Amendment is approved. He stated the previously approved language, "unless there is an expressed prohibition, " is correct and should remain. He referenced Clam Bay which is a Natural Resource Protection Area. The residents of Pelican Bay are concerned that the County could build public boat slips /docks facility in the area resulting in massive amounts of docks for lease to the public. Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates, stated his concern is for existing properties that have conversation easements and will be affected. He suggested clarifying the language to add the Amendment will apply only to County conservation easements and not to State/Federal conservation easements where the shoreline is counted unless an easement specifically prohibits it. The language should be consistent with the State and Federal regulations and not permit a double standard to occur. He also suggested clarifying the language because there are no conservation easements that allow wet slips to be built within the conversation boundary — i.e., utilizing the following language: "within the conversation easement documents. " 1611 R7 May 5, 2010 Lew Schmidt, resident of Vanderbilt Beach area, stated he was concerned about preserving the environment. He stated the low lying portion of a residential development is placed in a conservation easement primarily because it is not buildable land. The result is a higher density in the upland section. He contended taking the allowance (one dock per 100 linear feet) and moving it over to an area where the water is deep enough for boats to dock is not a problem. The concern is that so many docks will be built that the manatees will not be able to swim between the boats to get to their habitat because the docks will be too "jammed up." He stated if boat docks are permitted across the entire frontage, the area will be destroyed and will never recover. Chairman Varian read a portion of an email from Marco Espinar concerning vested rights. He would support it if the majority of members did. Bob Mulhere stated statements have been made that the use of linear footage within a conservation area to calculate the number of allowed boat slips is prohibited and questioned whether that was, in fact, the existing policy. The policy was previously interpreted to permit such calculations. He pointed out the County has allowed marina facilities to be built with a number of slips that have been calculated based on the entire linear frontage, including the portion within a conservation easement. Clay Brooker stated Staff claims the BCC's direction in April 2008 was apparently misinterpreted. The issue is whether or not the County, over the years, has consistently applied the Manatee Protection Plan to exclude a shoreline that has a conservation easement on it. He stated the only project where the exclusion was applied was "Fishermen's Village." (The language of the easement for "Fishermen's Village did allow docks.) He read the transcript of the April 2008 meeting, and stated he did not understand exactly what the BCC directed. "Each Commissioner asked, at least twice, what exactly are we doing here by this motion? " He noted Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator at the time, stated he would consult with Industry representatives to "craft" language that would work for everyone. Workshops were held over the past two years and the result was the language that was approved by DSAC and the EAC. Bob Mulhere stated in the worst case scenario, everyone would agree it is unclear whether the existing language was intended to allow the inclusion of the linear shoreline in a conservation easement or not. It is not specific — one way or the other. Clay Brooker stated the Manatee Protection Plan refers to "shoreline" and only shoreline. "Someone" decided to insert additional words the Plan does not reference shoreline encumbered by an easement. Bob Mulhere noted there is an effort to clarify but in the process of "clarifying," the result was to exclude. Unless there is clarification, there will be resistance to placing any shoreline into a conservation easement in the future. If an appropriate number of slips are allowed to be calculated, based on the entire frontage, there will be no objections to providing a conservation easement. The language will further reduce the likelihood of access to the water for the public. 161, 1 B7 May 5, 2010 Clay Brooker said the fight is over the number of permitted wet slips and being driven by one project. He stated he does not think it is wise to change the Code to rectify one project. George Hermanson stated if a property owner has water, he will want to build a dock. He was concerned about the requirement to offer public access. Boat slips are usually offered as an amenity to the residents of a development. Developers will no longer be able to do that because they will be forced to offer the same boat slips to the public. (David Dunnavant arrived at 4:05 PM.) Additional questions and comments: • Has the County Attorney's office conducted a Burt-Harris analysis if the language is adopted? • One member stated he thought the Amendment was nothing more than a land grab. Dalas Disney stated water sports, fishing, and boating are a huge part of the lifestyle in Florida. He further stated the LDC revision was a push to reduce/eliminate boat traffic and to further reduce land rights without compensation to land owners. He did not support the Amendment. Public Speaker: Frank Perrucci stated he thought the issue had been decided two years ago. He further stated the Marine Industries supports more access for the community. Reed Jarvi moved to amend the language in Paragraph G. • The first sentence will remain the same. • The second sentence will be changed as follows: "Shoreline within County, State and Federal conservation easements which do not allow wetslips within their conservation easements shall not be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. • Remove the remainder of the sentence starting at the word "except:" • The last sentence will read. "Any existing or vested right with respect to wet slips shall be exempted from this Subsection. " Second by Robert Mulhere for discussion. Bob Mulhere suggested removing "do not allow wet slips" and substituting "which expressly prohibit wet slips." Clay Brooker stated the previously approved language stated: Shoreline cannot be utilized for calculation of wetslips if it is encumbered by a conservation easement which expressly and specifically excludes wetslips. If an easement is silent or expressly allows wet slips, you can use the shoreline in the calculation. Laura DeJohn pointed out the purpose was to not allow calculation using the shoreline — counting of shoreline toward the number of wetslips — which is different from easements which do not allow wetslips to physically occupy the easement. 161 B7 e 1 May 5, 2010 Reed Jarvi stated the intention of his motion was to make the County easements the same as the State and Federal easements. Clay Brooker confirmed Laura was correct and clarified the previous approved language: All shoreline will be used, except for shoreline within conservation easements where the conservation easement expressly and specifically excludes the use of the easement shoreline, to calculate the amount of wetslips. Dalas Disney stated the language allowed additional boat slips to be requested through a Conditional Use but the likelihood of obtaining approval of the Conditional Use was slim. There was further discussion concerning potential problems such as what if the development was gated — how would the public gain access? How many public would be allowed? It was pointed out that County -owned public docks would also be affected by the Amendment. The Motion was defeated — all members were opposed Clay Brooker moved to recommend approval of the previous language supported by DSAC as follows: • The definition of shoreline for the purpose of the Manatee Protection Plan shall be the interface of land and water at mean high water, as established using standard survey techniques • All of the shoreline will be used for calculating the maximum allowable number of wetslips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan, except for shoreline within conservation easements where the conservation easement expressly and specifically excludes the use of the easement shoreline to calculate the amount of wetslip& • Subsection G shall apply only to conservation easements granted as of the date of approval of the Ordinance. Second by George Hermanson. Clay Brooker suggested sending an explanation (commentary) to the Board that at the end of the April, 2008 meeting, the representation by Joe Schmitt was the issue would be presented to the community and the Industry to work out language. The language was presented to the EAC and was approved by their vote of 4 to 1 in the first instance and was approved for a second time by the EAC. At the end of the 2008 meeting, people were confused and did not grasp all of the issues, nuances, and consequences. George Hermanson suggested the record should reflect DSAC supports the use of conservation easement to prohibit unsuitable uses in those areas but recognizes an easement should not further restrict an individual's right to calculate the number of docks that will reasonably fit. If extensive conservation easements are placed on shorelines, the easements will physically restrict the number of docks by virtue of the amount of available shoreline. Assistant County Attorney Wright pointed out the last sentence of the motion could leave a question with respect to existing easements. 1611g7 "I May 5, 2010 Clay Brooker amended the motion to remove the last sentence. Second by George Hermansom Motion carried 12- "Yes " /1 - "No." Dalas Disney was opposed VI. Old Business: A. Final PUD Application Fee Changes — Jamie French • Staff has recommended to lower the PUD close -out fee to $2,500. • Multiple developments within a PUD will be covered by the single figure. • Will be presented to the BCC in July Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approving the reduction of close -out fees and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. (Ray Allain left at 4:45 PM.) Performance Standard Measures — Jamie French • Staff made a determination regarding the number of plans to be submitted: • Single family: three sets of plans — two of which must be signed and sealed • Commercial: five sets of plans Dalas Disney moved to recommend approving the Performance Standards and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioner& Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 12 — 0. B. Update on Main Water Breaks — Nathan Beals and Joe Thomas, Public Utilities • Investigation revealed there were not as many water main breaks as had been thought VII. New Business: A. Right -of -Way and Site Plan Review — Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager Mr. Chrzanowski stated a Workshop will be scheduled in the near future and the Committee will be notified. C. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance — Robert Wiley A copy of the draft of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, prepared by the County Attorney's Office, was distributed to the Committee. Mr. Wiley stated the Ordinance has been presented to the Floodplain Management Planning Committee. He requested the Committee Members review the document and email their comments to him within the next 30 days. He will compile the comments along with suggestions to resolve perceived issues and will present the information to the Floodplain Committee in July and to DSAC in August. He will also email the State's Model Ordinance to the Staff Liaison (Judy Puig) who will forward it to the Committee Members. 10 161 187 May 5, 2010 Mr. Wiley pointed out the yellow highlighted portions of the Ordinance reflected changes suggested by other Committee members. The purpose of the document is to bring the local Ordinance current with FEMA's methods of operations, especially in terms referenced in the Ordinance. The goal is to present a final document to the Board of County Commissioners in October. Chairman Varian asked the members to review a draft of a letter to be sent to the Board of County Commissioner and the County Manager. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approving the letter for signature by the DSAC Chairman and to forward the letter to the Board of County Commissioners Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, .12 — 0. (Robert Mulhere left at 5:00 PM.) Paul Mattausch, Director of the Collier County Water Department, stated there was apparently some confusion following his presentation to DSAC at its last meeting. He stated for the record: • The Special Act of the Legislature establishing the Collier County Water /Sewer District established that the District will provide no free service. • Collier County Ordinance 2001 -73, as amended, also established that the District will provide no free service. • There are no exempted uses from either the Special Act of the State Legislature or the Collier County Ordinance. • The only way to equitably and impartially to measure and bill for water usage is through the use of a water meter. • Collier County Cross - Connection Control Ordinance 1997 -33, as amended, establishes that all service connections will be protected by a back -flow preventer. (Equipment specified: reduced pressure principle back -flow preventer) • The Florida Administrative Code established that the public water supply system must maintain a minimum of 20 psi. ISO tested to establish insurance rates and confirmed the 20 psi minimum pressure under fire flow conditions. • Collier County Utility Standards was established by Ordinance and set a minimum pressure at the main of 40 psi. The increased pressure recognizes and compensates for the pressure lost through a meter and a back -flow prevention device. VIII. Committee Member Comments: (None) Next Meeting Dates: June 2, 2010 — 3:00 PM July 7, 2010 — 3:00 PM August 4, 2010 — 3:00 PM Ii 1611B7 May 5, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 5:02 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE J��' 4 J William Varian, Chairman The Minutes wer roved by the Board/Committee on rQ�?�I 10 as presented or as amended 12 Fiala j Halas 6 1 1 Henning May 3, 2010 Coyle JUN 2 g 2010 Coletta - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TIffy-COLLIER COUNTY ...................... GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, May 3, 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 (Excused) Peggy Harris Kaydee Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center SupeoG : Date: b7 7 2.0 Copies to: 1611, 8 3 2010 Y I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug III. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Add: VII. B. 2010 -11 Budget Proposal Bill Arthur moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of April 5, 2010 Meeting Minutes —Addressed after V. V. Public Comments Bill Arthur suggested planting and maintaining a 5' hedge across the front of GGCC along Golden Gate Parkway in lieu of a fence. Jim Klug suggested planting a "Community Christmas Tree" and to hold an annual tree lighting event. He asked the Board to make suggestions for a location. IV. Approval of April 5, 2010 Meeting Minutes Kaydee Tuff moved to approve the April S, 2010 Minutes as submitted Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported ➢ April 9 - Family Fun Fest was held and attracted 200 attendees. ➢ April 24 — Tropical Fest was held and attracted 300 attendees. Both events were a success. Staff has plans to hold these events next year. Kaydee Tuff volunteered to assist Staff in planning next year's Tropical Fest. ➢ The gym floor is scheduled to be completed on May 15tH ➢ The Center has 40 registered for Summer Camp. ➢ Summer Camp Staff has been hired. Staff noted registration was down due to the economy and the Boys & Girls Club is offering Summer Camp for little or no cost. VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — None. B. 2010 -11 Budget Proposal — None. 0) 1611 B8 May 3, 2010 VIII. Member Comments Jim Klug stated he planned to travel during the summer months. He suggested the Board decide on which summer month(s) to recess. This will be discussed at the June 7 meeting. Staff reported the status on the playground equipment is to repair and maintain. Greg Torres is a Certified Playground Inspector and qualified to direct and supervise maintenance. It was noted Playground Equipment is included in the 5- Year Budget Plan. 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 77-r W. mes Klug III, Chair n These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on , as presented ---/- or as amended 3 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta CRA Governine Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas State Enterprise Zone Development A¢enev Board (EZDA) Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex -officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Eva Deyo CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Collies Coup ry Commun4 Redwelopment z j v/ Agency i IMMOKALEE CRA 11j, i The Place to Coll Name ! �" JUN Z 5 2010 0 EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency May 19, 2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 B• • ......................• A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. C. Adoption of Agenda. D. Communications. a. EZDA Board Vacancy — Press Release E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. Regular Meeting April 21, 2009 (Enclosure 1) b. Enterprise Zone Reports. i. Enterprise Zone Activities Report for April (Enclosure 2) ii. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Report, Jan 1 — March 31 (Enclosure 3) F. Old Business. G. New Business. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting, June 16, 2010 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. Misc, Colres: Date: d7 27 2.n 10 Item #: I f i� X39 Fiala _ Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 6 I 1 B9 L-100, Halas Henning IMl� OKALEE CRA 13@39%ys Coyle i The Place to Call Home! Coletta - JUN 2 5 2010 CRA Governing Board EZONE MEETING AGENDA BY .................. .N Commissioner Donna Fiala State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Chair Commissioner June 16, 2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Tom Henning Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee Commissioner 750 South 5`h Street James N. Coletta Immokalee, Florida 34142 Commissioner A. Call to Order. Fred W. Coyle Commissioner B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Frank Halas C. Adoption of Agenda. State Enterprise Zone Development Agencv D. Communications. Board (EZDA) E. Consent Agenda. Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman a. Approval of Minutes. Edward "Ski" olesky i. Regular Meeting May 19, 2010 (Enclosure 1) Jeffrey Randall b. Enterprise Zone Reports. Michael Facundo i. Enterprise Zone Activities Report for May (Enclosure 2) Chief Tom Davis F. Old Business. Robert Halman G. New Business. Ex- officio Julio Estremera a. EZDA Advisory Board Application (Enclosure 3) Kitchell Snow H. Citizen Comments. Floyd crews 1. Next Meeting. July 21, 2010 at 9:30 A.M. Ana Salazar J. Adjournment. Richard Rice James Wall Eva Deyo CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Misc. CWM: Dab: 1 Item #: ,' —ins too: IMMOKALEE ACollier County Community Redevelopment Agency MINUTES Enterprise Zone Development Agency April 21, 2010 1 1 B 611 9 Enclosure 1 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 10:30 A.M. B. EZDA Board Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, James Wall, Edward "Ski" Olesky, and Jeffery Randall. EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Ana Salazar and Michael Facundo. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Michael Ramsey, Larry Wilcoxson, Fred Watts, Carrie Williams, Jean Paul, Bob Mulhere, Louise J. Telcy. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Chief Davis seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes for March 17, 2010 b. Enterprise Zone Reports. Action: Mr. Rice moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. G. New Business. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting Date. May 19, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. This meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M. V Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form by: Penny P,*ippi, Execut Immok #ee Community Agency 1611 B9 Approved by: ti Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chairman These Minutes for the April 21, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on May 19, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA /IMPVC meeting will be held June 16, 2010 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5`" Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5"' Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie BetancOUrt, Administrative Assistant, at 239- 252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie BetancOUrt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may cone before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. IMMOKALEE CRACollier County Community Redevelopment Agency MINUTES Enterprise Zone Development Agency May 19, 2010 1611 B9 Enclosure 1 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 10:00 A.M. B. EZDA Board Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Mike Facundo, and Jeffery Randall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, and James Wall. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Ms. Salazar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. a. EZDA Board Vacancy Press Release E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes for April 21, 2010 b. Enterprise Zone Reports (April and Quarterly). Action: Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Estremera seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. G. New Business. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting Date. June 16, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. This meeting was adjourned at 10:10 A.M. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepared by: J j I Penny Phifiippi, Executive, D i/rector lmmoka r� &Community Redevelopment Agency 16f1'Bq Approved by: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chairman These Minutes for the May 19, 2010, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on June 16, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA /IMPVC meeting will be held July 21, 2010 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5"' Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5"' Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239- 252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, lmmokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. CRA Governing Board Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board S State Enterprise Zone Agency Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Ana Salazar Michael Facundo Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Eva Deyo Floyd Crews Kitchell Snow James Wall Julio Estremera Richard (Dick) Rice Richard (Rick) Heers Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman (Ex Officio) Master Plan & Visioning Committee Fred N. Thomas Jr. Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams Floyd Crews Richard (Rick) Heers Richard (Dick) Rice Estil Null CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel Project Manager Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 161 I B9 IMMOKALEE CRA The Race to Coll Home! RECEIVED MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2010 JUN 25 2010 Board of County Commissioners TO: Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, BCC FROM: Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agen6 L4LP,-- k RE: Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from May — June for your conveyance. Thank you. Immokalee Community Re4evelopment Agency 310 Alachua Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 239.252.2313 "' 239.252.6725 (FAX) Fiala _.._.� Halas Henning Coyle Coletth - -�� Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Eva Deyo CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency' } aft 6I IMMOKALEE CRA i The Pbce to Coll Home ! Community Redevelopment Azency Advisory Committee Agenda May 19, 2010 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 110 RECEIVED JUIV 2 5 2010 Board of County Commissioners A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. a. Immokalee and Palmetto Ridge High Schools Close Up Program for New Americans - Brigita Gahr b. New Interim Airport Director D. Adoption of A eg nda. E. Communications. a. Public Notices b. CRA Advisory Board Vacancy F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. 1, i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting April 21, 2010 (Enclosure 1) b. RWA, Inc. i. May Report and Invoice (Enclosures 2a & 2b) c. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report, April (Enclosure 3) G. Old Business. a. Master Plan and Interim LDC — update i. Transmittal /Adoption Hearing Schedule (Enclosure 4) ii. Staff Report for IAMP (Enclosure 5) iii. Interim LDC (Enclosure 6) iv. RWA Contract Term Extension (Enclosure 7) v. RWA Consulting IAMP Contract Amendment b. Stormwater Master Plan: CDM Schedule (Enclosure 8) c. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights — Kitchell Snow d. Misc. updates i. FDOT Immokalee Loop Road — Update (Enclosure 9) ii. Immokalee Street Light Banner Design Review (Enclosure 10) iii. Immokalee Airport Park Renovation — Update H. New Business. a. Collateral Piece Insert (Enclosure 11) b. FRA Award Application (Enclosure 12) c. Florida Planning and Zoning Association Award Application (Enclosure 13) I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting. Regular Meeting June 16, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held June 16, 2010, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 :hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory 1dL #Iso members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Boar come b ore onne� or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. �?i'?Ff h Item #: i O Fiala Halas CRA Governi Coyle �¢�AartL d Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Eva Deyo CRA staff' Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Collier County Community Redevelopment 61 1B10 IMMOKALEE CRA 1,mLy1ggV3 i The Ploce to Coll Home 1 JUN 2 5 2010 ommunity Redevelopment Aeeney Advisory Committee Agenda June 16, 2010 - 8:30 A.M. BY " " "'••••••••••••••••. Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5`h Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. C. Adoption of A enda. D. Communications. a. Public Notices E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting May 19, 2010 (Enclosure 1) b. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report, May (Enclosure 2) F. Old Business. a. Master Plan and Interim LDC — updates i. Master Plan Transmittal /Adoption Hearing Schedule ii. Interim LDC - report b. Stormwater Master Plan - update c. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights — Kitchell Snow d. Misc. updates i. Immokalee Street Light Banner Design Results (Enclosure 3) ii. Immokalee Christmas Decoration Design Review (Enclosure 4) G. New Business. a. CRA Advisory Board Application (Enclosure 5) b. Advisory Committee Service Award Recipients (Enclosure 6) H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting July 21, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board /EZDA Board meeting will be held July 21, 2010, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5t' Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Misc. CWM: Date: Item #: IMMOKALEE CRACollier County Community Redevelopment Agency MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency B10 1 Enclosure 1 April 21, 2010 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:45 A.M. B. Advisory Board Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, James Wall, Edward "Ski" Olesky, and Jeffery Randall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Ana Salazar and Michael Facundo. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Michael Ramsey, Larry Wilcoxson, Fred Watts, Carrie Williams, Jean Paul, Bob Mulhere, Louise J. Telcy. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. Ms. Phillippi read the additions and deletions to the Agenda. Action: Mr. Halman made a motion to adopt the Agenda, with the additions and deletions, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the motion was passed by unanimous vote. E. Communications. Notices for all meetings for April were circulated. Ms. Phillippi announced that Rick Heers resigned his seat on the CRA Advisory Board and the EZDA Board. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to accept the resignation and instruct staff to advertise for the position, Mr. Estremera seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting 03/17/10 b. RWA, Inc. i. April Report and Invoice C. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report, March Action: Ms. Randall made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. Master Plan Update i. Ms. Phillippi provided the Advisory Board with the dates of the upcoming hearings before the CCPC and the BCC. The Chairman asked that the Executive Director email the dates to the Advisory Board Members. ii. Ms. Phillippi notified the Advisory Board of the possibility of submitting the IAMP, the Public Realm Plan, and the Form Based Guidelines to the FRA for an award. Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to instruct staff to submit an application for the award and to use whatever funds are needed for the endeavor, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V/ 1611810 b. The Interim LDC scheduled hearing dates were also presented to the Advisory Board. The Director informed the Committee that the item was on consent and did not required Advisory Board attendance. c. HCP — Update — the Executive Director asked the Advisory Committee to review Enclosure 4 which is a Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies that regulate permitting for environmentally sensitive projects. It was surmised that the MOU essentially accomplished what an HCP sought to do. d. County Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow stated there will be another community clean up May 8th in the Weeks Terrace vicinity. He stressed the need for resident's participation in the clean up. e. Misc. Updates: i. Airport Park Expansion — Ms. Phillippi informed the committee that a contractor has been selected and works should begin within the next 30 days. ii. ECOC Grant will go before the BCC on May 11, 2010. iii. Ms. Phillippi provided a report on the success of the trip to Tallahassee by her and Steve Hart. iv. Report on Green Program — Brad Muckel, Project Manager provided a brief update on the committee's meetings and plans for Green Immokalee. He also described the proposal brought forward by Gary Elliott. H. New Business. a. Pepper Ranch Preserve Final Management Plan — Ms. Phillippi directed the committee to Enclosure 5 and asked them to review the plan for discussion at the May meeting. b. Red Flag Items: i. Community Garden — Ms. Phillippi discussed the Code Violation on the property at Old School Road and asked the committee to consider the possibility of creating a program for a Community Garden. Action: Floyd Crews mad a motion to table the item, form a subcommittee to investigate the possibilities and to request that Code Enforcement hold off until the CRA has time to accomplish an investigation. Julio Estremera seconded the motion and it was passed by unanimous vote. The Sub - Committee is made up of Robert Halman, Jeffery Randall and Larry Wilcoxson. c. Water Symposium — Mike Ramsey made a presentation about the Greenscape Program offering to execute a demonstration program in Immokalee. Action: James Wall made a motion to instruct staff to work with the CRA contractor, the Water Symposium and community partners to take advantage of the demonstration project. Dick Rice seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. d. Advisory Board Member Applicants — Ms. Phillippi informed the committee that applications have been received to fill the two vacancies on the CRA/EZDA, Eva Deyo and Chief Tom Davis. Action: Jeffery Randall made a motion to accept the two applicants as members of the CRA/EZDA, Richard Rice seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. I. Citizen Comments. James Wall requested information as to the status of the temporary employee representing the Immokalee Business Development Center. Ms. Phillippi stated the CRA had hired Bob Soter as a temporary employee for the purpose of creating an inventory of all resources available to new businesses in the region. 2 1611310 Enclosure 1 Dick Rice announced the upcoming Citizens Forum to be held at iTECH, June 1, 2010 from 6:00 until 9:00 PM. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting May 19, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 A.M. Copier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i the Place to Call Hone! Certification of Minutes Approval Form 1611 B10 Pre re by: Approved by: Penny P ippi, Executi V 96 rector Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Immo e Community Redevelopment Agency These Minutes for the April 21, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on May 19, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held June 16, 2010 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 - 252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. IMMOKALEE 1611 Enclosure I B10 CRACollier County Community Redevelopment Agency MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency May 19, 2010 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:45 A.M. B. Advisory Board Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Mike Facundo, and Jeffery Randall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, and James Wall. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. The Chairman welcomed the visiting high school students and their instructor made a breif presentation about the program. The Chairman announced that the CRA Executive Director was named the Interim Director of the Airport Authority. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Estremera seconded the motion and the motion was passed by unanimous vote. E. Communications. Notices for all meetings for May, the Immokalee news article about the Edgrrin James contest and sign, and the flyer for the Produce Stickers program were circulated. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting 04/16/10 b. RWA, Inc. i. May Report and Invoice C. Commercial Facade Improvement Program Report, April Action: Ms. Randall made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion, and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. Master Plan and LDC Update i. Hearing Schedule- Ms. Phillippi announced that the IAMP will be heard by the CCPC on May 20, 2010. It will then be on the CCPC Consent Agenda on June 3, and finally, to the BCC on June 22 and June 23 for transmittal to DCA. ii. Ms. Phillippi called the Committee's attention to the Staff Report of the IAMP to the packet. The County Planning Staff has recommended the IAMP be transmitted with 4 changes they would like to have addressed. Bob Mulhere provided a brief discussion on the Report. iii. Bob Mulhere provided a brief report on the Interim LDC Amendment explaining the email from the legal department that lists the final changes requested by that office. The Interim LDC Amendment will also be heard by the CCPC on May 20th rd and if needed, on the CCPC consent agenda June 3 1611 B10 iv. Ms. Phillippi discussed Enclosure 7 which is a change order that Brad Muckel generated to extend the RWA Contract that would have ended on May 16th. The Change Order extends the contract to December 31, 2010. Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to extend the RWA contract to December 31, 2010, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. Ms. Phillippi requested approval of another Change Order required to extend the contract until December 31, 2011. RWA is requesting an additional $75,000 to bring the IAMP and the ancillary tasks to completion. Action: Mr. Estremera made a motion to recommend to the CRA /BCC to extend the RWA contract until December of 2011, for an amount not to exceed $75, 000. Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. b. The Stormwater Master Plan. — Ms. Phillippi announced that she and Brad Muckel met with Norm Feder and his staff on the Stormwater Master Plan, our partnership and the status of the Stormwater Plan. In brief, the CRA put up $200,000 and the Stormwater Department put in $200,000 and the County procured one of the best stormwater consultants in the nation to get the stormwater plan "shovel ready ". Transportation was to manage that contract and manage the DRI 3.5 million grant for implementation of the first storm water pond. At the meeting with Mr. Feder, we were informed that we will need to manage both contracts because they do not have enough staff to do it. They did offer us all the technical assistance and advice we need to complete the project. Brad Muckel is our project manager and fortunately, he has experience with these types of projects. Mr. Muckel reviewed Enclosure 8 and provided the Committee an idea of how we will proceed with this project. C. County Code Enforcement — Kitchell Snow has a brief presentation on the community -wide clean ups and announce that he was disappointed that more Committee members did not come out to assist with the clean up. d. Misc. Updates i. Loop Road Update — Brad Muckel reviewed progress on the Loop Road. ii. Street Banners- Committee members were asked to look at the street banners and select at least 9 that they like to see placed on the streets. Once selected, hand the pictures to Christie Betancourt. iii. Airport Park Renovation — Ms. Phillippi announce that work has begun of the park renovation. Brad Muckel will be posting one of our project signs at the sight in the near future. She further stated that the project is expected to be completed by the end of June. H. New Business. a. Collateral Piece — Steve Hart presented the new marketing tool to be strategically distributed for businesses wishing to locate. b. FRA Award Application — Ms. Phillippi asked the Committee to review Enclosure 11 which is the Narrative for the award application sent in by RWA to the FRA. She complimented RWA saying it is well written and a document the CRA can be very proud to have submitted in a statewide arena. C. Ms. Phillippi asked the Committee to review Enclosure 13 which is a is a letter submitted by LDI sent to make application for an award at FPZA (the Florida Planning and Zoning Association) or the Immokalee Public Realm Plan. I. Citizen Comments J. Regular Meeting June 16, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. 2 1611 B10 Enclosure 1 K. Adjournment. H. Citizen Comments. The Chairman asked Committee members to look at the new FEMA Flood Plain Map for Immokalee, watch for and plan to attend any public hearings on the issue. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 A.M. May 19, 2010 Name Public E -mail / Affiliation 1611 g10' Phone # 1 / a %C j, Q_ ( (-IV 2_ MC^n 5 U Z t *"-' 0'7 'ZO Q}./ C. (n D o to, CZ 'y ") Y(o �7 - fl <d. i,Y� 7 - lL.l1S�1 l�� lV� Y (t r!�(I �,(�.�1�(`�(c�1). �t rt liC�a fiGrv► ( f2.�.�� OWN �Sqk - - -- n L K-0-0201WIM—Adfam iU I lr.er\-L 1 -op�eZ L� ae� irk cull; �r ! <12fluS �a3°��377�r�135 J May 19, 2010 Name Public E -mail / Affiliation 1611 B10 Phone # 23 — s,z --- -�, 3T7 �%��ZU CyU1�Wl 64,7b0)!`1 SSWDb vR6! 171R -2?x 220-08'26o) Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency mmmm IMMOKALEE CRA 1611 Bin i The Ploce to Cali time! Certification of Minutes Approval Form a by: Community Redevelopment Agency These Minutes for the May 19, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on June 16, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held July 21, 2010 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 - 252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. ZMEW 3B JUN 1 4 2010 161 Fiala �' Halas Henning t Coyle Coletta V 1611 May 10, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 10, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3`d Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN; VICE CHAIRMAN Bill Poteet Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak Annisa Karim Clarence Tears (Excused) Lauren Barber ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Toni Mott, Manager, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin. Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Specialist Misc. Cornea: Dab: U7 �7 Item 0: 0- l D ^hies to: 161 1BI I May 10, 2010 Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:03AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Delate moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 8 -0. III. Approval of April 12, 2010 minutes Mr. Delate moved to approve the minutes of the April 12, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Sobczak. Carried unanimously 8 -0. IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update — A -list properties Toni Mott, Manager, Real Property Management noted the following: the closings in the Nancy Peyton Preserve for the Kirby and Murphy parcel and Unit 53 for the Berman parcel are scheduled for June 14, 2010. 1. Contracts - Cosentino Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator, presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to include Phase H Environmental Site Assessment Costs in Site Cleanup Allowance Proposed for Cosentino Property" dated May 10, 2010, Agreement of Sale for the Cosentino property and an email from Dan Scippo sub - consultant for Johnson Engineering, who is performing the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment— Subject: Cosentino Properties dated May 6, 2010. She noted the email from Dan Scippo included a preliminary determination a Phase II Environmental Assessment would not be required. However, subsequent to the email opinion, Mr. Scippo has determined soil testing is required in the area of one of the empty 55 gallon drums found on site. The estimate to complete the testing is $1500 — 2000. Mr. Pires recommended the following revisions to the Agreement for Sale and Purchase: • Section 2.02 — "In addition to the Purchase Price, Purchaser shall pay to Seller at closing..." to "Seller shall provide to seller an allowance at closing..." or similar language • Section 5.02/04 - clarifying the activities are part of a funding allowance by the County to the seller. Committee discussion occurred on who should be responsible for paying the costs of the Phase II Environmental Assessment and the ramifications if additional site contamination is encountered. Alex Sulecki noted the County did pay the costs for a Phase II Assessment in the Pepper Ranch transaction and County Policy does allow the County to pay for the costs of the Environmental Assessments. In addition, the County may 1611 611 May 10, 2010 terminate the contract at any point of the ongoing Environmental Assessments should contamination concerns exist. Mr. Delate moved for the County to bear the costs of a Phase II Environmental Assessment, above and beyond the "up to $15,000 allowance " granted to Mr. Cosentino for "clean up "of his property. Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 8 -0. B. Gordon River Greenway Project - General Update — Jeff Curl Speaker Ellie Krier, Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust provided an update on the project noting there are continued discussions between the Naples Zoo and Parks Recreation Department about due diligence on the 22 acres northwest of the existing park where the Senior Care Facility is proposed. The pathway to the kayak launch may need to be abandoned in this area. C. Pepper Ranch Youth Hunt Recap Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist, Program Manager provided anIupdate on the Youth Hunt held at Pepper Ranch on April 17 - 19. The event included 18 volunteers and 15 supervised youths and incorporated instruction on hunter safety and ethical hunting practices. Some of the volunteers have expressed concern over opening the Ranch for public hunting and requested the parcel be reserved for youth hunting only. At the April 27, 2010 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board continued discussion of a hunt program, asking staff to conduct additional public meetings to bring the issue of reserving the ranch for youth hunt programs back to the public. The Committee will review and provide recommendations to the Board on any proposed changes in hunting activities on the premise. D. Logo update (if any) Alex Sulecki presented the proposed Logo for Conservation Collier. It was noted consideration should be given to relocating the Program's website reference to the center or left hand side of the Logo. Mr. Pires moved to approve the Logo subject to the above recommendation. Second by Ms. Barber. Carried unanimously 8 -0. E. Website update (if any) Alex Sulecki provided an update on the design of the website. The Committee recommended consideration be given to enhancing the availability of the location maps for the Preserves (linking to Google Maps, etc.). Also, Staff researching the feasibility of outsourcing any website design elements currently completed them. 3 1611 BI-I May 10, 2010 The Committee referred the item to the Outreach Subcommittee for further considerations. V. New Business A. Conservation Collier Annual Report to Board Melissa Hennig presented the "Conservation Collier Annual Report" dated May 2010 and related Slideshow. The Committee recommended the Executive Summary for the Report to be provided to the Board of County Commissioners contain a statement that the Committee recommended transferring $7.3M from the Land Acquisition Fund to the Land Maintenance Fund. They have not acted on the recommendation requesting the County Manager or his designee transfer a total amount of $10.3M. This should be transmitted to the BCC verbally during any presentations on the matter. The following revisions to the Report were recommended: • Page 11, line 25 be updated with the current status of Florida Forever funding. • Page 11, line 31 cite the source of the grant funding (USFWS).referenced for Mcllvane Marsh exotic removal • Page 12 - item C, line 2 — "...approve..." to "...approved..." Alex Sulecki noted the actually acreage acquired reflected in the final Report will be 4006 acres. Mr. Delate moved to approve the Conservation Collier Annual Report subject to the above recommended revisions. Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 8 -0. 1. Preserve Ordinance Alex Sulecki provided the Executive Summary "Development of a County Preserve Use Ordinance " dated May 10, 2010 for review. The Parks and Recreation Department has an Ordinance (76 -48) which regulates the use of County Parks and the Program has been utilizing it as a guideline for uses allowed in Preserves. The Ordinance Policy and Rules Subcommittee has determined the need for a Preserve Ordinance and provided the reasons in the Executive Summary. She noted for Staff to develop a "Preserve Ordinance" the Committee must identify the need and formally request the Board of County Commissioners to direct Staff to develop it. Ms. Karim moved the Committee has identified a need for a Preserve Ordinance and requests the Board of County Commissioners direct Conservation Collier Staff develop such an Ordinance. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 -0. B. Property Applications Status El 1611 May 10, 2010 . Alex Sulecki submitted the document "Cycle 8 Applications thru May, 2010" for information purposes. A Slideshow was presented on a new property applications proposed for acquisition. For the property to proceed further in the acquisition process, at least 5 Committee members must vote favorably following the presentation. Collier County School District • The property is owned by the School District and located on the Northwest side of Marco Island on Tigertail. Court. • It is 11.6 acres in size. • There is a Bald Eagle nest on site. • The acquisition would require the approval of the City of Marco Island. • The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System's overall ranking of the site is "low." Mr. Pires noted consideration of the parcel for acquisition may be premature if there has been no input from the City of Marco Island or the Marco Island Civic Association (MICA). Tom Eastman, Collier County School District noted he has not had any input from the organizations in question. He recommended the item be tabled until more information is received. Doug Enman, Resident, stated he has been involved in trying to protect the property from development for some time and would contact the City of Marco Island and Marco Island Civic Association for input. Mr. Pires moved to table the item pending receipt of additional information and for Mr. Enman to work with the City of Marco Island and MICA to determine if they are supportive of the acquisition. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 7 "yes" —1 "no. " Mr. Delate voted "no. " C. Initial Criteria Screening Reports — Staff Presentation 1. Worthington - Collier Alex Sulecki provided a Slideshow on the ICSR noting: • The property is 3 parcels totaling 846 acres. • It is located 5 miles East of Immokalee • It is located in the Area of Critical State Concern • It has an estimated market value of $1.2M and an assessed value of $662,800. • The soils are primarily hydric. • The property is in a Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area with rights removed down to level II. _ 16�I X11 May 10, 2010 • The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System's overall ranking of the site is 8 — 9 for the forested areas and 4 for the pasture areas. Ms. Karim expressed reservation on the possible acquisition of the parcel, as it already protected from development, and in its current state, meets the mission of the Conservation Collier Program. It was previously asserted the County could benefit from the remaining Transfer of Development Rights existing on the property. She requested Staff research the potential benefits and provide the findings to the Committee. Speaker Ron Zol, Vice President, Worthington noted the site was utilized for wetland mitigation credits with an estimated 180 credits remaining upon restoration. Alex Sulecki noted there are possibly wetland mitigation credits and Panther Habitat Unit credits associated with the parcel. She will provide complete information before ranking the properties in the Cycle. D. Railhead Scrub FMP Revision Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Specialist presented the document "Railhead Scrub Preserve Land Management Plan, " revised May 2010 for review. Ms. Karim recommended: The Appendices referenced in the document be provided. Clarification the site is not anticipated as a Gopher Tortoise receiving site as the property has met its capacity. Review the report to ensure everything cited in the text is listed in the "Literature Cited Section." Ms Karim move to approve the Railhead Scrub Preserve Land Management Plan, Revised May 2010 subject to the above recommendations. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8 -0. VI. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program None VII. Coordinator Communications None VIII. Sub - Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach Tony Pires, Chair The Committee will meet to discuss the follow up on proposed improvements to the Programs website. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Chair 1611011 May 10, 2010 A joint meeting with the Ordinance Policy and Procedures Subcommittee was held after the last Committee meeting and discussed Gopher Tortoise Recipient sites. C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim The Subcommittee met on April 23, 2010 and discussed the draft resolution for fund raising at Conservation Collier Events and the proposed Preserve Ordinance. IX. Chair Committee Member Comments Chairman Poteet requested Staff to notice any potential meetings accordingly to avoid Sunshine Law Violations. IX. Public General Comments None X. Staff Comments Melissa Hennig noted a female Red Cockaded Woodpecker is residing at the Nancy Peyton Preserve. The County is working on an agreement with Hendry County Correction Facilities to provide inmate labor for maintenance at Pepper Ranch. Temporary signage is being posted at Freedom Park. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:33 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Bill Poteet, Chairman 7 These minutes approved by the Board /Comm � itten Z." as presented or as amended t� Fiala Halas - v Henning T Coyle Coletta JANE 8 2010 t1812 y a 19 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING (- F•+t:IER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, May 19, 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 North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Kerry Geroy David Saletko William Shafer Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Tona Nelson, Administrative Assistant V11- Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Murdo Smith, Region Manager I Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Director Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator Mist. Cares: mu: D7 z7 J2- D I ' Item * l � T. 12- Copies to: 1611812 May 19, 2010 I. Call to Order John Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm and a quorum was established. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda Move: VI. C. to V. B. Tribute to Murdo Smith Phil Brougham moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. IV. Approval of April 21, 2010 Meeting Minutes Kerry Geroy moved to approve the April 21, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. V. New Business a) Employee of the Month for April 2010 Sidney Kittila announced the April 2010 Employee of the Month. She read a letter addressed to the CC Parks and Recreation department regarding Dawn Hickey's service. John Ribes commended and presented Dawn Hickey with the "Employee of the Month" award. Photographs were taken of Dawn Hickey holding her award with Barry Williams and members of the Advisory Board. Ski Olesky arrives at 2:10 pm b) Tribute to Murdo Smith Barry Williams announced Murdo Smith will retire after 35 years of service to Collier County and the Community. Murdo Smith's Retirement Party will be held Saturday, June 4 at 5 pm. John Ribes presented a plaque to Murdo Smith and read the inscription out loud. Approximately 30 -40 Staff members were present to see Murdo Smith receive the engraved plaque. Murdo Smith expressed his gratitude to all and stated he appreciates all the support he has received from the Staff and fellow employees. Photographs were taken of Murdo Smith with John Ribes and Barry Williams. c) Vanderbilt Beach Concession/Restroom Facility 2 1611 B12 May 19, 2010 Gary McAlpin gave a slide presentation on the new facilities planned for the Vanderbilt Beach. ➢ Will be presented for approval to BCC on June 22. ➢ Pelican Bay Foundation has some restrictive covenants. ➢ The site was difficult to work with due to preserves, row line and CCLU line. ➢ Current restrooms were built 15 years ago. ➢ Landscaping will obscure the facility and make it less noticeable from the street, condominiums and businesses. ➢ Facility footprint approximately 3800 sq. ft.; includes 750 sq. ft. for both men and women restrooms, 1500 sq. ft. deck and 400 sq. ft. concession area. ➢ Deck is elevated 10' off the beach to meet FEMA requirements ➢ Facility will include stairways with rest landings and ramps with low slopes to accommodate the semi - handicapped. ➢ The bottom lift station will be utilized and have 3 sections; waste pickup and dumpster storage, storage for beach and rental equipment and an area where the general population can seek protection from the sun. ➢ TDC will fund project. Gary McAlpin stated the County held 2 public information meetings. The Vanderbilt Beach Resident Association and the Ritz Carlton were not supportive due to the size of the facility. They did not like the size of the deck and found it unattractive. They were also concerned the additional waste would attract wildlife and riffraff. It was noted the park's gate close down each night and CC does not believe their concerns are valid. Many questions and concerns were addressed by Staff. John Ribes stated it was an excellent plan and it is more an obligation to meet the needs of the Community. Gary McAlpin stated the County has plans to make landscape improvements at the turn- around drive to Vanderbilt Beach. Barry Williams asked the Advisory Board for their support on the new facilities planned for Vanderbilt Beach. Ski Olesky moved to endorse the new Vanderbilt Beach concession and restroom facility as presented and have the (Advisory Board) Chairman to address the BCC on June 22, 2010. Second by John Ribes. Motion carried unanimously 7 -0. rr B12 1 b Mal19, 2 d) Naples Zoo Land Swap Barry Williams reported the Staff has been working with the Naples Zoo on a land swap. Marla Ramsey reported: ➢ Naples Zoo purchased 23 acres along Golden Gate Parkway to the north of Naples Zoo. ➢ Naples Zoo leases land from the County. ➢ The County will save $750,000 for making the land swap. ➢ Lease change will include property to the north of the Naples Zoo. ➢ Additional land would be used as a parking lot, boardwalk, kayak and canoe launch. ➢ Site plan will set property back far off Golden Gate Parkway. ➢ Future plans to build a pedestrian walk over Golden Gate Parkway and a bridge to connect the southern part to the mooring site. The Staff requested approval on the land swap concept from the Advisory Board. The plan, survey and lease will be provided for June meeting. Ski Olesky moved to approve the concept of land swap (with Naples Zoo.) Second by William Shafer. Motion carried unanimously 7 -0. VI. Old Business a. Annual Update Inventory Report Level of Services Standards Sidney Kittila gave a slide presentation on (AUIR) Annual Updated Inventory Report (AUIR) and (LOSS) Level of Service Standard. Every Division is required to provide an annual update on current parks acreage with a projection over the next 5 years. She stated the Level of Service is measured by acreage per 1,000 people. The LOSS can not go lower than 2.15 due to Impact Fees. • Regional Park Lands — 1121.68 acres with 2.9 LOSS • Community Park Lands — 544.54 acres with 1.2 LOSS • Undevelopable /Preserve lands at Regional Level — 338.03 acres • Proposed AUIR FY 10 /11 — 14/15 — 163.00 acres • Required Inventory FY 2015 for minimum 2.1 LOSS — 924.56 acres • In 5 years CC will be out of compliance by not meeting the State Level of Service The Staff will provide recommendations to the Advisory Board on the Level of Service. Sidney Kittila recommended the Advisory Board address the BCC on Level of Service Standards and make plans accordingly. Proposed future acreage to meet AUIR and total 163 acres: • FPL Greenway = 35 acres • BCIRP = 65 acres 11 1611 B12 May 19, 2010 Pepper Ranch = 50 acres Isle of Capri = 9 acres Pulling Property = 4 acres Barry Williams stated there is no land (625 acres) in CC for an ATV park less preserve land. It was noted neighborhood gated community parks land can not be counted in County acreage inventory. b. Eagle Lakes Community Park Center Barry Williams distributed an Executive Summary and the Eagle Lakes Proposed Community Center Plan. (See attached) The Staff provided a copy of the plan for the Advisory Board's review. The Staff is prepared to go forward and submit the plan to BCC for approval on June 8. Ski Olesky leaves at 3:45 pm VII. Marketing Highlights Sidney Kittila announced the following Grand Openings and Upcoming Events. (See attached) • East Naples Community Park Soccer Field Grand Opening on May 21. • Collier Boulevard Boating Park Grand Opening on May 22. • "Dive in Movies" at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon on May 22 • Retirement Party for Murdo Smith on June 4. • School's Out Celebration at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon on June 12. • "Dive in Movies" at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon on June 19. • Father's Day Celebration at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon on June 20. All fathers will get in free with one paid admission. Ski Olesky returns at 3:50 pm VIII. Recreation Highlights — Drug Free Collier Barry Williams reported hosting a Night at Sun -N -Fun on April 24 and May 14 to celebrate being Drug Free. (See attached) Supervised recreation was provided strictly to middle school age groups without parents. Sheriff's Officers volunteered their time to help with supervision. Participants were provided surveys to complete. The events attracted 2000 - 7t" and 8" graders and 1200 - high school participants and was very successful. IX. Capital Project Highlight Tony Ruberto reported FEMA approved the Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds for Golden Gate and Immokalee Community Centers to install hurricane shutters at all building openings. (See attached) • Staff prepared grant applications for shutter installation. • Federal share is 75% with 25% local share. • East Naples Community Center is on hold. 5 1611812`4 May 19, 2010 • Lowest bid was for $103,853 submitted by EZ Lock Shutters. • The approved project cost was estimated at $124,909. • The actual cost from Bid minus adjustments is $107,760. • Local share is $26,940. Tony Ruberto distributed and reviewed the ARRA Green Light Projects. (See attached) ■ Involves Immokalee and Gulf Coast Community Parks retrofit of light fixtures. • Project is funded by DOE through EECBG • Grant Fund - $665,811 • Green Light Project is scheduled to be completed by end of 2010. X. Adopt a Park Phil Brougham distributed and reviewed reports on Bayview Park, Max Hasse Park and Port of the Islands Marina as follows. Bayview Park ➢ Manager expressed concern over the planned renovation project being "On Hold." The BCC has approved the project and Staff is working on finalizing the plans. Plans will be submitted for permitting. ➢ The playground walkway is a safety issue. The metal mesh is worn and sagging. The Staff has tried to patch areas to prevent tripping accidents. There is a plan to redesign the site and the playground will be addressed ➢ Wood pilings along the dock are in need of repair or replacement and bumper padding should be installed to prevent boat damage when tied up. Bumper concerns will be addressed. ➢ The pavilion floor needs to be power washed. Max Hasse Park ➢ They are experiencing outfield drain issues due to the field slopes. Collier County is aware of the storm drainage issue and will continue to work on drainage problem. ➢ The Child Care Program has outgrown the facility. The facility is licensed by DCF and limits the number of children per teacher and limit the number of children per square footage. The Staff is currently working through the DCFguidelines and restrictions. Expansion of the facility is also being considered. Port of the Islands Marina ➢ The concrete boat ramp has a drop -off straight down to the bottom of the water estimated to be 4'. Ramp conditions do not provide for traction for some vehicles and back wheels of the trailer drop off over the edge when launching and removing the boat. C9 1611 X12 If May 19, 2010 Barry Williams urged the Advisory Board call him with questions and concerns before calling a Commissioner. He will provide his cell number for Board members to get immediate answers to questions. The County purchased this property in January 2010 and with the purchase came several issues. The County has submitted applications for permits from the US Corp of Engineers and Southwest Water. Plan is to construct ramp in the fall. The Staff searches for a temporary fix for the ramp drop -off. ➢ Facility is losing boat storage customers and new customers will not sign up due to not having a boat /motor washing station. ➢ The dumpster is in code violation. Code requires dumpster be fenced in and on a concrete pad. ➢ The gas pump station at the dock will register total gallons. The gas pump does not display total sale dollars and is not connected to the cash register in the office. The customer does not always remember the number of gallons which results in Staff going out to check pump and calculate amount of sale. The Staff stated a pump has been ordered to regulations and will be delivered in 6 -8 weeks. ➢ A wooden roof covers a paved patio that is supported by 4x4 posts held by iron brackets attached to roof rafters and to the concrete floor. All the brackets are nearly rusted through. The structure is a safety hazard. ➢ The Clerk has to work at a small desk without any workspace. She works with material in her lap due to lack of space. XI. Director's Highlights Barry Williams reported: • 100 participants graduated from the Junior League Leadership Program. They assist with summer camp programs. • Camp registration continues to look positive. • Staff member, John Palinchak was named Sports Star of the Year by the Paradise Coast Tourism Association on May 13. XII. Informational Items The next meeting is scheduled for June 16 at North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall at 2:00 pm. XIII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments David Saletko voiced concern and stated "For the Record" Starcher Baseball Field was having drainage issues. He provided a picture showing the drainage problem to Board and Staff. The Staff directed David to notify the School Board of the problem. Phil Brougham announced he would not be attending the June meeting. 7 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:20 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Chairm John • Ribes These Minutes were approved by,the Committee/Board on — presented x___ or as amend"bd E. 1611B121 . as 1611812' EAGLE LAKES PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1611812 Recommendation to provide direction to the County Manager regarding a request from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to re- appropriate funding associated with Project # 80122 Manatee Community Park to Project # 80101 Eagle Lakes Community Center. There is $2.071 million associated with the options identified for approval. Objective: To provide recreational opportunities for the citizens of Collier County. Considerations: On March 17, 2010 the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board made a motion to "Approve the preliminary plan and for staff to move forward to the next step in re- directing funds in the amount of approximately $1.9 -$2.4 million available for Manatee Park toward the design, permitting and construction of a Fitness, Community and Aquatic Center at Eagle Lakes Community Park." The Motion carried 4/2. Eagle Lakes Community Park is a 47 acre site that has two soccer fields, two softball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic pavilion, and walking trails. The site development plan for the park includes the provision for a community center and library (see attachment A). As South Regional Library has been established, the need for a library at this location has diminished and staff has developed a conceptual plan to locate a community center /fitness center and recreational pool in this location per the request of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (see attachment B). Construction documents were established for Manatee Community Park; however, funding necessary to construct the park is estimated at $15 million. Currently the project has $2.071M with approximately $171,000 necessary to complete permitting of the project. The remaining funding for the project is dependent on Parks and Recreation impact fees, which have dramatically decreased in the previous years. Impact Fees that are collected will go to retire the debt associated with park projects already constructed. An analysis of incoming impact fees related to retiring debt with consideration for this request are shown below: Impact Fee Checkbook 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Impact Fee Reserves 2,699,100 4,923,527 3,182,454 1,471,207 (215,995) Total IF Revenues from Existing Projects 3,052,890 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds 5,751,990 4,923,527 31182,454 1,471,207 (215,995) Debt Service Owed 3,128,463 3,115,938 3,111,438 3,113,188 3,110,938 Balance 2,623,527 1,807,589 715016 (1,641,981 ) (3,326,933) Projected Impact Fee Revenue 2,300,000 1,374,865 1,400,191 1,425,986 1,452,259 Projected Grand Total 4,923,527 3,182,454 1,471,207 215,995 1,874,674 1 Fiscal Impact: Determined by option chosen. • Currently $2.071M resides in Project # 80122 Manatee Community Park, if Option 1 is chosen, there are sufficient funds in project to finish the permitting of the site with the remaining dollars held until sufficient impact fees are collected to complete the project. • If Option 2 is chosen, $171,000 would remain in Project # 80122 and the remaining $1.9M would be transferred to Project # 80101. An amount of $50,000 would be committed to complete conceptual design of park - sufficient funds would be available. If Option 3 is chosen, $171,000 would be kept in Project # 80122 and the remaining $1.9M would be transferred to debt service. Growth Management Impact: Eagle Lakes Community Park and Manatee Community Park are inventoried in the growth management plan. LeEal Consideration: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action. - -CMG Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff on the request from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Options related to this request include: 1. Continue to let the monies reside in Project # 80122 Manatee Community Park until sufficient funds are collected through Parks and Recreation Impact fees to complete the project. Complete permitting the site with costs anticipated at $171,000. 2. Keep $171,000 in Project # 80122 Manatee Community Park to complete the permitting necessary for the project reallocate the remaining $1.9M to Eagle Lakes Community Park Project # 80101. Commit $50,000 to develop a conceptual plan of buildings, pool, site development costs, utilities and approximately 40% design and return to the Board of County Commissioners with this conceptual plan with anticipated costs for completion for further direction. Authorize necessary budget amendment to affect the transfer. 3. Redirect funds in Project # 80101 Manatee Community Park to impact fee reserves to pay future debt payments. Authorize necessary budget amendment to affect the transfer. Prepared by: Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Sim 12 Lij ED CD (D cn 0 0 3 771 -7 ID Z13 12 ,a i Q V N O_ O Q Lnn l J 0 3 3 Q 7V n 0 3 n 0 0 0 n 0 3 o a CD 0 0 0 rn_ (D 3 (D f N n` 0 E �• t C r T� ! ° ° t C A � fi 1, .a ?ei CD r Q CD V) C) O FBI J a NEW 77 0 3 3 c n cD cD 90 -v O O n O ICF x Q V N O_ O O D Q rn cD n m CD Q O O 3 Q 7V D rn� /n Q z 1611 Ri III tI k Id -n C) Cl) ° °I CD s cD E nE N CS p 2 0 � i O �< m 1 p , , i fr --------------- -- t r t t- mQ / n m - ilk ri dI Z s t � I I, ➢��r,�IE I E 'I � I I i � 1; ! t t ° t m cQ cD r CD < CD CD Cn o nm cD 3 v rn D L — °I CD � i CD II T i-- --------- i C -- - - -- i � t q •. � ' r; • �_ �' � q � as a t �� ._ _ 1 Jl- t i t _-- -- - - -- 1 -, t I - h r1, y x� I , --------------- -- t r t t- mQ / n m - ilk ri dI Z s t � I I, ➢��r,�IE I E 'I � I I i � 1; ! t t ° t m cQ cD r CD < CD CD Cn o nm cD 3 v rn D L 16'118 1 2' 16I1B1� 1611 11 812 ' Oo om 3 Ln 3 o' N I� '< N � r Ln � I I Ul N -p 01 Ln 00 -p 812 ' 1611 B12 r_ D D (D V) I I rn N Ln sv n Pb 0 p -11 N N v•• 0 sZ I� O O O 11 O N V x r- 0 Un a) 0 (D N I1 0 r+ 0 (D I r+ N F-� Ul Q C (D r+ 0 0 r+ T (D m N C N fD — "1O 0 ffDD < rD nrD "0 II w it — II L t7 r fD II O IL e�-r 11 n n C O n `W n D m a) OrQ m r- 0 N Ln N Q W 1611 R12 -.- 1611 B19 FEMA —Wind Retrofit Projects • On April 2009, several County Departments and Cities (Exh.1) have applied for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for hurricane Fay. Collier County EMS coordinated the grant process. • Federal share is 75% with 25% local share. • Parks & Rec has prepared two applications for shutter installation at ENCC and ISC & GGCC. • FEMA has approved the grant for ISC & GGCC; ENCC is still on hold. • There were 6 bidders, 3 non - responsive for ISC & GGCC. (Exh.2) Lowest bid was $103,853 from EZ Lock Shutters Approved Proiect Cost Federal Share Local Share $124,909 $93,682 $31,227 Actual Cost from Bid after some adiustments $107,760 $80,820 $26,940 • Requested BCC to approve the low bidder on May 25th • Grant period ends on November 2011 1611 R1 ?' 23 March 2009 Mr. Miles Anderson Division of Emergency Management Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 RE: TS Fay (FEMA 1785- DR -FiL) HIV OP Project Priority Letter Dear Mr. Anderson: The following projects are contained in the Collier County Hazard Mitigation Plan and have been endorsed by the LMS Working Group for FIMGP funding under the FEMA 1785 -DR -FL disaster. They are numbered & listed in For further information, please call me "fit: 233- 252 -M000. Richard A �Ly lloski Tr., LMS Chai� Collier C�unty'I_MS Working Group F -- fed PH.'uY Name - project ®escription Applicant Share E-9t Waste -Water Treatment Plant Wind Protection. Install City of Marco is]. i.tS 3. $53.OK 1 windscrecn protection on two Membrane Bio Reactor skids. 3 Haldeman Creek Stormwater Improvements and Loche Louise Collier Co. Trans. Weir Reconstruction - Reconstructing one weir, constructing a Svs. Div., 1.1 -.3 �� .7, $386.4K 2 new weir, installing a double 4' X S' box culvert & Stormwater M.gt. 6.4-6.5 reconstructing 400' of existing ditch... Dept. Collier Co. Pub. Util. Ops. Ctr wind retrofit - Upgrade 33 Collier Co. Public 3.1 & $42.OE� 3 garage doors. Utilities Div. 3.3 Collier Co. Environmental Compliance and Landfill Scale Collier Co. Solid 4 House Wind Retrofit - Install 13 roll -down hurricane shutters. Waste Management 3 $38.0K Dept. Collier Area Transit Facility Wind Retrofit - Installation of Collier Co. Alt. 1.2 & $150 OK 5 generator- powered electric steel shuttering system Trans. Modes 3.1 East Naples Community Center Wind Retrofit and Flood Collier Co. Parks & Proofing - Install generator- powered electric shutters and Recreation Dept. 4J-3 $56.3iC water pump system. Build concrete water - barrier around facility. Lift Station Transfer Switches - purchase & installation of City of Naples 3.1-.2 $33.88 7 generator transfer switches to 65 lift stations. Golden Gate and Immokalee Community Centers Wind Collier Co. Parks & 4.1-3 3 $93.8K 8 Retrofit - Install hurricane shutters at all building openings, Recreation Dept. Collier County Landfill leachate six inch IiDPE pipe Collier Co. Solid 3 $24O.OK 9 installation - Install pipe to parallel 4 -inch pipe. Waste Mgt. Dept. 10 Rte 92A Rehab - raise the road elevation. City of Marco Isl. 1.M.5 $1,350.01{ For further information, please call me "fit: 233- 252 -M000. Richard A �Ly lloski Tr., LMS Chai� Collier C�unty'I_MS Working Group F 16 11 BI 2 StormSmart Rolling Shield EZ Lock Imagen Lifestyle Shutters Radio Road Total $ 84,732.58 $ 85,029.07 $ 69,822.53 93416 Golden Gate $ 59,427.31 $ 62,976.00 $ 52,590.28 59961 Alternate 1 $ 98,183.20 $ 96,270.00 $ 47,698.83 72212 TOTAL $ 157,610.51 $ 159,246.00 $ 100,289.11 0 132173 Immokalee $ 56,315.75 $ 57,364.00 $ 51,431.25 47378 Alternate 1 $ 67,913.37 $ 76,160.00 $ 45,357.42 54251 TOTAL $ 124,229.12 $ 133,524.00 $ 96,788.67 0 101629 GRAND TOTAL $ 366,572.21 $ 377,799.07 $ 266,900.31 221,273.00 327,218.00 Sentinel $ 126,709.48 $ 98,923.78 $ 59,354.27 $ 158,278.05 $ 92,663.36 $ 55,598.02 $ 148,261.38 433,248.91 .V 12 04 ARRA Green Light Projects • Involves energy retrofit of light fixtures at two parks — Immokalee & Gulf Coast Com. Parks • Project is funded 100% by DOE through EECBG • 8 projects were submitted from various Departments (Exh.1) who submitted for grants —total over $3 mil • Parks applied for grants for 9 park sites, two sites were accepted for $665,811. (Exh.2) • There were 9 bidders, lowest bid was $485,809; $180k saved for another project- Eagle Lakes (Exh.3) • Quote for Eagle Lakes was $294k; additional fund will come from the museum; funding increase was approved by BCC and DOE. • ARRA projects require - Buy America, Davis Bacon Act, Waste Disposal Plan, Jobs Created /Retained and Weekly Job Reporting. Original Budget Actual Cost Ea9le Lakes Community $425,600 161 w 116 new lamps Immokalee Community $497,315 162 w 116 new lamps Gulf Coast Community $168,496 48 w 32 new lamps _ TOTAL $ 779,904 $ 294,095 $ 362,359 $ 123,450 The lead person in the Grant Office is Marlene Foord, assisted by Josh Thomas. Other than the quarterly and monthly reports prepared by each Departments, the Grant Office also do their own monthly reporting and spreadsheet on the overall project activities. They also: • Provide training and assistance related to grants • Provide updates from the State • Review all Department reports and submittals • Attend pre- construction meetings • Site visit to construction job • Review contractors pay application This Green Light project is anticipated to complete by end of this year 2010. Grant period is until August 2012. 1611 B-12 Budget Summary by Activity Worksheet Activity rksheet �' Project Dame 1 Project Bud et Admin. Bud et* Total Bud et Project Activity 1 Facilities Management Energy Efficiency Retrofits ts $665,510.00 $24,388.00 $689,898.00 Project Activity 2 Parks and Recreation Green Lighting System Retrofits $665,811.00 $24,399.00 $690,210.00 _ Project Activity 3 Public Utilities Energy Savings Retrofits $149,000.00 $5,460.00 $154,460.00 Project Activity 4 Public Utilities Renewable Energy Solar Photovoltaic Panels $139,960.00 $5,129.00 $145,089.00 Project Activity 5 Traffic Signalization Improvements $543,000.00 $19,898.50 $562,898.50 Project Activity 6 Collier County Master Mobility Plan $473,476.00 $17,351.00 $490,827.00 Project Activity 7 C'MON Energy Savings and Renewable Energy Projects $250,000.00 $9,161.00 $259,161.00 Project Activity 8 Green Building Codes Inspection Training Program $41,920.50 $1,536.00 $43,456.50 Total Costs $25928,677.50 $107,322.50 $3,036,000.00 `Note: Grant administration costs are pi-o -rated and allocated to each ProjectActivio based ou the dollar value of each activity. Actual level of effort by the Grant Support Specialist to support each activiy may vag during management of thegrant. 6 1611 R12'` CO CD -4 CD M < M, <1 '0 3 3 G) cn ,o c a) x 3 3 C2L- lon C=D > 0 0 CD 0, ;V ;Z'�:3 z a)� w fu a) a co CD CD a) CD cn U) A 0 ICD 0 C) 0 30 0 0 0 3 c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 :3 3 3 0 u x 0 )2� m Cn Cn Lrl Ol Cn (31 U7 M U1, 0 Cp CO 0 O A) M CL 6a <A 69 -.9 69 1-69 w -.9 f.9 -r.9 4- 'o. -r-. co 0) (,)1 -ru 0 1 M Ch (y) -4 C) CO N" -4 N) 0-) 0 f,p 9D !-n :-J p :-4 (n 9D 0 0) c) co 00 co C3) cyl 0 cn COO) � " C) CD 0) C) CD w 0) CO I -th, cn CA) N) C) CO U) A. 40 694 ro 4.9 X.9 CD ISO �o N.P19) N �o 9) C, K) C) t C) .1�- CD C) cn w w ro 40 co I — --4, CDICn " W C) CD (0 -4 N) --4 N) NCO t OD CO 4 cn cn cn J31 col Of -4 W OD CD Cn fi N(� cn CO M 0) CO C) CD (0 � -4 W N)l -N CDJ I K) cn 0) C) SO S-3 OD W --4 M Cn lllf CD co -P., i w CO i1 co M � i Co -4 cn i iv I Ai Cn 0 81 0 c01 An C CD su 42, X m CD t Z1 a 0 of CD Q 0 m z m N cn *o o m cn0 5 j m o 0 N 0 CD n y 3 0 C a . � U cap 3 T 0 3 O ` 0 O c m O a L N w D �. w 3 x 7m m o 00 w a N O (D c N m = w N y 3 O d N N N w 7 w CD C N O7 .'* (OD O) ID N w w 3' O) m 0 o omo 7 w .°w.D0D'0 3 m 3 w 3 a m r 7 N =0 o w 0 3R� 3 m N w N 3 7 3 x 3 CD 0 N 3 3 3 A O z D Z D N N N O N N Z N U) N N N N D N g g { Z { y 0 m N w u(Di N w (a D to QI 3 W Z 0) 0+ e N % om 7 w (O N N N N O N Z N Lo N 7 N N N D N CL N N N O N N Z N N N N N N D N N O N N N N Z N N N N N N D N -<I-<I N N N N Z N N N N (A w (/1 D N a 115 11 1 9, -1. 2 O d CD a 3 o. O 0 n C C O C w C 3 3 0 3 w 3 c m 3 �. 3 3 3 3 <_. o 00 7 0 N O (D N O N 7' w w N y O N N N w (Np w CD O7 .'* (OD O) ID °0mo o omo .°w.D0D'0 3 3 3 w 3 a r 3.0 o w o 3 3R� 3 3 7 3 x 3 N 3 3 3 D n : - ?. 3 ?. ?. 0 � �. 3 ?. r a. Z w N w CD m T 3 N x oi N nx O >r T x' N F U F O O O B O O0 N '(<D O O N 0 0 �. N m m m n o. o, a a O 7 0 0 7 o N CD m CD o � 0 m o � n 0 :3 O EA 69 'A 169 U. AV N A O A W cwj CO) O V to W N OWD O (O W (wn OOD O W O 0 •�+, U! Cf w 1 O O O O O -• 0 0 O O O O O O O A O O O N n mm Co N N fA 69 69 69 fA n N O 4 - a N OD ? w O 0 3 A Jh- w Oo (n pp (n w 3 0 NN. wp (� in w m co 0 m — O eo G O (WD 0 O pWi O o CL 0000 Q) A O O N m mm al a b+ 'A 169 69 69 69 69 Ac(�n AaNDA w wp A) A W A n o 3 N + (D On W O (D OD w O O (A OJ O (D O) O D) O n CL C O O O O ? O O O N N 0 0 0 O a 0 O in o 69 ._ d1 (A 69 69 fA m O T N ON) N A N OD A A .a co (AO (Wn W W O C p pAA .s N tit OJ d N V V 0 O 0) w O O �• O O O O O A O 3 O O N V (A iA O 69 w y fJ N W W A O OOD w (Nn 7 T p) Ln O v O7 Ln N n V {� V O -+ O O) OD A N A W OD 7 A AA � o PD rn o m o cp 10000 O 41 O O O N O O O O O O O O N .An M s to 69 69 <A 69 EA = N O m OD OOi j ?. N w 0) N Z N OA W (VO V V7 N .'i n 0 O A A N O w OD r N^ () (D to pp O (AD (D A O (Wn w O T 7 3 w G O O a O A O . O — n c0 O O O O O O O O N a) M ...� N 69 69 69 69 � T V — w (D W V O O A OD W O7 OOD OD (An N W f7 4- Ci W co O O A O W O m O N OD co O A 9 A O O O O O A O O O N 0 N 'A fo w 69,69 69 O m N NO) A W (wn O m A Ln (n o m w 0) � y' A A 0 0 O A O A o C m 0 Co 0 0 O A O O O N n m O A M O N A W F (A N 3 O W OOD w O OODD (Wn 0 O 7 n O V O w O -(OT O O OD �• O O O N O OD O co O O O O O O O O N O 00 O O A O O O N T 7 n (A 69 69 69 fA EA OI N W A C •-• Cf = OOD DD (OD Cwn A (,, f7 m 3 V A N (n W O O) W O N N O O OD cp T �. d N (•w)1 O (VDI O O O O 'p O O N O O N O O d CD a 3 o. 161 A — ...... ...... " a - I I II p p 1� ii %� U'lil I -_j 111 eF x4 n n n n n n if I III tl C r. - 1 I fI• I g __ -- u- u __ II E I C =J CL •o i� i ;�� I' 1 N �i II i i I i• •-. i I I I q Z - - - - - -- 2 - I II N LL O i qa cc if if if _ \ r I -- - --- -- -f�l Ili• L� ---------- LLI H cc if j� a * - - -- -! •, II I I I I I § � I � r - - -- - ` �_ € I- - -- -- ----------------- I .r— --------- --- ^ - - - -- ---- ---- - - - - -- Ir-- '` • I I l i_ -- ' '----' l i I�----- -�1 i Q I j I T7..JL ----- - - - - --- - ------------------------ ---- - - -- r� - -1 \ I �� --- -- - - - - -- - - -- E 5 p a 8y #a ax 9g � i iq g¢g $� Is Fa x� 51 R$ �p� p 1le 9 O < Es gills = #yn 4�r. E tS q Es #8 n W Ey ( 3 �g$� 1110, �4 lilt. ii 9 u_ = s c _ 5 y Ala Marketing Report May 19, 2010 • Handout • East Naples Community Park Soccer Field Grand Opening— Friday, May 21 @ 6 p.m. • Collier Boulevard Boating Park Grand Opening— Saturday, May 22 @ 10 a.m. • Dive In Movies "Where The Wild Things Are" —Saturday, May 22 @ 7:30 p.m. -10:30 p.m. • Murdo Smith's Retirement Party — Saturday, June 4 @ 5 p.m. • Upcoming Events • School's Out Celebration at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon — Saturday, June 12 @ 10 a.m. — 5 p.m. • Dive In Movies at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon —Saturday, June 19 @ 7:30 p.m. —10:30 p.m. • Father's Day Celebration at Sun -N -Fun Lagoon — Sunday, June 20 @ 10 a.m. — 5 p.m. (In celebration of Father's Day all Father's will get in free with one paid admission) u n� =J b 0 n b 0 ■ O • N Cif mi6 #Nft N �o °a N cf) O �0 A � � O N O U) O S 7 190r, -160 L C14 CAD O a C• ■ CA CA O O W O ■ ■ Poev CL COD rm N � N � ;4 N, �v 16 it Al �o — • a p cn _ 3 Sam Co G0 .0 O� o cc c CD mm o C � N •p BCD =2 � � C OL V CL cc w Co CD cc, -2 MENNIS MEE C— cm CL coo oil CO r co !�F Co 16111 R12 O r-d o z c ►� rt �o �rn rt N 1611 B19" Adopt -A -Park Bawiew May 12, 2010 Met Park Manager Mike Toolan at Bayview Park where we did a tour of the facility. Before Mike came I had a change to speak with a couple of visitors to the park who both said they enjoyed the quiet and relaxing atmosphere of the Park right on Naples Bay and come there often. The park looks to be fairly well maintained however Mike did comment that he is getting a complex from directions to let something go or fix it up now because of the planned project to renovate the entire facility. He stated the last he heard the renovation was on "hold" for some reason. I replied that was news to me but would check into it. We looked at the playground equipment which on the surface looks good but upon closer inspection, there are areas of the playground equipment walkway that have been "patched" by Mike's crew to prevent trip hazards. It is metal mesh and has tended t sag and what they do is place bracing under the sag area to push it back in position. It is hoped with the renovation project, new equipment will be included. I believe this has been pointed out before but the wooden pilings along the dock are in very bad condition and almost none of them have bumper padding to prevent boat damage when tied up. The floor of the pavilion needs to be power washed and refinished if the renovation project is delayed for any significant period. 1611 817 Adopt -A -Park Max Haase Community Park May 13, 2010 I arrived early for my appointment with Shannon Peters and had the opportunity to walk around the grounds and building. The Community Center is very "lively" with posters, pictures of the kid's classes and craft projects. The overall atmosphere is this is a happy place to come to and work in. The restrooms were clean and all supplies were in place. Trash bins looked to have been cleaned, floors were clean and equipment in good shape. I walked some of the grounds near the tennis courts and encountered Jose who is one of the two maintenance workers. He and I talked about some issues with the baseball field, particularly the chain link fence and the outfield drain. In terms of the fence, it is the same old problem of the fence eventually sagging because of repeated hits by bats and balls. Jose and his helper keep trying to tie it up but it is an on -going battle. The outfield drain seems to have been a problem for years according to Jose. The field slopes away from the drain so that in the rainy season, the outfield fills with water. It would appear that the fix should be french drains with perforated PVC piping placed in trenches and covered. In any case, unless it is fixed, the field is unusable many times during the summer rainy season. When I linked up with Shannon, we toured the Community Center. The fitness center received new equipment this year and the reception desk was relocated. Membership and attendance in the fitness center is at its peak early and late in the day which is expected. She has one full time and one part time fitness instructor with one vacancy. Shannon's largest issue is she is a victim of their success with child care programs. Since she and the facility are licensed by DCF, she is limited to the number of children per teacher and also limited in the number of children per square footage of space. She took me to the large room which had a fire department maximum capacity of well over 100 persons but she could not 1611 g12 utilize all that space with children because of the restriction by DCF. That results in having to juggle classes around the building and actually is under - utilizing the space that is available. The entire facility and the grounds, fields and tennis courts seem very well maintained and no significant issues were apparent. 1611 B12' Adopt -A -Park Port Of The Islands Marina May, 2010 I visited Port of the Islands Marina on May 13`' and visited for about an hour with Mr. Lester Moore, Manager. Lester said that he didn't know about PARAB and that I was the first board member to visit the facility. Overall first impressions of the Marina, parking lot and Ships Store were favorable as I drove up. The grounds and building looked well tended. The asphalt parking lot, with the exception of one pot hole, looked in good shape as well. Lester immediately asked me to walk with him to the boat launching ramp and then out on a dock beside the ramp. He directed my attention to the end of the ramp, beneath the water and pointed out where the concrete ramp "dropped off' straight down to the bottom of the water, a distance of perhaps four feet. Lester said that many, many times, when launching a boat off a trailer, the back wheels of the trailer drop over the edge of the drop off and make it impossible to then pull the trailer out without people having to attach ropes to the trailer and lift it up over the drop off so that the back wheels are back on the ramp. Additionally, the ramp itself is concrete with no ridges or rough cut into it to provide traction and some cars and light trucks have to be pulled up the ramp because they cannot get traction. The conditions at the ramp present a significant risk of someone losing their trailer or car and trailer into the water and should definitely be remediated. Lester advised that he has pointed the problem out to his Supervision a couple of times over the last year. I considered this issue so significant that I phoned Commissioner Coletta on Friday to ask his help in securing funds for repair. I also expressed by surprise that the County would not have performed due diligence for this ramp condition prior to purchasing the marina. Mr. Coletta said that he thought money was set aside at purchase for these contingencies. In any case, he was going to contact Mr. Ochs with the concern. Lester and I then walked down to the dry boat storage area of the parking lot. This is the area where boaters rent space to store their boats and trailers for a fee. Lester pointed out that when the County purchased the marina, there was a boat/motor washing station in the parking lot where the salt water could be washed off and flushed out. The state visited after purchase and told him he had to disconnect the water because the water drained out into the canal and then to the gulf and it could contain oil and solvents. The state person said that a new drain would have to be built to direct the flow across the parking lot and connect to the sewer line. This would involve construction of a concrete pad, laying about 50 yards of pipe and connecting to the sewer. As a result of not having a washing facility, Lester stated he is losing boat storage customers and new customers will not sign up because of it. There is a dumpster in the parking lot which is not fenced and does not sit on a concrete pad. This is in violation of code and needs to be put on a pad and fenced as quickly as possible. 16111" B19' There is a gas pump and hose station near the dock. Lester stated that they are now on the seventh gas pump trying to get it right. The pump that is there registers total gallons but does not display the total dollars and is not connected to the register /display inside the office. As a result a customer must remember the total gallons or Lester must go out and check it, then use a calculator to compute the dollars owed. Not very productive. Outside the Ships Store there is a paved patio covered by a wooden roof. The roof is supported by 4x4 posts held by iron brackets to the concrete patio and the roof rafters. The iron brackets at the concrete patio are almost completely rusted through. I nudged one with my foot and a chunk fell off and here it is in this baggy. If a big wind or hurricane comes through there, we are going to lose that roof for certain. Outside the patio, near to the water, there are several round tables and chairs with thatch umbrellas. The furniture is in need of a good scrub and refinish job. The thatch on the umbrella could also be improved or install regular outdoor umbrellas instead. We then visited the inside of the Ships Store and office area. The office area is behind the counter and is very congested and very small. There is one small desk that is completely covered by the computer monitor, keyboard and printer fax machine. The clerk basically works with material in her lap due to lack of space. The "fax" portion of the printer fax has not worked since the dedicated phone line (line three) was removed. I told Lester how the fax could be inter - connected with one of the other phone lines but he said that they get too many phone calls and couldn't stand the line being busy if a fax was being sent. Solution is to install a third line. I am certain the County has surplus desks and credenza in storage that could be placed in the office area to vastly improve the working conditions and appearance. 1611213 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division, Advisory Board Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman John Iaizzo RECEIVE,) Keith J. Dallas, Vice Chairman Michael Levy John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron JUN 9 010 Johan Domenie Hunter H. Hansen Board of Counly COt�ionen Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Wilson Miller Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Fjaja AGENDA Halas The agenda includes, but is not limited: Henning 1. Roll Call Coyle 2. Welcome New Members Coletta 3. Wilson Miller Community Improvements Plan Update V 4. Agenda Approval 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 25, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. March 1, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall C. March 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session d. March 12, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop 6. Audience Participation 7. Administrator's Report a. Governance Introduction b. Independent Peer Review Draft Scope of Work Update C. Sidewalk and Paving Repairs Update d. Monthly Financial Report 8. Chairwoman's Report a. Announcements b. Election of Olircers 9. Capital Projects 10. Community Issues a. Clam Bay Estuary System i. Dredging Permit Clarification (T. Raia) ii. Maintenance Permit Issues (J. Domenic, G. Gibson, M. Levy) 11. Committee Reports and/or Requests Budget Committee (M. Levy) a. County Guidelines for FY 11 Budget Including Wages, Benefits, and Indirect Costs b. Status of FY 10 Fund 111 Contribution to Clam Bay Fund 320 c. Request for full Board concurrence to transfer FY 10 Clam Bay funds of approximately $300 K not needed currently from Fund 320 to Capital Improvements Fund 322; if not feasible, then in FY 11, not to add new fiords until current excess depleted d. Request for full Board concurrence to transfer anticipated FY 10 canylorward of $245,600 to Capital Improvements Fund 322 e_ Feedback on any discussion between Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Hoppensteadt regarding the Foundation picking up Community Improvement Plan costs associated with: i. Moving turn on Pelican Bay Boulevard to align with North Parking Lot ii. Adding three new mid -block crossings across Pelican Bay Boulevard to access Foundation resources, i.e., Commons, Sandpiper tram and path to the berm south of St. Raphael 12. Old Business 13. New Business 14. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 15. Audience Comments 16. Adjournment Misc. Corres: 8353 Date: b7 �-7 2- 01 0 Item #: t3 C""'ies ¢o: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16 11 X13 April 7, 2010 ROLL CALL All Board members were present. Madam Chair Womble introduced new residential members Mr. John Chandler and Mr. John Domenie, as well as commercial members, Mr. John Baron (new) and Mr. Hunter Hansen (reappointment.) COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE Mr. Mangan gave a Community Improvement Plan update. Projects are taking shape and they are working on prioritizing them. The project will extend from the original April 14 deadline to May 26. Mr. Levy said Wilson Miller provided an overall cost estimate for beautification projects. He asked if they could provide a breakdown, as they have for street lighting. Mr. Mangan said that as they prioritize projects they would provide an incremental breakdown by year. Mr. Domenie acknowledged the test -site project for crosswalks at the intersection of Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard and asked if they would provide costs for this site. Mr. Mangan said yes. Based on the consensus obtained from the March 31 Community Improvement Plan workshop, they would provide costs at the next workshop on April 13. Mr. Dorrill suggested Wilson Miller request digital photographs from their Sarasota office of the clay brick pavers projects installed recently at St. Ar mand's Key and Siesta Key. Mr. Mangan said he would call Sarasota for the digital photographs. He added that the American Society of Landscape Architects contacted them interested in a story for their national publication, "Landscape Architecture Magazine" about this project, as well as John Simonds, the landscape architect that designed Pelican Bay. AGENDA APPROVAL Madam Chair Womble added agenda item, "Elect New Officers" to her Chairwoman's report following "Announcements" number eight, b. According to the Services Division Board's ordinance, the Board shall elect new officers on an annual basis at the earliest opportunity. That opportunity is today. There were no protestations. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Madam Chair Womble said on March 3, Mr. Iaizzo suggested they make one motion to approve all minutes as stated on the agenda. She asked if anyone had any comments. Mr. Cravens made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as stated on the agenda, seconded by Dr. Raia. 8354 � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611B13 April 7, 2010 Mr. Levy amended the March 3, 2010 minutes. Page 8337, Mr. Cravens should be on the list as attending the March 3 meeting. Page 8338, Mr. Levy discusses identifying areas where landscaping impedes visibility. It reads, "...they can address those areas..." "Pelican Bay Services Division" should replace "they." Dr. Raia said page 8352 reads "rif raff," but should read "riprap." Mr. Cravens made a nation, seconded by Dr. Raia to approve the meeting minutes as described on the agenda The Board voted on the motion and approved unanimously flee February 25, March 1 and March 12 == minutes as is, and the Marck 3 minutes as amended AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Linda Roth, resident of Montenero at Pelican Bay, said she would like to dispel misinformation regarding the County's application for a new ten -year "maintenance only" dredging permit under the assumption that the County will need a permit to open Clam Pass should a weather event close it. They are applying to "dredge the maximum allowable width of eighty feet and depth of five and one half feet, and part of the ebb shoal. Allegedly, the purpose is to dredge for sand for Clam Pass Park beach. It is not for maintenance flushing or for health of the mangroves. Excessive dredging would destroy the "fragile equilibrium of the Estuary" and larger dredging cuts in 1999 and 2007 caused adjacent beach erosion. Smaller dredging cuts done in 2002 lasted over five years and the optimal cut supported by the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, Foundation, and Mangrove Action Group. She urged the Services Division's support. The Pass has closed several times in the past and the County can obtain an emergency permit to open it as they have done in the past. Mrs. Marcia Cravens, resident of Dorchester at Pelican Bay and member, Mangrove Action Group, distributed to the Board, an email between Mr. Gary McAlpin and a County Attorney regarding, "how can we do navigational dredging in Clam Pass." She alleges that it is a clear intent to expand dredging in Clam Pass. As the result of a public records request between Mr. McAlpin, the Purchasing department of Collier County, and Post Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan. She alleges that Mr. McAlpin bypassed Commissioners approval and expanded the "original sand bypassing project that was shunted through the discredited and disbanded Clam Bay Estuary Improvement Discussion Group." through a series of change orders to go forward with additional projects in Clam Bay including modeling, and a permit application for Clam Pass. The new permit application is different from the 1998 permit. The original dredge cut was forty feet wide, but modified to eighty feet. The forty feet wide dredge cut maintains the status quo and a detrimental adverse impact from expanding the cut. The peer reviewer recommendations provided by Mr. McAlpin came from PBS & J to review their own work and recommended the Services Division withdraw from the peer review. 8355 1611 B13*1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 7, 2010 Mr. Jerry Moffatt asked if the time limit public speakers allotted increased. Madam Chair Womble said the time limit of three minutes did not change; she was being accommodating. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT At the Board's request, Mr. Dorrill introduced the concept of the Pelican Bay Services Division returning to independent district status. He provided an executive summary and the 1974 Special Act of the Legislature that created the Pelican Bay Improvement District. There are more than two thousand special purpose districts in Florida. Most are community improvement or development districts such as Reedy Creek, aka Walt Disney World. Following a meeting with the County Manager, and Board of County Commissioners' Chairman, Mr. Dorrill said that Mr. Ochs and Commissioner Coyle seem willing to allow the Services Division to take the lead in exploring the possibility of returning to independent district status. Florida Statute 189 outlines the process, parameters, and range of powers to form an independent special district. The Legislative Delegation would want to see some level of community support and may impose requirements such as a ballot initiative as early as the primary or November election. In the interim, the Services Division could develop a memorandum of understanding between the Board of County Commissioners that provides an inventory of all assets that the community would like to acquire for the purposes of ownership and maintenance going forward, i.e., streets and right -of -ways, landscape improvements, special street lighting, and water management system. The County is unlikely to negotiate or give up the rights to the customer base associated with the utility system, i.e., water, wastewater, and irrigation, or the conservation areas or rights to beach access. Everything else is on the table, including the field office site on Watergate Way. Mr. Cravens asked what would become of the Services Division's County employees. Mr. Dorrill said County employees would become employees ofthe new independent district and continue to be eligible for the Florida Retirement System benefit. Mr. Iaizzo asked would the independent district assume ownership and responsibility of the twelve acres on the golf course. Mr. Dorrill said there are several entities on the twelve -acre site. It may be possible to negotiate acquisition of the parcel, i.e., field office and irrigation storage tanks. Mr. Iaizzo said it might be to the County's benefit to relinquish the property otherwise they would have to pay taxes to the district. 8356 ; Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting M antes 1611 B 13April 7, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said yes. There is an equivalency factor, which includes neighborhood parks and libraries. Part of the exploration process should include determining the size and makeup of the board, i.e., number of commercial members, and if members are appointed or elected. They need to consider the budget and costs for accounting, outside auditing, and risk management services purchased directly. The most obvious advantage is decisions would be made by qualified electors within the community in control of their own destiny. Mr. Chandler asked if there are any other recent special district communities in Collier County. Mr. Dorrill said the majority are community development districts formed by Florida Statute 190, created by 100% vote of landowners that control all property within the district. He recommended forming a 189 district. Similar 189 districts are the Ave Maria Stewardship District and Big Cypress Stewardship District created by landowners and developers. One difference is a Pelican Bay independent district's board would be composed of residents. How taxes are collected would be outlined in the act and the process similar to what they do now when they determine the annual assessment. They would establish uniform non ad- valorem and ad- valorem assessments, millage rate, adopt by resolution, and transmit to the Property Appraiser. The County has been unsuccessful managing general revenue and reserves and the shortfall estimated to be $20 - $24 million. As an independent district, they would still be customers of the County for water and sewer service. Madam Chair Womble and Mr. Dallas suggested that a subcommittee explore the possibility of Pelican Bay returning to an independent district and the key issues of concern. Mr. Cravens suggested a special workshop devoted to this issue. Mr. Dorrill said he is "mildly acquainted with the Young van Asenderp law firm in Tallahassee that wrote the original Pelican Bay Improvement District Act" and considered Florida's special district experts. He would like to discuss with the County Attorney, the possibility of engaging the services and funding of the Van Asenderp firm, at least on a temporary basis for charter issues and the history of the Pelican Bay Independent District. The 2011 General Session would be earliest that the Legislative Delegation could approve. Mr. laizzo said they have one million dollars in capital equipment that after seven years the County sells and keeps the profits. What would happen if they were an independent district? Mr. Dorrill said the proceeds would go to the independent district. He added that he is recouping more than $7,000 from the County for surplus property sales from the past three years where the County sold the Services Division's property and kept the revenue. 8357 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16 B13! April 7, 2010 Dr. Raia said one complication could arise pertaining to the County requiring the district to accept their position regarding ownership and utilization of the submerged lands. Madam Chair Womble said, "Well if they did, we would walk away." Mr. Dorrill said it would be a "deal breaker." The County must "preserve your rights under Florida law." Mr. Dallas made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibson, to direct the Administrator to take necessary action to move forward in scheduling a special workshop with the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to explore further the possibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division returning to independent district sidiuL Second direct the Administrator to discuss with the County Attorney the possibility of engaging on a temporary basis, the services of the Young van Asenderp law firm in Tallahassee, and request from the County Attorney, use of their co- counsel or reserve funds for payment of van Asenderp legal services. Third invite the van Asenderp law firm to participate in the special workshom The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Madam Chair Womble suggested that the Board to schedule a workshop and digest the infbrmation, and send questions or comments to the office. She directed Ms. Resnick to query the Services Division Board, Mr. Hoppensteadt, Foundation President, and Ms. Susan Boland, President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association for possible dates. She directed Mr. Dorrill to contact the County Attorney and van Asenderp law firm. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK UPDATE Mr. Dorrill referred to Coastal Zone Management department's independent peer review draft scope and asked the Board to either confirm or provide new direction as they see fit. Mr. Gary McAlpin had suggested that Madam Chair Womble select two representatives from this Board to meet with his staff and two Coastal Advisory Committee members to discuss the scope and Mr. Dorrill quickly quashed the concept because first, it would have to be a public meeting, and second, two member representation of this Board would not accomplish anything. At this time, it appears that Mr. McAlpin does not wish to schedule a joint workshop between this Board and the Coastal Advisory Committee. The Coastal Advisory Committee meets tomorrow, April 8 at 1 p.m. Mr. Cravens said Coastal Zone Management has unilaterally changed the peer review qualifications. This Board clearly agreed to select someone from academia and they have ruled it out. Mr. Dorrill said it was his suggestion to recommend a recognized expert in marine sciences from academia that does not have a consultant relationship with Collier County. The Board of County Commissioners accepted this Board's participation in the peer review process. Coastal Zone Management cannot usurp the Commissioners' authority and direction. He agreed with Mr. Cravens in that this Board needs to stick with the original parameters approved by the County Commissioners. Changes would need to be accepted and authorized by the Commissioners. 8358 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 813 April 7, 2010 Mr. Cravens said this Board has not participated in the process thus far. Madam Chair Womble said they postponed moving forward until new members appointed. Dr. Raia asked how they would communicate their objections to Coastal Zone Management. Mr. Dorrill said the Board should motion, second and vote to confirm the original recommendation made to and accepted by the Commissioners. The individual selected jointly should have an academic or research background, and not have a consultant relationship with Collier County. Dr. Raia said this Board should let Mr. McAlpin know promptly that they reject the proposed scope. Mr. Chandler said this Board should respond and agreed they should form a subcommittee. Mrs. Marcia Cravens said the original agreement did not include going through the Purchasing department, however the recommendation submitted to the Board of County Commissioners requires their involvement. There is no requirement to go through the Purchasing because the purchase does not exceed the $50,000 threshold. Madam Chair Womble confirmed that what Mrs. Cravens expressed is what was approved by the Commissioners is not what this Board suggested in the first place. Mr. Dorrill clarified that whatever the Purchasing department thresholds are, they dictate the process that would include a Request for Qualifications notice published and transmitted to individuals that this Board wants to receive proposals and suggested a subcommittee short list prospective reviewers to bring to full Board for selection. Madam Chair Womble added they should respond at the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow, April 8. The response should include that recommendations made are not in compliance. Mr. Levy asked who the contact person would be with the individual performing the work. Mr. Dorrill said unless a change made, Mr. McAlpin of Coastal Zone Management is the contact. Mr. Domenie said because the Services Division is sharing the cost, equally, that person should also report to this Board's Chairwoman. Mr. Levy said the contact person should be a neutral party. Ms. Ronnie Bellone, St. Kitts at Pelican Bay resident, said from her understanding, professional services contracts do not have to channel through the Purchasing department. Mr. Dorrill said the process would channel through Purchasing, similar to the process used by the Board to choose their new Administrator last year. 8359 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 1 813 April 7, 2010 Mr. Domenie made a motion, seconded by Dr. Raia to inform tie Coastal Advisory Committee at tkeir April 8,1 PM meeting that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board rejected Coastal Zone Management's proposed changes to tke "Peer Review Scope of Work" developed by Mr. Gary MCA4XM The Board of County Commissioners' accepted the Pelican Bay Services Division's participation with Coastal Zone Management to select jointly an individual from academia wttk recognized credentials without a consultant mlattonskip with Collier County to perform a peer review of the Post Buckley, Schuk, and Jernigan (PBS & .n Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis report They should afrm tke Commissioners' direc don. A vote on the motion passed unanimously. I]-& Madam Chair Womble asked who from the Services Division would respond. Originally, Mr. Dorrill agreed to respond, however the Board designated Mr. Domenie and he agreed to respond on behalf of the Board. Later in the meeting, they discovered that the April 8 at 1 p.m., Coastal Advisory Committee meeting public notice allowed more than one Services Division Board member to attend and participate at the meeting. The meeting is at the Government Center, W. Harmon Turner Building F, Third Floor, Commissioners Chambers and televised. SIDEWALK PAVING REPAIRS UPDATE March 3, Mr. Cal Grayson expressed concerns about the pathway along the west side of Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. Mr. Dorrill reported that he met with Mr. Travis Gossard, County Transportation, Road and Bridge Maintenance. Mr. Gossard determined the southern one -third of the pathway appears to be in the worst shape and they have fiords budgeted do repair, but not to replace the pathway. There is no plan to replace this pathway in the next five years. Repairs estimated complete in thirty to sixty days. Mr. Chandler said that pathway has been patched so many times that it looks like a checkerboard. As an entryway sidewalk, it does not have much curb appeal. Dr. Raia asked if the County performs and pays for the pathway repairs. Could the Services Division replace the pathway and receive a credit from the County. Mr. Levy said if they were going to replace the pathway, they should consider widening to eight feet. Mr. Dorrill said the County's Transportation department pays for pathway repairs. If pathway replacement and widening is feasible, the Services Division should be eligible for repair reimbursement credit from the County. They would also need to consider landscaping and utilities as part of the project. Mr. Cravens said pathways along the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard are narrow, requiring utility work. Dr. Raia said they should explore the possibility of replacing the pathway because it is a high traffic area. 8360 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 7, 2010 Mr. Mangan said he has not observed that area and affirmed that a solution includes landscaping and utility work. He said he would visit the site and report his observations. Mr. Dorrill said they could explore an "advance participation agreement" with the County to find out if the Services Division advances the funds to replace the pathways is reimbursement possible. The Transportation department does not have funding for this type of project for the next five years, so it may be 2016 before receiving reimbursement. Staff can research cost per ton through the civil engineer of record. MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT Mr. Dorrill acknowledged the monthly financial statement and said the Budget Committee would provide further information under agenda item eleven. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT - ANNOUNCEMENTS Madam Chair Womble announced upcoming meetings. Today, April 7 at 3 PM, Ms. Colleen Greene will make a presentation regarding the Sunshine Law and Ethics for Advisory Boards. The Budget subcommittee meets April 13 at 1 PM and May 10 at 1 PM. There are Community Improvement Plan workshops, April 14 at 8:30 AM and April 28 at 12 PM. The Pelican Bay Services Division Board meets in regular session May 5 at I PM. Additional Community Improvement Plan workshops are May 18 at May 26 at noon. The next Pelican Bay Foundation Board meetings are April 23 and May 21 at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Cravens said the Pelican Bay Historical Society meets Friday, April 9. Mrs. Cravens said the Mangrove Action Group meets the first Tuesday of every month at 1:30 PM. All meetings mentioned held at the Community Center at Pelican Bay. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Madam Chair Womble asked if there were any nominations for Chair. Mr. laizzo nominated Mr. Cravens, Mr. Hansen nominated Mr. Dallas, and Mr. Levy nominated Mr. Domenie, but Mr. Domenie said he was not interested. Nominations were closed and a vote taken to choose a new Chairman. Mr. Cravens received four votes; Mr. Dallas received seven and elected Chairman. 8361 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 1 813 April 7, 2010 Mr. Dallas nominated Mr. Gibson for Vice Chairman. Mr. Gibson gave a "qualified yes," but due to many personal commitments, if anyone else were interested he would step aside. Mr. Dallas then nominated Madam Chair Womble for Vice Chairwoman. Madam Chair Womble accepted, "for a while." Mr. Gibson agreed Madam Chair Womble was the best choice stating she was an outstanding Chairwoman. Mr. Cravens moved by "acclimation" to nominate Madam Chair Womble for Vice Chairwoman. Madam Chair Womble accepted the nomination and the Board voted unanimously to elect her Vice Chairwoman. She expressed her appreciation to the Board for their service and received applause. Dr. Raia said misinformation regarding the Pelican Bay community's opposition to dredging Clam Bay is a false statement. When the original Clam Bay permit was due to expire and requirements allegedly complete, the Services Division was in the process of applying for a new permit to allow tidal flushing as necessary or during an emergency. The County halted the permit application process claiming that the Services Division did not comply with the original Army Corp. of Engineers requirements because they had not installed red and green navigational markers. Consequently, the original permit was not closed out. However, there is correspondence from the Army Corp. of Engineers stating permit requirements do not require installing red and green navigational markers. He alleges that the County maneuvered to take the responsibility away from the Services Division under a false premise, so that they could take control to apply for a sand bypassing permit. Mr. Gibson and Madam Chair Womble agreed with Dr. Raia and asked what he suggested, Dr. Raia said this Board could recognize that the Services Division successfully fulfilled the original permit requirements and the County is misleading the community. One should ask why the County insists on installing red and green navigational markers. Mr. Levy asked if the red and green markers were installed would they have to dredge? Dr. Raia said yes. By definition, area within red and green markers implies safe passage. The County is liable, so if someone sues them for "getting stuck," there will be justification for dredging to make it safe. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation has taken a position on the dredging permit, filed a letter with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and hired a marine engineer. They filed an objection regarding installing red and green markers to the Governor. The Foundation has Clam Bay issues well covered. Mr. Gibson said the solution is to install the canoe trail markers. The current signs are in terrible disrepair. 8362 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meetin g Minutes April 7, 2010 Mr. Domenie said the canoe trail markers are independent from the deeper water navigational markers. Mr. Gibson said unless the County has an ulterior motive, installing the canoe trail markers should solve the problem and identify the trail. Mr. Cravens said he understands Mr. McAlpin prevented Mr. Hall from installing the canoe trail markers. Mr. Hall said the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or FFWCC, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Army Corp. of Engineers, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection had the Pelican Bay Services Division as the entity responsible for upkeep of the canoe trail markers. Out of professional courtesy, Mr. Hall informed the FFWCC that the Services Division would be upgrading the canoe trail markers. In return, Mr. McAlpin sent the FFWCC a letter requesting that they terminate Mr. Hall's efforts. It was effective. He would have to find out the status of the permit and entity responsible for maintenance before going forward with installation. FFWCC notified him Pamela Keyes, Coastal Zone Management depaMnent, is currently responsible. Dr. Raia said there is a movement that this Board should not upset the County, but this Board has a responsibility not to acquiesce. It is objectionable and time to call the County's bluff. Madam Chair Womble asked if they had a permit for dredging or flushing in place. Mr. Hall said no. A permit is required and on March 3, he provided Florida Department of Environmental Protection permitting requirements for mangrove flushing and channel maintenance. Mr. Cravens asked if allowed to install the canoe trail markers, would he. Mr. Hall said yes. Mr. Lukasz would subcontract the actual installation work. The original canoe trail markers follow the original dredge cuts, marking the deeper water and met the Army Corp. of Engineers requirements. Relocation of markers would require a permit modification. He is happy to explore available options. One option is the County could allow him to operate under the current permit, but if the County says no, he could apply for a separate permit from the appropriate agencies under the Pelican Bay Services Division name and clarify that they are installing replacement existing canoe trail markers. He would also get Foundation approval. Mr. Cravens made a motion to direct Mr. Hall to install the existing canoe trail markers where appropriate in Clam Bay. Mr. Domenie said they should only replace the existing markers. There are no navigational markers of the deeper channels in inner or upper Clam Bay. Mr. Cravens said canoes and kayaks do not usually run aground. 8363 Pelican B 161 ,� Bay Services b>fv>ISron Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes B13 April 7, 2010 Mr. Hall said there are thirty-two markers within the system and most are replacement markers. Mr. Dorrill asked if applying for a new permit required the registered owner of record to consent or to designate the Services Division as the agent. Mr. Hall said the State claimed ownership of the submerged lands where the markers would go. He would apply to the State for their permission to install the markers, but would only apply for a new permit on behalf of the Services Division if the County does not allow him to install the markers under the current permit. The permit could also be under the Foundation's name, it does not have to be a municipal entity. Mr. Cravens made a motion mad seconded b dbmct Mr. 71W Man to &*e necessary acdom to iastaU thirty* -two canoe until rreorken where appropriate be Cleve Bay. Firs& Mr. Man would request permhulon from the County to buMU the nwkers nader the curnaet pmwa If permi lion grante4 he world perform butallsol , If the request denied, on behalf of the Services Division he would apply for a new permk from the appropriate SIWe agemy *0 would give the Services Dh*mn the rraponsiMNY to neahetat Ike came Irvin awkers and upon permit ISUMNW, iasiaU lAle cave trail markers. A Board vote oaaroved the awden BUDGET COM- hff ME REPORT ADJOURNMENT Item continued to the May 5 meeting. Mr. Cravens Motioned to adjourn, seem" by Madam Chair Warble and the Board veld unanlmoresly to me noceft at 3 i J. Dallbs, Chairman 8364 . Minutes by Lisa Resnick S/7/201012:21.25 PM I✓ BF 11 ula 16 ! 1 1 3 a las Henning PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSH(90yle SUNSFIM LAW & ETHICS PRESENTATION MEETING MINUTEIftleft WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 3:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenie Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager ROLL CALL All Board members were present. Geoffrey S. Gibson RECEIVE13 John Iaizzo Michael Levy JU N 0 9 2810 Theodore Raia, Jr. Boaro of County John Baron °mnlissi °per$ Hunter H. Hansen Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSH WE PRESENTATION Ms. Colleen Green, Assistant County Attorney gave a presentation entitled, "Government in the Sunshine" addressing the Sunshine Law, public records, and code of ethics for public officers and employees. The Sunshine Law gives the public access to meetings of any board to prevent "closed door" decisions. The meetings must be open to the public, reasonable notice given, and minutes taken. The Sunshine Law applies when two or more members of a decision- making board discuss a matter that may come before the board in the near future. Emails and written correspondence is permissible for informational purposes, however there can be no responses or comments exchanged between board members prior to a public meeting. A board member may participate at a public meeting by telephone if their absence is due to an extraordinary circumstance and a local quorum is physically present. Unless they are a part of the decision - making process, the Sunshine Law does not apply to staff. There are criminal and other penalties for non - compliance. PUBLIC RECORDS Public records include documents, audio, or other material regardless of physical form or means of transmission. The public has the right to inspect or copy any public record and requests can be made verbally, or in writing by anyone. There are limited restrictions placed on public records. The board can charge for the cost of 8365 Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: C ^pies to: 1611 613 ' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Meeting Minutes April 7, 2010 retrieving records if voluminous and fifteen cents per printed page. The board has a reasonable time to respond. The board is not obligated to create records in the format requested, nor provide an explanation. ETHICS LAWS A code of ethics applies to board members and county employees that protects against conflicts of interest and establishes standards of conduct. The presentation concluded and there was no further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The workshop adjourned at 4:00 PM. FA Im 8366 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/11/201012:57:29 PM 1611 613" BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board having conducted business herein Collier County, held a meeting on Tuesday, April 13 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Members Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson RECEIVED Keith J. Dallas John Iaizzo John chandler unQfflciar JUN 0 9 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager AGENDA BMW Of county c Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick. Administrative Assistant 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of March 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. County Budget Guidelines — Wages, Benefits, Indirect Cost 5. Clam Bay Funding and Projections 6. Capital Project Funding 7. Final Budget Review and Recommendation to full Board 8. Surplus Funds 9. Audience Comments 10. Adjourn ROLL CALL Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Colette All Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board members were present, including Mr. Chandler, who Chairman Dallas intends to appoint to the Budget Committee on May 5. APPROVAL OF MARCH 8.2010 MEETING MINUTES minutes. Mr. Iaizzo made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibson to approve the March 8, 2010 Budget subcommittee meeting Mr. Levy amended page 1092 to read, "...move the turn into Pelican Bay Boulevard to align with the driveway..." Page 10% was amended to clarify that Moorings Bay has a similar water management system to Pelican Bay, referring to Moorings Bay along Crayton Road, south of Seagate Drive, not Moorings Park, the retirement community along Goodlette -Frank Road. The Budget subcommittee members voted on the motion and the minutes approved as amended, unanimously. Mr. Iaitzo Made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibson, to approve the March 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as amended The Budget subcommittee members voted on the motion and the minutes approved as unanimous . Misc. Corres: AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Date: None Item #: 1097 161 1 B1.3 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 13, 2010 COUNTY BUDGET GUIDELINES — WAGES BENEFITS, INDIRECT COSTS Mr. Donill said the County is forecasting some large increases in the cost of health insurance. Mr. Lukasz said in Fiscal Year 2011, they would split employee health insurance 33.3% between water management, community beautification, and street lighting funds. In prior years, they split the cost between water management and community beautification only, so in FY 2011, they would see an increase in the street lighting budget. Due to an increase in the cost of health insurance, the overall budget would increase approximately $19K in personal services. Mr. Dorrill said the County's instruction for all County agencies is millage neutral. Mr. Levy said they held additional funds in white goods last year and what staffs preference for this year is. Mr. Dorrill said to prepare for possible storm cleanup staff recommends they keep the same level in white goods as the prior year. In Fiscal Year 2011, indirect or " overhead" costs will be approximately $150K for the year. Indirect costs, including general insurance and information technology services, have decreased by approximately $10K this year. CLAM BAY FUNDING & PROJECTIONS Mr. Dorrill met with the County's Chief Fiscal Officer, Mark Isackson, and Mr. Isackson stated that in the past, Clam Bay projects have been overfunded by the County's Fund 111 subsidy. Recently, emails with misinformation have been circulating regarding canoe trail markers and he attempted to clarify the situation with the County. He explained that the canoe trail markers and costs associated with them is a maintenance item, not a new item. The signs have been stored for months awaiting some indication as to whether they may install them. The Services Division would continue to be responsible for maintenance of programs they have historically been responsible, including water quality studies and tidal flushing and the County will provide $35K Fund I 1 I monies to the Services Division this year and next year. The County would readdress this amount if they have new or expanded projects. $150K is budgeted for the maintenance program in Fiscal Year 2011. Mr. Levy said the County initially promised $102AK to the Services Division from Fund 111. Could the Pelican Bay Services Division transfer the excess Clam Bay fund monies to the capital improvement fund and how much is it? Mr. Dorrill said based on last years' expenses, the County said the Services Division does not need any more than $35K from Fund 111. The County initially promised $102AK, so the County would process a budget amendment to decrease the transfer from Fund 111 to Fund 320 to $35K. Consensus was that the Services Division should take the difference of what the County initially promised from Fund 111 of $102AK minus the $35K they will receive, and transfer $65K from Clam Bay Fund 320 to Capital Improvements Fund 322. This leaves an appropriate level of approximately $150K to spend using approximately $80K from carryforward reserve. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING Mr. Dorrill said they would transfer $65K from Clam Bay Fund 320 to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. t OI 161 1 'B13 � Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 13, 2010 Mr. Lukasz said he spoke with electrical distributer Gray Bar and in general, streetlights are leased for a period of five to six years at five -and- one -half percent interest. Mr. Dallas suggested they readdress ways to fund street lighting whether by raising millage or by leasing following the current budget cycle. Mr. Levy asked when they would address the Services Division and Foundation combining funds to pay for Community Improvement Plan projects that provide benefits to both entities. Mr. Don ill said estimated project costs would be available at the end of May. Based on his conversation with Mr. Hoppensteadt, the Foundation may be willing to participate in paying for costs of improvements on property that abuts Foundation owned property and provides a common benefit. The Foundation Board would have to give approval. Locations discussed were midblock crosswalk improvements at the Commons, St. Raphael, and Sandpiper and North tram stations. Mr. Dallas said the amount is $350K - $400K. Mr. Levy asked if they should earmark or allocate funds to the Community Improvement Plan projects. Mr. Lukasz said there is $2.093 million in hardscape capital projects allocated to the Community Improvement projects. SURPLUS FUNDS Mr. Dorrill said he is trying to recoup funds from the Purchasing department where they sold Services Division capital equipment and kept the proceeds. It is approximately $7,000. FINAL BUDGET REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO FULL BOARD Mr. Dorrill suggested the committee authorize staff by motion, second and vote, to present the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget and additional recommendations to the full Board for approval on May 5. Although street lighting was short on funding for maintenance activities, Mr. Dorrill did not recommend transferring funds from water management or community beautification white goods to offset. Mr Dallas made a notion, seconded by Mr. Gibson to present the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget and additional related recommendations to tae full Board for approval on May S. The County's Fund]]] contribution to Clam Bay Fund 320 for Fiscal Year 2010 was reduced from $102,400 to $35,000 and the County's Fund 111 contribution to Clam Bay Fund 320 for Fiscal Year 2011 is $35,000. Employee wages would remain flat, but indirect costs and employee benefit costs increased, so recommendation made to allocate one -third of the total cost across each operating budget for Community Beautification, Water Management, and Street lighting funds. Recommendation to transfer $65,000 in Fiscal Year 2010 from Clam Bay Fund 320 to Capital improvements Fund 322, to match Fiscal Year 2011 proposed bm*et Members of the Budget subcommittee voted unaninousir to anvrove the motion. Mr. Iaizzo suggested the Services Division contribute funds to the Mangrove Action Group. Mr. Don ill explained that a request to contribute funds to one non -profit group would go before the Board of County Commissioners and in the past, their decisions have been very conservative toward giving public funds to private entities to "feed at the public trough." Consensus was such a request would `open a can of worms" and there was no further discussion. 1099 161 V9 134' Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April l3, 2010 AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADJOURN There was no further business Mr. Iaitto node a motion, seconded by Mr. Dallas to adjourn and the Bud et subcomndvee members voted unan!= to adjourn the :!!Z r at 2:00 F.m. M c I Levy, I�airman J 1100 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/19/2010 4:51:20 PM 6 MIS Halas PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATIOIVI96W F1 11 fff6fl�— COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WIOT:.� APRIL 14, 2010 COletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted a joint public workshop, Wednesday, April 14 at 8:30 AM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson Keith J. Dallas, Chairman John laizzo absent RECEIVED Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman Michael Levy John P. Chandler Theodore Raia, Jr. JUN ® 9 2010 Tom Cravens absent John Baron absent Johan Domenie Hunter H Hansen absent of County Cormmfss;one Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Bob Uek, Chairman absent Rose Mary Everett absent Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Gerald A. Moffatt absent Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chairman Noreen Murray Carson Beadle Ralph Ohlers Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Neil Dorrill, Administrator absent Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Foundation Jim Hoppensteadt, President Misc. Corres: Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Date: — Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner Item #:�� - ---- ROLL CALL ''n Six Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present. Mr. Cravens, Mr. Iaizzo, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen were absent. Six Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee members present. Mr. Uek, Ms. Everett, and Mr. Moffatt were absent. Twelve people attended. BICYCLE LANES ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD VERSUS PATHWAY WIDENING At the April 5 Town Hall, Wilson Miller received feedback regarding installing four feet wide bicycle lanes along Pelican Bay Boulevard by reducing the width of travel lanes from twelve feet to ten feet. Several years ago, the Services Division had constructed a bicycle lane "test area" with striping delineating lanes on Pelican Bay Boulevard between Oakmont and the North tram station, however there was no indication from the community. The Board voted whether to keep or remove, resulting in a tie and the bicycle lanes were removed. Members agreed that they have an obligation to make recommendations with a timetable for implementation and whatever they do in the near term should not create impediments to future considerations. A very small sample of residents want bicycle lanes and results from the 2008 Strategic Master Plan survey showed that two -thirds of the community does not want them. Survey results showed that fifty -five percent of the community wanted multiuse improvements made to the pathways. Is there a safety issue to address? In the past two years, there were four bicycle related incidents in Pelican Bay and three took place on 98 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee I61IB13 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop Minutes April 14, 2010 the sidewalk when a car was exiting a driveway, and a hedge was blocking the driver's view. Common driver reactions to bicyclists in the roadways are not always reported. They should ensure that the decisions they make are vet to the community. In contrast, safety decisions are not made by majority vote. Member consensus was that bicycle lanes in the roadway would not prevent accidents. Mr. Mangan said considerations to install bicycle lanes in the roadway should not influence decisions made to widen pathways. Bicycle lanes in the roadway designate three lanes, slowing traffic, and separate bicycles from automobiles. Bicyclists must follow traffic regulations regardless of where they are riding. Pathway improvements do not preclude roadway improvements in terms of striping the roadway. Infrastructure, i.e., utilities could make it difficult in some areas to widen pathways. New Federal regulations require bicycle lane installation on new and improved roadways and future opportunities exist for the community to reduce the width of travel lanes to accommodate bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Frank Jamerson, Pelican Bay resident and Ms. Michelle Avola, Naples Pathways Coalition said the U.S. Transportation department approved new regulations requiring installation of bicycle lanes on new roadways, and when improvements are made to existing roadways. Riders are safer in designated bicycle lanes. VINEYARDS BOULEVARD VERSUS PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Members discussed Wilson Miller's homework assignment to drive Vineyards Boulevard. Observations made were that Vineyard Boulevard's street lighting poles had arms extended and were placed by sidewalks, not in medians. There was a regular street curb, not a swale curb and members suggested the consultants address swale curb safety. Pathways in the Vineyards are eight feet wide pathway and made of concrete. Consensus was that ten feet wide travel lanes do not pose any dangerous conditions. Four feet wide bicycle lanes is standard. Mr. Mangan said resurfacing, restriping, and installation of reflective pavement markers or RPM's must be installed to traffic standards. Mr. Pent' added that RPM'S are typically installed on skip stripes. Mr. Mangan asked when the next resurfacing project would take place and Mr. Lukasz said last resurfacing was two- and-one -half years ago, but due to defective materials, the area was patched and not striped. He would contact the County for resurfacing schedule and provide report. Mr. Chandler made a motion, seconded by Dr. Rasa to install jour feet wide bicycle lanes, reducing travel lanes from twelve to ten feet wide and install reflective pavement markers or RPM's on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the time of next resurfacing as required by traffic raulaftons. Members voted ten to two in favor, passing the motion. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Mr. Mangan said the purpose of the demonstration project is to obtain community "buy in." Project construction should be in a central location and show as many elements as possible. The project should implement in fall 2010 and be complete in time for season 2011. Wilson Miller provided updated design plans and cost estimates for bollard lighting at St. Raphael and pedestrian crossings at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Members discussed whether the North tram station is a better central 99 1611 B13 Pelican lasy Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Worksbop Minules April 14, 2010 location. Mr. (filers, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Gibson agreed that Gulf Park Drive & Pelican Bay Boulevard is a dangerous intersection, as central and important as the North tram station location, and suggested installing RPM'S and striping at the Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard intersection. Mr. Lukasz said he would contact the County's Transportation department to request installation, Mr. Mangan asked members if they should move the three projects forward, i.e., bollard lighting along St. Raphael pathways, and midblock crossings at Pelican Hay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive and at the North tram station. The straw vote consensus was to proceed. fMPROVEMENT PLAN AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGETS REVIEW STREET UGNUNG Consensus was that it was unnecessary to replace street lighting poles. Metal halide fixtures are obsolete and should be replaced with LED fixtures. Necessary electrical upgrades should also be done. Chairman Dallas said the Services Division's street lighting fund was short on funding current maintenance. THE COMMONS The group briefly discussed the Commons site reconfiguration that would not result in a significant loss of parking. COMMUNITY BFRM Wilson Miller separated the community berm into three zones and provided cost estimates for improvements, including resurfacing and landscaping to control erosion, shade cover, and viewing platforms. INITIAL WORKGROUP FEEDBACK ideas are forming as to what is and is not desirable despite receiving feedback from close to half of the members. They have given the community every opportunity to participate in this process, but the response has been poor. Projects moving forward are "destination driven," i.e., pedestrian crossings to increase safety. They are addressing areas that need lighting improvements at night. He distributed the draft Master Plan report that includes projects background, cost estimates, analysis, goals, observations, conclusions, overall guide, individual elements, project elements, and correspondence. He requested member feedback prior to April 28. Suggestions made to identify who is responsible for what projects, determine available funding, and evaluate affordability. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. K th- .Dallas, Olairman IM Minutes by Lisa Resnick REV APP 6/3/2010 4 :13:54 PM 16I1B PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010 13 1 Fiala Halas Henning ---- Coyle Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a special public workshop meeting, Monday, April 19 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, to discuss of a peer review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domeme Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo absent Michael Levy absent Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent RECEIVE JUN 0 g ? 0 �►dof 010 ^b C0niM e,, Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant AGENDA The agenda includes but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of a Peer Review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS & J) Clam Bay System Data and Analysis Report 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment ROLL CALL Chairman Dallas called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and took roll. With the exception of Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, Mr. Levy, Mr. Baron and Mr. Hansen, Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present. DISCUSSION OF A PEER REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER 2009, POST BUCKLEY SCHUH & JERNIGAN (PBS&J) CLAM BAS' SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT Chairman Dallas explained the goals of the workshop were to determine the appropriate terminology for the scope of work of an independent peer review of the October, 2009 Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report and Pelican Bay Services Division historical data, and offer names of potential candidates to notify of the opportunity. A revised document would be forwarded to Coastal Zone Management's Director, Gary McAlpin for consideration and form the basis for further discussion. BACKGROUND The Board reviewed the background material that lead to the Services Division's involvement to jointly select and fund an independent peer review of the October 2009, PBS&J report and Pelican Bay Services Division's historical data with Collier County's Coastal Zone Management department. Consensus was to amend Coastal Zone Management's March 19 draft scope by following the recommendations approved by the Services Division Board by motion, second and vote on December 2, 2009; and recommendations approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 15, 2009. �g.OWeeview would only address the October 2009, PBS&J final report and Pelican Bay Services Division historical data. 8367 Item #: Conies to: 1. 1611 B 13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Meeting Minutes Monday, April 19, 2010 CONSIDERATION The Clam Bay Estuary ( Upper, Inner, and Outer) geographically connects to the Gulf of Mexico through Clam Pass and connected to the Moorings and Venetian Bays to the south through three culverts a Seagate Drive. A peer reviewer should analyze, and comment on methodology and findings of the October 2009, PBS&J final report and the Pelican Bay Services Division historical data. A peer reviewer should have an academic or research background and expertise in a number of disciplines, including water quality standards and modeling studies, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuarine systems. A peer reviewer should not have a consultant relationship with Collier County. The Services Division should not limit the number of candidates to notify because this might rule out qualified individuals. The Board reviewed the list of recommended peer reviewers ruling out several individuals for political reasons and for not having relevant qualifications. Those ruled out included Robert Dean, Joseph Donoghue, Michael Savarese, and Todd Walton. Additional recommended peer reviewers were Loren Coen, Richard Davis, Ernie Estevez, Randall Hughes, Elizabeth Irlandi, Mark Luther, Thomas J. Smith, Kathleen Sullivan- Sealey, John Wang, Ping Wang, and Robert Weisberg. Appendix A amended the document providing an explanation of the Pelican Bay Services Division's historical data and actual Clam Bay water quality raw data The Services Division is required to comply with the County's Purchasing department policy, so the process would be consistent with said policy. Staff would notify individuals on the Services Division's list of the opportunity and provide registration information. Purchasing would solicit registered candidates. When there are some candidates to choose, the Services Division would select a peer reviewer jointly with the County's Coastal Zone Management department. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens submitted a document with her recommendations for the peer review. Ms. Mary Johnson submitted a document with her recommendations for the peer review. RECESS Mr. CmWas made a xw"x, seconAed by Dr. Raia, to press Oe nuadxg and recoxNene, W 28 a9,11 dun and the Board voted unexiiingw y to nppmw Me erothiarr. XeA J. DallakChairman IKMI Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/12/2010 3:05:34 PM 161, Fiala Halas Henning Coyle PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Coletta A Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING, MONDAY, APRIL 19 AT 1 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. The agenda includes, but is not limited: AGENDA RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2010 Board of County Co n nis31on. 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of a Peer Review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS & J) Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: C ^+ies'o: 4/19/2010 1611 From: Resnidcl To: Geoffrey S. Gibson liosieaeoffnnaol. m): Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter. Hansen(alhilton.com) Johan (John) Domenie (hobodorv(a)comcast.net); John Baron libaron(aMatersideshoos.com): John Iaizzo 0aizzo(alcomcast.net): John P. Chandler (iocbac(acomcast. net) : Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas(alcomcast.net): Mary Anne Womble (Teeduol(a)aol.com): Michael Levy (mikeleyv(abembaromailxom); Theodore Raia (tedraia(@yahoo.com); Tom Cravens (nfn16799C10 na les.n ) cc: Donna Cox (Don na.Cox(alhaIton.com): Jim Powers (jim(a)dmofl.com): lukasz k: McCaughtcyMarv: gesnjckL ow " oel 'can baysery icesdivision.net(damail.com" Subjech On Behalf of Chairman Dallas re: Apr 19 Workshop Data: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:56:00 AM On Behalf of Chairman Dallas: Dear Pelican Bay Services Division Board: The Pelican Bay Services Division Board will meet on April 19 at 1:00 PM to: 1. Determine the exact language this Board believes is appropriate for the "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work" document. 2. Add the names of any individuals/firms this Board believes should be added to the list of potential professionals to be selected for the peer review. The revised document and additional names will then be forwarded to the Coastal Advisory Committee for their consideration and form the basis of discussions between the Coastal Advisory Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board at a joint meeting at a time and date to be determined. It will be helpful if Pelican Bay Services Division Board members and the interested public would bring with them, to the April 19 meeting, recommendations for specific language and individuals/firms that could then be discussed among the group. It is important that we develop specific recommendations at this meeting in order to avoid criticism that we are procrastinating. Keith Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board This is a one -way communication for informational purposes. To avoid a Sunshine issue, please do not respond. The following is set forth by the Attorney General's Office in the Government -in -the Sunshine - Manual: "The Government in the Sunshine Law applies to 'any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.' The statute thus applies to public collegial bodies within this state, at the local as well as state level. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971). It is equally applicable to elected and appointed boards or commissions. AGO 73-223. The use of a written report by one commissioner to inform other commissioners of a subject which will be discussed at a public meeting is not a violation of the Sunshine Law if prior to the meeting, there is no interaction related to the report among the commissioners. In such cases, the report, which is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, is not being used as a substitute for action at a public meeting as there is no response from or interaction among the commissioners prior to the meeting. AGO 89 -23. And see, AGO 01 -20 (e -mail communication of factual background information from one city council member to another is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying; however, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Sunshine Law). It however, the report is circulated among board members for comments with such comments being provided to other members, there is interaction among the board members which is subject to s. 286.011, F.S. AGO 90-03. See also, AGO 96-35, stating that a school board member may prepare and circulate an informational memorandum or position paper to other board members; however, the use of a memorandum to solicit comments from other board members or the circulation of responsive memoranda by other board members would violate the Sunshine Law." Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Summa Minutes 1611 813 Summary Mi December 2, 2009 Madam Chair Womble asked for a clarification of the motion. Mr. Dorrill said the motion is to authorize the Services Division Chair to forward correspondence to the County Manager that identifies their concerns that he indicated. To obtain clarification, the Services Division offers to select and fund jointly, an independent third party expert to perform a peer review of both the historical data performed by the Services Division and review of the more recent Post Buckley Clam Bay Analysis report. Mr. laizzo asked if that letter could be stated by Mr. Dorrill and signed by the Chairwoman. Mr. Dorrill said he could write it and probably would. Mr. Cravens said he thought the Chair, with staff assistance, would prepare and to copy all Board members. Mr. Moffatt made a motion to authorize the Chairwoman, with staff assistance, to forward correspondence to the County Manager that identifies the Services Division's concerns and desire for clarification of conclusions made by PBS & J in their October 2009 Clam Bay Analysis report. To obtain this clarification, the Services Division offers to select and fund jointly an independent third -party expert to perform a peer review of both Services Division historical data and the PBS & J Clam Bay Analysis. Mr. Dallas seconded the motion. A Board vote in favor unanimously carried the motion. Mr. Moffaff neade a motion to authorize the Chairwoman, with stafj`asshuwe, to forward correspondence to the County Manager that idendjes the Services Division's concerns and desire for clarification of conclusions Made by PBS & J in their October 2009 Clone Bay Analysis report To obtain this dasifica t ion, the Services Division hers to select and fund jointly an independent thad -party expert to perform a peer review of both Services Division historical data and the PBS & J (lane Ba y Analysis The peer review would require an acceptable scope of services Mduding historical methods for water quality coUedton, lab analysts, and madding. Mr. DdUas seconded the motion. A Board vote In favor unanimouslp carried the nmlion. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT CONaVIMM R%PROVEMENTS PLAN DUAL INVOLVEMENT UPDATE Madam Chair Womble provided a recap that Mr. Mangan's Community Improvements Plan updates included some suggestions and possibilities for crosswalks and street lighting. Mr. Carmine Marcino from the Collier County Sheriff s office would provide a North Tram Station crosswalk and pedestrian safety update when he arrives. She received a letter about the south end of Green Tree and Gulf Park Drive. There is a limited amount of light there due to a canopy of trees and Mr. Mangan will address the area. The Strategic Planning Committee reviewed the seven priorities identified as part of the master plan and some are complete, including air conditioning to the Sandbar, windows and doors upgraded at Sandbar, Sandpiper and Sunset, cedar reinforced with metal, menus revamped, and safety and 8259 giwhi6- 16 ! 1 B I-i5cember tem No. 109 15, 2009 Page 131 of 133 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -0502 December 3, 2009 Mr. Leo Ochs, County Manager Office of the County Manager Collier County Government Center 3301 S. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Clam Bay Data Analysis, Prepared by Post, Buckley Dear Mr. Ochs, This will confirm your request of Mr. Dorrill and our offer to provide an alternative to resolve a dispute over the release of the above relkrenced report. As you are aware there is concern within Pelican Bay that the recent Clam say water quality analysis may have inaccurate conclusions that would cast the system or historical data in a negative manger. I understand that you share our concern that all work performed in Clara say be both accurate and focused on improving this critical environmental resource. For this reason our board voted at its meeting on December 2a° to autho= the following proposal: • That a joint selection of outside peer review be undertaken for all work performed to date. This will require that an acceptable scope of services be developed to include historical water quality collection methods, lab analysis and modeling in addition to the recent work prepared by Post, Buckley. • We would propose that the cost of this effort and any fixture phased peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services and Public Service divisions in your agency- We would prefix that both our Board and the county participate in the selection of this individual who would be a recognized expert in the field and based in a university setting not directly involved with any consulting firm. C o /~j C r C o w w c r B1 3-1 ._ 1611 Agenda Item No. 1 O December 15, 2008 Page 132 of 133 Page Two Clam Bay Data Analysis, Prepared by Post Buckley I want to thank you for your leadership and desire to move these efforts forward and allow the County Commission to address this matter at its meeting on December I5, 2009. I am willing to assist you and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have on this effort to resolve as concerns. Sincerely, Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Pelican Bay Services Division Cc: Pelican Bay Services Division Board W. Neel Dorrill file 1611 13 ends Item No. 10F December 15, 2009 Page 133 of 133 : Neil Dorrill [mailto :neil@dmgfl.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 3:44 PM To: McAlpinGary; michaelshefflelod @colliergov.net Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Letter Gary: I have reviewed the Executive Summary and Mrs Womble's letter of December 3rd concerning the Post, Buckley report. Both are consistent with The Pelican Bay Advisory Board's discussion of this matter earlier this week. Our desire is to have a critical review of scientific or technical data that has been performed to date or will be undertaken in the future. Our proposal is not intended to delay any work that may be contemplated by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on December 15 'h. Neil Dorrill, Division Administrator From: McAlpinGary [mailto:GaryMcAlpin@collier o .net] Sent: Friday, December 04, 200910:03 AM To: ochs_I; brodc m; Neil Dorrill; r mSey_m; GreeneColleen Subject FW: Pelican Bay Letter <<CBAC Update Report ES Rev 8.docx>> Leo, Relative to the letter from the Chairwoman of the PBSD concerning the peer review, please see the highlighted paragraph in the executive summary. The key item that is not mentioned in the Chairwoman's letter is timing. We agreed with Neil that his peer review would not hold up the circulation /modeling study and that it would be accomplished early in the execution of the modeling program. Other than that, we are in agreement with what the chairwoman addresses in her letter. I have talked to Neil and he will email me something to that effect that will also be included as backup to the Executive Summary. John Arced, was very strong on this point feeling that additional clarification is needed to avoid issues in the future. Fran: brook m Seat: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:06 AM To: ramsey_m; McAlpinGary Subject: Pelican Bay Letter «letter.pdf>> Good morning, Please see attached. Gary-Leo has suggested you include this with your 12/15 executive summary. Thanks, MJ for Leo Fran: ResnicK — " am — Sent: Tuesday, April 13,2010 10:08 AM To: Neil Dorrill (neil@dmgn.com); Geoffrey S. Gibson ()osiegeoff@aol.com); Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter.Hansen@hihon.com); Johan (John) Domenie (hobodory@oonwast.net); John Baron fibaron@watersideshopssom); John laiuo (laiuo@comcast.net); John P. Chandler Qpcbac@conreast.net); Keith J. Chagas (kelthdagas@ comeast.net); Mary Anne Womble (Teedupi@aol.com); Michael Levy (mikelevy @embargmaB.com); Theodore Rao (tedra4@yahoo.com); Tom Cravens (nfn16799@naples.net); Donna Cox (Donna.Cox@hBroncom); Jim Powers ()im@dmge.com); kdosz k; McCaughtryMary; ResnickL Subject 12/15/09 80C Meeting info for 4/19 Peer Review workshop AttechmeMS: 121509_czm exacutive summary.pdf;121509_ba_minutes_re scope_motion.pdf Dear Pelican Bay Services Division Board members: This is a one -way communication for informational purposes. To avoid a Sunshine issue, please do not respond. Below and attached is information from the 12/15/09 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting regarding the Peer Review of the PBS & J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report, Agenda item 10 F In summary, Coastal Zone Management Director, Mr. Gary McAlpin made a recommendation for BCC approval of the following actions required to complete the development of a comprehensive long -term management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary: 1 Ratify the previously provided Clam Bay Advisory Committee update report dated 9/25/2009 2 EMend the tffm of the Clam Bay A&isery Committee to June 30 20100 Commissioner Coyle amended recommendation 2 to permit Clam Bay Advisory Committee to expire and Coastal Advisory Committee assume responsibilities 3 Approve the proposed FY 2010 budget of $234,917 and all necessary budget amendments 4 Approve the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recommendations and a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division 5 Approve of all necessary budget amendments Commissioner Coyle made a motion to approve staff's recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, and 2, as amended. The BCC voted to approve the motion as outlined above, 4/1, Commissioner Henning opposed. Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lisaresnick (ei?colher o� v.net htip: Hpelicanhayservicesdivisioil.net This is a one -way communication for informational purposes. To avoid a Sunshine issue, please do not respond. The following is set forth by the Attorney General's Office in the Government -in -the Sunshine - Manual: "The Government in the Sunshine Law applies to 'any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.' The statute thus applies to public collegial bodies within this state, at the local as well as state level. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971). It is equally applicable to elected and appointed boards or commissions_ AGO 73 -223. The use of a written report by one commissioner to inform other commissioners of a subject which will be discussed at a public meeting is not a violation of the Sunshine Law if prior to the meeting, there is no interaction related to the report among the commissioners. In such cases, the report, which is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, is not being used as a substitute for action at a public meeting as there is no response from or interaction among the commissioners prior to the meeting. AGO 89 -23. And see, AGO 01 -20 (e -mail communication of factual background information from one city council member to another is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying; however, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Sunshine Law). If, however, the report is circulated among board members for comments with such comments being provided to other members, there is interaction among the board members which is subject to s. 286.011, F.S. AGO 90 -03. See also, AGO % -35, stating that a school board member may prepare and circulate an informational memorandum or position paper to other board members; however, the use of a memorandum to solicit comments from other board members or the circulation of responsive memoranda by other board members would violate the Sunshine Law." 1 of 1 4/13/2010 11:28 AM by LR 161 1 10F er 15, 2009 Page 1 of 133 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve actions required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary OBJECTNE: To obtain approval of activities that are required to complete the development of a comprehensive, long term management plan for the Clam Bay estuary including ratification of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee update report dated September 25, 2009; extension of the term of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee to .tune 30, 2010; approval of the proposed FY 2010 budget of $234,917; approval of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recommendations and approval of a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. . CONSIDERATIONS: The Clam Bay Advisory Committee, (County Ordinance 2008 -48), is charged with- developing a Master Plan for the health, management and long term viability of the Clam Bay Estuary. The Committee is scheduled to sunset by December 31, 2009 unless extended by the BCC. The attached status report and budget funding request dated 9/25/2009 was sent to the BCC as required to meet the October 20, 2009 deadline as outlined in County Ordinance 2008 -48. This report highlights the Committee's major activity on its mission items and makes recommendations for BCC consideration. In order to accomplish CBAC's mission as directed and approved by the BCC on 5/26/09, water quality standards, monitoring programs, mixing, flushing, and circulation data, along with natural resources characterizations, must still be performed. The CBAC is requesting that this advisory committee be extended until the Management Plan for Clam Pass/Clam Bay has been developed, vetted within the community and approved by the BCC. This will require a first extension of the CBAC by the BCC through June 30, 2010. This time extension is due to delays experienced in forming the committee and effort consumed in resolving the new 10 -year permit and navigational markers. Three members of the current nine - member Clam Bay Advisory Committee have indicated their intent to resign as of December 2009. Replacement members as outlined in County Ordinance 2008-48 will need to be solicited and appointed by the BCC. On 6/23/09, the BCC authorized the expenditure of $120,000 to evaluate all existing data and move forward with the data collection phase of the Water Quality Study. The City of Naples provided $23,644 to perform the water quality program and together this funding was sufficient to complete the data review and the data collection phase of this project. These items were: • Development of a Water quality program - $23,644: This included the review of all the existing water quality data and all previous modeling studies along with proposing water quality standards in Clam Bay in consultation with FDEP and recommendations for a sampling program. �B 13 I ' Agenda Item No. 1 O December 15, 2009 Page 2 of 133 • Sediment and Biological Characterization - $20,804: This included sediment sampling along with identification and characterization of the sediment in Clam Bay. • Physical Data Collection - $95,994: This included subsurface topography along with flow, tidal and current information at various locations within Clam Pass and Bay. Results of these activities are complete and detailed in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report. The recommendations of this report have been approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee as follows: • Move forward with a water monitoring program as outlined in the report. • Move forward with additional sediment toxicology and aging data collection and analysis for Clam Bay. • Conduct the water circulation/flushing modeling program. Staff is asking that the BCC approve the recommendations as outlined above. It is also recommend that independent peer review, of the Clam Bay Water Circulation/Flushing Modeling Program and the Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report recently completed by PBSU be performed by a recognized expert. This expert, jointly selected by Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, will be from an academictuniversity background and not directly involved with any consulting firm. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the flushing/circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort and any future phased peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management. Funding required to complete the Master Plan for Clam Bay are: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs $3,480 Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes $1,000 lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) $18,000 Consulting and Analysis Support $4,000 Public Outreach and Communication $1,000 Peer Review $5,000 Sediment toxicology $30,000 Installation of Beach and Inlet Safety signs and Permitting $5,000 Permitting and Installation of Navigational Markers in Clam Bay $15,000 Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis $20,000 Fund 111 Subtotal $102,400 System Modeling (Fund 195 - TDCI Optimization of tidal flushing, water quality and mixing $88,017 o1 6 1l BAgida3em N_ 1OF ecenber 15, 2009 Page 3 of 133 Optimize of passkxoss sections including sediment bypassing an( transport modeling $38,500 Existing model review and analysis $8,000 Fund 195 Subtotal $132,517 Total FY10 Funding Requirements $234,917 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Clam Bay Advisory Committee recommended (5-0) for approval and complete funding of this proposal at the October 8, 2009 meeting. The Coastal Advisory Committee recommended approval (8-0) of this item at their October 8, 2009 meeting. The Clam Bay Advisory Committee also recommended approval of the recommendations in the Clam Bay System Data and Analysis Report conducted by PBSW as outlined above. FISCAL IMPACT: The total FY 2010 budget requirements for this program are estimated at $234,917. A combination of project eligible Category "A' tourist tax dollars and Unincorporated Area MSTD Fund (111) reserve dollars are proposed as the funding source. A budget amendment in the amount of $102,400 will be necessary moving budget from Fund (111) reserves to the Coastal Zone Management appropriation unit within Fund (111). A draw of this amount will reduce Fund (111) contingency reserves to $1,302,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This item funds studies that will be used in the development of a comprehensive master plan for the Clam Bay Estuary and ultimately be approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. This master plan will conform to the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Codes and Ordinances of Collier County. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve the following actions required to complete the development of a comprehensive, long term management plan for the Clam Bay estuary: 1. Ratify the previously provided Clam Bay Advisory Committee update report dated September 25, 2009. 2. Extend the term of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee to June 30, 2010. . Approve the proposed FY 2010 budget of $234,917 and all necessary budget amendments. 4. Approve the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recommendations and a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. 5. Approve of all necessary budget amendments. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, CZM Director 1611 B13*1 December 15, 2009 process, and now we're just asking for another amendment of our budget process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, we've got another group of people waiting here yet. Is that -- are you about finished with your subject? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want me to be, Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, if you have some other points to make -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you know, fine. I don't want to cut you off, but if this is your only point and you've made it, I would like to move on. What do you say? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that's what you want, Commissioner Fiala, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You know, we've spent most of the day here talking about things that are not even on the agenda or under consideration. I've heard people tell me about the dangers of underdredging or overdredging, about flushing, about all the other -- about boats being in Clam Bay, and they shouldn't be. That's not what we're here to discuss. We're here to discuss ratifying the Clam Bay Advisory Committee Update Report dated September 25, 2009, approving a proposed budget amendment, and approve the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report and a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Approving this item does absolutely nothing with respect to dredging. It doesn't address boating in Clam Bay. It doesn't address Page 226 B13 161DIcember 15, 2009 navigational markers in Clam Bay. So all the discussion about the terrible things that people have raised today is of no consequence because that's not what we're talking about today. So I'm going to make a motion that we approve the staffs recommendations, and I'll read them one more time, and I'll make one addition. We ratify the previously provided Clam Bay Advisory Committee Update Report dated September 25, 2009; we approve the proposed 2010 budget of $234,917 and all necessary budget amendments; and approve the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report Recommendations and a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division, and then I will add one more recommendation to this motion and this is, we will permit the Clam Bay Advisory Committee to expire and the responsibilities will be taken over by the Coastal Advisory Commission (sic). COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I was quite concerned when the person who is supposedly running for the candidacy of District 2 commissioner made charges that all we wanted to do was dredge, and that had nothing to do with this thing and yet that person came in here, made accusations, and now is gone. So I've got some concerns about that, because I had some questions to ask in regards to where this dredging idea came from and also the idea that we're going to eliminate power boats and that we want to cut off access to -- for other people to use this. So I just wanted to bring that up. And I hope that we got the -- the other thing that concerns me is that if we don't address these issues now and the state comes in here Page 227 1611 B ?3 December 15, 2009 and finds out that those waters are impaired, it's going to cost us a whole lot more money than what it's going to cost us now, and we're not going to have any choice in this matter. We're going to have to get it done and get it done soon. So we're better off going through a study and getting things taken care of and making sure we have the data, and then we can make a decision what need -- what's the best thing to do to address this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let me get this straight. You're -- the motion is to approve staff s recommendations one through four and also sunset the Clam Bay Advisory Board and have the duties of Clam Bay to the CAC, Coastal Advisory. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not quite correct. I mean, the gist of it is correct. I'm actually approving recommendations one, three, and four, and revising recommendation two. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the sunsetting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's the sunsetting, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's already covered by the other one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're approving the -- to do a budget amendment from TDC funds? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm proposing -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 111? Because we're supposed to be getting some kind of recommendations from the TDC for expenditures of TDC funds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem with getting recommendations from them, but if the recommendations are made in time to accomplish the budget allocation, that's okay with me. But as I understand it, staff has already identified $234,917 for the FY2010 budget, and that's what I'm recommending we approve. Page 228 M' 161 1� December 15, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But they didn't get -- I didn't see any recommendation from the TDC board, and by statutes, that's a must. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sure the county attorney can work out the legality of the transfer, right? MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: I'm sorry to interrupt. Commissioner Coyle, you had one through four. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, one -- MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, one, three, four, the budget amendments. You didn't mention number five. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did, because they're included in number three. It says, approve the FYI 0 budget -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the money and all necessary budget amendments. MR. OCHS: My mistake. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So staff has repeated the recommendations. MR. OCHS: Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 229 1611 B131 December 15, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That is a 4 -1 vote. Thank you very much. And now we move on to our three o'clock time certain. Item #I OB AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $341,977,999.18 TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND RESERVE $49,2073,000.00 ON THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR FUNDING ALLOWANCES, FOR A TOTAL OF $39,184,999.18 FOR BID NO. 09 -5287 OIL WELL ROAD IMMOKALEE ROAD TO CAMP KEAIS ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60044 - MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM AND FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO SETTLE THEIR CONCERNS. STAFF TO PROCEED WITH MEDIATION FOR ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS AND TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD -- APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That would be -- that would be Item 1013. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're trying to, get Commissioner Coletta over to his six o'clock speaking engagement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What item are you doing? CHAIRMAN FIALA: IOB. MR. OCHS: l OB. It's a recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of 34,977,999.18, to Mitchell & Stark Construction Corporation, and reserve $4,207,000 on the purchase order for funding allowances for a total of $39,184,999.18 for bid number 095287, Oil Well Road, Immokalee Road to Camp Keais Road. Project number 60044. Mr. Jay Ahmad will present. MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, almost evening, Commissioner. Page 230 1 M. Levy Comments for April 19 Peer Review Workshop From: Mike Levy [ mailto:mikelevy @embargmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:32 PM To: Resnickl- Subject: Re: Mon, Apr 19 @ 1PM: Sole PBSD Special Meeting Sony to have a conflict for Monday's meeting. Thanks for giving me a chance to express my thoughts. 1. Scope of work should be limited to that originally proposed by PBSD, and as I understand, passed by the CCC. Anything additional, must be agreed to by PBSD. 2. Vendor requirements, which are over and above those originally proposed, and which would exclude candidates we believe qualified, should be removed. 3. Communication with vendors before selection, and with the selected vendor should be done through a third party. This is suggested to prevent a directly interested party from having direct contact with the party performing the peer review. Mike Levy 1 of 1 4/15/2010 8:27 AM by LR R 7.611 813 Subject On behalf of Mr. Domenie re: Peer Review From: Johan Domenie [mailto:hobodory@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 11:22 AM To: Resnickl, Subject: Peer Review I have prepared the following, which may help us to: "Determine the exact language this Board believes is appropriate for the `Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work' document "as requested by our Chairman. We have been asked to prepare the wording for a Peer Review of the work performed by PBS&J in 2009, resulting from a proposal made by PBS&J in a letter to the County on April 1' 2009. This PBS&J Scope of Work totaling $265,002 (and covered 5 tasks to be performed within a year) was approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee (CBAC) at its April 16fb 2009 Meeting. At the Pelican Bay Foundation Board meeting of April 24d, 2009 the Coastal Zone Manager presenter l an "Executive Summary" which stated: Recommend approval from the Clam Bay Advisory Committee to provide Peer Review from Terrel(sic) -Hall and Associates, Hummiston & Moore, Coastal Planning and Engineering and Dr. Dean from the University of Florida to the PBS,fcJ Clam Bay Water Quality Monitoring, Data Collection, Circulation/sediment Model and Natural Resources characterization Study. The cost for this Peer Review is expected not to exceed $50, 000.00 The need for such a review had come up at the CBAC meeting on April I because of the very limited period for data collection proposed for the PBS&J circulation/flushing modeling work and concern that prior work be taken into account. This to me was very important — and the use of Turrel -Hall and Hummiston & Moore was essential as both entities had contributed with their work in the preparation of the 1998 10 year Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Here let me digress — as it affects circulation of water between Outer Clam Bay and Moorings Bf y. Prior to the restoration and extensive dredging of Clam Pass (performed in 1999), waters rose faster on an incoming tide in Moorings Bay ihan in Outer Clam Bay — which was still partially blocked. As a result higher water in Moorings Bay flowed into Outer Clam Bay at high tide. inuring the ebb -cycle water drained out of Moorings Bay faster than out of Outer Clam Bay, and as a result water from Outer Clam Bay would fl aw into Moorings Bay. This caused less water to exit through Clam Pass, and thus reduced the scouring and flushing action within the pass. The dredging that occurred in 1999 (based on the studies of our consultants) corrected this situation. Dredging was done from the pass to the bridge leading to Clam Pass Park, and the result was that waters in Moorings Bay and Outer Clam Bay raised and fell at about the same rate, and back and forth flushing through the culverts at Seagate diminished. There is no denying that some flushing still occurs and can be greatly influenced by the direction of the wind. Thus a southerly wind will drive more water higher into Mowings Bay simultaneously draining some out of Outer Clam Bay. A northerly component in the wind will have the exact opposite effect. Thus any measurement taken at the culverts must not only include actual flow, but must also indicate prevailing weather pattems. (It was for the reason stated PRIOR to the 1999 dredging that the flap -gates were installed. After the dredging took place it was noted that not sufficient "head" (difference in water level) existed so that the flaps failed to close as water receded. The flap -gates were removed in the presence of a Naples city employee). The aforementioned Executive Summary also states: "Review of the study will focus on technical issues to assure water science and technology have been utilized correctly and that recommendations and findings are consistent with that science " This to me is paramount. Certainly a six or eight day study of an area which is subject to major daily and seasonal variations in weather patterns, temperatures, rainfall and wind can not be deemed to be a correct reflection of year -round conditions. In the May 10, 2009 "Best Value Offer for Clam Bay" the opening paragraph contains the following ,statement — referring to Clam Bay: "The watershed and shoreline of the Clam Bay Estuary have undergone significant urbanization, with the vast majority and shoreline now hardened with seawalls " 1 of 2 4/16/2010 11:52 AM by LR Right here lies the biggest problem which was initiated (at whose direction ?) in the initial PBS&J (Dr. Tomasko) sea g ra ss i fudy�, where Dr. Tomasko linked the Clam Bay Estuary (Upper, Inner, and Lower — also known as Outer — Clam Bays) with the bays to ou r sc uth. There is no historical evidence that shows Clam Bay extending far into the city. The Moorings Bay was developed in the 60's by first destroying all mangroves and wetlands, then dredging to create car. al; ar d land. No such development has occurred in Clam Bay. It is absolutely essential that any study, and hence the present Peer Review use the correct nomenclature to define the areas I>eir g studied and to differentiate their history, development and present usage. Intermingling data from two separate estuaries to come up wit] i a suitable average can not be acceptable. At the October 8th CBAC meeting the Peer Review budget was reduced from $50,000 to $15,000, and goes on to say, it the minutes of the Agenda) "The Peer Review will be conducted by authorizing I (one) consultant for a total review, separating portions c f i he . study for review by different consultants, identifying qual fled parties who may conduct the review at "no cost ", etc" I wonder who would conduct an acceptable review "at no cost "? And then on October 28h the CBAC at the recommendation of Mr. Standridge the Peer Review was further reduced from $ l :1,000 to $5,000; but Sediment Toxicology was increased from $15,000 to $30,000. At the same meeting "Jerry Mof au expressed cone r n it decreasing the Peer Review item as the Executive Summaries presented at the October 8`", 2009 CBAC meeting contained the statement ` .'ee. - Review will be critical to the quality and success of this Management Plan' " At the December 2nd PBSD meeting the following motion was offered: "Mr. Moffatt made a motion to authorize the Chairwoman with staff assistance, to forward correspondence to the Cc unt v Manager that identifies the Services Division's concerns and desire for clarification of conclusions made by PBS&J in their October :'009 Clam Bay Analysis report. To obtain this clarification the Services Division offers to select and fund jointly an independent third pi tri y e pert to perform a peer review of both Services Division hisatorical data and the PBS&J Clam Bay Analysis. The poeer review would require an acceptable scope of services including historical methods for water quality collection, lab analysis, and modeling. Mr Dallas sec o, d the motion. A Board vote in favor unanimously carried the motion ". Then an Executive Summary was prepared by the CZM (no date available, but prepared to be presented to the Decemlx?r 150 BCC Meeting) stated in its opening paragraph: "..... and approval of a peer review of this report conducted by an independent expert joi nt ry s elected by CZM and the PBSD. " On the second page it goes on to say: "It is also recommended that independent peer review, of the Clam Bay Water Circa dation/Flushing Modeling Program and the Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report recently completed by PBS&J be performed by a recognized expert. This expert jointly selected by the PBSD and CZM, will be from an academic/university background and not direr xl v involved with any consulting firm. " The attached financials show a $5,000 allocation for the peer review. This Executive Summary went to the BCC and the BCC approved. Unfortunately I do not have the exact wording of tree BCC's approval — which should be inserted here. However I do have the January 1401 Executive Summary prepared by CZM for the CAC meeting in which it states: "The BCC approved peer review for the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report along with the modeling program c t th a December 18, 2009 (should read 150i as 180' was a Saturday!) meeting. Selection of the review was to be a recognized expert in coastal system and water quality from academia with no ties to consulting or Collier County. This individual was also to be jointly approved by the R9SD and CZM with the PBSD contributing half the cost of the review. Strangely it goes on to say that BCC and CZM now approved $13,000 for the peer review. As far as I know that is where it stood until the April 8`s CAC meeting at which a Peer Review Scope of Work was pre exited — sated March 190'. 1 believe every one has that document which again states that the candidate "will be from academ"niversity .background and not directly involved with any consulting firer. " You have a copy of my comments made at that meeting. Hope this background information will help us come up with the correct wording for a Peer Review. I would like to thank the Mangrove Action Group for helping me in locating some of the original documents — as I was not h i the PBSD at that time and did not maintain a file of all relevant documents. 2 of 2 4/16/!010 11:52 AM by LR 1611 CAC January 14, 2010 VIII -5d New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review and approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review. OBJECTIVE: For the CAC to approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review. CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved peer review for the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report along with the modeling program at the December 18, 2009 BCC meeting. Selection of the review was to be a recognized expert in coastal system and water quality from academicia with no ties to consulting or Collier County. This individual was also to be jointly approved by the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management with the PBSD contributing half of the cost of the review. A total of $13,000 has been approved by the BCC for Coastal Zone Management to spend on this peer review. Additional funds may be available if navigational markers are not installed this year and monies can be reallocated by approving boards. With PBSD matching funds, $26,000 at a minimum is available for peer review. The following approach to peer review is outlined for consideration: Item RV nate n„p 1. Develop scope of work for peer review JGM 1/21/2010 2. Review /approve scopetapproach CAC 2/11/2010 3. Letter of Interest Solicitation through County Purchasing 3/1/2010 Purchasing 4. Select peer review individual CZM /PBSD 3/11/2010 5. Award contract 1 Purchasing 4/1/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of this item. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from unincorporated Collier County Tax Fund 111. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no Growth Management Impacts resulting from this study. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: For the CAC to approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer Review outlined in this Executive Summary. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director Clam Bay Estuary 1611 -4B13 Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 Backaround During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, that an independent peer review, of the Clam Bay Water Circulation/Flushing Modeling Program and the Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report recently completed by PBSU be performed by a recognized expert. This expert, jointly selected by Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, will be from an academic/university background and not directly involved with any consulting firm. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort and any future phased peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management. Consideration Development of a management plan for Clam Bay will involve a number of critical sciences not usually resident in one individual expert. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, coastal engineering, marine biology, modeling, geology and coastal management to name just a few. In addition, they must be knowledgeable with state rules and regulations to be successful. This must include involvement in issues related to FDEP's existing state water quality standards, the use of the Impaired Waters Rule (IWR), and experience with the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program. These three issues — state water quality standards, the IWR, and the TMDL program — are absolutely critical. Familiarity with all three and the implications of such are the most important issue here. If they don't know about those three programs — then they're probably not right for the peer review process. Also critical to the success of this review would be a track record in managing estuaries of a similar nature in Southwest Florida and no prior history of involvement with our community. Consultants have been ruled out due to the competitive nature of the consulting business. Stand alone academics although initially recommended, lack the array of technical expertise required along with the practical track record of managing estuaries in SW Florida. For these reasons, we have reconsidered this requirement. There are three national estuary programs in SW Florida that have the technical and practical expertise to evaluate our program, guide us and make recommendations. These programs are: • Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program run by Judy Ott • Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program run by Dr. Jay Leverone • Tampa Bay Estuary Program Run by Ed Sherwood Received from JGM on 3/29/10 Page 1 of 2 Clam Bay Estuary 161 IBB Peer Review Scope of Work Each of these programs is separate and distinct from each other. They are EPA sponsored and have developed the science necessary to develop their estuary programs. They are not associated with Collier County and are usually funded by a combination of USEPA, FDEP, local Government and the WMD. Each of these programs has also developed biological, water and overall estuary health diagnostic studies in the management of their estuary. The added benefit of working with one of these programs is that only expenses, no fees or certainly reduced fees might be possible. In researching this topic two other individuals were highly recommended. They are: • Dr. Ernie Estevez a Estuarine Ecologists with Mott Marine and • Dr. Loren Coen, the Executive Director of Sanibel - Captiva Conservation Foundation Both this individuals do not run estuaries but have extensive experience in conservation issues within the SW Florida environment. Unfortunately, Dr. Estevez has elected not to participate with us because of the political dynamics involved. Considerable concern was expressed at the last Clam Bay subcommittee meeting held on 3/17/2010 by the Pelican Bay community if these programs and individuals have had an acquaintance and working relationship with Dr. Dave Tomasko and/or PBS&J. The Pelican Bay community is concerned that as a result of any relationship, objectively would be compromised. I can only indicate that since these are all nationally recognized programs and Dr. Tomasko is a nationally recognized expert, both are known to each other. Since we want the highest degree of expertise available, I can assure you that this will probably be the case with any experts that are selected. Since the PBSD will jointly select the peer review resources, I would expect that this would be discussed and resolved during the interview process. Activities to be performed during the Peer Review Process Two items were specifically identified to be performed during peer review. They are: 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J. 2. Review, analysis and critique of the water circulation/flushing modeling program to be performed by PBS &J. Additionally, the selected is peer review individual/firm may be used to review and critique the development of the management plan f jointly agreed to by all parties concerned. Recommendation Staff and the Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC are recommending that these individual along with those presented by the Pelican Bay Services Division be given the opportunity to submit credentials in response to a solicitation by the Collier County purchasing department. Only pre - identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. Proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Received from !GM on 3/29/10 Page 2 of 2 1611�3 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop April 19, 2010 Potential individuals (listed alphabetically) to perform an independent peer review of the Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS &J) Clam Bay System Data Collection &Analysis, October, 2009 (suggestions from Pelican Bay Services Division Board members and the public) Robert G. Dean, Sc.D. deanAcoastal.ufl.edu Graduate Research Professor Emeritus Professor Emeritus, Civil and Coastal Engineering, Coastal & Oceanographic Division, University of Florida; Sc.D., 1959, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Coastal sediment transport, tidal inlets, sea level change, some impact. Source: www.ce.ufl.edu /people /faculty /alpha/dean.htm, sites. wff nasa .eov /code250 /docs/RGD%2OVitae 2008.ndf Joseph F. Donoghue, Ph.D. donoghueggly.Su.edu Assistant and Associate Professor, Department of Geology, Florida State University; Ph.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Research Interests: Geology and geomorphology of coastal environments and continental margins, causes and effects of sea -level change, environmental geology geology and geochronology , contaminants in sediments. Source: www. ply.fsu.edu /fac /donoghue /cv.pdf Orrin H. Pilkey, Ph.D. oopilkeyg_duke.edu James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology, Earth & Ocean Sciences, PhD Geology, Florida State University, 1962, Pilkey's experience lies in Basic and applied coastal geology, focusing primarily on barrier island coasts. Director, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Primary area of expertise: shorelines and coastal geology, Secondary area of expertise: coastal zone management, Source: http: /Ifds. duke. edu /db /Nicholas /eos /faculty /opilkev Michael Savarese, Ph.D. msavaresAf cu.edu Professor of Marine Science and Director of University Graduate Studies, Florida Gulf Coast University; Research Scientist, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; Ph.D. Geology, University of California, Davis, 1989; Current Research. The influence of water control structures on the distribution and transport of sediments, organic and metal pollutants, and exotic fishes within estuaries, Source: http: / /www.fgcu. edu/ cwi /DirectorvData/savarese /cv.Ddf Todd Walton, Ph.D., P.E. twalton (_&fsu.edu Director, Florida State University, Beaches and Shores Resource Center, Analytical and numerical shoreline modeling tidal inlet hydraulics and modeling, storm surge risk and extreme analysis, sediment transport and erosion processes; University Based Coastal Expert (Alternate) Beach Management Working Group to review the effectiveness of Florida's beach management program with oversight and organizational support from the Executive Office of the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Source: www.det).state.fl.us/ beaches /news /pdf /BMWGRPtFin.odf, http: / /beach 10. beaches.fsu.edu/ Harold R. Wanless, Ph.D. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Miami; Registered Florida Professional Geologist, Coral Gables; The Mangrove Action Group submitted Dr. Wanless' Review of Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis by PBS&J, October, 2009, and Response to Comments RE: Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report (October 2009) by PBS&J on November 17, 2009. Dr. Wanless wrote, "1 find the efforts misleading and many of the conclusions unwarranted. Many of these recommendations were put forth in a 1981 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Diagnostic /feasibility study for Moorings Bay, Collier County. The failure of this report to do a thorough literature review would save the County from redundant studies or erroneous conclusions due to missed historic data and missed scientific documentation and evaluation of ecosystem dynamics. This absence further suggests that this report is not a scientific report but more of a political- economic positioning paper. " Source: H.L. Wanless' "Review of Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis by PBS&J, October, 2009, and Response to Comments RE: Clam Bay System Data Collection &Analysis Report (October 2009) by PBS&J on November 17, 2009" 4/162010 1:01:17 PM by LR Ib�l�1�J 6 35m--- . G MLc,. -1s y q11 q /1v Dear PBSD /PB MSTBU Board Members, April 19th, 2010 Please direct your focus to the public meeting of the PBSD Board on December 2, 2009. It appears incumbent on the PBSD members to reiterate and confirm the motion made that day by member Jerry Moffatt, whereby after publicly discussing it the Pelican Bay Services District / Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit Board took action to jointly select and fund an Independent third party expert to peer review two things; 1) PBSD historical data 2) Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan's (PBSJ) Clam Bay Analysis (October 2009 released). The motion included that an acceptable Scope of Work (SOW) on the first item above would be a review of the historical methods used for water quality including the (WQ) collection, lab analysis and modeling (historical modeling). There was no language in the motion for the PBSD to also jointly select or fund "future" or "subsequent" peer review of PBSJ work. It is necessary to do this because the equitable motion and agreement made by the PBSD Board has not been accurately presented to the Coastal Advisory Committee or the Board of Collier County Commissioners. There was nothing in the motion, discussion or approval to obligate PBSD to spend MSTBU non -ad valorem tax funds beyond a Peer Review that included how well the PBSJ report reviewed the record of historical data (WQ monitoring and modeling) and more recent data collected by the PBSJ for their October 2009 "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis ". However, despite the comments above regarding just what the PBSD Board had agreed to do, I would hope that your discussion today also includes that the truth of the matter is that it is highly questionable and not at all common or standard practice for the entity that desired a particular study to be done (County /CZM) and is responsible for having purchased it, which includes that the purchasing entity (County /CZM) had written the SOW for the study, would later be the same entity that would be responsible for purchasing an "independent" peer review which includes that entity (County /CZM) as being responsible for the SOW for the "independent" peer review. Mike Levy's email to the PBSD Board makes mention of this when he suggests that a third party that has no direct interest (in the subject of the review or the outcome) should be involved in the process. I would agree with Mike's suggestion and point out that the County's CZM Department and even the PBSD's involvement in any of the process for what is termed an "Independent Peer Review" will result in lack of credibility as the County CZM department and even the PBSD are directly involved with the data in the report and directly affected by the outcome of a review. 16I11113 How do you address this dilemma? * Perhaps this whole thing should be addressed by a third party made up of knowledgeable individuals from outside of County government and its official Advisory Boards. * Hasn't the Mangrove Action Group addressed this ? Didn't MAG already commission an Independent Peer Review ? Perhaps the Independent Peer Review done by Harold Wanless for MAG should simply be expanded to include his review of the PBSJ recent data and PBSD historical data that the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis purported to review and which actual data was not available to him for his Independent Peer review of the PBSJ report. * I propose and recommend that the PBSD recognize that this whole process is flawed and if they desire an Independent Peer Review, then they should accept the Wanless Review and perhaps take action to have it expanded to do a review of the historical data particularly the PBSD historical data and recent data which were supposed to be reported upon by the PBSJ October 2009 "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" * There should be no controlling conditions imposed by Collier County's Coastal Zone Management Department or the PBSD for such data review. Marcia Cravens Mangrove Action Group Master Naturalist for Coastal Systems 1611 B1 COMMENTS TO PBSD MEETING ON PEER REVIEW OF PBSJ CLAM BAY STUDY COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF WORK P lease insist that the review include the following as part of the evaluation: g �-`? M, �tlr -c •l 4 /ollo 1) Findings Re Water Quality Impairment - The background materials for the evaluation should include a copy of the "Seagrass Study" report of 2007 by PBS&J, especially since the criteria proposed for selecting reviewers virtually ensures a lack of familiarity with local conditions. The earlier PBS&J report included a number of findings regarding the generally good water quality in Clam Bay (see the "Conclusions," attached). Yet only two years later, the findings of the "Data Collection and Analysis" are being used to justify claims of water quality impairment such that major alterations of the system hydrology are called for. However, during the comment period on the latest PBS&J report, it was brought out that the latest analysis included data "outliers" that were likely due to faulty measurements, which would have the effect of skewing values over state thresholds for impairment. As it is, the findings indicate that impairments tended to be modest and occasional, and if this type of skewing occurred, it is questionable whether the alleged "impairments" really exist. This issue must be directly addressed, since findings of impairment are the basis for all of the follow - on modeling work (which, curiously enough, had already been included in the project scope and budget before impairment was determined). A related question that must be addressed is, even if some impairment is found to exist, is it of such severity as to justify the major alterations to the system that are being proposed? Might other less- intrusive ameliorative steps be taken? 2) Findings Re Water Level and Circulation - There were many comments questioning the validity of the data on water levels and flow velocities collected by PBS&J for use in the modeling effort because of the limited duration of the data collection (eight days or less), faulty and vandalized equipment, and the decision to exclude certain data, including readings from Clam Pass itself. One question that the reviewers should address is whether the net effect of the data problems would be to skew the findings in a certain direction — specifically in the direction of showing greater tidal flow through Clam Pass than actually exists. For example, the timing of the data collection during the rainy season, during a period of a spring tide, and the exclusion of tidal level data readings from Clam Pass because they were too 'low" would all skew in one direction. This type of skewing would support modeling results in favor of opening up connections to the south, without fully accounting for negative impacts of draining water from the rest of the Clam Bay System. 0 1611 `13 COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL REVIEWERS COMMENTS ON LIST CIRCULATED PREVIOUSLY TO PBSD Robert G. Dean - Prior ties to Coastal Planning and Engineering, PBS &J's subcontractor for the modeling work, makes him an unsuitable candidate. This conflict was brought out at January's PBS &D meeting in the public comments. Joseph F. Donoghue - Research interests not very relevant to present needs; some limited modeling work of large -scale coastal morphology Orrin H. Pilkey - Mr. Pilkey's impressive credentials span a life -time of work including national recognition and in later years he has been quite critical of coastal modeling work and engineering alterations to coastlines. His availability and /or interest to take on this project is doubtful, since he was contacted in December to do a review for MAG but declined, providing a referral to Dr. Wanless. Michael Savarese - Stands out as a good candidate because of his dual strengths in biology and geology, his familiarity with the region, and his ability to link with other researchers and resources through FGCU's Coastal Watershed Institute (including Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation Marine Laboratory, whose Director, Dr. Loren Coen, has an appointment to FGCU's Coastal Watershed Institute). PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LINK NOTED ON THE LIST FORWARD TO THE PBSD IS TO AN OLD CV (2006) AND THAT HIS POSITION WITH ROOKERY BAY WAS FOR 1996 -97, NOT CURRENTLY; ALSO, THE INFORMATION ENTERED UNDER "CURRENT RESEARCH" DOES NOT APPEAR ACCURATE; IT DOES NOT APPEAR UNDER EITHER HIS OLD OR MORE RECENT (2009) CV. Todd Walton - Dr. Walton has worked with Dr. Dean and would raise similar issues of lack of independence as a reviewer. Harold Wanless - Dr. Wanless has impressive credentials and has already compiled a review for MAG which has been disputed and quashed by the CZM and CAC's Clam Bay Subcommittee. It seems unlikely that he would ever be selected as a consensus candidate. 1611813 OMMENTS ON OTHER STAND -ALONE REVIEWERS "Short List" of Academic Researchers (See Annotated Bibliography That Follows) Consider for Review of Both Water Quality Data /Analysis and Hydrology Data /Analysis Dr. Michael Savarese (biologist/geologist) Florida Gulf Coast University /Coastal Watershed Institute Consider for Review of Water Quality Data and Analysis Dr. Thomas Frankovich (specific experience in water quality assessment) Florida International Univ. Miami Dr. Kathleen Sullivan Sealy (more general experience in tropical ecology and conservation) Univ of Miami Consider for Review of Hydrology Data (Water Level and Flow Data) Dr. Ping Wang/Dr. Richard Davis (work together at Univ of South Florida, Coastal Research Lab, Tampa) Dr. John Wang, Rosenstiell School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, U of Miami Dr. Robert Weisberg, Univ of South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg Dr. Mark Luther, Univ of South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg Annotated List of Stand -Alone Reviewers University of South Florida (College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg and Department of Geology Coastal Research Lab, Tampa) http_/ /www. marine. usf. edu /faculty /robert- weisberP-.shtmI (Dr. Weisberg, marine geologist, U. of South Florida) PhD 1975. Physical Oceanography. Distinguished University Professor, College of Marine Science. Engaged in ocean circulation and ocean - atmosphere interaction studies, including modeling of interactions between the continental shelf and the deep -ocean and the shelf and estuaries. Does some subregional modeling of individual estuaries to research effects of storm surges. http: / /www.P-ulfbase.orVperson /view.php ?uid= rdavis (Dr. Richard Davis, marine geologist, U. of South Florida) PhD. 1964. Professor Emeritus, Coastal Geology and Sedimentology, Department of Geology and active member of USF Coastal Research Laboratory. The lab focuses on three areas of coastal geology: "the process- response systems of beaches, inlets, and tidal sand bodies; coastal sediment transport processes and predictions, and the Holocene history and development of various coastal environments including barrier island, tidal flat and deltaic systems." Emphasis is Gulf of Mexico. Does modeling of near -shore sand transport. Current focus is on effects of 2004 and 2005 hurricanes. http:// www.P-ulfbase.orVperson /view.php ?uid =pwang (Dr. Ping Wang, marine geologist, U. of South Florida) PhD Geology, University of South Florida, 1995. Associate Professor, Geology and active with Coastal Research Lab. Dissertation on near -shore sediment transport. Research interests include coastal geology, sedimentary processes, nearshore wave and current dynamics, coastal engineering and management. http: / /www. marine. usf .edu /faculty /mark- luther.shtmi (Dr. Luther, marine geologist, U. of South Florida) PhD, 1982. Physical Oceanography, Associate Professor and Director of the Ocean Monitoring and Prediction Lab at the USF College of Marine Science. Research and modeling of ocean currents and processes and application to problems ranging from water quality in estuaries to variability in large -scale ocean circulation and its relation to climate change.Work includes numerical simulations of circulation in Tampa Bay, modeling of air and sea interactions in coastal areas. 0 1611 B13 Florida Gulf Coast University http: / /www.fp-cu .edu /WhitakerCenter /2715.asp (Dr. Savarese, marine geologist, Florida Gulf Coast University) PhD Geology, University of California - Davis, 1989.) Professor of Marine Science and Director of Graduate Studies at FGCU. Also active in Coastal Watershed Institute, FCGU. Research interests span the field of geobiology, combining disciplines from biology and geology to interpret the history of environmental change. include reef and estuarine ecology, marine biology, sedimentology, and functional morphology and biomechanics, among others. Community involvement includes serving on the Board of the Watershed Council, an active member of the Big Cypress Restoration Coordination and the SW FL Regional Restoration Coordination Teams, the SW FL Feasibility Study Team, and the South Golden Gate Estates Restoration Project Delivery Team. Research scientist with Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve, 1996 -97. University of Miami http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/divs/amp/Peor)le/FacultyZWangV (Dr. John Wang, marine scientist, U. of Miami) Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science /Division of Applied Marine Physics. AMP focuses on research and education in fundamental and applied fluid mechanics in the ocean, especially near the air -sea interface and in coastal regions. Wang's specializations: coastal engineering, tidal hydraulics, hydrodynamics, mass transport. Research areas: coastal hydrodynamics and mass transport (examples: wind, tide and density driven flows in estuaries, bays, and shelves); coupled surface and groundwater flows (examples: flows in and under the Everglades, coastal wetlands hydrological restoration). http:/ /www.bio.miami.edu /Fac /Seale, (Dr. Kathleen Sullivan Sealy, marine biologist, U. of Miami) Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Miami, 1994 to present; PhD Marine Biology, Scripps Institutions of Oceanography, 1982. Also Executive Director, Marine and Environmental Studies Institute, The College of the Bahamas, 6/07 to 6/08 and previously Acting Director, 10/05 - 6/07 (on leave from University of Miami). Specializations: tropical ecology, coral reefs, fisheries management, marine conservation, impacts of coastal development Florida International University (Miami) http: / /www.fiu .edu /- seagrass /fiusri /TAFcv.pdf (Dr. Frankovich, marine biologist, seagrass specialist, Florida International University) Post - doctoral research scientist, Southeast Environmental Research Program (SERP). PhD, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, 2006. Current research on benthic vegetation dynamics and water quality in mangrove lakes. Prior experience as a senior biologist for SERP responsible for collection, analysis and synthesis of monthly water quality surveys for areas including the Southwest Florida coast and the Ten Thousand Islands. 21 1611 B13 COMMENTS ON RESEARCH INSTITUTES /ESTUARY PROGRAMS In the event a decision is made to consider entities other than stand -alone researchers, following are comments on several programs in close proximity, as well as the estuary programs mentioned by the CZM in this latest Executive Summary Scope of Work. Coastal Watershed Institute, Florida Gulf Coast University - In addition to Dr. Savarese (see above), researchers affiliated with this program include Dr. Greg Tolley, Director (marine scientist whose background includes estuarine ecology and managing a recent large EPA grant to study coastal watersheds in Southwest Florida) and Dr. Loren Coen, Director of the Sanibel - Captiva Conservation Foundation Marine Laboratory. Their local presence and ability to draw on resources of FGCU as well as the Marine Laboratory are important strengths. Sanibel - Captiva Conservation Foundation Marine Laboratory - Director Loren Coen, PhD oversees a team of 4 PhDs and 6 staff. Mission is to "investigate status and trends of area habitats and associated faunas and floras within the waters on and arround the barrier islands of Sanibel - Captiva and adjacent localities." Research scientists include ijndividuals with backgrounds in water quality assessment and circulation modeling (Dr. Richard Barleson) as well as marine biology. Mote Marine Laboratory - This highly regarded institution includes the Center for Coastal Ecology, directed by Dr.Ernie Estevez, PhD Biology, who has extensive experience in studies of water quality, as well as other areas related to coastal biology in South Florida. This would be an excellent choice. At the last meeting of the CAC's Clam Bay Subcomittee, the CZM apparently indicated that Dr. Estevez was not interested in the proposed work, but this should be verified. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program - The current director Dr. Jay Leverone, joined SBEP in 2008 after 28 years as a research scientist at Mote Marine where his focus was the ecology of west Florida bays and estuaries. However, Dr. Tomasko of PBS&J has been extensively involved in the development of this program, raising concerns about lack of independence in conducting a peer review of his work. Charlotte Harbor Estuary Pro ram - This is a relatively small program with limited staff capacity. The sole program scientist, Judy Ott, has an M.S. in Water Resources Management. Tampa Bay Estuary Program — This very large bay lacks comparability to Clam Bay and the availability of programs with closer proximity weighs against selection of this program SUMMARY For a stand -alone researcher, I would recommend that Dr. Savarese receive strong consideration, especially since he can draw on the research resources of FGCU's Coastal Watershed Institute (including links to Sanibel - Captiva Research Foundation). It is important that the PBSD base its review on the most recent version of his CV. For research institutions /estuary programs, I would recommend that FGCU's Coastal Watershed Institute, the Sanibel - Captiva Research Foundation, and Mote Marine Laboratory's Center for Coastal Ecolo receive prime consideration. I'D I March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 - Rev. 1 Ba.- -. .around During their regular i an independent peer r an '-�►nPieted by Pelican Bay S d the be nE C►aT gay Estuary Peer Rev1eW Scope of Work ff- per 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Comm approved m Bav academic/univers' ur+nsion and -, —, eXpert This - - - -` Coastal Zone Man expert, jointly selected by the Clam Bay a a oagrOU and not directly involved an development of the fl section and Analysis R ufh us "'Vcirc Watson model. It is any to be #W the The review of Coastal Zone Management, _ be split bin therecommended that theSrt Y suit*. Considera on Tl f to Division and quality, -e Am will involve a nn of Ite critical name ' successfula feW. ina Win, Y, Moodeho fogy and i would involve yv 4 This must rude involvement with state ru to 7 quality standards, the use the I ent in issues Maximum Daily Loads Paired Waters Rug to FOEp,s exist- star afforis to be 16 *e9 CI"MDL) Program. ��), and a water (a-T4jhQ^1j hese t hree issues - �«� xi +ce with the Total rao te state water quality stand issue hem fcriticai. Familiars 'IM the", and the TMDL tom- �Y don't know a� ft .lications of am the ram - are Pew re Programs � most im rtant managing, estuan A r critical to the suers of this review would ro Y not right for h our community, ure in Southwest Florida and w be a track Prior hilt record in Consultants have of rnvavament been ruled out due to the competitive n. i There are thr _ �..�,�. - - .. r r1017da. For theme e ational � ua xPertise to evaluate ry Programs in SW Florida • Charyotte Harbor N dram' guide us and Flo that have the technical and Sarasota Say National Estuary p recOmmendatsorrs Practical Tampa Ba y National Estuary Prog�m n run by Judy Ott These programs are. Y Estuary Program Run Sherwood Y Jay Leverone by Ed �1of2 Rived from JGM oh 3/2910 vv, �vG -•r ' -1rCj'e— 7 .. , Clam Bay Estuary 1611 R Peer Review Sc Each of these programs is separate and distinct from O work have developed the science necessary each other. They are EPA sponsored and associated with Collier Coun necessa to develop their estuary Programs. They are not ty and are usually funded by a combination of USEPA, FpEp, local Government and the W ID. Each of these programs has also develo overall estuary health diagnostic studies in the mane em ped biological, water and 9 ent of their estuary. The added certainly reduced benefit fees of working might be with possible. one of these programs is that only expenses, no fees or In researching this topic two other individuals were highly recommended. • Dr. Ernie Estevez a Estuarine Ecologists with Mott Marine and They are: • Dr. Loren Coen, the Executive Director of Sanibei- Captiva Conservation Foundation Both this individuals do not run estuaries but have extensive e� in within the SW Florida environment. Unfortunately, Dr. Esteve e has conservation issues With us because of the political dynamics involved. not to Participate Considerable concern � 3/17/2010 by the Pelican was expressed the Clam gay subcommittee community ' ese p meeting held � acquaintance and working relationship with Dr. Daver� and individuals have had an community is concerned that as a result of a masko and/or PBS&i. The Pelican Bay I can only indicate that since these are all nationela relationship, ob**voly would be compromised. nationally recognized expert, bath are known to each other. programs and Dr. hest degree is a of expertise available, I can assure Since we grant # highest degree are selected. Since the PBSD will select the Peer Probably be the case with an e this would be discussed and Peer review resources, I would expect that that resolved during the interview Process. Two items were s •• "• Process 1. Review, analysis idea to be pertormed duri ysis and critique of the Data Col peer review. They are: 2009 performed by PBS&J. won and Analysis report dated October 2. Review, analysis and critique of the water Performed by FIBS& i �S T��t « lation/8ushing modeling program to be Additionally, the S��',s!��e? ,rf�,s Peer review indivlduaiffirm may be used development of the management plan f jointly agreed to by ail parties to critique the R ��mon _ Staff and the Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC are recommends wrttt ose b the Pelican � Divi • n9 that these individual alon l� iGK ? �!s ' given the opportunity to submit A�'k identified candidates will be alknored to submit Only pre - evaluated and must be acne proposals for evaluation. Proposals will be jointly Pelican Bay Services Division. �b� to Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Page 2 of 2 Received from JGM on 3/291 4- 161 11N13' PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION BOARD RECONVENED SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board reconvened for a special public workshop meeting on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 11:00 a m at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, to continue the April 19, 2010 at 1 p m. special workshop discussion of a peer review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenie absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo Michael Levy Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent RECEIVED JUN 0 9 1010 Board of County Co "R sion ers Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant AGENDA The agenda includes but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of a Peer Review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data and Analysis Report 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment ROLL CALL Chairman Dallas reconvened the April 19 at 1 p m. meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. With the exception of Mr. Domenie, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Baron and Mr. Hansen, Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present. DISCUSSION OF A PEER REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER 2009, POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH, & JERNIGAN (PBS&.n CLAM BAY SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT The Board discussed and identified that an independent peer review should be performed of the "October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report," specifically. Revisions made to the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review scope of work. One issue to determine is whether there is a need to develop a new flushing/circulation model, therefore the second paragraph, third sentence was amended to read, "... prior to development of any new flushing/circulation model." The second paragraph, last sentence amended replacing "... this effort..." with "... this peer review..." CONSIDERATION The Clam Bay Estuary defined geographically to include that it is bordered to the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road and to the south by the City of Naples and Collier County line. 8369 Date, Item #; Copies to: 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reconvened Special Workshop Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 28, 2010 ACTIVITIES TO PERFORM DURING PEER REVIEW PROCESS A fourth activity was added to the list and inserted as number two to review, analyze, and comment on the "sufficiency of the data collection used..." to develop the PBS&J report. PEER REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS James A. Gore was added to the list of peer reviewer recommendations. APPENDIX A: SERVICES DIVISION HISTORICAL DATA Appendix A should include historical Clam Bay water quality raw data and a bibliography of recommended background material and electronic copies of the publications on disc. Suggestions to include additional background material provided to include reports by Robert Crawford; James Hatcher; Ken Humiston: Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J); Dave Roellig; Turrell, Hall & Associates; Harold Wanless; Wilson, Miller, Barton, & Peek, Inc.; and Kathy Worley. Said publications would be listed in the Appendix A bibliography. ADDITIONAL PEER REVIEWS The Board proposed selecting three peer reviewers to perform three independent peer reviews of the PBS&J report and discussed estimated cost to provide additional funding. CONCLUSION Incorporating today's changes, the final amended scope of work intends to be approved by the Services Division Board on May 5 and submitted to Coastal Zone Management Director, Gary McAlpin at the first opportunity. Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Womble to approve Me scope of work as amended for tone ON Independent peer reviews of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBSA�J) Ckun Bay System Data CoAeclion and Analysis Final Report and Pelican Bay Services Division historicci deft The Board voted u to rove the nation. ADJOURNMENT Mn Cravens node a nation to m seconded Dr. Reis and the Board voted :== ta nr. 4P X Ii Ka4 J. Darla Cha 8370 Minutes by Lisa Resnick REV APP 6/4/2010 2:22:50 PM 16 111 Fiala 1) Haias ---1�— Coyle PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Colette A Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL RECONVENE FOR A PUBLIC MEETING, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28 AT 11 AM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, TO CONTINUE THE APRIL 19 AT 1 PM SPECIAL WORKSHOP DISCUSSION OF A PEER REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER, 2009, POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH, & JERNIGAN (PBS&J) CLAM BAY SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS REPORT. RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2010 AGENDA "0ard 01 County COMOUssione The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of a Peer Review of the October 2009, Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS8J) Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 4/27/201010:43:31 AM 1611813 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 4/28/10 BadWround During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review. Specifically, that an independent peer review of both Service Division historical data (see Appendix A) and the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recently completed by PBS &J be performed by a recognized expert. This expert, jointly selected by Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, will be from an independent academic /university/research institute background with recognized credentials without a consultant relationship with Collier County. The review of the historical data and the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is to be conducted prior to development of the flushing /circulation model. It is recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management. Consideration A thorough peer review will involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /eco systems. The Clam Bay Estuary (Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay) is a designated NRPA with a direct connection to the Gulf of Mexico through Clam Pass. It is marginally connected to the bays to the south (Moorings & Venetian Bay) through three culverts at Seagate Drive. Activities to be performed during the Peer Review Process Three items should be performed during peer review. They are review, analysis and critique of: 1. Service Division historical data. 2. Methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. 3. Findings in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. Recommendation Staff and Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC will be recommending that individuals along with those presented by the PBSD be given the opportunity to submit credentials, consistent with County purchasing policy. Only pre - identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. Proposals based on the mutually agreed scope of work will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. 4/26/201011:12:09 AM 16 11 1 B13 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Explanation of Changes from 3/19/10 Draft Proposed by PBSD 4/28/10 • PBSD has not approved the peer review for the Clam Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program, and so eliminated those references from the Scope of Work. We are agreeable at an appropriate time to discuss further extending the peer review concept to later phases. • Added back language as stated in PBSD Board vote and letter to the County Manager regarding reviewing PBSD historical data. • Expanded reference of "academic /university" background to include "research institute," and qualified "not directly involved with a consulting firm" to allow professionals who do not have a working relationship with Collier County. This should allow a broader group of qualified professionals for consideration, but still avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest. • We have redefined disciplines needed to focus on those associated with the data and PBS &J report. We recognize that later phases, if agreed upon, would probably involve different required reviewer skills. • Made it clear what we are referring to as Clam Bay Estuary. • Removed suggested list of potential professional candidates to a separate appendix. • Revised activities to be performed with above changes for consistency. • Revised language of the bidding process, to make clear it is consistent with County purchasing policy (we want to review the actual procedures with Purchasing to make sure it is consistent with our understanding.) The PBSD desires that this revised Scope of Services will better define any differences of perspective and help to bring all interested parties to a mutually agreeable approach on a timely basis. 4/26/201011:13:43 AM 161fBi3 Appendix A Appendix of Service Division Historical Data Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 4/28/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay water quality data exists as far back as the early 1980's and includes ambiguities with qualifiers. From 1998 until 2010, the sampling and monitoring protocol was consistent with the 1998 Army Corp. of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan consolidated coastal permit requirements. The State enacted the Impaired Waters Rule in 2002. Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62 -160 standardized minimum field and laboratory quality assurance, methodological, and State reporting requirements to ensure that chemical, physical, biological, microbiological and toxicological data used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is appropriate, reliable, collected, and analyzed by scientifically sound procedures. Turrell, Hall & Associates developed a Surface Water Sampling and Monitoring Protocol consistent with Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62 -160. Beginning in 2010, the Pelican Bay Services Division has implemented this protocol on a monthly basis and the data is eligible for entry into the State's storage and retrieval database or STORET for consideration by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in future decision - making. Historical Clam Bay water quality raw data contained on enclosed disc. 4/26/20101:22:11 PM i 1611 13 I lilt [H iffil 8 g g ve pa ebpa as a an55 baa sa B &= �s_ isss" �sab _s ?- `ab______`s v a iiii$giEgeii g£9-£eipa gi99gia4:iiii PC i g! Eaa; s"« s gaiiii°si9!44gi;i�li9919Si &ii9i gsg_ a Pb a pa « �P _ seas aaba ___ a nb eb as oaeoas�_ a ab a n a aig __ °ssg =ii a ■$i� iii__ °s "s °s °e ages__ a° si�iii�__ siiii$_ sio�'_ ii° s:_ 5= ii:° e° xg_ _ °as�E's'ee_____az ^ai °_iis'x_i� egitl$iiiie4v «"_ iss: kiiizE IEisYii9i $- $iGg9 °ibs$saxiiSii &vii::s° i" sii` sg` sg4b?z 's.3ggib °z$�iia$ > >a_$$ibks a eiggggg #iig�g$�gig °sib`gsg =<gya ga;g is aigi g- ¢- g- e a ias°itgiiiaaasaiaaiaiiaab l r s E ' r 4 yS b t ■ �� 9A rt 8 l r s E ' r 4 yS b t ■ s$ a�ga��gb' bagsbx��> $s��5�t��$$�� ➢9��8��i�8�� ➢bas § #$� &� a�a��€ �€ Bi��g88a�88sii�$ 88�$ �8��i�giggiggiggi��ggggegig €f� ii yp g g pq pg pq yp y m if 11: if 99 if IN a 03� qq gg gg p pg gg§ g$ g y g gg }� p q g pp g g gg pp pp a sgigigg giiI ggeg gg ig iU11H 3 O IN a S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8^ a§ < ggips 88 qq gg pL pr $$ V 2 g P 9 °m not g s� 3 g 3 n o- s z z ii s n Qp r nn C L �4 e i i pp p p � ai_g�&i BsSg °pgBE� gsi °aa�ea�.. i 7 f� gg&&$g$ $Y$$$8$9EEgg]gAYQ��iB if �ggsg °ss gg66gagaggs]g� °$$ °s € €p_- 4; i I I I ; ; i €gas5Igagiieigse%IIFg I sg�a:bi eF_E�gib65FgiE &a$gSE_ i psBe .. b 5��ggg$ b °e_68gggIs gg __gt'shE e _ .. e E n 7 gag��ga ! x Y cggggng � g 8 x t g E °P -68�g �gggg i e :i i s 0 m S a 8 u a ga 3 3 a i v m a C _a S� s5 3 3 6 8c 3 v a F l Ill#ffilill'MilliIII fit 11Mf 1 1 f1l1y$3ea£$"a: gag °a °a:e$s£a -ft $a£$$ Ei$31ae$ffi.££H3ua °a°a£F$E €i$$g$& Hill 111IM119a1$ i1 91111£1H x'£3$3$age$ °a$3 °s$£9 $i£££q$S£°a$s£ Hill iIi°I I i I I g ?IIIIiIII11i 16! � gg gggg ggg gggg i� V. 23ga gaa€aaa 8£g3 4 §8�za § @e a A ada£ffiaaaa a a � asa.ea gg gg gg „erg gg gg� g gg i� $aaa$s "e a$ asap $s$a °avia "aF��a$eaeaa$sa8i$�'s $��ss$$s'a��aaea� a�8aa csa£a a$ €a @9E8 €v aiaaz 888EEar3 26�Ea&Saaas$a §a6$3�eaaaa i i i g g gg gg g g g i � ss�fiaaa ��a��a�l i�# B$ ass�6E�afi��Isa��a €3$�aEa$aa��aa�$$�a�3H� oSgeses "ea I i iani$�1 Be�ggaa i S � S g g! 8 3� i i 7 i a1 Ii_ e m s 0 a m a s v n a 3 g Eo 3 'a s E V m m P 9 m W e � t 3 s 3 P s n P a' A 3 9 n a O �� @ glllllllrlsl= ��$ IIIIIIIII== I= IIIIIIIilIIlggI11I11I11z 8$yIIIIII1118I =Is1111II111 aid$ $ c a " "s$$s9$E °c i££2r'£9iE$4£$sEszs: E$ 3c gig i$ IEiE £3$£E1°a9$EI£ta$Ssii1$$£I.Mlif ai$Ei:k'$$s' °saiu ate$$$$ €EiaialIIaijaI£Ei£EII;; IIi31" 4441£ E;' r$ aI" -.£ 1$ Ia IiI E1 £I IE3$EEaE$I£$"i$I$$E£in7E£$£11 '$I �aII1 ete tilg�o��I��nE�ai= e��l�z�li E�i�§i ��$ ��£ I£$£i ��$ Ile �l� $aiii$i�at$EEE£BIaItE�EtE£$i£I iiI1 IIIeIII11isiIli €=iIIIiIi.$ It IIIIIs1iIiIgeI= la gl 1eIIiIiII1811iIIiBe I11slls1111iee ° :1g158 11111 ii3e i3 &i$i$E6ai$$i ?$$ £s$£ia3fft$Is$aa11i111aff3$aIa £ 8££Ea$IIBI£E$$£aI£a1aI I$i£ii'ias$� s' $ E811 Is1IIlgglls= 11111 = 1118 1= 1$ 8= y3a€ g1= 1181111131 $g=i111gIIIi1gI8I11I111II I81IIIgY11Ig1 I e Ie11111IIiI1e: €IIIIx� le!` a3 a19. 1si 'sJ,022 11111lii'1.115- ii8�1i18� i €Ie g1 g l e e�Illtt 1.11 11 I gall I I Ia 151 1111111111111 11 j I I I Ix'$ IIa1111I 11a$III81IeIIele11�1]]itieii illii liell$a$1 : =£8: aalail]]E $Y!1. 3lettii$SEE$$eE£IE3$ 1.E$£IE£EY ':58sEle£ €?ai$fi$1aIIZIIII$EE®1 ttl$e£aal i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i rrrrri pv p� 3 i i i S$ Fi i i i fi i1 Ii iisssaassss €SSiiossiasissseii Sis � m � f£�iasai €xiiiiaasss�ss�iasgiii €is � s m S $ sii�iiaii $iii$��$ia °az$i$�s$$s$$ia $ a S f:s smsasss= Sf3 €iissiisssasiiiisiii i 3 S iiasiisssiii=sseeisssigissisi$� i is. i a sxn$$$ax8siiioS assiii i E 'v � y Qm E a 3 0 3 v m m v °e m 8 3 0 s 3 a a g a B a 1 ,1 1 813 's as$aia ais's$i$i�$ i isiaax a$ss$i$$s is SS ii $$ iiissiisiS ii$$S$$iis i iii111iiii I sII8 �a i� e _ i? _ _ €5 f� i 'm G? 2 T m 0 Z O a m s° d m 3 3 m O a �i °s. E 'v ii a 9 a iJ a° S� s� 3 N S 3 O 6 A 0 S� i S A 3 T s 5 P a° aeeeb_ aaeaa�aa_ a _ee_�_.aaeaa_La:a�LLaa.. >eeLba� r�aLabLba.ae. aaa: a a a a a a a a a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a z a a a a a a a a a a a i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s as I :car._.aaSLia CLL a 7 i i a a a a a i a a a 7 i 7 a d i i i a i a a a a i a a a a a i a i a a a a a d a° a a a aae= aaiL: a" sa: azLaSaaCLSLeLSaCa._eaaaaaeS >Sa: i L _.SCaa >a..CC° aaaidas7 aaaazsa; aaiszC ;aszaaEasazaaiaaaasataiaz L L a` L Y a a 'e a°. S Ca C L Cam a S a a at aS a a Ca a 7 : a i = €� aai?ea iyiiii$$isiisE a� i iiiiimagiii if a a a a tiY C a i iIH M i."M ii5iaiiis iiiirI iiiiiIiieiiiii iiivii iiiiiiiiiiiaia a? aisiix ii z i 3 8 ?i i i Y f iIs a y €� S; €' a ES a E� IX � Z III illillIIHI [it IfIII[!IIII -I II ab$e88bbbb�b�aa;agaa;eavagb�bbb m 3. 8 � e8ebo�bb9� @�ae8$e & ^a��oob$e�bb$ 0 m °o abgbebb�lassbae$bbgbbb 52 3 geffaggsfe ab$efeaf - f- efaaaaab a $ ----Eggs- egg8;b�8;$saseaaa 3 fg��b�bbgbbgagaaagaagggaagggfff �S fagf$f- e sesss _ �fggfffggffgfg a i v m .3 S' P S m T 3 f • 3 O A P .li m V 6 A R a a 16/1 B13 I I I I I I nI il I, Ilmi I I [Ii I I I I i If 1- 1! If it I I t I it 1- 1! [ut I I I i immi ap _ �a _a__bgb _a�.a_._aaa�;�aY beef- a_....La�.ae_awoLLe�auaeL. _ f� i i i i i i a i i i i Z i a i Z i Z i i i i i i i i Z a x i a 3 3 a a 3 3 3 x i; 7 i i i a a i a a i a a; i } i _ _ axax ; ;i iaaaiix;; a7 aiai;; aaiaaiiaiis ;7]iiia;iaiaiaiza7ai } Liaaaaa . LCLLiabisaa_ a�ffAfi. va'L'�L._.aLLaCi_LC'aaa °f'eLufi i i i i i i i i 3 i i i i i i i i i i i 3 i i i i i i a i i i i i i i 7 s a i i i i i a 3 i i a i i _ _} iaaaiaia :: aaaaaaaa i x 7 I = i toaaau�a... out } 5= i s i � E n 4 z z � E i a i a 2 a i y 'IIKE'II I!IIHIfi IIIfIII! itIH tIfIHHiIIIIIfII !IIiIIIIIfIIIIIiIIIH1 l i t tae_ al?, g€ g$£ H3$ iiffi3Fi& gg86g 8g$ 3$ g$ i4Bi$ sa$ €$g &'$iai$$$89f$ "abab8e$ pit ': 7 ;8 EE E ° EEEE EE EEEE EE E SE EEEE E E S 1i eEll E $iiiIsIxe E $algilIes�$i$$ ss1$$e$ia$g$1a$1$$o$1i$8$li111 11111 ae 1 11jiI1bbai1114 i nsi�e ea�ezbftftsee$! #£gl.i i I i I j j i i i i i i I i i i i I I i I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i 3 i i I I I I I I I I i 110111iofii111ii31 $31- baaa §a b A, t.Iliib N= I. i 9 I i 14 A.- i a a 9 a e- a a§ a 2° i a 4 S° E EE E E E E EE E gE i�g °��°B_§ 9b� =i -� .- i- :i$- =�� $a- i..g_igi E E E ;.e A � #iiblf ➢�i�is� 8i 11111!1 iiiii iiiii v 's .g R a ii J: s� SnS 31 a' 'e 5 a a 9$ 9 n$» S» i$ 8 S °» L a» H E 9 B Y g a» P» a a a» Y Y Y t 8 5 m a a; a a i a a a i 7 a a a] i x i S O a aisaaiaaiiaiaziiiaaaaiaaaaiaaaszs] iaaaxaaaaaaaazaiaaaiasziia 3aaaaaaiaiaaiaiaiaaaaaaa� aaaaaziiaaaai] S m a p i a a i a i i] i i a i i i i i a i a a i a a] a a a a a a] a i a a i a i i i i i i Q aye" sba: aa�x6�55sesr��ea�aa�as��ga�a��asa�e€ aaw ae.._. ,_:�:6wze.8a: "x� "s "a §ssr:kaasa" _ g _;, :kv a asa a2oas$A 8 4 3 s "e bab :a ;aa§"aia6a5as5a s: 5s�i:s "a:sisse�i "s "s »s "se "s5 6g 'sE� �= ' "sci "x6es =£aa 5.Esa "sank "a = "ca i i a a; 3 a a a a L a Ebe'�aEak "aa's hs68abass "a aaea »9k283�$Y��ryi �` »�i�ea �.aaiai]ai }.ai°"_iiiii� iaiiii ;]aiaai7 a � 3a3aa]aaaaaaaah :aaaisa ;s 'v m a a a a i a a] a 7 7 7 a 3 a a a a a a a a a i a i a a a a i a a] i s]° i 7 » °$-: QN E P 9 m pN gi mm a s T S 3 N 6 3 o I oG A i a• s a a v 3 P R i L� e 7 ES i f� i �i Ilmn [fill 1 u I fon.11 Ef,t Hil 11,11, t M 1(1- 1 [I'll 11111 see.esesssea._ cebeaae ec. eeceseeeeebse "essss "ees�e_aee.Es "ee _�bsEEba _.ms .} _ _- - Y -- } m] Z O S S O f i � a.:bam..t r a a..Caee a g }}g 4 3eeessesabea: ssaeeEeaessloes' seEsas2e_cb�e.eEbea °ssEc_assbEr a essebe;_,, a '� ' "5 _ � sgs s� as$ i$: � "as':as5�� "aa6aa:a5ti 0 ar e S _ a a : sPaiaeEe�Eea�neae '`_esiiii.aCaliiieiie 7adi3 ;iadiaad7 i aaiiaEB� i-a "�ess5�s "abes�5iet� i YY cZ v 333 I° ., S ] i a l i a a a[ i i i 7 a a i i i i I i[ i a � S i i i i i i 7 i mmpm � y O = s i i i i i i i i Py y aP o a a a a 7 a a i F � z 7 d 7 i L 7a L z !. S �Y no g LL yL y � i i 1 1 '� a; �si aa�a��leaa6�d��aa��aeesss�$s Y 9 S 3 z�aasz 'gs� €`a��s�Px8a�4�a$as�aS��x�s� a 0 3 a v s �i�l3a�$sasa$�ai��s$ 0 v $ ¢m Y /A P a m a, i� 3 m S 3 O Q S n P D a 8 rQ A O 7611 0111H III!- I iff illt If I 111H. 1 111fil IIIHMIll IMMI 6 a 5 !� ab.iaai baaob_.�bi___`a_veaaaba a aeo.__aeeoa�a_bbQaa �g aaa]] aaaaaaaais iaaai; aaaaiizzaiaaiaaaaa7iaaidi ;iaiaa e A i� a a a a a a a a a � bba_bi_ b.z� °��:a_b.eem aeseebaa_bs°� >b °:e�__abb�eseb� i = ia_ia_a eCLSi: isa_ aiSiaaEEaaawaEaaELC °aac °aa_iaEa?aaaa i i➢ i 2 i i i i; i i 7] i i i a i i i] d i] a 7 a a a i a d a? 7 i; a 7 i 2 'a a i a a a a a a ➢ i 7 i a i i i i a i i a a a a aiiaaaaa aiaaa ?aa i7aisi :a zaaaaai? i as i ; a { i 2 :alai i i i i 2 se� a i a� L= i i? a S s S � i i �1 ai:€ saeEYZ S .ea= 'isa�? €i sa €a�aHaazaaa ii € as_Se 2 $L3 �:aae.�. �e5$i_gaEraaa$Sea'a$aii aa��5aa3cradii €`easi yssac�i:itBaY €_� m o = g �....a $ 5 anaii : i iiI-a ii i i i i 1 ze ?.._ 5s "x i i i i i i to a$s�a9?i !1 3 j $geaan °� H HH-1 € i iiagiii1iiip1Ji °ss_yr, i €1' -_ S a gi xAgP °� seef p 9 p y p e g E g p g a F �eaaai�$€ _.aa�aa & aaa€ E° a3ayTiia= aiai8w iaiaaYa�€ L�ieii€ aa�8€ aiaa7Eeaaaaaa� $�YSL'�Ya € €i €i8iiaaaa €gia 3 ;o C $ €ii €am tC= is' €aii ii iaaLii€iisa`seiii1 1i 4 ati- itg$2yai YGL :a €i� 'r;i3asaaaiaii alsai3 € € €€ t 0 p p � �aiaisie�i ii �'i €ii�] 3$i i �• 'o � aia:ii iiii= iiaa�eai€€ an�e.€€€ ai_ ai_ iai€ ga�ao: aa€ niiaa ` =_ €axaii� €a " =_ =aa € € €� €iiaii � 3 w p N E S 3 - C1 P i 5 i i i i i ar T 1 v F:-+ii i;i °s€ a g � 5 a s 0 s m 0 m s F a 3 p� gS S S i V m C P 3 v m m v �g ar �e 3 m W S 3 O 8 A a F T s Y Y g 92 YFssii iiP: iiiiii8$$ 9YiiY°i$ YiiiASN$$ i$ i�iL�. Q-. Y' P-':§{z �Gea :$$eas$4i §$Eii$s §$Na$8$$ ° §osE - _.:iii §isi gisii .ii9 jai iis< §iiiiii:i_i_.gaiiis `s iii]iiii °p ..siiii].5 isa ie__._ s:i_ii pilessaig.ise:.isci_i]__i ' ai §a...i. __ a 'lb =e =i" °ell's lei'° ssl= el::" ' °sliesiilbi'zi °seis.ii §_.siib e b isllsrss ii _skill sssaiis5li: "a'is' °seeps §i°at° �i i�� ' °s��sii°si °iP °s °IIi°s i]bbiiie:°$ °sn'._:a�eie i1 2 anise °esllls$g Be 9 = p p p e.e.p -e . ggg l$el8illiii §$ i18o489YiiPiIYYYiII�° lii8l= rusaxa- YiYls:�iii:i:iiii$$ii$ ,� -,$$�i gi °-_b:siiss;i° =&llsi °$buss °$sil'il €sil k iiiig - Of 7 5 i S? i 7 i; i is ' _= cr r.s sa it =4 Of 7 5 i S? i 7 i; i is ' B t all e a'so'ssatbaaea uaa v 7a!I ssaara "se= 5assagaas °b:ii's°ue m '! kaka` a& akk8Pty§ oa§" aNsa" aaESb�s" sstrkaisaa6 $ahaai$ "a$75aa5�6Sesa$ "Haab "keszsa�seaiaE?3 4i °s °. °ka a "- _ "- ga�gn §e :7 ?� N - O sa's'x asas's aaa's "aie "as�ao "sassavasasaasab's ' asMa]iaa " ago "a aaAla�L��bals:s$$akk's ��i "k. bib 'Y °$$ $a °aaak� °aa$i s m o j j g e a" ss" a' as' aaaaaoss "a "sa's'ssa "aesa�aosa "ss� "ssc' saws$$ aab'" ia" ssa'" a' ae5� "sa3sGesg�sa6"ugasiss�" -,3�.o aa6:k_: $`- _`a:�6$a_$'si�: s 5 i j 3 � j g sS8�3sa9aa`$:.§ aaa. ztaak$ b' saae x556:bae$ia °k § §'aaaei'si9gk:$'b bU:bbaab$a = :l5 eeIt aas gas$a. &6a'- _aga €5 'o c s�oab°. kEH8ks8NaLik!'` x"' aaa33iaaasbe5kaaaae g�Gka:& aaa5s "asse�aaaaa£�,aSa$ "eaaua =s�$ "� __byaaa e�ai'�:aaa_a]�� 3 � � E ssaaL�naaia _zbssa�B= �s'Pa'si's aas sP 4, 'z a] a:. e4 X, ev es ae xzhea °aaa'so =i a'a aaa °k a$Y 1 a's d. °a °a $a$' °a$i °9; as a`ati 0 s bbbaab5iae a�aabbbab€ abbbbbbebba$ as °keaaabbbeiiak'seSbbaaba]sababi :� sbsa$sa § °saa6a:$�aii e s °s aa== �Sga3s�S�CaE� 's'6 °sisaea`xiaaaaI a a ±a''a a 'aabaafieaaaaaS °s $a` «a 'r @a'- _deg °$ =aiii S o �aa_b'absGiaaL]Yaafi :aak v 3 m a i a 7 i i i i 9 P S v i a i 7 i i i g i i O N 3 � 0 n P i T a s i � a G }i 5 5 Y Z m m a 2 S S n 3 A Q r g9 A a 3 ti r S $ o_ S� 3 g� 3 C 3 O 8 a a D O a 3 B g a 0 ............... _ ------------------------ % S C%: C.: %: is %:: a % Y S Y]%% a. I]% i a a a a i i a a a a a a] : C: 2 6 9% r 4s %%%- 9%% 9%: O%% � Y a__ i]] a i a a a i a i a i a a Y= 2 a C: 6%%%%%$%%% s% Y 7. 8 a% i a i i a a a i a i i i e i .ea. F 1 8$$�taii #$ :l o ti ,,flit s s a 'a 3g a's g9raa `%`s 9aEya "sePeaaa3 `a a #aP:..asaa `_aa: saaaaava §s fa si§a4ka 9iEkY: aYaasae5 '•-k�ko3ak5aBaaeacasaaYa$$a9Ce a �s .as8a5e giaasas> aaaait 2x`: 1 5gsaaaa9 5aa�E aaa aaa a Y �� a5asa5a seasaaaaaaaa ]aa "eaasa:aea5aeaa�a�= $aa:ra & °a asYa5Y9 si9:s:leaasy aaSe °.. 6 Y7 a s a:$a as a a8 i a i a a a °.9a i� aaa:cas gassaa$=` i" ss: s' isaaa $as`saap °$5a °aaaa_.,.,� &sa:sg s sass "ae:.g :.3�as$$$y -acts �aicaaa "a sass "a taaa a aa'sa..Saaaa'�s Ya'ga+�baovasaa'_a9a „as0agaag� gaga ak a sa:a aaaa:._.:N:. s ss6faz Eces9e a aaagag: 8 a e: Y a aabY9bi a a a$r$g$g a §a8 °a °ag Sa a b ba.aa s'saag i i S 3 a T I� a a a i i O •a m 1; 12' a] d a d t a _ar V. r, Y a x:ad: a n _xtttla x y i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i I i I a I I i i i i i i 7 i i i i i i i i i i 3 i i i i i i i i ] i I i 7 2 i 3 i i 3 i I i 'a g rd A P a 0 ....._ ....._.....,a6..__6. ..__... -- _---- _.. .:.............a.6 :aara reasxY99 tl: Y. tlY= asa. dararaaxxtlaaaaa ::aa:aa :d::._a..= xiyEd�dr:dx9a] x a a a a : r d t S Y x a a a r: x a a a x r r r a a d d t_ 9 Y a a r a Y 2 a S: is at Y tl r a a d Y 9 4 a x a x r a d r d Y: 4 d a °] V. a a a s tl a a a x r a tl I It tl r d a a r 3 a a r r r tt a r: r a 1: a r a. Y a:� 6. a c a a _ . _ a. a r a a: tl :.. a b: a a a a ._66. 49...a. :a a aa... a, a:.. 6.. a___ a 6___.._=__: a._. 6___ 9._- a..- .___a.._ a Y a r r a a 3 tl a d a a r r d a a a r x It tl tl tl d r a a d a d r tl a d S a z a a Y_ x- a a tl a a a:_ r a a a r a a S ::: r: a: a S ... z x 3 a a x a 4 a r. : r a ................... a !a i� S a 7 f' i I 1 ` 813 I f I I ! i I i I 11 f I I I I I i 11111111 f 111111 ( I I a_ a a a a m a a«_ a a+ c___ + a + a. m O a aELE. +aaa «a.a_aaa.- ..__a_a °sELaa.a _ +a iab X, 2, aLLaaaaa Eazvazaizizzazaiaazzaiiax . «« +.. a. +.. + +.... « «aa. aiz:iziziaxaaaaaxaziaiiii $'e 3 7 3 ca ..a?C:a_aaa._aa_ «a..aaaaa'ELa ++ aa_ _a_ _aa_- .aaa..aa.ay aCiaaaaaaaiiaiaaz :axaaaa O S 5 EE °a.ELE__, E:___ +a._a�aa__.a.__a —b ^� L L E L '.�+ ... .. a a: a a a i i a i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a qs L L i L a a a a a L L L L E L L L L t _ a° i E a+ a °a _ i S E d a m a a_aa a +E?aaaaa_ -_ELi_ ;FELL__ :L: aaa Ewa +a «a i.L:a a a m m �g $ e_ S� 3 u w S 3 0 O g a z z S a .Y a A a E a i a i a a i 7 a b E i d i a i i i i a - Ezaaaaaaaa a E i i i i a i i i a .�aaaiaaaia e o 3 3 i 7 i i i i a s E e a a a a i a a a a 11#� R i i f3 i F� m ' 1B1 111111"j; dr Z Y: i i i a x x. Y Y x d s 5Q 3 d t x = t d t i n Y Y Y '3 a a a a i .. 9 Y H % Y i a Y Y:■ it is Y Y x S tl Y tl d d V. Y Y% Y tl tl tl : tl x Y Y tl: V. Y i i i 4 3 r : :tlYtlY x =- Yid YYxYxtltlYd:Ytltlx 9dtlii7 ixzotltlY %xdii kY:C tl Y tl p Y d is a a x Y Y Y d d d tl k tl d tl Y tl Y tl tl d Y 9 i i i i x x x 9 x x d d Y a i tl Y: Y f tl tl tla% Y tl Y i i i Y i tl i i Y i i tl V m c a ddnxzx xYY tldY xYdxszYYaxY s a v o ai$ i� 3 "s 3 0 B n g$ S P >- S S D a V 3 7 v i YtldxdiY:tld Y Y a% d d tl: C Y -- L r r_ a - .. r .. a i S i: a c .*Sic9 9 +: La - raa_aaw a:LL.. i'L:LLL r 1 7 S 7 i a 7 '� 2 161 1 B13 MIMI, HID 'M III U; i s e aaaa] a] azaaaxizzaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa sex TTn .._:esxrexnrnkx ma O R n It r r a tl r tl x a ir m a a � 9 ]] aaiaia3aiaaiaazxaazaazaaaaxaaaaaaaaaaaai ]as „rsr:� xxsxsxsn_srsxs i i a tl k e k x e ems, e tt x r e r a x s 8 a i a i i i i i i i i i i a d i i i i a 7 d a 3 a i a a a a a i a i a a a i a a a a i a a tt: n n T tt e tt a: n e S tl Y x e 3 i tl C u k T r Y k i i t a i i i i a i a V m n x n e a T T e tt a Y a r 9 x T Y tl a aay:rx P x 9 Y e T x v m xexaea s g Tr m.rise. 6 krara: 3 O n .: e T r g 2 � nxatlsa Py S � snas�s s a v° It z a tt Y xrer 9 s a P .11 a i .rsTrsxn_xxssrnr:tlettexk�rstl #� V C °_ r a r n x= x n 9 e a tl tl a r r e tt x a 7 e n M 8 T r"- C r r e� x° t s Y r r r a C e v y._ y 2 attrrrnxxxxs.xsaa:enttenknttsT.�i. i 7 r Y Y r C:� n C n N . g e r C a C x Y r Y x k It tl nIt 1 .. Y e C r a -- _ x a r T a d i it e C Y n: k °!' .- .- r tl r a a: r x 9 a x n a tt tt a k e x a a e: r Y a a q r a u a r a a a a a r a v ff i tt C a r x 9 n n T T E a a x r T a a x e a x k tt T 6! f ff fffIMHOff #MI11fDff#ffl111,1f1ff#ffI111ff ffff11HIffiIff If III HID till af [=i_I uvaa�C Yx i:ai:� CeC 2:ENr. ta�bL;Ls�Seae:.ix: a a a i a a a a I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a as 7 E i i E E $$$: ++ ... +EEC C $ E E E E E C$$ E E .. a s .. a a a a$ a a i a a a a a i i a a a i a a i a a i a a a i i i a i a a a a a a E a i$ a E. a i a a a a a> a a I— a r a a a a C I— a E a E L L s a a a 'a E E C« E a i a a a i a a i a i a i i a a i a i a a i a i i a i i a i i i al's a r E C E« C S i i i u 4 ' . . ... .. + .. a a a � .. a a : i i a i i i a 7 7 a i am g a s I l i a d I s l a s B i g i i i 7 '. z. + a . ¢ g l a s s a a a a a a i s i i a a H i l l s s a i a a i a a I E: 9 In P c i L g s° No t, I t e 'a : i i �. Z i i i a a i a i a a i i a i a a i i a i i a i i a a a i a a 7 i a i «yep gxY : yy:yL�s "g:� e= :wg:ec::s gn Y: s LS'$iaaiazziiza :aza a a a a I a a a a a a a a a a a a 31 a us a i -r.' u 1 L u: G i E E b: E i E i b :� 6 e$ a' C = L 9 i E i G i a $ 0- g i i a a i a a a a a a a a i a a i a a a a a a i 3 a a I a a a a a ' a a 7 a i a i a i a a i a i a al' as s a s+ a a a ...E E E '_ a a a a a a a 7 E E l a i i i a a Z Z a a is i E i a i i a E E i i i i i i i A E E i a s�aa v 3 C A Y i3 i a _ _ tt_ i _ _ ao = 2 ib 1 x°913 NO3 (mg NitorgeNL) 0 p p CD p p 0 0 p p J CD C3 cz� C3 CD 9 - la la i G CD 0 0 M b z 0 b o, a� a 3 m 4 g d I J O O O Z b 0 w 0 2 V Ol m r- m b V C- 6 V C- C 4 D c m 0 V b V Z C T T V v m S F s 1611 OPO4 (mg Phosphorus/L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m m y \ m T 0 m O s / z V O b s s N m N to 4 O O c v S l< m ac O m b 'o v O .p a O b ;z � S O b r- V c ®_ C b m V m T O V Z n N m m < W r r tC O C m £ A m d an-, v -0-0 Uj (D M A C7 O O O1 N y 7 7 O I co 7 M O1 O l< '< Mcp cn w m m vZ� N PD 17 vv << (A 55' O j j O a� cn A 0) %'0 (D (D A. < � m m o D H m0v < o� w C I w N y Cl) O_ C O C N ? Q rr O m < CDC� nC�� w = � w 00 c N fD (D 3 m O O A_ CD N O (A O O � O D A � 3 O N N 'O O M 5'co (D (D O. N O W A O O 7 O A N O N O O 1611 813 cn O O D o °o °o °o TDS (mg/L) N N O O °o 00 W W C. 00 00 raj O p 0 00 6 N m T 0 A 6 W Z 0 6 O! b no _6 m y 3 < b a1 T � 03 6 _ V O 6 .c D O N 6 V � 3 � O � I � a V C 7 6 V L b I V D C m 6 V b1 • V Ilill =c #g�.m RII ■ W i � i 1611 B13 DO (mg Oxygen /L) _ J O N W A N W V CD f0 O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O U2 - b W O m T O Cf a IIm z a M v b 4a C- m ' D 6 a s 4 nu ,s O � m � b V � � I O 4 m � 3 en O 1 V C- 6 V C- C i 6 D C O b V y b V fp A a rm � m m F a OT -u c (D� �zz CD w w <vo << o�= -uo = co 0 xm co C,`� � m m C m �oA =r" m_ w m t0 v cn a0' S o 3 N A d CD t0 K n°3 w _ 3 m 00 m � � c � m o Q, w O O O Ol o w 3 O go O A 7 N w O fA W O �mm � d N cr `G O_ A O O 7 O A N co N O Cl ib lil 'B13 cniorpnyu,a (m9/L) o ra to o u� o !ft o a c °o °o °o °o o° o0 00 0 °o to b f. v b op O b 0 0 b CD O w n Im D < en C b 0 V a • O c 3 a =r n d V O O D .O b � 1 $ b O V � C b V C_ b V O V • V I I � 1 o r m "s 0 -u -u Na CD cu co o '< '< Cn Cl) m CD (D O O O CD N CD ID 0 CD <• <. 92 (n. O O O � 3 CU O N q co O � Q � N 0-0 —CC 'G N 01 Cl) S O f� O � C � N d `- 0 7 CD Z7 fD < O 7 C O < N � 7 07 (n Q C go v -� o' 3. N A Q CD cr O < (D -� C) O N = 3 u a, cn CD 3 m So D C) v, O O 0 CD pj O fD O m O O g O D ? N m w N O N C (D O O N 7 (O fD (D CL N O' M `< O_ �A m O 7 O A N (D N O O OPO4 (mg Phosphorus /L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L o N A m m o N A m m o N A m O 0 V! W 0 O O� O b W O C- 6 V m O 6 rr K V 7 CD d 4 D a b V 3 b V C- 6 V C- C b V D L m b V O a b V ! I OZ 7 y O � V 1611 P -13' V w D Di to CD 3 O Z z O W at CL O 0 O O A '6ii "813, OPO4 (mg Phosphorus/L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o w e 9C w 6 o w Gig � r c W � II to \` V 3 3 " o o b V S 3 ' Z v Z b O V (� o S Q. _ 0 o V O C $ O C R b V O b V _ O 1 Z �a0 0 1611 "g131 OPO4 (mg Phosphorus /L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O O O O J N IJ N N N W w w D O N A 01 O! O N A A C b O w m v b m O n _ O 'n z o �p °m < m n D om � m � a co V 3 0 3 m ' o a 3 z m b a Z O a V 3 7 4 Q S V O C- O b O c b O v a m b V y m b V O z 0 0 v-n-a mm y 7 3 0 00 00 � m m CD CD m m m �vv 0 o m 0m � m m �o Q = =r We y m ma � 3�D a) < m m v 31 v w R.!'c S0 3. 3 3 N A d O m cr n o 3 w _ 3 m w c w 3 o=i v � o; m 0 0 m N o w :3 o 7 D ? w m l< w p w m a .. .3 7 f0 f� m CL N U w �A Of O 7 O A N (D N O O 161 IqB13 OPO4 (mg Phosphorus/L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 O v b m 1, _ 0 b a z < C w � s > I) w to ® m O � O Z b V Z V j Z cri V 01 3 a 0 6 \ s O C- '� b V � L 0 b V c m b V N • b V 0 id _v, m m c t. �. y D 7 O co 07 O K G U) cn N N (D v 2 Z N N fA (A CD 0 Q Cl) 0 N_ G O O O p 3 -V CO 2 O N y y O � Q � C (n N O O — 7C (p CC N a C K SU C1 CD 0 p O � C 3 N N C- O �TT CD 3. N o � O G d 7 d (D W Q n v S o 3 N A Q C) �K 0-3 w = B d c O7 � K O CD 3 w 0 90 SU m D C) N O O 0 co �. O O N O � O D ? D N G1 Oo O O D fD 0 O a �. 01 7 tQ fD CD O_ W O. O K O r A Z1 � O 7 O A N O N O O 2611 '�.3 O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C O O O W N O m m m m m m m m m m m T m m m m m OU m m N D N (Vf+ V O p m�� V V A QUi ONa O O A N O N N� V CVe V A O D O D N N W v fOT U N (WO A N (OD W N W A Z O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gf o y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p A U m 0 0 Oo O U Ou N A m 0 0 0 0 W m U m V U m W U A U 'n �O V m Oo Of V W O! m A m U A� m m m A W A W O A U OI O V w�mwo -.mUUW oJOOm�00000cnmmooy < m O A m U D o G) Aw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Oo fOJ OOi W V � N W D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p m m V V V m V A _ L m O m N N N N N W� 41 N V A m U p Q D U< O O W O O O 0 o(D m CO d N 7 7 O d SL cn Cf) N N (D O (D N m m ID CD T. w 0 0 0 0 :; CO 2 0 N N Cf) � Q O 0'a 0) 77 N C (n (D = C r 0 ca C O 3 x Dl ,__ O a o C 7 0 O G D) ca Z d Cn Q r- 0 3 ? Q N p0 C0 CO 8� C)— 3 N S 3 fl1 N � 3 m O N 0 O O n (D pj (D O w O O W m D a 7 N N OD `G O CD (D 0 O �. D) 5(a fD O d W `G O_ A M O 7 O A N N O O 161I B13' 0000000�mm�m��m��mm�m��m;� D N N A N A A A Ol W A N W N W N A W A V V Q U W tO W m N 1AJ W V V OOi N V W V O~i 4Wa V A V O Q N A q tVif 0 G Z 0 D G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o L1 A O (Ui� J m W O m U OOi A N NN N N fD W G% 4! D w ,n O O U r OUi = D O < A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z D o G) U Ut O N W fd W � N A W O U A U a O N 0 N G O O W U O w O 0 N CCD O m d y :3 :3 cn Cl) O W � N CD CD co CA co m CD M 'G_" LA. m -� M 0 0 y m M � Q O O) 2S 0 fD O. < `G D7 D1 CD =r O � 7TN c 0Z CD M C 0 C CUO 5 v G N � 7 m CD m CD 0_C o 3 N A Q O m � � n O 3 = d G d � 0 C m (D 3 N v v 9; w 0 0 0 n O1 rn o m 0 0 � o D O N N OD ql p M lD O =_ d 3 t0 N CD O. W Q N `G O_ �A O) O O O N Ct N O O O O O O O O O m ID m m O m m O m t0 ID ID Ip t0 m tD tp m ID O r O O O W N O m U A U U� O (D f0 m fD l0 Ip Q1 f0 fD t0 m m m m m m m Ge m m V m U A w N O t0 m V m U A W N �' C n m N W io h� G p O O G p > O V > Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> o 0 0 0 0 0 o O > O OI O U m O U N m V m W 01 V U N> O A 0 N N p o G p N 0 O O O O 0 p p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 p p O N w N W (O O W N W m N m N N A O U N N O m W O A N W N W W O U(nU> JOtJ wN W UUm W w(U aD V m> O A m � CO 01 O W O O V (IiAT�I V AcnO t+fJ W C.OA A O m U A W m O O m 0 0 0 W 0 0 fp G p a � A N = G GI O O x W O W W W W N w W IV NAU wIJ IJ >1J O> 0 O N O N O m O vCD m 0 co co (A 7 7 O _ Vl fn Cu CD G � 2 2 N (OD N [n N O Q O N O O O O 7 Co = o 0 N O ID N 1V m CC C CD =ro p (� m % 0Z CD X 3. N < d : O N � (<D 01 CD 03 CL C Q C- o' 3 3 CD ma N O G COQ C")° 3 = 3 W w � O C, N � CD 3 m m D 0 N O O n CD pj O � O m O O � O D ? 7 N 01 OD O to (D tD 0 O -u -u �. 0) 3 t0 fD (D Q C,1 O' W `G O r ? ,Z1 O 0 0 0 A N O N O 0 161 1"813 o00pmmmmmmc'ommmmmmmmmmmlom m OOO W N o0o Ommmmmmmmmm ® ®COmmmfD COmO 01 D a s W A 0I W W N N W W .a N W W W N N N C �� m 0 pip O� V O N m 0 W m m .V.1 N O OWi O Oai N w A O ao in O rn o D O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p 0 0 0 G (T Ol W m U 0 fOT m VNi m N �V V O m O m A tAT m A W Z O O O A O W O W G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G7 0 o O a OWD O N 11 V fN•I m m N A W fNJ A N O VA V m N O ro O O W m W O W W O W m m O W ffWi m A (O O' M.W. O m A D G m o m V V V J O v o C) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W D o G O _ V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-C D G) LO 0 N D N W N N G O m fo A O (P W N 0 O CD n y D7 D) y 7 O O O7 co O l< l< a cn W (D (D -O Z 2 C. C. y y (D Q C- G < (D N cn O O o > -u CO _ O N N O � d � N Pg a — � (D C (D a C D) SD CD 0. O Q C � C � y d O `G CD C� 3 o C 7 7 < N 7 N co (D y CL Sk a- vQ3 p A (D N Q- C:) < CO n O 3- 01 = 3 c D) � C N � (D = 3 m Q N v D 0 0 0 0 C C) CD O y O W 0 D ? 7 N D) p y. O N (D CD 0 O 7 f0 D N O_ W 0- A A p O 7 O A Na rfl N O O 26- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 tp [p (D t0 tD 0 m m O tp t0 tD O tp m (O (p t0 0 O O O W N� O (O to W (O t0 (p to ro to tp m m m m m m m m m pt V w n D m .a W N N W V O IJ Ql A 4 Oe G V? m tlt t0 V 1- � O m Q O -> D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O � 0 o u A A D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A W W U A W W W (n V A J A A N -� N -+ V 0 0 0 m � a (T N N O O O V O A N m t0 O pp m N J U W V O O N O N N G m m A O N J N m m 0 m 0 0 J m m W W N A to m W O N� W O !n m 0 V m O m N V V N N W N W O A 0 0 0 N W O O y D G x D o C) can o 0000 0 o Z (n tOJ too A OOi OV � W o G O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V m J O J m W a D w O W J (O t0 !p (n N D N W A tD (r O n N A m m O O O vM m 0 N d y 7 3 O ca CU 7 m m O � � cn cn V1 N (D < f U1 En. GO 7 7 p CO 2 0 N N cp � Q O N 7C N (D n. in C (� =' 0 fJ C = S F m C-0.7 CD 7 X 3 m D ti o p ca cn CD CA < m m Q C: 0 3 °?c N co C?°3 m = 3 m 00 m � U CD w = 3 v O � m v D (7 en cn 0 0 0 C 0 m O m :3 O o O D A 7 N m OD K N O y. .D !D S O 7 fm fD m O. W 6CA `G O_ A 61 O 7 O A N O N O O 1611 �13 '' O O O O O O O m tp m tp m m m tp t0 W t0 tD ro tD b m tp tp m m GI m O A N O tmO m V m pmi A W N� O tmO m V ®e A W N m m f D -+ N GI N W [Jt W m V W W N N O W W O A Ow ODm O A ANm mmN m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� N AN V mm m Nm-•m -+m m A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m w m W m O tp V N m W A U m V V V m O N m tp m W tp m m W W w O N V O) W O m W V W <p A O V O O A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V pwi W top N m � A A N N A < Q 0 W D O O O A < O N a x Q W < V 0 G7 0 c� a 0 0 1611 B�3�n- 0 0 0 W N� O (WO tW0 tp tp top tp tp tp tp O m m m m m m m m m m C D m O A W W W m Of m N W O V SOS t0 N .p N A N N fJ AA mOmOtO O A m04m W UtmmOt +A mN 00 p � � tp m D O O Q O O W Ot N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G1 0 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 A W W W W W W N N W W N N N N W W N W W W N W W W W D m J W m 0f A T m tT W (T m m N A J Of W tr V W N m ut a D m � O m V x O O 0 (O O V D o � a a o 0 0 0 0 0 o z tp W O W N m W W D o ,n D N m N N N W N N y W tp m O OI w Q V N m N N V N D O 161 1'1B13� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tb 47 l0 t0 t0 A m 601 (Oli A U N N O t00 � V m (Oi1 � D < W O N A W OND O O T 41 !O]1 D O Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N A [00 N N t0.1 V w D O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o °m °mmrnc°n °A n0100 D W W A t0 c0 Vt W N O V w W w W W m N O mw m m O 4VD N O N D m D < O z x w D O 0 0 0 o y N 100 m m 0 D O m 0 N D O m O 0 813" z N p N N{ y 0 00:M N N 0 O w 0 0 a O O A O N+ O) fT a G o � � Q w O N w O ao w A w a o 0 0 O w N Z 0 o O 0 0 N N a < O O O G) O w N 01 O O Q o O A w w w w D wag0 a0 IV m O V41 OI N a O rn < o � � tJ = D < O O O 2 0 0 O 4 D O 0 0 o y D oO N p O m � O N D < m O 0 _v E m y n � m m y 7 7 7 � � N CD CD fD N N 1 y y CD <, < tD N y O j j -u CD _ O O N_ a !R a) Q _1 WO DJ W CD CD = p � O C C =r y 01 go ? �• O <T CD N 3 (Q n < D) CD ED M D) ED Mm c cn Q. Q a- c- 8 3 N A Q O CD 0— d 3 Q) cn D7 � � C K ('p y CD 3 m N 90 N N (7 y O O n tD pj O (D 7 w 7 7 N N W\ �G y. o 0 O .l 7 (Q (D a m O 0 A N O N O 0 N N Z O rn rn z o R' D o `w D c U m D m P N 9 � 1 � J n `m c p� n o m n O U � 'n 3 i a D y m D x m D J � C Ti D O D � v s D 1 i l Z rn rn rn m rn NpN N N NN'�3 y O S O O N N N N N O O m N N N N N N O O O 80 00. O O m m m m m m m >o D C _ m m m tVn N A m N O p Q Vt A m N O m 0 w m On O m G u= D m v n < Dm J < J (D O z o < –.0- v rn O in w p m D v m OAI W (T C w m Om wo0n � o a � R is o2 a < J Dm <J O y toi 1 m < O a 3 W N Z O O O O Z 0 N a a �n m m Novo° O 1611 B131 Z N Z o O 9) y �3 a N 0, -<M °o p�'"�D m m m m m m m c°a D in ut cn v,� m m � a N m 0 w m O � A G u= D m < < Q J O O iii rn o O O o w � < p v rn O OVi t0 N O Q a p m O ^ m OAI W (T < w m m wo0n � p < J O O O 00 y C) < m 3 W N Z O O O O Z ° Wom o �n Novo° O � m � D J o o G1 G) W N O O m O 0 0 0 0 0 00� ? A OOOOA m o D m < Gi N W W W G O j W W C) O � a y W A o W y m D D m G) A y V V V 9 N tT O N V = G co Z O O O O Z T W 0 0 0 0= (AO A A dD W W Vi Li 0 0 0 0 0 0 o V A IV p o 0 0 o p A Ol O� A y O G<Y fA y N O V N O N v v m m _ y o O O Z Z N N N N N N m 3 N N N O O O O O O m ... g 3 O O O O O O p Q m 666666 m <� C) m G o v a 0 . _ fVT Ut A tD N O p 0 VVi U A f0 N O p a O � a < d m 0 w m O � A G D m D m < J < z O z o O o in o w � o0- in < < 3 O p m O ^ m O �o2�a m wo0n � p < J N Q O 00 C �p o otA� ooma Z 0 N Z 0 N 0 J a a � m m J a a m � 1611' B13 N N N N .... p p > > > >> >> B y 8 S p 8 p O 8 ppp ��pp f0 f0 fD fp f0 f0 fD f0 f0 m (O O m M17 < W g cn ca gs8§-- V 01 HE W N ---- -- A W Nm to m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 00000pp00o ppia' p�0000ppo�� ! m y V o � co 4 p pp Nf� pp pp pp G N IJ N fa Nf� m Ul U pJ�> 0 0 m m A f0 W W> Nf11 fT OlO ODN O�Am w tl�NO >00 fT1 O�fl� W S b 0000000 0000�0000> O(O(��(O(��yOy OO O V > ll1 Ol O UI N Ol V Ol W� V C NO p Op O O N Of� O p Op O p O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ppO O O p pp y wo 01 0 foil VNi O1 � f0 UOI O /071 m (NT � N OV V O mV � � i (n [Nll A W � m d � o q S V rw0 Z. w r S :V m fV OO ONO N OV 001 OD msO +� SOD � A O m A 01 O pp O o p pp C O O O pp O G C C O pp m Q O O O oo O m W 01N 41 fJ ANN >NNN N W NN O rn�fD0 O/N> N t >^ N b O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 4 sss��sss sW� ®� ! M O O O O NpO s s p b s O - 22 f a- vaox mao c N� y�m o fl �o mmm �a3 ' 3 n Kati �-3 3 3 = O P D n m a D ° 161! B 1 O O O O O O O O (D (p (p (p (0 (O (0 t0 tO (U (O (p (O (O (p (O (O (O (O OV m N A m N O (00 a00 V 001 N A W N O (m0 W WV O Omi 4w"- r S 91 A a m m u � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o d a N- NOA mVmOI(Nh OVOAOI O1 A Wm "Wg00102200_O O o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m a pp f.1N N w"8 8"8 N" O8 NI � 000 W 01 N OI -+ O A 0 01 W O R N W N W W O m W m � A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ma 000 N N W (N11 m N Ol N m 001 (r �m n� d a a � pOp O O O O O O O O O O O O O ppO O p Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 O 7 s F n 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y a —O)OO'- 0010,m A 01(OJ00i m W NwN i V1 Op O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O q a A W W (OJ N W N A (0J N N (0.1 A OOi 40i O O 00 O O O N O O O O O� m O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 8 0 O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 M m O O W O1 O) O) M 0 on" (T - 01 0 0 0 O O O W W W m O N i I N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J rn U A W N> O m m V rn rn A W N� O m m V rn U A W N> N � n a N m m N W m W J W A A A m N m A 0 m V W N O J a V rn m m O O m O rn m N A m rn O 0 0 W m U m V U m W U A rn TM m V l0 m rn V W rn m A m rn A m m t0 A W a W O A O, M O� O m iJ Q1 m o O ->+ OD c°n (Wn W O v O O m + 0 0 0 0 0 (An m o o oo m> V A V O� m m� ONi m rn U rn rn U rn rn U A A U� WW Y A V O N O V U A V rn O m m 0 rn N m Ol V m QI � A O J O U V OD W O m U m rn A N m N N m W P O O NtJ U00 �ODOrnOUIm -•mm V mrnmUJm =� N rn rn U U V V U m rn U m> J rn V W rn V U rn N N q W W A O A N W O rn W A W O U A v O m U N p DD (D m 0 O fl m Q1 � J 4N A T V �I L m O A tJ W nn O A U O V O W O O A O m U A W m O O m 0 0 0 W 0 0 O 'O W � (� m ppJ A V V A N rn O W m o N W A O� V V UAi O N A N a V A m 01 N N U �I p m m N A W W A OD N. W 4a V QD N O m N 0 V O W rn W O W W O W O m O W o rn A m O W> rn O m O C N G � V m n r a � m N N m rn 0 J O moo COn T Omi OND m 0 (WIC V N W N ON1 O N 1p m U U L O N W W m J W O U QD tp dD m A fp N O A N 0 !d m V ()1 0 0 N W O U m o O V m O m rn V V N N W N W O A 0 0 0 U W 0 0 f.t m rn O N m m m W m m m W W W O O N J m W O rn f.� V tJ m A 0 J O O m O O U W V O O V W O W> U m U O O C H C W W A W W W W N N W W N N N N W W N W W W N W W W W Ci A rn U 0 W rn m O N m m m rn N O m V rn W rn A W A V m mpp V U w S m O V m> O W (ATE m 0 m C A (Wl� N O V W W 4Ai m m m O n A m 9n O N OUD N NA W pp O loo W O V> O O J O m o o = A UWi A W W N o O N po0 m N O N � B13'I 4 9 m m m Q m �j 11 m n m N ci 2 b- m V m O O CO m Q N m p a s m m m h M W N m N m 1 n U D V w m 0 7 (V N N U 00 U N Q N Q N Of m n O m m m- Q pmnmmmmnmQQmQmmQQminmQQ01 N m m m m m t�l m Q O m 10 O QmNm A < m N U 3 m b O m O O n O m 1p 10Nmm <m«l V Q m N m m N O n OmmmOQm N < O m O O m O m m m (O O Q O N m Q m O O m O m vnmtpmQn Om QmNOnminNmQ mNtpOm 4 fU V U'j Q u'i 1A !D � V' C] VI V fV O •t '7 � 1� � V' � 1'7 m m N l+l N Qi tb ? W a � U m n a +s m m m< N N m 0 A m m o a O NNNmIh 1rI N <�+j nj <N N(7 mmQ a�] V Q< iflQ M Q � U a� m a 0 1nnNmQ�o mo F* mu m m ommnn n nQmmo mlomm�omQloo mmrnomrnN ui Nn v6 Nl+l mmm� N m O n Qn m Y'1n mn m 1f1 mn mNNmmO.m = n m Q o m N rn m m n m Q o m o a N t7N W nf` ?N V Nc�iN ai NQ c710 V V ui �� (V N1V W r.Y 1q m a �n Q ` m O m O O n N m m n N m m m Q m N m m 1 n n m m n N n m 0 1p 0 NW,6 (D $ 10'i Nm m m Y' ri W m W a !o ,So e3 6mI Oml OI Omf Oml Oml 00f m 00I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 8 N N N Z6, sly E QU = n = m Eao I g W °E� m °o? O u o � � o3bl o- oWm m m n ooe s °S z� m m o a °io Average Annual (NO3) Nitrate 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 J 1.00 C 0.90 CO 0.80 _- Y Z 0.70 CO - 0.60 M - O 0.50 - -- Z 0.40 030 - 0.20 - - -- - -�\ 0.10 - / - -- - - -- 0.00 1901 .AOry ^p'0�' ^A0� 1905 ,o'0�O .°j01 900 ,909 .°�o'� .,99^ 1.1110 99, 11.95 I'll 11.1 ^9p'0 °qA go�O.bOJ�. Ro�M1 JO'! �P.FO�y .k0�6 ry001 Year Average Annual OPO4 (Ortho -P) 0.40 0.35 -- -. 0.30 J 0.25 -- - _ t a w L 0.20 - - d IM £ 0.15 - - O 'd O 0.10 A - "-V 0.05 - 0.00 1`90^ 100ry 1190. 1190 1900 11.96 1901 199e 1909 1�0 1199^ 199ry 1990 19' 1990 11990 y991 11� 114' 'L09�'Y00w '1.000 M1000 M1001 Year 16/ 1p 13 0 -me class n Pe-11 Class III FSL Lucia Class 111 PB43 Class 111 -W-7 class 11 - Glenview Class 111 W -1 Class 11 --UCe class II N Seagate Class M -we class g PS -11 Class 111 FSL Lucia Class 111 PB-13 Class III W-7 Class II Glenview Class III W -1 Class 11 UCB class 9 N Seagate Class 11 Pelipn Bey Services Division Historical Water Quality RAW Data submitted by Tim Hall, Turrell Hall & Associates on 4128/10 Page 44 of 46 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (reconvened from 4119110) Printed by LR on 0412912010 Discussion of a peer review of Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) 1012009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report 8611 [:ll 6-0.00 55000.00 50000.00 45000.00 40000.00 J 35000.00 m E 30000.00 N � 25000.00 20000.00 15000.00 10000.00 5000.00 0.00 10 19911 Year T 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 J m 6.00 T K 5.00 O m 4.00 O O 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 14:1 1* 1$ - -* 19011 10 141 410P ^ABA 1.0 1.41 ^006 ^901 ^990 ^99A e M100^ M1Op`L ryDy'h 01 ell 10+ e*' Year Average Annual TDS Levels Average Annual DO Levels —ws Gass 11 PB-11 Class III FSt. Lucia Class III PB43 Class I� - --»W -7 Class 11 -^ - Glenview Class 111 W-1 Class 11 UCB Class 11 N Seagate class g -..less" P8-11 Class 111 FSL Lucia Class 111 PB -13 Class 111 W -7 Class II Glenview Class 111 W -1 class 11 UCB Class 11 N Seagate Class Y Pelican Bay Services Division Historical Water Quality RAW Data submitted by Tim Hall, Turreli Hall & Associates on 4/25110 Page 45 of 46 Pelican Say Services Division Board Special Workshop (reconvened from 4/19/10) Printed by LR on 04!29/2010 Discussion of a peer review of Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan (PBS &J) 10/2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report Iffitratell lg PSsYB7,PB8 P99 WS PB -11 Palo PB14,PB15 P811,PB12,PB13 PBS PB2, P83, PO4 P816 Lucia _ PB-13 W -7 Glenview W-1 UCB Aug-06 0.0200 0.0300 - 0.0100 0.3200 0.0500 0.0100 0.0233 0.0300 0.0100 Sep-06 0.0100 0.2000 0.0100 0.2050 0.0100 0.0620 O.OT00 0.0100 0.0100 0c1-06 00000 000 0.0000 0.0000 000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 Nov-06 0.0037 0.0100 0.0600 0.1700 0.0301) 0.0100 0.0367 0.0200 0.0300 Dec-0B 6.0500 0.0100 0.0100 0.6600 0.0600 0.0100 0.0400 0.0100 6.0306 Jan -07 a- D300 0.01 00 2.1000 0.7300 0.0700 0.0100 0.0200 0.0100 0.0200 Feb-07 0.0200 0.1000 0.0500 0.6600 0.0867 0.0100 0.0300 0.0600 0.0400 Mar -07 0.0233 0.0200 1.5300 0.2450 0 -0200 0.0100 0.0300 0.0100 0.0200 Apr-07 0.0267 0.01 00 0.5000 0.2250 0.0300 0.0100 0.0300 0.0300 0.0400 May -07 0.0200 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0200 0.0100 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 Jun -07 0.0267 00100 0.0900 0.0350 0.0100 0.0100 0.0300 0.0100 0.0200 Jul-07 0.0333 0.0200 0.0100 0.1400 0.0267 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0300 Aug -07 0.0367 0.0500 0.0100 0.0850 0.0100 0.0200 0.0233 0.0200 0.0200 Sep-07 0.0300 0.0700 0.0100 02000 0.0167 0.0100 0.0400 0.0100 0.0100 AVERAGE OA236 0.0393 0.3143 0.2632 0.0314 0.0094 0.0252 0.0193 02214 fGrtho -P1 IO PB6,PB7,P88 P89 Palo P014,P815 P811,PB72,P813 P85 P82, P83, PO4 P016 Pal 506 P8.11 FSt. Lucia PB-13 W -7 Glenview W-1 UCB N Seagate Aug-06 0.0027 0.1110 02660 0.1205 0.0690 02000 0.0183 0.1340 0.0110 Sep-06 0.0320 0.1710 0.1750 0.0840 0.0780 0.3160 0.0287 0.0040 0.0150 Oct-06 0.0035 02380 02400 0.0845 0.0507 0.1030 0.0330 0.0111 0.0250 Nov -06 0.0034 0.1610 0.0510 0.0920 0.0440 0.1100 0.0433 00560 0.0300 Dec06 0.0400 0.1550 0.1630 0.0745 0.0673 0.0580 0.0380 0.0380 0.0150 Jan -07 0.0360 0.0910 0.0168 0.1030 0.0803 0.0500 0.0463 0.0650 0.0310 Feb-07 0.0337 0 D40 02020 0.1505 0.0793 0.1320 0.0403 0.0770 0.0440 Mar -07 0.0320 0.1150 0.0690 0.0865 0.0683 0.0530 0.0493 0.0870 0.0290 Apr -07 0.0333 0.0680 0.1840 0.0530 0.0573 0.1180 0.0453 0.0520 0.0400 May -07 0.0223 0.1420 0.6900 0.0715 0.0153 0.0710 0.0320 0.0900 0.0210 Jun-07 0.0233 0.0590 0.1820 0.1005 0.0920. 0.1760 0.0353 0.1180 0.0230 Jul-07 0.0490 0.1540 0.0940 0.0415 0.0173 0.0197 0.0647 0.0350 0.0850 Aug -07 0.0083 0.0560 0.1640 0.0435 0.0270 0.0560 0.0143 0.1500 0.0070 Sep-07 0.0160 0.1080 0.0920 01070 0,0587 0.1100 0.0363 0.1700 0.0170 AVERAGE 0.0240 0.1192 0.1849 0.0830 0.0582 0.1131 0.0375 0.0777 0.0281 10 P86,PB7,P88 Peg Polo P014,P815 P811,PB12,PB13 P05 Pez P03, P84 P816 Pal 506 P8 -11 FSL Lucia PB -13 W -7 Glenview, W -1 UCB N Seagate Aug -06 37187.3330 1200.0000 536.0000 756.0000 17546.6666 674.0000 31756.6667 2522.0000 34366.0000 Sep-06 34952.0000 512.0000 348.0000 1396.0000 23644.6666 654.0000 33022.6666 12180.0000 33172.0000 Oct-06 34304.0000 856.0000 548.0000 4092.0000 31909.3333 860.0000 34520.0000 17340.0000 34876.0000 Nov-06 37306.6666 706.0000 734.0000 6270.0000 36200.6666 702.0000 351533333 30580.0000 36100.0000 Oec-06 36286.6660 1600.0000 920.0000 1540.0000 33160.0000 1380. 0000 36140.0000 29960.0000 36840.0000 Jan -07 36820,0000 1120.0000 1000,0000 2230,0000 31746.6666 1100.0000 33625.6666 19180.0000 35940.0000 Feb-07 37933.3333 920.0000 580.5000 5300.0000 30773.3333 1880.0000 36480.0000 26260.0000 35240.0000 Mar -07 36473.3333 980.0000 480.0000 3850.0000 33140.0000 680.0000 33120.0000 29300.0000 34540.0000 Apr -07 37793.3333 760.0000 360.0000 8370.0000 35353.3333 560.0000 34100.0000 32900.0000 36400.0000 May -07 390333333 740.0000 660.0000 13550.0000 38233.3333 820.0000 37086.6666 36320.0000 38180.0000 Jun -07 387533333 2.0000 920.0000 4640.0900 34700.0000 1800.0000 37286.6667 30480.0000 36420.0000 Jul-07 39766.6667 2.0000 720.0000 5500.0000 37593.3333 780.0000 37040.0000 35240.0000 37960.0000 Aug -07 35253.3333 780.0000 700.0000 3690.0000 30206.6666 1040.0000 36300.0000 22280.0000 37380.0000 Sep-07 38500.0000 1260.0000 340.0000 1980.0000 21326.6666 1000.0000 31906.6666 4520.0000 33620.0000 AVERAGE 371682094 817.0000 631.8671 45145714 31109.6190 995.0000 34624.2381 23504AZ86 35788.1429 (DO) 11) PB6,P87PB8 P89 Polo P814,P815 PB11,PB12,PB13 Pas P821 P831 P84 Polo P81 W6 PS -11 FSt. Lucia PB -13 W -7 Glenview 50-1 UCB N Seagate Aug-06 1.8600 1.1000 13600 1.1250 1.0400 0.8000 1:1601) 1.4400 1.6700 Sep os 1.1800 12M 12000 1.4600 1.0700 0,5600 1.0300 1.3600 1.2000 Oct-06 3.8900 2.0800 2.0000 44950 4,0600 2-3000 2.8700 2.7200 3.1500 N-06 5.0600 22900 4.1700 5.1550 18300 1.3000 3.7600 2.3800 4.3400 Dec-06 5.1400 2.8600 3.6100 6.8400 3.8600 2.3600 4.1650 5.5300 5.5700 Jan -07 4.9200 3.2100 5.6800 6.8200 2.2600 1.8400 3.4200 5.0100 5.5300 Feb-07 5.9300 6.7100 6.7800 6.1500 3.3900 2.3400 4.8700 4.3200 42400 Mar -07 5-4000 32900 3.0000 5.9200 3.7200 2.0200 3.0300 4.39W 4A300 Apr -07 5.0533 3.6200 3.6800 6.6400 3.9033 2 -0000 4.5233 2.0000 52600 May -07 3.9300 1.8600 6.7600 3.2300 22567 1.9700 3.3833 1.8200 33400 Jun -07 3.5167 4.0800 3.2700 27400 2.4700 12500 2.1686 1.0300 2.9500 JuW7 3.5433 4.9000 0.9800 4.5700 3.5067 1.6300 3.0533 3.5600 4.0200 Aug -07 3.5767 4.2100 1.8800 3.3550 1.7167 0.0500 3.2700 2.9900 3.9000 Sep-07 3.4133 2.7600 1.3600 3.9600 1.8333 1.5000 2.1633 0.8000 29000 AVERAGE 4.0295 3.1593 3.2664 4.4614 2.8298 1.5697 3.06118 2.8107 3.7500 ChbroohvU,a ID P86,PB7,PBB P89 Polo P814,P815 P811,P812,PB13 P85 Pat, P8$ P84 P016 Pal Will PB -11 FSL Lucia PS-13 W7 Glenview W -1 UCB N Seagate Aug -06 6.0333 na na na 10.5000 na 9.2333 na 10.7000 Sep-06 3,7000 na na na 105000 na 1.1333 na 5.9000 Oct-06 4,4667 na na na 11.5333 na 8.3333 na 11.7000 Nov-06 3.1656 na na na 3.1333 n-a 6.3667 na 4.8000 Dec-06 3.0000 na na na 3.000D na 3.0000 na 3.0000 Jan-07 3.0000 na na na 3.0000 na 3 -0000 na 3.0000 Feb-07 3.0000 na na na 10000 na 3.0000 na 3.0000 Mar -07 3.0000 na na na 3.0000 na 3.0000 na 3.0000 Apr -07 4.7667 na na na 4.9667 na 4.0667 na 3.0000 May-07 3.3000 na na na 18.6333 na 3.0000 na 6.4000 Jun -07 3.0000 na na na 153000 na 3.0000 na 4.8000 Jul-07 4.8000 na na rw 20.3000 na 5.0000 he 12.8000 Aug -07 4.2667 na na na 10.5000 na 5.0000 na 12.3000 Sep-07 3.9666 na na na 35.4333 na 5.8667 na 53000 AVERAGE 3.8190 10.9143 4.5000 6.4071 Pelican Bay Services Division Historical Water Quality RAW Data submitted by Tim Hall, Tunell Hall 8 Associates on 4!28/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Bmrd Special Workshop (reconvened from 4/19/10) Discussion of a peer review of Post Buckley Schuh 8 Jernigan (PBSBJ) 10/2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection 8 Analysis Report 61.1 B13 Page 46 of 46 Printed by LR on 00292010 1 813 List of Professional I Professionals to Invite to Submit Credentials for inclusion on List for Peer�e�w Proposals P Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 4/28/10 Name Affiliation Comments Orrin Pilkey James B. Duke Professor Emeritus Ph.D. Geology, Florida State University; http: / /fds.duke.edu /db /Nicholas of Geology, Earth & Ocean Sciences Professor Emeritus of Expertise: shorelines and coastal geology opilkey0duke.edu jeos I facultylopil key Earth Sciences, and Founder and https: / /fds.duke.edu /db /Nicholas Director Emeritus, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Nicholas School of the /eos /faculty /opilkey /files /CV.pdf Environment, Duke University Thomas J. Smith, III U.S. Geological Survey Ph.D., Environmental Sciences (Ecology http: / /sofia.usgs.gov /people /smit and Climatology), University of Virginia; Expertise: ecology; environmental h.html Science; ecological indicators; http: / /www.gulfbase.org /person restoration, geographic information Science; modeling; /view.php ?uid= tsmithiii tom ' smith us s. ov Kathleen Sullivan Sealey Associate Professor, Department Ph.D., Marine Biology, Scripps Institution http: / /www.bio.miami.edu /Fac/S of Biology, University of Miami of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; ksealeyftio.miami.edu ealey html http: / /henge.bio.miami.edu /coast alecolo John D. Wang Professor, Rosenstiel School of Ph.D., Civil Engineering, specialty in http: /Zwww.rsmas.miami.edu /di Marine & Atmospheric Science, Division of Applied Marine Physics, University of Miami coastal hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; coastal hydrodynamics and mass transport. vs /amp /People /Faculty /Wang/ wind, tide and density driven flows in estuaries, bays, and shelves; storm surges; runoff effects on salinity; microbial transport & fate at beaches, Coupled surface and groundwater flows. in and under the Everglades; Coastal wetlands hydrological restoration; jwqngPrsrnas.miami.edu Ping Wang Associate Professor, Department Ph.D., Geology, University of South http: / /crl.usf.eduZpeople.htm of Geology, University of South Florida Florida; coastal geology and sedimentary processes; coastal engineering and http: /Zcrl.usf.edu /wangvitae.htm mana ement l2wangRcas.usfedu Harold R. Wanless Professor and Chair, Department Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University; http: / /www.as.miami.edu /geolog of Geological Sciences, University of Miami sedimentology, coastal and environmental geology; y /faculty #hwanless hwanlessRmiami.edu Robert H. Weisberg Distinguished University Ph.D., University of Rhode Island; http: /lwww.marine.usf.edu /facul Professor, Physical Oceanography, College of Marine Science; research emphasizes in -situ measurements, analyses, and models of Wrobert- weisberg.shtml Director, Ocean Circulation West Florida Shelf circulation and the http: / /ocgweb.marine.usf.edu /W Group; Co- director, Coastal Ocean Modeling and Prediction System, interactions between the shelf and the estuaries; weisberg(@marine.usf.edu eisbergSite /BWlndex.html University of South Florida 4/26/201010:50:39 AM 1611 B13 List of Professionals to Invite to Submit Credentials for inclusion on List for Peer Review Proposals Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 4/28/10 Name Affiliation Comments Loren D. Coen Director, Marine Laboratory Ph.D., Ecology, University of Maryland, Sanibel - Captiva Conservation College Park; Recent studies funded by Lee www.sccf.org/files /content /docs Foundation County Tourist Development Council: study to identify potential sources of impaired /CV LDCoen.pdf waters and associated habitat status in nearby waters surrounding Captiva Island $114,925; Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation water quality observing stem, $70,000; Icoen@sccf.org Richard A. Davis Emeritus Distinguished Ph.D., University of Illinois; coastal geology, http: / /cr1.usfedu /people.htm Research Professor of Coastal Geology and Sedimentology, sedimentology, rdavis @cas.usfedu University of South Florida, Geology Department; Coastal Research Laboratory Ernie Estevez Sr. Scientist and Director, Ph.D., Marine Ecology, University of South http: / /www.gulfbase.org /person Center for Coastal Ecology, Mote Marine Laboratory Florida; marine and estuarine ecology; freshwater inflows; coastal resource /view.php ?uid =ernie management; ecology, population biology; ecological indicators; estevez mote.or Randall Hughes Assistant Scholar Scientist, Ph. D., University of California, Davis; http /www.marinelab.fsu.edu /fa Coastal and Marine Laboratory, Florida State University rhughes @bio.fsu.edu: marine ecology and estuarine systems ul hu h s. x Elizabeth A. Irlandi Associate Professor of Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel https: / /services.fit.edu /profiles /p Oceanography Department of Marine and Environmental Hill; marine benthic ecologist; ecology of seagrasses and other benthic macrophytes, rofile.php ?value =63 Systems, Florida Institute of application of the concepts of landscape Technology ecology to aquatic ecosystems, linkages between terrestrial and aquatic environments, and the impacts of anthropogenic stresses on the ecological functioning of coastal zone habitats; irlandi@fit.edu Mark Luther Associate Professor, Physical Ph.D., University of North Carolina at http: / /www.marine.usfedu /facul Oceanography and Director, Ocean Monitoring and Chapel Hill; research involves combination of real -time ocean observations with tyf mark- luthenshtmI Prediction Lab, College of numerical models of ocean currents and Marine Science, University of processes and application to various South Florida problems ranging from water quality in estuaries to variability in large -scale ocean circulation and relation to climate change; mluther@marine.usf.edu 4/26/201010:50:39 AM 1611 B13' From: " Feldhaus, Stephen" <sf(a�feldhauslaw.com> Date: April 27, 2010 2:44:59 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(d)comcast.net> Cc: 'oche I' <Leo0chs0)co11iergov. net >, "marlaramsey(ftolliergov. net" <mar1aramseY0)co11iergov. net >, "Gary McAlpin (GarvMcAlpinQcolliergov.net)" <GarvMcAlpin(cDcolliergov. net >, "JeffrevKlatzkow(acol lie rgov .net" <JeffrevKlatzkowcDcolliergov . net >, " colleengreene(cDcolliergov.net" < colleengreene (cD.colliergov.net >, Bill Carpenter <wrciks(cDgmail.com >, "Bob Naegele" <ronirCcDnaegelenet.com >, Bob Uek <rwuek7(a)gmail.com >, Doug Esson <essondoug(aDmsn.com >, Jim Hoppensteadt <iimh(a)pelicanbay.org >, Mike Coyne <rnikecoyne08agrnai1.conn>, Robert Pendergrass <robpender(cDcomcast.net >, "Ronnie Bellone" <bellonev(awahoo.com >, " Feldhaus, Stephen" <sf(a)-feldhauslaw.com >, Geoffrey Scott Gibson <iosiegeoffaaol.com >, Hunter Hansen <hunter.hansen(&hilton.com >, "John Baron " <ibaron(cDwatersideshops.com >, "John Chandler" <ipcbac(&comcast.net >, John Domenie <hobodorvocomcast.net >, "John laizzo" <iaizzo(aD_comcast.net >, Mary Anne Womble <Teedupl (@Aol.Com >, Mike Levy <mikelevv(a)embargmail.com >, Theodore Raia <tedraia(cDyahoo.com >, Tom Cravens <nfn16799 annaples.net> Subject: Peer Review Keith, Further to our telephone conversation, you asked me to provide a short report of the peer review portion of the meeting that occurred last Friday between county staff and the Pelican Bay Foundation. The county was represented by Leo Ochs, Marla Ramsey, Jeff Klatzkow, Gary McAlpin, and Colleen Greene. The Foundation was represented by the members of its Ad Hoc Committee on Clam Bay, Bill Carpenter, Mike Coyne, Cora Obley, Henry Price, and myself. The peer review discussion began by my noting that there has been concern in our community over the fact that Coastal Zone Management has brought in professionals from outside the county to conduct studies in Clam Bay, terminating in the process relationships with local firms who had earned the trust and support of our community over the years. I pointed out that the recent history of our relationship with the county over Gam Bay, full of too much rancor and heated rhetoric on both sides, undoubtedly contributed to our community's reluctance to trust the work product of the professionals that the county is now using to study Clam Bay. I also noted that it is our perception that the county has been fighting an expansive peer review of the work of these professionals, making many feel that the county may have something to hide I suggested that one way to build a bridge over this layer of mistrust would be for the county to allow the broadest possible peer review, and then to put all the scientific analysis and data, including this careful and expansive peer review, out in the open for all to consider and discuss, and to base conclusions upon. 1 indicated that I felt that such a process would go a long way towards alleviating the concerns of a number of our residents that trusted, local professionals were removed because they would not provide the answers that the county is looking for in Clam Bay, and that the new companies were brought in so that the county could control the scientific inquiry, and perhaps through that the outcome, on Clam Bay water quality, dredging, and other issues. Gary McAlpin responded for the county. He stated at the outset that he does not have anything to hide, and that in fact he has not opposed an expansive peer review, but that instead he has been constrained by financial limitations that have made a broad peer review impossible. He also stated that he was not aware of dissatisfaction on the part of our community over the scope of the peer review, that he in fact just recently met with you to go over the peer review issue, and that he left that meeting feeling that there was agreement between you over the scope of peer review. I then suggested that since the county does not oppose an expansive peer review, the county should not object to the broadest peer review that our community is willing to pay for, with the county picking up whatever portion of that endeavor that it is prepared to pay for. We discussed this proposal for a considerable amount of time. The way it was left was that Gary reaffirmed that the county does not oppose an expansive peer review, and that, in addition to any extra costs that our community might be willing to bear, he is willing to attempt to find additional county resources to help pay for such expanded review. We made a considerable amount of progress on Friday on a number of issues with the county, but I was particularly pleased to see the county be willing to provide what 1 view as a significant breakthrough on the peer review issue. I appreciate the role that the PBSD has played in keeping the peer review issue alive, and in ensuring that any decisions made with respect to Gam Bay are based upon impartial, scientifically sound data and analysis. As the arm of our community that has historically had responsibility for Clam Bay, with a deep background on Clam Bay issues, and as an MSTBU empowered with the ability to raise funds that can be used for activities just such as this, it seems to me that the PBSD is the right entity to take Gary up on his offer, especially since you are already so far along in the peer review process. If there is anything else that I can add, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Best, Steve Feldhaus 1 of 1 4/28/2010 9:28 AM by LR 1611 613` r om: Tim FIaN ltte@hne"uocWn.eom) 3eot Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:50 PM To: ResMddd SuAlect RE: 4/28/10, it AM, Special Workshop nsenaa Attached Hey Lisa, Here are some interesting comments regarding the validity of the peer review process related to scientific studies. Not to confuse the issue too much but if some of the Board Members want to do a little additional investigations. These comments are from guys that have problems with the peer review process as it currently exists for scientific journals. Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that 'peer review works well as it is.' (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192) "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001) Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non - validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance." (Horrobin, 2001) This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors. But, "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" (Goodstein, 2000), it is a necessary condition in quality assurance for Scientific /Engineering publications, and "Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science ... why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin, 2001). Apparently there is an upcoming symposium called The 2nd International Symposium on Peer Reviewing: ISPR 2010 (http_/ /www.sysconfer.org /ispr) being organized in the context of The 9th International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2010 (http://www.sysconfer.orq/kgcm), to be held on June 29th - July 2nd, in Orlando, Florida, USA. References Chubin, D. R. and Hackett E. J., 1990, Peerless Science, Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy; New York, State University of New York Press. Horrobin, D., 2001, "Something Rotten at the Core of Science ?" Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001. Also at http: / /www.whale.to /vaccine /sci.html and htLp: // post. queens _u.ca /-forsdyke /peerrev4.htu, (both Web pages were accessed on February 1, 2010) Goodstein, D., 2000, "How Science Works ", U.S. Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 66 -72 (referenced in Hoorobin, 2000) Regards. Tim Hall Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL. 34104 -3732 Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 Web: www.turrell- associates.com tri< at�menta consu tang 4/27/2010 5:00 PM by LR B13" From: Johan Domenle a [hobodoiy @cornst.net) Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:34 AM To: Resrdeld Subject Meetings Lisa: Please tell Keith and Bob Uek that I will not be able to attend either meeting today as 1 have come down with a temperature which I do not wish to share with any one. I like the Peer Review proposal and attachments, but 1 wonder what influence Tim Hall's and Steve Feldhaus' a -mails will influence our decision. We will also have to set aside a greater Dollar amount if the Peer Review will (indirectly) involve Turrell/Hall and Hummiston & Moore who have worked on the "historical" PBSD work. A peer reviewer looking at historical data may want to consult with the afore mentioned companies for clarifications. As far as names are concerned - do we want to limit the quantity of names? 1 would leave out Richard Davis, Mark Luther, Ping Wang and Robert Weisberg. As for the noon meeting, Bob Uek has asked me to remind every one that within the next two /three years the County will be spending $20,000,000 on beach renourishment. This matter has never been discussed, but if the Foundation wants to place sand on our beaches this will cause a drain on available finances for any other projects - as this would have to take precedence. _ John 1 of 1 4/28/2010 9:47 AM by LR 1611 B1� Recommendations for B wWwrid Matefts to be Provided to Peer Reviewers of 'Clam Bay System Data CoNecdOn and Analysis' Report by PBS) Brown, T.R. and H.O. Hillestad, Project Managers. 1998. 'Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan." Presented to Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division and WCI Comunities LP. 98 pp plus permits and appendices.' Collier County Growth Management Plan, Collier County Future Land Use Map, 2006 - 2016, December 2007. File FLUE 2007 -3. DWG. Delineates Clam Bay NRPA conservation area boundaries. See also, 'Future Land Use Element - Conservatiorl' for goods by desigriated land uses and purposes and fwction of Natural Resource Protection Areas. Collier County Natural Resources Department. 'Coastal Zone Management Plan -199L" See especially 'Clam Pass," Section 11, Part 7.6, pp 279 - 296 and 'Doctor's Pass,' Section N, Part 7.7, pp 297-308. Devlin, D.J. et al. 1987. "Natural Resources of Collier County, Florida. Part 2. Preliminary analyses of seegrass and berrttric irrfetna in Johnson and Clara Bays, Collier County, Florida.' Technical Report No. 87 -2. Comer County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County Government. Naples, FL 32 pp. Gee and Jensen. EngilvimirsAirchitects4ftmers, Inc. February, 1978. 'Hydrographic study: Claim Bay System, Collier County, Florida.- Prepared for Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, Inc. 32 pp. Gone, R.N., C.E. Proffitt, and M.E. Curran. 1985. 'Natural Resources of Collier County, Florida, Part L R IN110 KID&M and a program for resource management and protection for the undeveloped l KIS of Collier County's coastal zone." Technical Report No. 85-L Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County GovernmenL Naples, FL 119 pp. Gone, R. H. 1988. 'Natural Resources of Collier County, Florida. Part L Natural resources management in the coastal, inland, and upland zones of Comer County. summary of data analyses and program Technical Report No. 88•L Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County GovemmenL Naples, FL 173 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Water Resources Restoration and Ration Section. 1981. " Diagnostic, /Feasibility Study for Moorings Bay. Collier County, Florida," Appendix 7.12 pp. Harwell, R.W. and J. Hatcher, Principal investigators. 1994. 'Clam Bay Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA)." Draft Report. Collier County Environmental Services Division, Natural Resources Department. 93 pp plus appendices. Humiston and Moore Engineer. November 2008. 'Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan - BeeWmetric Monitoring Report No. 9.' Final Report. Submitted to Florida Department of Environmental protection by Pelican Bay Servieews Division, Collier County. 28 pp plus appendiees. See also reports 1 through 8.2000 - 2007. Lino, A.E. 1976. 'Role and Productivity of Black Mangroves. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Carnal Report. pp 74-103. (Available as pdF. General Za 0808260631494)M PBSJ. 2007 (Draft Fined), 2008 (Fined). 'Clam Bay Seagram AssesamenL- Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zane Management Department. 40 pp.' Tacicney & Associates, Inc. L996. 'Preliminary Hydrog aphic Assessment - Clam Bay 9ysterrrs.' Turrell & Associates, Inc., Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.. "Clam Bay Restoration and Management - Biological Monitoring Report." Annual Reports 1 through 9.2000 - 2008. Prepared for Pelican Bay Services Division. Mangrove Action Group, April 27, 2010 Submitted by Mangrove Action Group 4/28/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Reconvened Special Workshop - Page 1 of 2 1611 B13 Tumell & Associates„ Inc. November 2005. 'Water Quality Sampling Update Report No. 6 for Pelican Bay and Clam Bay.' Prepared for Pelican Bay Services Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Field Studies,' Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems, Naples FL' Region IV, US EPA Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, GA.' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Field Studies,' Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems, Naples FL' Region IV, US EPA Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, GA.' 'Also included in references to PBSJ, 'Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis," Final Report, October 2009, Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Mangrove Action Group, April 27, 2010 Submitted by Mangrove Action Group 4/28/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Reconvened Special Workshop - Page 2 of 2 Submitted by Linda Roth on 4/28110 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Reconvened from 4/19/6 13 Discussion of a peer review of Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBSJ) 10/2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report Co T 49 D. S T BOULEVARD LOGAN A M O = C D z� n 0 D V 0 �K �_'_ rn o o D M � -� D DzrT Z vD D v, D TAMIAMI CD TRAIL (U.S. 41) O +D FRANk BLVD• RAN ROAD (C.R. 1851) Z R• 851 0 1 1 0 ! z M e-I 1 m o AIRPOR —�ING ROAD (.R. 3]) D C7 I LIVINGSTON ROAD > 00 <� to Z Co SANTA BARBARA BL D. r Cl) 0 D BOULEVARD LOGAN A m O = O r 0 rn o o D M Z C.R. 951 Printed 04129/10 by LR Page 1 of 6 V- 0 } J CL m it N W W . T w _ O C �a Rit a, otS M � C O O °m 0 O — 4 o o U C M > W C E U a1 m < n� U L W } U Y m 0 E W m rn M CL N M -2 O "8 O Z U aC � m m c a U 0 D w w m O 'N c K < > C N W 4) CD F N w � > WW O Z o W w N p � < z o w� a U W CO w N L) Y .6 M � am I �w O r.+ N aI a O K N W< j a° N Nn 4 W � O c 3 o m o .L_. > m L) U z wo w0 Zvxi oz w l0 a) a) c o- J H < M �O m F T o CD O .y LU uJ li < U O w a. �* JQ Z(� L U M � o aC 161t-BI _; T 46 S T 47 S I T 48 S r- I.___. -- VO" a 3 co 0 N m D) a J a a 0 rn N O m C IL Z } J w _O I' O Q r Z Z < U O 0 } U w O Q W w Z U aC Z U Z D < C7 D w w m O ¢} K < > W cr < N Z N F F N w �� > WW O o W w N p � < z o w� a }> 3° zo 0 w w < I- uri w ow I �w J N LIi ZQ W V QW O K N W< <U. W Nn 4 W F o _ W L) U z wo w0 Zvxi oz w L.j J H < �O m F J J Z J N li < U O w a. = JQ Z(� w aC W O JQ Z O w of no m <0 QW � aW m< O D W V �V U r< Q zof ma[ ¢N Or z aj ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑i ❑L�� ® p{n z O a U r w W O W � i U U W < ° z M K ¢ < a r r U N < r x 3 ¢ W K cr N < O ° rc O W N w m D :2 cwn w in J Q W O U O U >< ¢ J N M O z n < J 0 U O V U r V N r V U W W j Ir v ° K r U W Y O N Z� r X 0 Z N < ZN N U on m p: in (n0 m V _U = wti 0~ Q p m o} < m H aCN� WN N N W m O a >N KN J QZ t W !- O O -Z ° z w UX 1" V O N F Z J N O \� J W \J W O �m 5 p �� Q m Z O F O N N N }O x Zw < Z r < K H ae U z < az m0 az OZ OZ az �N �"� <m ap < J VI�OG a o z Z nUr OZ CL D W C9 \J N� �J �J W �J \J OJ �Q 7 < J -W J _<.1 J yN� <K. J NU < OU Y O OU UU OU ~U mU V (� J W p_'U �� Z U < U �W W N < U� � V Y� U V O> XU K U� a Um < ~ >O ( U SO 50 K U� O� Z� 50 00 IXO Q � aCx C7 U 00 6 K Z O N Z z7 ° < z oo < < -m W �< ? JU W � JU 7U W JU 00 OU J UU <GZ U W < Z w < ❑�❑ I ❑ ❑® N QJ N a �`a mg l< _� U — N W Y a ° �W a w WWai a)'n1� Jm W ~ 0 ¢ z W x < OW U r r Fx: ZW O < W r N p U 0 r < U r NjL m n ] W N N K F 1 E3 �< w U m N N N J m Z N N = za UO W m N ? p O N r ol U m m <a N Wt<� �W N O N N w= m 0! _U N Z Y W �O a�Z K = N N Z p w O a z aUm W 3 K or a N m � aCK r J N z) ON <m ae a r < a yJ wy wa°zaaa� p m° O w m c� & rt�w0 } UUU U o r <m <ac o ~ m UU ?�G 84 z m F N J Z ti om, W W< Z Q N i3 (! \F- 2 O r J N W m] OW U N \a[ N wom � S r �J 3 U Q U_(}j O W WW NW N m f/l ,< N W Q =ci < f/1 J W z F= DO >= Q f�/1 x — Y OO Qm WD = N O x m ac0 <n J O O`o�rO Z°p Z w Z ,=) mN UN <U >N mp D az mW < D N O yJ 00 N W X_ O WN�Z 7m X "r ZS <K <w V yW LL' W G O.' r U aC Y Z K w Q— O mN JU O �0 Q w w W 2< Jx mN m� Nm Ko acs F QZ WN a �� m� z 0 Z fA z z J a Z< m UO W to ZW O� UW x Y Q NW Z� QWm W J ? ., dx W l=W r4 U¢ Q m ac N m W K K N < W Z Qx <O Wx K O aC <x SO QW OQ = c.3 O N WW pW W m 7 d' O O Law Z W z U o Om >U xi < m W Om JU >z U4 g W< Z z � S� woo ®® moa¢ ■❑❑8 ❑� ❑L_ ❑LJ ❑mir r- I.___. -- VO" a 3 co 0 N m D) a J a a 0 rn N O m C IL T 48 3 T 47 S T 48 S Ilk !P INN i i t 71 N m .0 E ad I �o m u B13 T 42 3 T 50 S T 51 S I > Lu T 53 S a: 1611 B13 T 42 3 T 50 S T 51 S I T 52 S I T 53 S a: cc ae T 0- mW U. a: &A C2 CL C4 LU CC sp 2 cc ae T 0- mW U. &A C2 CL C4 LU CC sp 2 - --------- ------ S 9* 1 S Lt I I S 9t 1 s at I s 09 1 s is 1 I 8 zs I I s es I Submitted by Linda Roth on 4/28/10 Pelican Bav Services Division Board Special Workshoo (Reconvened from 4/19/101 1 Discussion of a peer review of Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBSJ) 10/2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report 4 L srw }� co>swnlavaw� �� 11wr M.ebe FL-64P / 5 a.. i J GULF OF MEXICO a ar- Y 0 A. F f 1 � I o a i � o JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM rb1. w W by a. us. F%h wa VMkWb yNQ er.r.ltl1 "".Cwm ban . w.p dMd J.y 21. taw, 00 ad-P..e b cd ft w m Cww... Pwr.raAw 9WN borrr.Mnr ft~ ilk 20M via PWft law 11b419. TM bw�.11b. CiLq dw. w Wie a er w► b w rs. w w v b :r"".°"°aaw . ebby CLAM PASS UNIT FL-64P (map 1 ot i) p 1e6"""'b r" Pirso law 110411. 7Yb awo 04Ww4w r vw We e.pwans s. cans e.inerw b sr bc.0— ... rMewO~M�w. Awrkw - ��ad��w� SraY 1M,a0D • 2000 r U.sllYwww.erwrr VW.0 aaw12 iw aer v - ° Deb &AwW Pbnbp.plgr, 1000 N Oasbe.l0, 2000 Printed 04/29/10 by LR Page 4 of 6 l 6 Submitted by Linda Roth on 4/28/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Reconvened from 4/19/10) Discussion of a peer review of Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBSJ) 10/2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Report 1 Printed 04 /29/10 by LR Page 5 of 6 http:// webma. il. aol. com/ 28878/ aol- 1 /en- us/maii/PrintMessap,e.wx 11/14/2009 s 't at. 1 �4 t 1 Printed 04 /29/10 by LR Page 5 of 6 http:// webma. il. aol. com/ 28878/ aol- 1 /en- us/maii/PrintMessap,e.wx 11/14/2009 . , 6 f 1 ►' Submitted by Linda Roth on 4/28110 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Reconvened from 4/19/10) Discussion of a peer review of Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBSJ) 1012009 Clam Bay System Data CoDection & Analysis Report (30i JFR WUN N "CLAK BAY ARM50RY COMMITTEE° MISSION, FUNCTIONS, POWERS, DUTIES & WORK PLAN. The Clam Bay Advisory Committee (hereafter "die Committee') has defined the boundaries of the Clam Bay" Estuary (hereafter The Estuaryj as, that wetland area mxdhAf Vanderbilt Beach Road the Gate The -Committee- will (iirnit its apd Jsninendations to this . -4 Wpw Clarrl ``wWtli.: the _'stlteroatne canals fi+om_ Vanderbilt Road m Sn fiat Drive. Spelt, the Estuary area will be as defined as the Resource Protection Area (NRPA); that Is, "the entire Clam Pass system which includes the 2 miles of beach and dune rrwrth to V Road 0 6 miles of beatfi and dune ridllre south to Seagate Drive. the associated back -bay systems Including those of Outer Gam Bay, Inner Ctarn BaY and Upper Clam COMM1nTEE MISSION The Committee's mission is to advise, assist and make 'Loirrt repo nmx adons to_the Board of •county Commissioners ('BCC") and the Coastal Advisory Committee ('CAC)eQAh a6 rnaior Issues affecting the mane use direction health and -long term viab ►.loaiAke.4laaa. ME Estuary in accordance with the protection afforded Clam Pass and Clam Bays NRPA and conservation designations as delineated In the Future Land Use Element -of the ColMer r:ourrty Growth Plan and Coastal Zone Management Plain doing so, the Committee will formulate recommendations for review and recommend possible funding sources that may be required by- such The Committee's powers and functions are as an advisory group with the. responsibility of maWg.recommendations pertinent to the Estuary. «• 1113 The Committee has defined its specific duties and scope of work relative W its defined mission as the review and associated with, but not limited to, the major issues listed below. The Committee plans on integadngtheir rycom�end thta�e - into a, : P henSive long term manaBer+rerit plan as well as wed � for the days -loo- daay operation of. the Estuary. _ . _ ` 31!2009 Pagel Printed 04129/10 by LR Page 6 of 6 6'11B1�„ =-i PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDA1 " (a COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES APRIL 28, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee held a public workshop, Wednesday, April 28 at 12 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson absent Keith J. Dallas, Chairman John Iaizzo Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman Michael Levy RECE/V John P. Chandler Theodore Raia, Jr. Tom Cravens John Baron absent JUN 0 g Johan Domenie absent Hunter H. Hansen absent 2010 �rootCoanty�0mssbn�g Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Bob Uek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Gerald A. Moffatt Merlin Lickhalter, Co -Vice Chairman Noreen Murray Carson Beadle Ralph Ohlers Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Foundation Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Jim Hoppensteadt, President Gwen Rasiwala, Communications Manager Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner ROLL CALL Seven Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present except Mr. Domenie, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen. All Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee members present and twelve in the audience. PHASE III DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Mangan distributed the Phase III Design Development report. The report provides the Community Improvement Plan's background, analysis, goals, project element plans, and estimated budgets. The consultants perceive how important projects are and make improvement recommendations that include phased implementation and an estimated budget. Project element plans include locations and maps and distinguish whether recommendations made are from Wilson Miller or group consensus based. Eight out of nineteen members provided feedback to Wilson Miller, so results may not be significant. Cost estimates are per element and illustrate future cost escalation in terms of 2010 dollars. They indicate whether the projects are Foundation or Services Division responsibility, however there are some gray areas where there is mutual benefit. The estimated budget information is not complete. 101 Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: !^n•1i'J f1. Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee.l. 6 I 813 Community Improvement Plan Workshop Meeting Minutes April 28, 2010 DISCUSSION Mr. Mangan and members discussed Section D of the report entitled, "Project Element Plans" that includes primary and alternative recommendations for improvements to traffic patterns, pathways, lighting, landscaping, signage, new technology, public art, U.S. 41 and community berms, tram stations, and parks throughout Pelican Bay. Each recommendation includes a cost estimate, phasing and sequencing for implementation and future maintenance guidelines. He stressed that the Phase III Design Development report is a draft and will continue to evolve and he encouraged members provide feedback by email to him prior to the May 18 workshop. The Services Division and Foundation would make recommendations based on the completed and final report, which would be made available electronically to all residents. ADJOURN There was no fiuther discussion and the meeting adjourned at 3:09 p.m. �40�,, kl,�- th J. D ,Chairman 102 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/19/2010 2:23:30 PM Collier Coun Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 May 11, 2010 Fiala Halas Coyle Cole tta Government FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 6 i 3 `�; W. Contact: (239) 252 -8848 www.colliergov.net www.tvv,itter.com/(.-ollierPIO wwwJacebook.conn /Col lierGov www.youtube.com/ColllerGov RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2010 808rd of County Commissioners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORKSHOP COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, May 26 at 12 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, 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 (239) 597 -1749. Misc. Corres: -End- Date: Item #: NEW DIRECTIONS IN PLANNING, DESIGN & ENGINEERING. SINCE 1956.1 6 I B1 3 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Pelican Bay Services Division From: WilsonMiller, In .o -nv4ur Date: May 27, 2010 Re: Community Improvement Plan Report We are pleased to present to this workgroup the final Community Improvement Master Plan Report and its accompanying Appendix. This report outlines the improvement subject areas undertaken by the Consultant, this Work Group and presented to the Pelican Bay Community through multiple public involvement venues over the last six months. The report contains the WilsonMiller consultant team recommendations for Community public area improvements to safety and security, the preservation and enhancement of property values and promotes quality of life projects that endeavor to keep Pelican Bay at the forefront of communities in which to live in the southwest Florida market place. This plan is complex given the inter - related relationships of many of the improvements. It is also purposefully far reaching and offers flexibility for continued planning and annual guidance purposes to the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division as both entities continue to maintain, operate and carry out their specific responsibilities to the Pelican Bay Community and Collier County. Specific site and community wide improvements that have been recommended will require both entities to further plan in unison and individually determine annual sequencing and financial participation. We strongly encourage the work group to continue to move forward with the identification of initial projects or project phases and commit to their implementation beginning in 2010. We believe the results of the improvement projects will continue to gain enthusiasm and support for community wide installation of safe, secure, visually consistent, value driven projects that meet the Communities high standards for quality of life and environmental aesthetics. We understand that this work group is not prepared to allow the erosion of the community amenities, aesthetics, real estate value or brand by allowing inconsistent and unrelated decisions be the norm. White well intended improvements have been implemented in the past, there is evidence of this type of evolution in the community today as we have seen, reported and reviewed with you throughout the community. Tough decisions will be required to prioritize and move forward with implementation of consistent and quality improvements. Staying up to date with ever changing code requirements, community development standards and market expectations will take a constant commitment. We have enjoyed the working relationship and the energy this group has brought every day to this process to move the Community Improvement Plan forward. Based on our own observations during this process we strongly suggest that the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division first look to the many CorpoyMJWqf& _ Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 rroiao- asac9- -o 590.64VA336 239.649.4040 F 239.6435716 Op 1611 E13' improvements required in the road rights of way as a starting point. This includes consistent and safe delivery of cross walks, sidewalks and pathways, the driving characteristics of the roadways and the ADA compliance of the pathway systems. We also recommend that in coordination with Landscape improvements, rigorous maintenance of sight lines be adhered to so that maturing vegetation is kept dear of driver sight lines and that landscape installed in these zones exhibit characteristics that would not promote plant growth into these sight line zones. In conjunction with these recommendations, we also suggest that the same level of importance be given to the Foundation property's where we believe pedestrian, automobile and service vehicle conflicts represent priority project consideration. We also believe where Community security is being tested at the public edges of Pelican Bay that the addition of concrete panel walls embedded within the mature landscape is an improvement that benefits the entire community. implementing CPTED principles throughout Pelican Bay particularly at its parks and entry roadway edges is highly encouraged. We believe that the continued strong relationship of the Pelican Bay Foundation Safety staff and the Collier County Sheriiffs Office will support the physical community improvements that are made particularly along the US 41 Berm. The reporting of undesirable incidents must be a priority for residents of Pelican Bay. The quality of the natural environment and Landscape Design is an integral part of the Pelican Bay identity. The current landscape is limited in its seasonal changes of color and flower and in the understory and shrub bed areas are generally all the same height; changes to correct these community wide issues should begin. Trees and Palms are obstacles in sod bed areas of the medians; we recommend landscape and irrigation modifications that join Trees and Palms in larger beds of low shrub and ground ever reducing the lawn maintenance and watering needs of the area. The.original natural and native landscape of the community has given way to a more manicured landscape. We suggest that to the extent possible, separation of the manicured landscape against the preserve edges and waterways of the community be created and recaptured in naturalized native or littoral landscapes for greater interest and separation of these areas from the maintenance use of pesticides and fertilizers. Today's street lighting standards and LED lighting technology is much more advanced and efficient than the approximately ten year old systems of the community. The current fixture and its parts are no "or manufactured; the concrete poles that the fixtures are set on are generally in good shape. While it has been suggested that there is up to ten years life left in these fixtures, in our opinion it is critically important that planning for the replacement of these fixtures begin now so that future replacement costs do not unduly burden any one year, series of years or worse become an unexpected need much sooner than ten years from now. We have recommended many ways to phase and implement new lighting standards in this process. It Is our opinion that this subject area be focused on separately by a smaller improvement plan task force identified by this work group to prepare street lighting recommendations as to improvement phasing of fixtures and arms, pole options and planning for the funding of this Improvement. Funding support programs by the Department of Energy and others continue to become available to municipalities and self 6IZMMO- 21MG7- Va:, - KMAM3M N01034.RM- -O . 161 IB13 WN-O.AlGNe►' taxing units like Pelican Bay and should be continually monitored and funding applied for to implement these changes. The amenities of the Community Berm, Tram Stations, Signage and Park areas have all been identified as areas of additional facilities, landscape and architectural improvements. While we have pointed in the past to the quality of work that was done in the renovation of the Waterside shops as a guide to broader community improvements and aesthetics, the general needs here continue to be those of consistency of finish, furniture and material choices. The Community Berm is perhaps the most valuable asset to everyone in Pelican Bay and we recommend have the highest level of care and attention to keep it in quality condition and the back bay environment that it rums through of the highest quality. We understand that Pelican Bay is making every effort to further develop standards for community signage and we suggest a common family of signage be installed throughout the community as today it is one of the most visually inconsistent elements in the landscape beginning with the Community entries. Consistency of architectural renovations, material choices, colors, furnishings, landscape and signage will continue to benefit the amenity areas and provide for consistent operations and maintenance expectations too. Looking to the future, advancements in technology for security, use and access to facilities, information to the community and general quality of fife activities will continue to be added in the community. Like the Lighting task force noted above, a technology task force interested in identifying future Improvement ideas and bringing these to the attention of the Foundation may want to be established. We have recommended the same for including public art in the community. Pelican Bay is fortunate to have one of the foremost venues In southwest Florida in the Philharmonic as a member of its community. Along with the active participation in public art displays by the Alt Museum, the Waterside Shops and the Resorts, we have identified additional areas that in the future may receive public art. We suggest that a task force or sub- committee of the Foundation be organized to establish and manage such a program. While we applaud the incredible effort put forth by this work group. and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee to date establishing both the Strategy and Improvement plans for the future of this community, it is not a time to rest. We encourage you to continue to move this process forward in planning, funding and implementation of these works. We remain committed to provide the assistance you require as being a Naples based consultant we enjoy working in our own community. We also recognize that the continued advancement and improvement of a model community like Pelican -Bay is good for us all that reside in Collier County. 61ZIMO -110 W- Yar.1 -KKVMM ►--0 1611 B13, wilsonmiller" To: Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Pelican Bay Services Div' ion From: WilsonMiller, Inc. - Date: May 26, 2010 Re: Community Improvement Plan Report We are pleased to present to this workgroup the final Community Improvement Master Plan Report and its accompanying Appendix. This report outlines the improvement subject areas undertaken by the Consultant, this Work Group and presented to the Pelican Bay Community through multiple public involvement venues over the last six months. The report contains the WilsonMiller consultant team recommendations to improve safety and security within Community public areas, to preserve and enhance property values, and to promote quality of life projects that endeavor to keep Pelican Bay at the forefront of communities in which to live in the southwest Florida market place. This plan is complex given the inter - related relationships of many of the improvements. It is also purposefully far-reaching and offers flexibility for continued planning and annual guidance purposes to the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division as both entities continue to maintain, operate and carry out their specific responsibilities to the Pelican Bay Community and Collier County. Specific site and community wide improvements that have been recommended will require both entities to further plan in unison and individually determine annual sequencing and financial participation. We strongly encourage the Work Group to continue to move forward with the identification of initial projects or project phases and commit to their implementation beginning in 2010. We believe the results of the improvement projects will continue to gain enthusiasm and support for community wide installation of safe, secure, visually consistent, value driven projects that meet the Community's high standards for quality of life and environmental aesthetics. We believe that this Work Group will not allow the erosion of the community amenities, aesthetics, real estate value or brand by allowing inconsistent and unrelated decisions to be the norm. While well intended improvements have been implemented in the past, there is evidence of this type of evolution in the community today as we have seen, reported and reviewed with you throughout the community. Tough decisions will be required to prioritize and move forward with implementation of consistent and quality improvements. Staying up to date with ever changing code requirements, community development standards and market expectations will take a constant commitment. We have enjoyed the working relationship and the energy this group has brought every day to this process to move the Community Improvement Plan forward. 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 Corporate Office 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 WllsonMiller.com WilsonMiller a 1611 B13 Based on our own observations during this process we strongly suggest that the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division first look to the many improvements required within the road rights -of -way as a starting point. This includes delivery of consistent and safe cross walks, sidewalks, bike paths and multiuse pathways that recognize the driving characteristics of the roadways and the need for strict ADA compliance of the pathway systems. In conjunction with this, we also suggest that the same level of importance be given to the Foundation's properties where we believe pedestrian, automobile and service vehicle conflicts represent priority project consideration. We also believe where Community security is being tested at the public edges of Pelican Bay that the addition of concrete panel walls embedded within the mature landscape is an improvement that benefits the entire community. Implementing crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles throughout Pelican Bay particularly within its parks and at entry roadway edges is highly encouraged. We believe that the continued strong relationship of the Pelican Bay Foundation Safety staff and the Collier County Sheriffs Office will support the physical community improvements that are made particularly along the US 41 Berm. The reporting of suspicious activities must be a priority for residents of Pelican Bay. While landscape is often a lower priority item, it is an integral part of this Community's identity. The current landscape is limited in its seasonal changes of color and flower and in the understory and shrub bed areas are generally all the same height; changes to correct these community wide issues should begin. Trees and Palms are obstacles in sod bed areas of the medians; we recommend landscape and irrigation modifications that join Trees and Palms in larger beds of low shrub and ground cover reducing the lawn maintenance and watering needs of the area. The original natural and native landscape of the community has given way to a more manicured landscape. We suggest that to the extent possible, separation of the manicured landscape against the preserve edges and waterways of the community be created and recaptured in naturalized native or littoral landscapes for greater interest and separation of these areas from the maintenance use of pesticides and fertilizers. Today's street lighting standards and LED lighting technology is much more advanced and efficient than the approximately ten year old systems of the community. The current fixture and its parts are no longer manufactured; the concrete poles that the fixtures are set on are generally in good shape. While it has been suggested that there is up to ten years life left in these fixtures, in our opinion it is critically important that planning for the replacement of these fixtures begin now so that future replacement costs do not unduly burden any one year, series of years or worse become an unexpected need much sooner than ten years from now. We have recommended a number of ways to phase and implement new lighting standards during this planning process. It is our opinion that this subject area needs to be focused on separately by a smaller improvement plan task force identified by this Work Group to prepare street lighting recommendations as to improvement phasing of fixtures and arms, pole options and planning for the funding of this improvement. Funding support programs by the Department of Energy and others continue to become 1611 B13 " wilsonmiller 0 available to municipalities and self taxing units like Pelican Bay and should be continually monitored and funding applied for to implement these changes. The amenities of the Community Berm, Tram Stations, Signage and Park areas have all been identified as areas of additional facilities, landscape and architectural improvements. While we have pointed in the past to the quality of work that was done in the renovation of the Waterside shops as a guide to broader community improvements and aesthetics, the general needs here continue to be those of consistency of finish, furniture and material choices. The Community Berm is perhaps the most valuable asset to everyone in Pelican Bay and we recommend have the highest level of care and attention to keep it in quality condition and the back bay environment that it runs through of the highest quality. We understand that Pelican Bay is making every effort to further develop standards for community signage and we suggest a common family of signage be installed throughout the community, as today it is one of the most visually inconsistent elements in the landscape beginning with the Community entries. Consistency of architectural renovations, material choices, colors, furnishings, landscape and signage will continue to benefit the amenity areas and provide for consistent operations and maintenance expectations too. Looking to the future, advancements in technology for security, use and access to facilities, information to the community and general quality of life activities will continue to be added in the community. Like the Lighting Task Force noted above, a Technology Task Force interested in identifying and advancing future improvement ideas and bringing these to the attention of the Foundation should be considered. We have recommended the same for including public art in the community. Pelican Bay is fortunate to have the Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts, one of the foremost venues in southwest Florida, as a member of its community. Along with the active participation in public art displays by the Art Museum, the Waterside Shops and the Resorts, we have identified additional areas that in the future could be candidates for the display of public art. We suggest that a task force or sub - committee of the Foundation be organized to establish and manage such a program. While we applaud the incredible effort put forth by this Work Group and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee to date establishing both the Strategy and Improvement plans for the future of this community, it is not a time to rest. We encourage you to continue to move this process forward in planning, funding and implementation of these works. We remain committed to provide the assistance you require. As a Naples based consulting firm we enjoy working in our own community. We also recognize that the continued advancement and improvement of a model community like Pelican Bay is good for us all that reside in Collier County. 1611 613 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Proposed Conditions Plan Summary: Composite Cost Developed from Elements OPC's Proposed Conditions Plans 1 - 11 WilsonMiller - May 26, 2010 PROPOSED PLANS Plan 1 (Pelican Bay Boulevard South Community Entry) $787,000 Plan 2 (Gulf Park Drive Community Entry) $427,000 Plan 3 (Pelican Bay Boulevard North Community Entry) $533,000 Plan 4 (North Tram Station Roadway Median only) $183,000 Plan 5 (St. Raphael Beachwalk including Crosswalk and Berm Area Improvements) $220,000 Plan 6 (Sandpiper Tram Station) $57,500 Reference page TS -2 under Tram Stations Plan 7 (The Commons) $898,000 Reference page TS -1 under Tram Stations Plan 8 (Ridgewood Park) $351,000 Reference page PK -1 under Parks Park and lake improvements only without US 41 walls Plan 9 (Gulf Park Drive/ Ridgewood Drive Intersection) $269,000 Plan 10 (Pelican Bay Boulevard/ Gulf Park Drive Intersection with Park Area) $390,000 Plan 11 (Oakmont Park) $270,000 Reference page PK -3 under Parks Landscape, site furnishings and CPTED improvements only, does not include lake edge pathway Optional gravel parking, card reader gate - $11,500. * Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay 1611 B],:3' Opinion of Probable Costs: Sandpiper Tram Station WilsonMiller - January 12, 2010 May 26, 2010 ,SITEWORK $25,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Storm Water Filter Flow Way Renovation (Channel Construction) 1 LS $25,000.00 $25.000 00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Roof Renovation 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 STORM 1 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Littoral Planting 7 135 EA $1.50 $10,702.50 SITE FURNITURE • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Bike Racks 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Potted Plants 5 EA $250.00 $1,250.00 SANDPIPER TRAM STATION TOTAL: $44,178 15% CONTINGENCY: $6,627 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $6,700 GRAND TOTAL: $57,504 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1 % North Tram Station Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 1 — May 26, 2010 $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 2 EA DEMOLITION $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 $2• $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Item Asphalt - Roadway 173 SY $8.00 $1,384.00 5 Clearing and Grubbing 340 SF $0.49 $166.60 Concrete Pavement 22 SY $12.00 $264.00 Type'D' Curb 73 LF $6.00 $438.00 Light Pole - Remove 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 �SITEWORK $48,000 Item Quantity $86,265 Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) Asphalt - Roadway 13 TN $200.00 $2,600.00 GRAND TOTAL: Concrete Pavers - Tactile 175 SF $6.00 $1,050.00 Curb - Type 'D' 150 LF $25.00 $3,750.00 High Friction Surfacing 200 SF $8.50 $1,700.00 Tram Station Structure 320 SF $70.00 $22,400.00 Concrete Slab (4" re- inforced on grade) 165 SF $9.00 $1,485.00 Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 200LF) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Shelter Enclosure Walls 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) 4 EA $2,650.00 $10,600.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative Dual Brackets 2 EA $3,590.00 $7,180.00 IMPROVEMENTS ARCHITECTURAL $4,560 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Roof Metal (Includes Demolition as Required) PLANTING 760 SF $6.00 $4,560.00 :• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Palms 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 220 EA $5.50 $1,210.00 Irrigation 220 EA $0.80 $176.00 SITE FURNITURE $14,850 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 ACCENT LIGHTING $2,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Accent Lighting 5 EA $500.00 $2,500.00 NORTH TRAM STATION TOTAL: $114,414 15% CONTINGENCY: $17,162 D" • $48,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $179,5T6 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level ) PK -3 Opinion of Probable Costs: Oakmont Park 1611 1 WilsonMiller -May 26, 2010 DEMOLITION $4.47F Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Clearing - Selective 15.000 SF $0.15 $2,250.00 Clearing and Grubbing 5.000 SF $0.35 $1,750.00 Play Equipment - Remove 2 EA $238.00 $476.00 item Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 35W MH (40' OC) Conduit for Bollards Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf Play Equipment uantity Unit Unit Cost Subtota 88 EA $1,130.00 $99,440.00 3,500 LF $13.50 $47,250.00 300 SY $4.00 $1,200.00 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 PLANTING Quantity 4 2 2 Unit EA EA EA Unit Cost $800.00 $525.00 $1,800.00 $21,950 item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Palms 10 EA $200.00 $2,000.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 1,500 SF $5.50 $8,250.00 Littoral Planting 3,000 SF $2.00 $6,000.00 Irrigation 1,500 SF $0.80 $1,200.00 i7.85C Eltem Benches Trash Cans Picnic Table Quantity 4 2 2 Unit EA EA EA Unit Cost $800.00 $525.00 $1,800.00 u total $3,200.00 $1,050.00 $3,600.00 OAKMONT PARK TOTAL: $212,166 CONTINGENCY: $31,825 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $24,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 1 1 LS LS LS $2,500.00 $20,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $20,000.00 $1,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $267,991 TI O C CL O � 0-9 3 O to a Cl) v 1611 B 1 v v v v v _ 'n m v c� oo D o m n 'O m m 5 L O w o O m 3 Z) 0 A) v O 3 0 l< CD 3 9S to O 0 CD ' O 3 CD y r* Cl l Cn O ^. O 00 � N � � -n O O n y a Cn y O 0 cn 7 n c. CD 3 CD 7 O O <D .� O O 3 a O n a CD O C Q. y v _ Co CD v o o o sy CD CD CD r a < Co -- 0 o co .C+ a 3 N C 3 O a 3 (U W -O v 0 CD CL m C = 3 a v, a �• a o o c� m CD o. m CD 0 0 c a CD -1 S 0 3 j CD 3 co vi cD 3 � - j 7 o A j CL a CD i CD d CD m cD 0 a v .� C a a CL v N D m m v y O CD N CD a c c Co m v m a = < 0D y 3 o a � (D vi j, c o O j a _ O to C N 8 O 0 ? CD 7 7 3 D OT 0 0 O 2' N j * n S 3 _ N C4 ° N o O CD 3 0 y p 3 O p CD A N O Q ^ CD 3 (D 3 `G CD lD 'D CD 0 ? O CD � O C CD 0) c m O? m m C, v O �, Z 0 0 3 o co sy O CD C) cn n0i D v O c -� c =w CD n W W tD �. j m CD 00 W m K C3 o K v v v 0) CD _. N a �p m 3 co m `� ao v aWi <° ;� c= m 9 Co co ° o CD c < a W W �, o� K CD y W a ao C 0 m K o < a W n m CD 3 Q' O G a O K O O cD Cfl C a < a< m co p) (� < CD � O m (p� ° w m °' (� cn °' n A. m° < ? 2 nF m m o < a < co � o a o N o o o W o 3 su °' D a D n v D a D a nP D a (� Q v Z o T c a 0) a� a G) 3 3 co o 0 0_ o o o m o CO �t 3 o m 0 o CD a a c a a o m y ° CD cr T or T CT 0 S 0 T o N. CD CD _ O � p D 0 ' n O U D O O O C° n � 6 Q CU S T 3 CT j N X CD CD N X OO N N a 0 cn 0 o o cn C O O O O 0 v CL a 3 a D a 0 < < < < < CN =T:3 O rn rn m K m m m m a m a m a m .D 1 O cr %u � � � � � 6� CT fH E!i 69 fA 69 b9 iii ffl 69 Efl Efl EA ffl f� fA � O W fA W ffl W EA W to W W (P V M Cn CJ) Cn 00 O U) �P CO V ff3 co O ffl O O CT W A W O p CT 00 CO CJl W CJ) N A (D N CJ) O V cn N ? V Cn IV A -� V 00 O s A co N (D O IV -I M � CD Cn " W Co N V V O Cn Cl) 000 O V -• U) O V Cl 0 -� V O W CD Cb co N m Cn N W C I N V M Cn O O O O O N Cn W O O CD O Cb O CD O W Cn W ? ?" V W O V O W M Cn O O O O O TI O C CL O � 0-9 3 O to a Cl) v N 1611 B1 v N N v N v v v m v 0 oo D z 6 n D CD d CD to o C_ to O N 3 OfD 3 C O W 3 -on '1 = O O L Q O CD O 07 � � 3 � W =r so N i� m n n 0 m a v O N 7 O 0 CD fQ CD CD T CD CD w O rr Cl S9 a Cn ffl CD Cl) ONO n O co rol O C EL O o a � o a 00 � v m m D m D D D D •p (D d 3 (D N N A N y 3 o N v CD CD 0 m o < (D a) < CD CD �, a7i <' m CD < m (D c <' CD — < fD <' CD a <' CD <? a 0 O =3 0 `n a o o 0 Cl) en < CD 3 0 0 E C CD C_ C fD C A C A O N O Q C C C O O 41 O N �? fy 3 CD =r AO cQ O s O v Q .C—. N O O M N 0 07 -p a •p a O --O •O -a0 � 0° a v CD a n cn o CL CD 0 a � 0_ -a a O. w 0 < < 3 fn CD a . -0 0 CD CD CD M < (D N CD CD CD N fD CD m 7 W 3 A Q A -0 O 3 3 A o (D .+ N .» C CD -0 0) N N 7 w 3 o o 3 S O d A f11 7 d O cn cn CD S 0 F A m d a En A CL a v a CD CD CD � CD m 3 O 3 n a m < 0 m 0) N CD 0 `< 0 m CD fll A (D A O 9 (D CD (D fD 7 fD 4 3 cn CD to .< CD O 3 < y CD CD CD O f11 (O CD 3 y 0 O CD p, 01 0 Q (n O O A N CD '^ v O O m 3 fn Oa D 0 �' m CD CD m o rn m 0) m SU F 3 fD OT O (0 `< N `< fD < O OW1 _ CO cQ O D O CD O ° 0 fy 7 O) m 0 ; W 3 CD m 3 O O m (� 'p fD —i p. 3 m p •C+ 0 =• v 3 -•. 0 N a O to -O C O CD o R� (n 3 O O o o_ 3a 0) a CD o a m 00 m g O CD Z OL A 0 3 3 W CD S < v .� O A QCD CJ7 cn 11 L. CD O O CD O O CD CL 0 N O O CD 0° ° p� g 0 O (o O (D a (D a m 0 co N v N O CD A A .A+ m s < 0 D 3 m m m m m 0 3 y api a cCDD D m m (O ;r- m m O 3o p- C s :3 0 3 3 : y a s v a m m m m mm m CD D o� m to 66 tfi fii fA ffl tq N W O cn fA fA to f» fA H9 ffl A A Ul O A O cn O N W W 00 V O Cn fA N 90 Cp N O V -+ W 00 N O fli W W O Cn W Ul W O A V fA Cn V EA CA cn 00 Ui <n cn O CA O O Cep Cn O O Cl Cl O O O O O Cl O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O Cl Co O O O _ O O O O O O O O D CD d CD to o C_ to O N 3 OfD 3 C O W 3 -on '1 = O O L Q O CD O 07 � � 3 � W =r so N i� m n n 0 m a v O N 7 O 0 CD fQ CD CD T CD CD w O rr Cl S9 a Cn ffl CD Cl) ONO n O co rol O C EL O o a � o a 00 � v W D n CD N 3 � N O v � W a CD a A N v COD CD CD w D CD CD N N 7 7 v c W co a <a 7 to O O _ c = 3 0 O C C n�i m d C<D CD CD D m a� CD 6, 0 O 7 3 N CD O N 4 CD =r c O CD 0 CD O ! N i to I v W b v CD 7 m C <' CL CD O O W 5� C CD < 7 CD y 0 0 I J No x CD N O 7 7 X X N C O n 0 m 2 m (D = (D X O c O N N N v W 0 CD 1 CD CD CD X 7 i O c 0- CD X C CD 0 0 CD Cn CD N - N N U O 0 - o C CD (1 x Q .C. CD x 7 1 O N CD 7 v 0 O O� 7 1611 B1 S v v z v v � D L -t Z ClD N v CD O x X (D r ffl D z v A A CA b0 69 aoDv D 69 69 69 m D 69 fA D CL 2 0 CL 0 < m 0 CD CD O 01 b m O c A CD 69 N Cr CO 7 CD (D CD CD a � � 7 T O 7 CD a A M a M o (Jt CD CT o A O O -+ N (A N N N N O T W n o CD A Co W Cn m 7 0 N N CD CD 7 O (D ( G 8 0 CD CD CU O 7 O CD O O N O O O N O O O 3 CL O Cl O O O 0 0 a w D CD CD N N 7 7 v c W co a <a 7 to O O _ c = 3 0 O C C n�i m d C<D CD CD D m a� CD 6, 0 O 7 3 N CD O N 4 CD =r c O CD 0 CD O ! N i to I v W b v CD 7 m C <' CL CD O O W 5� C CD < 7 CD y 0 0 I J No x CD N O 7 7 X X N C O n 0 m 2 m (D = (D X O c O N N N v W 0 CD 1 CD CD CD X 7 i O c 0- CD X C CD 0 0 CD Cn CD N - N N U O 0 - o C CD (1 x Q .C. CD x 7 1 O N CD 7 v 0 O O� 7 1611 B1 S v v z v v � D L -t Z ClD N v CD O x X (D 69 A CL CL m O CD 7 CD CD a o- m m N I 7 v CD ca O C O CL3. 7 fll. CD Cn C C 3 y CJ1 CD O y d CD CD — 0 a O N 7 S C) CD N W v cD N 0 7 1 O cr cp rr CD n O fA r. T O EL C JU � N o a 3 0 0 h D' W '[ N v O 0. 3 A3 C O 3 -on O 1 C O CL 0 _W, C 3 � - O 7 � CD y O CD 3 � W Z a► CD CD N z o _ � n o cD v N v N O 7 ffl ffl 69 ffl — 69 69 69 69 fA 69 fA 69 fA 69 -' 69 69 w b m PQ A A 69 N Cr W ffl cn W m O m V A U1 m (Jt (A CT W A co O -+ N (A N N N N O W W W A (A W O N N N CO Ul (I1 Ut O 0 0 0 8 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O 0 0 O o_ C> CD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 69 A CL CL m O CD 7 CD CD a o- m m N I 7 v CD ca O C O CL3. 7 fll. CD Cn C C 3 y CJ1 CD O y d CD CD — 0 a O N 7 S C) CD N W v cD N 0 7 1 O cr cp rr CD n O fA r. T O EL C JU � N o a 3 0 0 h D' W '[ N v O 0. 3 A3 C O 3 -on O 1 C O CL 0 _W, C 3 � - O 7 � CD y O CD 3 � W Z a► CD CD N z o _ � n o cD v N v N O 7 A v v v v v Cb CAD CD co C10 = nm6663 X CD 7 0 v CD CD N (7/1 m v v CD m m co o a) 7 0 �. co s °—' < 00 3 n W O o O 7 c CD 3 CD 7 7 3 CD N 7 (p 7 CD Q N � O CD `G CO N N N CD o 7 n m CD 7 M. CD (n z D ovo m D n v V W in m SD < N 0) 0 c O 7 N D a c z 0 CD 7 v 7 111 CD CD N 0 CD CL N 3 N D CD v CD N 0 c 0 7 D v D � C) 0 CD y a v W N v CD m m CD a� N w 7 n n lD 0 m 0 O N 0 7 CD CD D cr m 3 3 CD v CD O 0 z cn o n S CD =r co co ca CD CD CD 3 3 3 D CD 7 m CD N 0 c 0 7 N 0 0 CD Z D X v CD m o 16 1 v v v m cn v W D X D CL CL. v D CD m 7 OM 41 o CD O � C Cl) 0 c1 7 O a 0 0 v CD m w 7 7 O � O � V m w a 0 o c 7 3 n (D N CD 7 N fD N N N CD = 3 m � 7 N CL n 0) O n E o 3 7 7 c sv 0 c N N N N 3 m N CD N Q f)1 N O � = FD- 0 = c m CD CD 3 m Co sv (D SD 7 v Co CD �n v 3 m 3 C Q m a 0 c n O N 69 69 69 E9 69 csi EA W O N W A N 0 0? W Cr O N a 0 0 0 m V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v V W in m SD < N 0) 0 c O 7 N D a c z 0 CD 7 v 7 111 CD CD N 0 CD CL N 3 N D CD v CD N 0 c 0 7 D v D � C) 0 CD y a v W N v CD m m CD a� N w 7 n n lD 0 m 0 O N 0 7 CD CD D cr m 3 3 CD v CD O 0 z cn o n S CD =r co co ca CD CD CD 3 3 3 D CD 7 m CD N 0 c 0 7 N 0 0 CD Z D X v CD m o 16 1 v v v m cn v W D X D CL CL. v D CD m 7 OM 41 o CD O � C Cl) 0 c1 7 O a 0 0 v CD m w 7 7 O � O � V m w a 0 o c 7 3 n (D N CD 7 N fD N N N CD = 3 m � 7 N CL n 0) O n E o 3 7 7 c sv 0 c N N N N 3 m N CD N Q f)1 N O � = FD- 0 = c m CD CD 3 m Co sv (D SD 7 v Co CD �n v 3 m 3 C Q m a 0 c n O N u OCD � O O O 3 3 �G -n O r- 0 3 < a co O 3 3 � 3 � n 3 � M CD S N D) CD 3 S � m D CD CD U) 0 Z O y 3 O 3 AMWE m n CD CD m o CD n v v CD o N A co CD CD N N 0 a a� a 69 b9 CD A O 0 O co N e-� e-% r-i- O G EEL O 0 a 3 0 N as -o 00 �c CA v 69 69 6A �_» � 69 63 O 64 -� ->• U4 6H — 69 A 69 69 w c0 c0 O 69 Cn V c0 V 00 O CP O V O O Cn O V CO O W CO V N W CT V O O W -+ P O— O N N V W O O CT U1 0 0 0 0 O M -J O IN V W CT A -I U1 cT cT 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u OCD � O O O 3 3 �G -n O r- 0 3 < a co O 3 3 � 3 � n 3 � M CD S N D) CD 3 S � m D CD CD U) 0 Z O y 3 O 3 AMWE m n CD CD m o CD n v v CD o N A co CD CD N N 0 a a� a 69 b9 CD A O 0 O co N e-� e-% r-i- O G EEL O 0 a 3 0 N as -o 00 �c CA v LM ri 0 D r D CD v CD N O E 0 W N 161 1 1 D O cr N p1 -� ffl (A co 69 69 N p) O 69 Z 0003 O.69 D O N n .p ao ao w o M v ao O O rn 0 '0 CL o cn m O O c? = O O o O o 3 n m °° m °a 3 3 CD m d < c c CD N 5� N y CL v °c 3 3 N D O O 'a v ° n x a p Q c p o< m CD v c m ° 0 3 3 D � ° ° ' CL ° v < 3 0 m o ° a co d upi 3 , ,O O y N CL C O (D 7 (O n CD a � CD 0 ni S W o ° ° CT ( K 7 (D m 7 (p C vi a CCD N 73 v m (A n a M O 3 o_ s n O �D v Z y O 3 '0 O cr N p1 -� ffl (A co 69 69 N p) O 69 CD O , DD O— V O.69 O O N n .p ao ao w o M v ao cn O rn O w o O O o 0 o cn o O O m cn o O o o O O O o O o r* O c CL c�D .+ to oa 3 0 O y a ca CA v to o_ s n O �D v Z y O 3 Background 1611 B1 The purpose of this refined master plan effort is to advance certain outdoor public area Strategic Master Plan initiatives outlined in earlier studies commissioned by the Pelican Bay Foundation and prepare a Community - Wide Improvement Master Plan. Under the guidance of the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee and in association with the Pelican Bay N Services Division, both Owners and operators of these public area lands, this set of improvement plans and ra initiatives outlines community -wide improvements and associated opinions of costs for future implementation of projects throughout the Pelican Bay Community. The guiding principles for project identification and development set forth in the Strategic Master Plan are as follows: • Safety and Security in the Community a) • Preservation of Property Values within the Community v • Promote the Quality of Life in Pelican Bay o Q These studies and proposed improvements have been developed through an intense six month on -site working session. This has included multiple public educational meetings and a number of progress reviews with the E, ru workgroup formed by the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee and the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Ca V While these two groups are both represented by residents of the Pelican Bay Community, their charges are a more often separate and unique from one and other rather than collaborative in design and decision making as this exercise has been. Lands that both entities control are part of this study, and the common interest of both in the guiding principles above and their unique duties on the committee/board they serve has formed this workgroup and provided comprehensive direction to these results. The following eleven elements were studied and have been addressed in the plans that follow: 1. Traff ic 2. Pathways 3. Lighting 4. Landscape 5. US -41 Berm 6. Community Berm 7. Tram Stations 8. Signage 9. Parks 10. New Technologies 11. Public Art �X- n 'N► 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area j Background Text 0 1611 B 13" ® While these elements have been studied individually, more often than not, one element cannot be addressed in the community without having to consider two or three other elements at the same time. As this is the nature of community and community development, any one improvement project is often times a complexion = of many elements. However, we have endeavored to view and present projects and the opinions of cost N in a flexible and phased manner. We understand that many items beyond the control of the Community ro Leadership may affect the ability to move projects ahead or delay them where necessary at any given time in a the future. Furthermore, we understand that projects may need to be completed one piece at a time and the implementation plans represented here allow for this need too. This report is presented in a methodical order that represents the data collection, formative design studies, a preliminary conclusions and finally the implementation plans and associated opinions of cost. Implementation plans are almost always presented comprehensively by geographic area or as a typical solution. Some elements are not as readily represented as such and community -wide systems that require their own master plan for the Eelement such as lighting are developed with this recognition in mind. O Q, E Project Area Map M The Improvement Study Area is shown on the adjacent map and aerial of the Pelican Bay Community. M Pelican Bay Foundation lands, facilities and amenities are shown in green colors and symbols on this exhibit. The street ROW'S (right -of -ways) are owned by Collier County and managed by the Pelican Bay Service Division. a. The US 41 berm is a continuous and cohesive earthen landscaped berm that separates US 41 from the community with the exception of where Pelican Bay roadway interrupt the berm and intersect with US 41 at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Where not in an area of Foundation property, the berm continues to exist under the control of the specific home - owners association that is adjacent to it. The Community entry signage is shown here as a red asterisk and is one of the elements of this study. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Background Text Community Improvement Study Area I Community Plan RUN AM aJ N M a- Q N E O L Q E m i V Q� 1 _ ME ling R Q8 HJN381718a3nNbl1 d� �y0 )�J Ty H ¢0 11 1 II II i i 1 1� i { { � i 1 t i f ♦ n _ � � { 1 { t ♦ Ij 11 II ♦ 1 t / 1 { 11 11 tl l ♦ 1 11 11 { ♦ { 1 11 �1 1 ♦ 1 { 1 �} 1 1 1 1 1 1 a � e 1 1 1 +� =4 _; - - - -+ da { { { Y 4 1 , { 1 C ♦ Wa u 2 m Z O 1= 2 l7 �y 4 a Z t f - f j CC Z Y u.J N C F 0V w w i 'tnlj i � ' i I I ~ � ,,� t .� a It i I ' ♦ stns' aQ 3roadas Community Improvement Study Area I Community Plan RUN AM aJ N M a- Q N E O L Q E m i V Q� 1 _ ME ling R Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 16 111 B I In order to create an integral study of improvements and a phased implementation plan each element of the community was required to be viewed in both its individual needs and the contributing role it had on any one improvement solution. Throughout this design process, site reconnaissance was required on a regular and ongoing basis. This allowed for the complexity of the site improvement issues to unfold with time, permitted us to observe the different use habits of the residents in the community at different times of the day and evening hours and allowed for a variety of observations that mirrored the complexity of the community wide needs. The following further outlines the conclusions of community needs based on the site reconnaissance, public discussions and observations of this effort. • Increase safety and security throughout the community in lighting, landscaping, pathways, technology and traffic design applications. • Restate and reinforce the community's commitment to being a safe, walkable and mobile community through the separation of uses where the automobile /truck, bicycle, and the pedestrian activities will often vie for common space in the boulevards and facility areas. • Quality enhancement of lifestyle may be found in use of quality, long lived materials; by providing enhanced access and mobility to the community amenities and facilities; by providing a secure environment for its residents; and ensuring that probative life cycle costs do not burden the contemplated improvement. • Provide consistent application of improvements across the community in the use of materials and design solutions. • Maintain the community's strong ties with the natural environment as these continue to be green and sustainable relationships established before it was quantified and fashionable to be green. • Introduce new and forward looking sustainable practices where possible. 05/18/2010 7 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 60111 a Ln t a a. E v O E a ra m ra V N a W- aft ■_ W LA ra C a c v O Q E m V N d Nft- "01 ► Traffic Analysis 16 11 B 13 The wide boulevards of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive provide for traffic calming opportunities and better pedestrian /automobile relationships to be developed in the Community. There is a lack of consistency in the application of pedestrian /traffic design and traffic signage improvements throughout the community. Traffic volumes ebb and flow throughout the day and the four corners of the community are each a commercial land use. Specialty and evening events at the Philharmonic are immediately intensive on the local roadways and intersections. Inconsistency in the striping and markings of the crosswalks throughout the community is prominent and evident. Mid -block crosswalks are limited along Pelican Bay Boulevard and absent for almost two miles in the length where destination amenities and facilities of the Community on the west side of the road are not served by crosswalk facilities. Crosswalks do not exist at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard where the pathways lead you into the roadways at this intersection. Driver recognition of improvements and the reinforcement of driver expectation of these improvements will take some time however given the strong commitment to a walkable and safe community, the roadway improvements may be the most important functional issue and aesthetic issue to begin to interject into the community. The following are improvement goals for Traffic in the Community: • Add midblock crossings to provide identifiable pedestrian crossing and build driver expectations along the length of the boulevards that these facilities exist on a regular basis. • Build crosswalks where existing pathways lead from the road side to curb cuts at the edges of travel lanes and no crosswalk exists. • Improve sight lines within the roadway areas and medians in order to better observe other traffic and the pedestrian facilities. • Eliminate obstructive landscape and median grades in favor of pedestrian and driver sight lines. • Build crosswalks from brick materials that contrast with the asphalt that surround them. • Add a wide band of split face pavers from curb line to curb line that form a framework for the crosswalk finish and pattern. • Use of reflective pavement markings (RPM'S) in both boulevards skip striping and at median end nosings as required by the Collier County departments and State are recommended in the roadway facilities. • Total traffic solution plans must include adjustments to lighting and signage; curb lines, pathways, landscape and sight line recommendations throughout the length of the roadways. • Continue to work with the Collier County Sherriff Department in street improvement applications. • The Collier County Transportation Department encourages consideration of use within the auspices of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans traffic calming techniques such as roundabouts, connectivity to the County pathways (in the County wide pathways master plan as a missing link) and transportation systems on US -41, signing and advanced warning techniques or devices and lane width reductions to include bike lanes as exhibited on other boulevard type roadways within the County at Vineyards Boulevard and Bayshore Drive. Although not a County law, Collier County supports the incorporation of bike lanes where feasible in new construction or resurfacing of roadways. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Pathways Analysis 1611 B 4 The pathways are an original design element that date to the inception and creation of the Pelican Bay Community. While the community is large in land area, the five foot pathways that connect the developed community of almost 6,500 homes and the variety of uses placed on the pathways render some of these areas as undersized at this time. Interestingly enough, the wider 8 foot path portion of the system we found was the dead end pathway on the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the intersection at US -41 to Ridgewood Drive. Residents and guests jog, bike, roller blade and participate in a variety of walking activities with friends and pets on the pathway system throughout the day. Given that it is a well known use demographic that the number one recreation activity for the last twenty years or more has been walking in communities like Pelican Bay and that the interest in personal health and exercise is as strong as ever, these facilities should be planned for phased widened in order to best serve the wide interests of the residents. M1 The following are improvement goals for the Community Pathways: • Pathways widths should be a maximum of 8 feet wide and no less than 5 feet wide throughout the community. • ADA issues must be addressed in the community pathway systems; improvements to be made are most often found at intersections or in cross slopes of the pathways. • The pathways are to be brought current to today's public development standards and codes that did not exist at the time of their original installation. • Promotion of pervious options (sand set pavers /pervious asphalt sections) for storm water percolation in drive and walkway areas should always be considered. • Dimension and space for dedicated bike ways and bike lanes within the existing roadways of the community exists and should be preserved for future implementation for mobility, alternative transportation and traffic calming purposes. • Pathway systems need to provide unique interest, resting, learning and social opportunities as they are used; examples of this includes distance markings in the paths, botanical and common names of plants along the way, public artwork, shaded bench locations to include trash receptacles, dog litter stations, bike racks, overlooks to long views of golf or community, emergency call stations. • Expand and mark jogging trails by name and distance for community mapping and distribution for all 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview HOW v a v E v O Q E A 00 C M v "0► 1611 B13 Foundation Association users and guests. Distance marking such as is presently done on the community berm can be expanded to the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard and the lopp from Pelican Bay Boulevard _ to Gulf Park Drive to Ridgeway Drive. • Coordinate way finding signage and bollard lighting improvements with the pathway improvements. • Pathways run into the back of elevated curb and gutters creating a step at street intersections rather than a sloped ramp to crosswalk condition. Widen the recessed concrete curb and gutter to allow for full width of passage of the pathway. • Textured ADA warning landings are worn out at pathway and street connections and should be renovated M _M to current standards. °- • Remove overhanging tree limbs adjacent to the paths that create a potential hazard for bikers and walkers. +.J • Remove material differential and tree root trip hazards; replace materials for flush conditions and root prune and install root barriers per Collier County codes. v O Q E A r� m v a 1 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Lighting Analysis 1611 B 13 Lighting changes will provide the most dramatic effect within the Community. They will define how Pelican Bay is used after dusk and how the community is perceived in the day time and evening hours. This element has the best opportunity to be understood from a cost benefit payback scenario. It cannot be overstated that lighting is a primary element of functional and aesthetic concern within the community. The following are improvement goals for the Lighting in the Community: • Replace the mercury ballast driven, Metal Halide lamps in the street lighting system with sustainable and more efficient lighting technologies. • Improve light level delivery to the roadways and path systems by adding lights, trimming landscapes, relocating fixtures and replacing the existing technology. • Improve landscape lighting for pathways and plant materials in the community. • Current and future technologies for lighting in the community are to consider solar power sources and LED (light emitting diodes) technologies. • Landscape lighting at the community's entries that better illuminate signage and landscape features is recommended. • A purposeful higher delivery of lighting levels at traffic calming locations and mid -block pedestrian crosswalks is suggested. • Light pole relocation or redistribution in some areas may in fact better distribute light and remove conflicts of lights from mature vegetation. • Light poles should be considered as an aesthetic as well as functional choice throughout the community including the addition of banner arms, outdoor power for maintenance or holiday decorations. • Light pole aesthetics should emulate the fluted sign post detail of the existing street signs. (Establishing a family color for street furnishings at this time is important, the patina green color of the sign posts and mailboxes is an apparent choice — an alternative and classic color to move to for all street elements would be black requiring repainting of the sign posts and mail boxes in the future.) • Maintain /enhance sustainable practices such as Dark Sky criteria through the use of full cut -off luminaires. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview a� ra a c a O E v O Q. E m C v Landscape Analysis ` 11 B 13 Ill The landscape, canopy cover, natural preserves, bays and beach amenities of the Pelican Bay community are a tremendous asset. These are one of the community's strongest selling points and often the remembered experience of those who visit and live within Pelican Bay. This remains a strong natural asset and a visual cue to the relationship of this community with its natural surroundings. The following are improvement goals for the Landscape and Irrigation in the Community: • Establish a street landscape plan that develops the landscape in a layered fashion with the tallest material to the background. • Replace sod and sod area spray irrigation along preserves, along portions of the lake edges and in the last 200 feet of the road median nosings. • Establish a predominantly native plant material plant list for common use by the Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division in their operations and maintenance activities. • Replace or trim landscape that interrupts sight lines in park and traffic areas for purposes of visual inspection, a CPTED principle and the recognition of traffic operations at intersections. • Add or replace missing street trees in the residential neighborhoods where lengths of roadway and sidewalk are not landscaped with canopy trees. • Promote Best Management Practices for watering, fertilization and maintenance practices. • Establish succession landscape planting programs with coordinated irrigation system delivery improvements. • Plant materials should be drought tolerant when established, grow in the coastal and near coastal environment of the community and where possible, native plants should be considered for use first before non - native plants. • We recommend a site walk once a week into different areas of the community to observe community maintenance and operations needs on foot. This should be coordinated between representatives of both the Foundation and Services Division and conducted in unison. • Landscape, lighting and pathways that lead into the community are the first impression of the community, they should be designed to and maintained at exceptional standards. • Replace sod under Sabal Palm clusters at median nosings with low growing groundcover and review palm clusters for replacement due to sight visibility conflicts. • Develop canopy tree clusters with color and new tree and palm materials to include massings of shrub beds in the boulevards. • Coordination of Landscape and maintenance activities with HOA Associations is a must. • Introduce limited palette of accent trees for selective enhancement of roadway /pathway experiences including: Poinciana, Geiger Trees, Gumbo Limbo, Cassia, Pink Tabebuia, Holly and Cypress. • Review the potential for addition of littoral /phyto planting along lake edges. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview US -41 Berm Analysis 1611 B13 The US -41 berm provides provides two solutions along its length to security and sound attenuation issues; landscape massing is a common response with openings and hiding areas within it and a five foot concrete board slated fence is used along about 30 percent of its length which is easily mounted and in some disrepair in areas. The berm height relative to the US -41 roadway and development inside the community rises and falls with the development grades and contours of both. When the project was originally conceived and built, US- 41 was an important and local two lane roadway; while it was the primary roadway connection to Ft. Myers and the balance of the west coast of Florida, its traffic volumes and relative relationship to the community was very different. Given the booming growth of the area since the projects inception and the known Collier County master plans to add a public pathway along US -41 in the right -of -way in the future, additional support to its intended security and sound qualities is recommended. The following are improvement goals for the US -41 Berm improvements in the Community: • Provide continuous application of berm physical security and community edge wall solutions along the US- 41 berm to return into the community entry areas along the road rights of ways for a distance from 150 to 300 feet depending on each entry condition. • Include private association lands along the US -41 edge within the community for common solutions of enhanced berm landscape and physical wall improvements. • Provide landscape enhancements at the community entries and the berm to eliminate hiding places in the voids of the landscape massing as found in many areas of this edge including the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry area. • Fence lines and walls up to a minimum of 8 feet in height are recommended for consideration for security purposes — continue to monitor the LDC amendments currently in review for development code additions of security and highway noise abatement walls. • An 8' height precast panel wall is recommended for the length of the berm. The base pier dimension provides for a ledger 24" above existing soil to set the wall panels on between the columns. Backfilling to wall panel base at a 2.5:1 slope with landscape will allow for more height. Paint final wall and column assembly with two coats of textured exterior grade paint. Paint additive to be vermiculite or similar. • Include fountains, lake water features, low volume remote music or other white noise technologies in the parks and lakes along the US -41 berm to effect sound attenuation and a more inviting park environment. • CPTED principles of safety and security should always be considered primary design and improvement program elements of community security and noise abatement from US -41. • Community education of reporting undesirable and security incidents along the US -41 berm is critical to long term community success and understanding of safety and security measures. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 11 a� Ln cc a c6 a aJ a� O E m C V a� a ® Community Berm Analysis 1 8131 W Ln C rp a v 0 E a M r13 V N d r� The Community Berm and Boardwalks may be the most used of the facilities and have at peek times the highest concentration of residential users on them. Improvements throughout the two mile length of the berm must consider carefully use patterns and beach access to include an improvement areas proximity and crossings of Clam Bay to the Beach and the adjacency to preserve and water management areas and the habitat, flora and fauna encountered. Beyond this, interruption of Food and Beverage services, trash hauling and emergency access to the beach facilities should be maintained at all times. The following are improvement goals for the Community Berm improvements: • Improvements should endeavor not to require environmental permitting or mitigation for their efforts and therefore should stay within the built footprint, require limited Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permitting and /or stay within the standing permit requirements entitled Pelican Bay. • Continuous operational needs and characteristics should be part of the phased improvement planning for any additions to the community berm. • All improvements shall occur within the foot print of the berm and boardwalk structures as they exist today and be sympathetic to not cause influence to wetland or preserve areas to the greatest extent possible. • Coordinate improvements to the extent possible to support the infrastructure of the berm relative to water management and where possible, hide undesirable views to infrastructure or other water management devices. • Landscape solutions should reduce berm side slope maintenance requirements and return and blend edges naturally back to the surrounding environment. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1611 913 • Use of sustainable, naturally resistant or recycled products in this area is highly encouraged. • Consider highlighting the location of the existing southern berm access point at Glenview Place. Tram services will be reviewed along with the expansion of this point for pedestrian access and tram service. • Berm pathway widening is not encouraged as the existing width assists with controlled speeds and — contributes to the good neighbor, considerate use of the path and boardwalks in this system. • Pedestrian only zones that include rest areas and overlooks should be added to this facility. a • Reducing the visual prominence and "hiding" storm water control structures is encouraged by including the structures in the rest areas and overlook improvements and the accompanying landscape _ improvements of the berm. C • Provide additional exotic vegetation maintenance along east side of berm /pathway. a • Install only native plantings on the berm for added interest in the user experience, encourage shore birds a and wading birds to inhabit the area and to conceal rip -rap and water management structures. • Construct cantilevered look -out platforms that do not impact the preserve or the mangrove forested > wetland areas. p • Add educational bird signage at existing look -out on south boardwalk area where numerous shore birds/ 0- E wading birds are typically observed. • Add educational signage regarding benefits of native vegetation. • Install bird houses and osprey platforms to attract inhabitant birds. m • Reduce the amount of sod and replace non - native and ornamental plant material with native plant ro material within berm areas. U v CL Note: Modifications made to the berm may require that the slopes adjacent to the preserve area are planted with 100 % native vegetation (in order to meet setbacks per Section 3.05.07.H.3 of the County Land Development Code). The Pelican Bay Improvement Water Management Plan shows an 8' drainage Swale along the west side of the berm. The area east of the berm is not considered a preserve but a detention area. 0 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview m Tram Stations Analysis 'I � 111 16 � v s a c r6 +.J E a� 0 E a r� m c6 v v .' The tram stations are as much an opportunity to develop short term social centers as they are for the movement and transport to and from the beach and beachfront restaurant facilities. These facilities should be unified in their architectural character and use of site furnishings, have the physical room to accept embarking and disembarking passengers, and continue to serve as points of Community news and events. Along with the resident card system controls, these stations avail a higher level of security and safety technology applications as well with the addition of emergency call buttons and other security elements as they not only serve as trail heads but are often in close proximity to the major pathways and streets of the community. The following are improvement goals for the Community Tram Station improvements: • Name the Tram locations using unique and individual names representative of the Community and in association with a near -by natural namesake rather than simply station numbers. (Because Sand Piper is well known, it may not be desirable to change this name and consider shore -bird and wading- bird names for each of the stations, for example: Osprey, Blue Heron, Egret, Ibis). • The North Tram Station site has been improved with very good results. Tram station improvements of additional roof cover to the north, a quality selection of site furnishings and Community message boards is recommended. • The Commons provides a unique opportunity for improvement in moving the tram services away from the back of house and loading dock activities and include the addition of dedicated pathways for pedestrians across the site. • Reallocation of Foundation office uses may allow long term reorganization of the site around the tennis facility and separate guest/resident traffic from service and employee traffic. • Relocation of the trash compactors, dumpsters, tennis clay shed and tank farm structures may also allow for the reuse of these upland areas • Architectural compatibility between Tram Station structures and the Commons building is recommended including the use of standing seam metal roofing as outlined in the Sustainability Report produced by Twenty- Fifty. • Station roofing appears to be at its life cycle limits; replace roofing, repair wood rot and other degradation of soffits, trusses or exposed beams and repaint. • Community berm observation and seating areas should reflect the architectural character of the Tram Station improvements in finish and furnishings. • The addition of native trees and palms at the Tram Stations marks the trail head as a prominent location in the community boardwalk system. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Signage Analysis B13 The signage of the community is limited in its use which can be positive so as to not add visual clutter to the environment by over signing. However it is often hard to read, and it dates the community and can be improved. The entry monumentation is a first impression of the community and while understated in nature, its colors, texture of materials, scale of elements that make up the sign and general appearance relates little to the balance of the community signage. Improvements that provide a consistent background and graphic image, a family hierarchy of signs and legible message for each sign face is important. The following are improvement goals for the Community Signage improvements: • Material and color modifications of the existing community entry and identity signs is recommended to provide a timeless and understated elegance to the entry areas — this should be done in concert with landscape, traffic, lighting and security improvements as a unified solution. • The size and area requirements of the signage by Collier County code is considered sufficient at this time to create a signage package for the community and its tenants where their brands are included so as to provide a quality and consistent backdrop for both Community identity and brands. • Establish design guidelines or covenants that identify entry monuments, way finding, regulatory signage, banners, flags and commercial advertisement of the community. • The continued use of the fluted sign posts and sign backer boards is encouraged in the community traffic regulatory needs. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview a Un r6 CL C r6 a C 0 E a� 0 0_ E a ra M C v v a ��k :1:6] v s a c v E v 0 E a c6 m v v a Li Parks Analysis 1611 1813 One of the greatest assets next to the beach within Pelican Bay is the open spaces and natural areas of the community. The open spaces and parks are peaceful and have a variety of natural landscape settings that invite wildlife into the community and offer a context of respite. There are a number of CPTED principles that are violated by the current conditions of the parks and we encourage park upgrades to specifically address the issues of safety and security as well as consider the programming of the parks uses for future flexibility of the users. The following are improvement goals for the Parks and open spaces of the Community: • Parks should include elements of passive and active recreation; these areas should not conflict with one and other. • Adhere to and implement CPTED principles in park renovations and ongoing operations and maintenance for passive territorial inspection of these common community lands. • Consider future programming of the park areas to include Wi -Fi access for internet and intranet community interaction, interactive play areas for children and general social and recreational interaction in the park areas. • Add Art to the parks and open spaces in the community. • Park areas should be able to support programmed community classes in art, drawing, photography, outdoor yoga, community fresh cut flower garden, gardening and horticultural classes, etc. • Parks and open spaces should be inviting to wildlife to animate and live in the community. • Add water fountains and features to provide interest, white noise and improve water quality within the lakes of the parks. • Include play equipment for a variety of physical activities for children of multiple ages. • Provide mile markers on park walkways to enable users to track miles traveled. • Add informative signage identifying plants, natural settings, flora and fauna of the community - consider expanding informative community sessions to interactive cell phone recordings or other digital recording technologies available to personal electronic devices. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview I New Technologies Analysis 1611 813 We have explored the variety of new technologies that are available to be brought to the community for life quality, safety and security improvements. We have met with the Collier County Sherriff's office to understand their own observations that point to community needs. • Video Security /Surveillance Technology — Video security can be both a defense and a deterrent. Several technol- ogies exist — from CCTV and Web Cameras, to the latest wireless IP Camera technology. An IP Camera acts like a computer on a network, allowing you to view its video feed from anywhere in your network or over the Internet and the capability to record information digitally with superior resolution. • Security Lighting Technology — Lighting is a valuable tool that can increase security and maintain a perceived level of safety. It can be used to define spaces, guide people and provide sufficient illumination to deter poten- tial unwanted activities. Lighting for security or safety does not imply bright lighting. Instant -on motion detect- ing, dusk -to -dawn photocell, dual -level (low level /full bright) motion sensing and low level continuous illumina- tion are all a means of achieving the goal of a safe and comfortable area. Concealed security camera can contribute to community theming and security - Saratoga, NY Motion - sensitive lighting can define pedestrian paths at night, appropriately adjusting illumination as needed., Digital display screens can provide captive audiences at tram stations with the most current news and special events. User Identification Technology — this has recently been implemented by the Foundation through the issuance of resident identification cards. These card technologies have the ability to allow access and for immediate recog- nition at attended facility areas. • Multifunctional Tower Call Box & Security Cameras The primary use of tower emergency call box systems is to provide immediate help to those who need it. The secondary use is to effectively facilitate the documentation of an incident as it happens. Locations such as public venues, parking facilities, college campuses, medical centers and industrial parks place call box systems for their patrons. Within Pelican Bay, we suggest considering a reasonable application of emergency call box towers to the following locations: • within remote public locations not readily available by security, police or rescue vehicles • in high volume public areas such as tram stations, community centers and sports facilities • at selected parks and beach areas 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 17 �'1 v Ln C a. C a) E O Q E M C M Y a *8 f�► v C r6 a v E v 0 CL E a m c c� u N a Public Art Analysis 1 611 y � We recommend a Heritage Landscape and Public Arts Program and leadership committee be established by the Foundation in order to prepare standards and manage guidelines that further preserve and enrich the environment of the Community through the addition of public art. By enhancing the community's visual character through the addition of public art, Pelican Bay's rich community heritage and brand of a sustainable relationship with nature is celebrated. The purposes of promoting art in the public domain as part of a community heritage are mutually beneficial. These common efforts acknowledge the vitality of a community and commemorate common values within; it preserves and promotes the history of a place contributing to the general welfare and quality of life of the community. Art and landscape have the power to enhance the economic vitality of a community identifying it as a premiere destination, enhancing real estate values and providing recognition of community quality and pride in the market place. We strongly believe that there exist places in the community that would be receptive to public arts now and in the future. The master plan that identifies these areas is found in the Public Art section. In the State of Florida, the Division of Cultural Affairs maintains a web site and provides assistance to those who are interested in establishing Public Art Programs. Also referenced on the Division of Cultural Affairs web site is a number of other domestic as well as international resources for similar purpose and programming. The Division of Cultural Affairs web site for the State of Florida is: http://www.florida-arts.org/resources/publicartresources.htm The address is: Division of Cultural Affairs R.A. Gray Building, 3rd Floor 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 Phone: 850.245.6470 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview n 0 3 3 C 0 rD rD r+ N C Q. D n 0 3 c 0 `G v WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 150 SEAGATE DR N / \ sO \♦ • li 1 ®1 1 0 ♦ sI n ♦ 1 1 1 N m v, � � n m , z � i W< z z Gl v � D z o D O D r Ll m A O 1 I I I 1 i 1 1 D � I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i � m a 1 1 i 1 1 1' 11 11 \ \ \ \ \ I' I' II II 1 1 i 1 II 1 1 �1 11 11 I I� SZ �2 KA II �I 1 ♦ I I II E y \ I I I \ 1 y I I I z � I I 1 1 1 1 \ � I \ 1 I' i 1, I 1� n II sc 3A II yz � 4 e94 C�! 02 A f �9 �ANDERSILT BEACH RD WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 150 1611 m Project Improvement Plan Introduction The Pelican Bay Community Improvement plan is a community wide endeavor of which there are UJI a variety of improvements to be implemented. The application of these improvements across the community can be by individual element, system or need such as street lighting; they can be site or Ln area specific such as our recommendations for the Commons reorganization or they are identified as M complete projects including many elements of the master plan improvement efforts. CL The following project improvement plan provides a composite master key plan of each of these types of conditions above and demonstrates well the potential community wide influence of the entire 1 2 improvement works. This plan is intended to be instituted over time, phased with fiscal care and responsibility. There is a mutual benefit to The Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division to implement these improvements in concert with each other and as seamlessly as possible. The Composite Master Plan legend describes the symbols and elements of the larger plan as they a) o are distributed through the community. The numerically boxed in areas reference larger plan area improvements that follow in this section providing a geographic map of the location of each of these E larger project areas. The boxed in letters represent computer graphic images also in this section of existing conditions and proposed improvements developed at each of these locations. co Beyond this section of the report are the Project Element Plans and Improvement Recommendations M set forth by element of the community. Specific improvement statements and material finishes U are established and accompanying budgetary pricing information is provided. This will allow The a Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division to plan for the phased implementation of these projects and tasks through time. At the back of this report is the detailed Opinions of Cost that the project cost estimates have been built from. These detailed estimates represent an opinion of cost prior to the creation of final detailed design documents that would be submitted for construction permit, tendered for contractor pricing and provide the detailed information to implement these projects. This Improvement Master Plan purposefully stopped at the door step of this level of detail as we cannot predict construction detailing requirements or construction price adjustments into the distant future. As this is a road map to that future, these costs and programs for project specific improvements will be reviewed again in the normal sequence of the design and construction process. Lastly, a separate Appendix is provided to establish the bibliography, community feedback, supporting documentation provided by the Collier County Sheriff's Office that we reviewed with the work group and received from the community throughout the duration of these efforts. 05/18/2010 11 0 3 0 C 3 7 n O 0 N N (D O N !n INilsgnMiller SEAGATE DR. o� • LAUREL OAK DR. * f • o O �p f----- - - - - -- 1 � �� I 1 � Q I PELICAN BAY BVLD,. 1 IN I is 1 Aft - - - - - - - - - - - nn O I 1 {;J I ! 'I I n I II 1nn I it . � i I I I � ! I fi I i I ft • 111 I IA I A 00 o, ------ - - - - -, * I ^ I 1 II I I ^ I 1 tl ^ I I II 1 1 I 1 1 -� N - ------ -- - -� . I I n GULF PARK DR. I A i (j i MATCHLINE U--- --- -� - - -- U s Pelican Bay Improvement Plan ii Z O W �i a 0 1 IEW 1 I I 1 I I I I I I ! I -------- - --- I� C I GULF PARK DIL +� I Q I I L----------- Y\ i I t 1 I t t I i i i 1 I I 1 1 \ I 1 i I 1 1 1 I 1 r 1 r t r r r r O o o m A ? o 0 7 z D - a N z D NA m: Z v7 r L =>r;3 ®j 3 m n yo $ =c O. yZy a = =0! Z ; > 7 Qo P m W mo �p 0 0 c � D S n0000mg Dr my DD X N ^�OC�XO y��evA 3 mHW� 0 zmiw j nApy m m C 0 m I I I I � � I r I r I r I 1 , I i t 1 •----- - - - - -t d r i1 1 1 I 1 I j I / j /I I I f I - --,,! I 0 n 0 3 3 c 3 0 3 CD n 0 3 0 rm v rm v D r rD v z 0 WilsgnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 - -- — � --- - - - - -� . — ., :.. • \/|§ E/' Community Improvement !s& Area Proposed Cond _ morns Boulevard Sou a Community Entry � �y � } \ E \ § � \ 2 � ► � � 1611 ~ 2 �( \, \ . a \/|§ E/' Community Improvement !s& Area Proposed Cond _ morns Boulevard Sou a Community Entry � �y � } \ E \ § � \ 2 � ► � � 1611 ~ a s 5Qa 3 d Q -a a k !z ig g �a F Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry 3° QG W� oa =� �a L�� o�g s =i= 16 1 R g Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay North Community Entry r- v v 0 A a m n V N d Am. 1611,. g13 V) ru a c W E v 0 L CL E m v a C r a� �o �Y 03 �� 02 m 0 6 riRiC,C =7► li :t Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions North Tram Station Area 161jP "B13 : ' ISAVO t \ , ° §; | ■- { � ! /// : } \ \ � \ }\ � { _ Ro _ . - < \ §)§ � MR » 3 � I Community Improvement Study Area Peps Conditions » Raphael Bea am! � m N ai s CL c Y a) C� C i O L E fu M r- U d ON F61 Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Sandpiper Tram Stations Improvement Study Area Plan & Existing Images 1611 R13` ej y 4, z �. 4 •l."4 s f 6 Wi „z �. tom-:. 1 Z' 2 „ r Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditior The Commor 01 c a c v E O I m C a W �e 1611181:? � � \ CL c 2 � { \ E � c S 2 : |'! 1221 §M § | §§ \ )). f (| ; ! r :,• !-|! .| ;� -- Ins 312 . !! ,. � 6 , , :,■ §§ ' � ) §] | §§ | §) | | | |� ||! ! 8] Community Improvement sA Area I Proposed Conditions A#m2 +k 2122 |! 161�1 .B13 v N S d C CL C v E N 0 0- _E A m C v a �0 3�FP F a o�a EE g ti g C Fil Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive & Ridgewood Drive Intersection 1611113 CL a c CU E v O CL E a ro M c u N a aft ts 4 aN vW i 10 Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard & Gulf Park Drive Intersection -ol 1611 E13 0 \i z z - a 3 W r Q \\ mS No z O ZQW a 0 �Z�Ea Om ' v! a W i 3z z� u� 5" z� op og wW a �v z zm z c� xgx g a3 J3 ZQa °3 �a W; z 602 d � m z a z s � a a � 0 5 s x 0 W �3 30� 8, z�a Wiz jo< 11 Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Oakmont Park Area c R d 4� c a, E 0 0. E M m c a 161; 91 i Y E E A Ca C U a V Perimeter Sound / Security Improvement Study Area I Perimeter Wall Study Naples Grande & Serendipity v L v~ �v E� 0 v� .L . a 0 Lo E- Eo T N a0 C N � U LT L L 7F m � m m p d `2 W �o b ° L v o � v u v _ Q o � -O 3v v 3 o � a a s N aL p v L L �t v a O1 v v v�L v v •� o v � u y v .L- v � a L v - 1611 B1 i 0 Before After Headwall at Crayton Road lake leading to channel along Heron Point Drive — Addition of headwall screening, grate cover for safety and lake littoral planting Before After Swale along Heron Point Drive looking west —Add channel diversions and littoral plants to further filter runoff — Engineering review should be conducted for water flow and holding capacity Community Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After v N r0 L a G f6 d C N E N 0 Q E a m c v d S B1% v t a C _N d C E Q >_ T m c v a IM-1 Before After Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. at connection to Waterside Shops looking north — Establishment of territorial reinforcement and enhance entry aesthetics US -- ' ;ate f • � wit Before After Pathway along west side of Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. looking south — Open views to pathway and add low level lighting for safety and security Community Improvement Study Area I Before and After a Before After Entry columns at intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive Before After Ridgewood Drive streetscape — Additional street trees within gaps will add to aesthetics, environment, pathway shade, and has traffic calming effect Community Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After a 0 M ..r- CL n3 Y Q) c� C O Q E a 00 m c v o_ 01, NIN s s a C n3 a c v v 0 n. E a M M c u o_ s, r , Before After Public R.O.W. median endings — Review existing tree locations for sight visibility, replace sod with low, drought tolerant groundcovers; accentuate prominent locations with flowering trees and low color plantings 190 Before After Utility screening along Pelican Bay Boulevard — Viburnum hedge is replaced with thinner 'green screen' wall (vines on wire mesh grid) allowing for widening of pathway; utilities are screened with fence gates while allowing access Community Improvement Study Area I Before and After Before After Green Tree Drive streetscape — Add canopy trees along north end of street for pathway shade and unity with canopy streetscape along southern end Before After Oakmont Parkway hedge — Street trees will add to aesthetics, environment and break up hedge view Community Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After 38 OR a c v E Q; 0 a _E a ro M c M u d 1611 B13 B13 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan - Traffic 1 Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in may 2010 6 1 construction rates). _ N D1 -A: Provide consistent signing, marking and use of RPM'S for roadways throughout the community. u, t a Proposed Improvement: Install reflective pavement markings (RPM'S) in the center line — skip striping of Gulf Park Drive and replace the missing RPM's in Pelican Bay Boulevard (estimated 235 RPM'S). CL Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 800 v Alternative solution: This is a roadway maintenance item. E a� Phasing: This work should be done at one time. Q Sequencing: This work requires maintenance from time to time to replace RPM's that E break away from the pavement. We suggest that the center line skip striping be done at the same time that the entire community is reviewed for missing blue fire hydrant m RPM's. Whenever pavement resurfacing occurs new pavement striping, markings and C RPM's are to be included in the work. v D1 -B: Install yellow RPM's on the asphalt at the base of the curbing of all the median bull noses a throughout the community for better visual identification of turning movements and lane demarcation at night (estimated 2,178 RPM'S). Proposed Improvement: Install yellow RPM'S only on the asphalt at the base of curb lines at all median nosings - do not paint curb line or asphalt yellow. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 7,300 Alternative solution: This is a roadway maintenance item. Phasing: This work should be done at one time. Sequencing: This work requires maintenance from time to time to replace RPM'S that break away from the pavement. We suggest that this work be done with the center line skip striping and while the entire community is reviewed for missing blue fire hydrant RPM'S. Whenever pavement resurfacing occurs new pavement striping, markings and RPM'S are to be included in the work. D1 -C: Relocate to the north and re- construct the deceleration lane and realigned curb cut to access the North Tram Station parking lot from north bound Pelican Bay Boulevard traffic. Proposed Improvement: Replace the original curb line in Pelican Bay Boulevard with a 'L new curb line and drive access that is in alignment with the new parking lot drive way access, keeps the crosswalk in its current location and provides for landscape removal for improved sight line distance (reference Crosswalk Sheet #11). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 164,500 05/18/2010 B13 110 1 Alternative solutions: 1. Close the current vehicular median turn lane and return it to landscape while v maintaining the existing crosswalk location. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 182,000 L 2. Maintain the current vehicular median turn lane but remove landscape for better lines of sight. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 5,700 a C Phasing: This is a one time project and based on the Owners chosen solution should be C (U done all at once. v Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement Q projects for mid -block crosswalks and the North Tram Station improvements including street lighting and landscape improvements in the median. roD1 -D: Install consistently finished, signed and marked existing and proposed crosswalks in the community (9 intersections; reference Intersection Crosswalk Layout plans; refer to D1 -E for mid -block C crosswalks). ro U a Proposed Improvement: Install monolithic concrete base and 12" header curb each side of cross walk to receive mud set clay brick crosswalks in a herringbone field pattern and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters including all associated signing and ADA compatible connections. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 817,000 Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with color concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 742,500 2. Install thermoplastic paint in a high visibility piano key striping pattern for all existing and proposed crosswalk locations in the community. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 289,500 Phasing: These projects can be phased however we suggest that little phasing or time passes between beginning and completing the work. We suggest that a reasonable phasing would be to improve the crosswalks south of Gulf Park Drive in one year and improve the balance of the crosswalks north of Gulf Park Drive in the next year. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement projects or should be considered to be part of the pathway, signage and ADA ramping improvements. D1 -E: Install mid -block crosswalks in Pelican Bay Boulevard at Community Amenity Destination points (5 locations; reference Mid -block Crosswalk Location plan). 05/18/2010 16 ITIB1 3 L•� Proposed Improvement: Install mud set clay brick crosswalks on a monolithic base with 12" header bands to match DI -D above and includes walk split n face stone band edge inside the header band at both sides of the cross walk as an upgrade to these five UiJ 161 crosswalk locations including all associated signing and ADA compatible connections. — — Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 263,000 v0 w t Alternative solutions: a 1. Same as proposed improvement, but do not include the cobble stone band edge with the clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 220,000 a 2. Same as proposed improvement, but install precast colored concrete pavers in lieu C aa) of clay brick as noted above. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 247,500 > O L 3. Same as alternative solution #2, but do not include the cobble stone band edge Q' E with the colored concrete pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 204,500 �I m 4. Install only Thermoplastic paint in a high visibility piano key striping pattern. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 115,300 CID Phasing: These projects can be phased however we suggest that little phasing or time d passes between beginning and completing the work. We suggest that a reasonable phasing would be to improve the mid -block crosswalks that may be done in part of area wide improvements such as the North Tram Station or the St. Raphael beach access lighting project. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement projects or should be considered to be part of the pathway, signage and ADA ramping improvements. D1 -F: Install fields of clay brick pavement in the major community intersection areas. Patterns should be artful and aesthetically pleasing, serve as announcement of entry and primary intersections within the community and assist on the ground -plane by expressing the expected turning movements around adjacent street medians (reference Intersection Treatment Alternatives this section) Proposed Improvement: Install sand set clay brick pavers in the field areas between the crosswalks in the street intersections of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard and Oakmont Parkway /Extension and Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 536,000 Alternative solutions: L Install sand set colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers in conjunction with colored concrete paver crosswalks in the intersection field areas noted above. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 496,500 05/18/2010 L•� ® 2. Install stamped concrete pavement and exposed aggregate colored concrete in the intersection field areas with clay brick paver crosswalks. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 549,500 ro v Phasing: This work can be phased by whole intersection field areas. s a Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk improvements in these intersections. ra CL D1 -G: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the three roadway entries into Pelican Bay from US 41 c at Pelican Bay Boulevard north and south as well as Gulf Park Drive (reference pages 19, 20 and 21 v under the Project Improvement Plan section Q. E v Proposed Improvement: Install 12" header curb between the valley gutters each side of Q the pavement area to receive sand set clay brick pavement in a herringbone field pattern E and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters for a length of up — to 150 feet. M Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 463,000 ro Alternative solutions: v a 1. Same as proposed improvement but with colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers, Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 429,000 Phasing: These projects can be phased by individual location however we suggest that consideration of the installation of an intersection field area noted in Dl -F above would also include the installation of the corresponding US -41 entry drive area improvement in D 1 -G too. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other Community entry specific area improvement projects for landscape, lighting and signage. D1 -H: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the roadway entries in to the single family neighborhoods where intersection improvements noted in D1 -F aboveare not suggested (2 locations, Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive/ Gulf Park Drive and Green Tree Drive). Proposed Improvement: Install 12" header curb between the valley gutters each side of the pavement area to receive sand set clay brick pavement in a herringbone field pattern and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters for a length of up to 50 feet behind any cross walk improvement. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 52,600 Alternative solutions: gift- 1. Same as proposed improvement but with colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 48,900 05/18/2010 1611 B13 :611 B13"' Phasing: These projects can be phased by individual location however we suggest that consideration of the installation of an intersection field area noted in DI -F above would LSiii also include the installation of the corresponding US -41 entry drive area improvement in _ D1 -G too. _ N Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other residential area entry specific ro , area improvement projects for landscape, lighting and signage. d Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: The addition of a four foot bike lane in accordance with FDOT policy as delivered through its Plans and CL +� Preparation Manual and through the Collier County MPO Policies and Resolutions within the existing N asphalt cross section of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive is recommended to be implemented at the next resurfacing of these roadways. This remarking and restriping is to occur at the time of the > next resurfacing of each street and provide for two ten foot automobile travel lanes and one four foot 0 bicycle lane in each direction unless otherwise deemed unjustified through the variance process. Q- E Although not a County law, Collier County highly recommends incorporation of bike lanes where feasible in new construction or resurfacing of roadways. Transportation engineering design will be required to provide the documentation necessary for this improvement, m Maintain un- obstructive landscape and elevated median grades in favor of pedestrian and driver sight C lines at the edges of the rights of way and within the medians of the community. a Continue to work with the Collier County Transportation Division on multi -modal and pathway master plans at the exterior edges of the Pelican Bay Community so as to budget and plan for Community Landscape, Perimeter Wall and connective pathway improvements in the future. Continue to work with the Collier County Sherriff Department in street and community policing and reporting of community incidents. Continue to work with the Collier County Transportation Department within the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans for additional traffic calming techniques beyond the addition of the bike lane noted a bove. b 05/18/2010 :611 B13"' n� n v 3 LQ 3 0 rD 3 ro Q D v I 0 3 ro D V r O n v o� 3 v sv wiIsgnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III n n v 3 0 rD 3 rD V) r-r Q D 0 v O fD m O r-r r Ro n' v Q O n n 0 LA LA v X- n 0 O O O O rD (D rD N n n r•1 f1" rD r(D Q 7 9J l4 .may- =3 =3 M flJ =3 C CO W < Q Ol DJ fl, O Qj 2 a, a2i o O 2 77 < < W W rD rD < < rD <' rD Q z z O O S O ' O S v S U O fD. 3 c s O r<D O O v O La O O O O ni Gl � N C C CD rD r(D Q 7 Q rD 9J l4 .may- 9J — rD rl aj d flJ =3 7 CO W < Q Q fl, O Qj 2 a, a2i o O 2 77 < < W W rD rD < < rD <' rD Q C) _A rD r"DD Q C) -� cQ c s M �, m M O Qj O rD O p p 3 p M. O M r<D B13 rD rD rD rD W W W W Q Q Q. Ll r) 70 m 1< n. < �F rD O p O oQj O v O Q n Q rD" p rD �, W M Q WilswMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 0 � w N 9Ci rD r(D Q 7 Q rD 9J l4 .may- — n w — rD rl aj Cu ro aj n s W v n <" CO W < o CO W < Q Q fl, O Qj 2 a, a2i o O 2 77 p + o rD p O M" W 0- p O rt Qj v `< 3 O n ;,T- O n, p p M. rD <' rD rD WilswMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III n' n 3 3 O m 3 c D rD ■., 0 0 Q Q 00 0 n n O w Ln v r O n v O v 0 I 1 I. 1 1 a1 3- IIIL"Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 03 B F), CL) D W v W O C rD v Q 0- rD O O Q WiIsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 rD 0 0 C rD LL Q I I ®o� ©O, li j I i I I I I, i i \ 1 ,J\ COO ©<� 7 1 ,\ \' nps \ �m x � M ■ \\\\1<4�1 Wi/sonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 W n� v OD O C _N nQ `U n O 7J O v Q WiIspnMiller 1611 i I � � o H / �^CA n F i i a i 0C. / A 1 X im I> D C O 0;0 / N � i Z a� Z L% 6 m Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 -o rD n v Ou W 1< 00 O C rD v Q (DD DO n WiIsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 0 r rD F), a, 00 v co 0 C rD n 0 3 3 0 00 ^ g gm 215i „m 0 o�g m �Na ro' I I � I I I � � j A ' � I i g o I fj 11 000 fops o9 mFp �s p �77 I j i I I i i I I i II I I I i i i I I li J I I i i a WIsdnMMer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III a M n� v W v O C (D v Q Gl C v v D ro II/I.SOJIMIIIP•r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 M M rD F), ai a) 1< co rD 0 v Q LO ro O O Q rD a 161 1 1 I s I 1 d Fp I u °° s l - R— - - -- ° ° / _ Axx aniao 000Ma °oia � � � _ I j / 1 1 M� K z C z CO o--j �Z a o fnn / 0 x / a / M WIS007Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III [09-41 Gl C v v CD rD rD D rD rD u Wi/sdnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M Ar ro n� D v w 0 C rD v Q 0 Jr lQ T II I l I \ I I � I I I p I I I I I 8�s I og Al .4'" m m I ol i S� ° > €x I I I mo I �F I ! I I cE)o ;oz I mzm Cco ti I oz 0� �z zQ D= K K m m I � y WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Imprc vement Plan I Phase III I , I�" m w AP AM I �d I I � I I I ° I I I I I -- I �I I jl II Iy� ®I I 1 I I� D-0 I F I p� I I I I m> - -- g o A I I ID I I v I c I W v � I W I I I o � IICD I Q Ago zZ!� I. fp 9 D n co I T n C, I , � D = m •< WHOM Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 M n v O W DO W O C rD v Q Z O v 3 v O WNSO Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III N fD n v W v W O C v z 0 7- iT O 0 rD WiIsdnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 w _0 ro F), v W v 1< W O C M v Q S v 3 3 O n O v 0 CD C30 1 �Z� � 1 mzm z c) ID K C 0 1 V O I z czi 1 Il I 03 M I 1 , , I / , O 00 ,� O, � ga° a /; O/ I / M<� , 0 WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III M rD n v W v W O C Q. O v 3 O v ic- v WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III Existing Conditions Proposed Clay Brick Crosswalks Proposed Clay Brick Crosswalks and Intersection Field Infill 05/18/2010 Traffic Improvement Study Area I Intersection Treatment Alternatives a v E v O Q E m V N 1611 B1 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Pathways Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in may 2010 construction rates) D2 —A: Improve and replace approaches in pathways to include ADA compliant ramp systems at roadway intersections and crossings (Florida law to comply with ADA standards on all new or improved pathways). 1) Proposed Improvement: Gulf Park Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard, secondary entry streets (12 ramp pairs at public road intersections; 23 additional including private roads and driveways along west side Pelican Bay Boulevard): Repair up to 150 feet of asphalt path for line and grade, repair concrete gutter curb and match new concrete ramp assembly with insert of mud set clay brick paver w/ truncated dome surface (reference ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance graphic) Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,500 per ramp pair Alternative solution(s): Same as proposed improvement but with applied plastic truncated dome surface in lieu of clay brick paver insert. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 17,500 per ramp pair Phasing --- Improvements can be phased by project associated area, geographically within the community or in conjunction with other improvements. This is an early community improvement that must be accomplished in the community. Sequencing -- This project can be completed individually but is best done with other pathway and cross walk improvements with pavement improvements done to a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as an existing drive way. 2) Proposed Improvement: Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway, Green Tree Drive: Replace up to 150 feet of asphalt path with concrete walk (versus asphalt) including compliant line and grade, repair concrete gutter curb and match new concrete ramp assembly with insert of mud set clay brick paver w/ truncated dome surface. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 20,500 per ramp pair Alternative solution(s): Same as proposed improvement but with applied plastic truncated dome surface in lieu of clay brick paver insert. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 19,800 per ramp pair Same as proposed improvement but use asphalt pavement for pathway replacement in lieu of concrete. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,500 per ramp pair 05/18/2010 6� v E v O Q. E a M c ra v a 1611 B13 Phasing --- Improvements can be phased by project associated area, geographically within the community or in conjunction with other improvements. This is an early community improvement that must be accomplished in the community. vvi Sequencing -- This project can be completed individually but is best done with other s pathway and crosswalk improvements with pathway pavement improvements completed at o- a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as a drive way cut. D2 — B: Remove automobile and pedestrian conflicts at private property exits into County Streets due to stop sign locations on the County roadway side of the pathway (7 locations; reference Driveway Crossing v Conditions graphic). Proposed Improvement: Each of these is site specific and based on the location of the p conflict. 0L E 1) Relocate the stop sign to the private community side of the path and maintain sight >% visibility from the automobile to the right -of -way. ro _ Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 800 per stop sign 2) Relocate the pathway beyond the stop sign and re -site the stop sign if necessary where the full width of the pathway and at least five feet of landscape area is maintained between the curb line and pathway edge. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 2,700 per stop sign 3) Add a mirror to assist the exiting driver entering the right -of -way from private property to come to a full stop position and observe/check for pathway users in both directions prior to exiting the property. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 500 per stop sign Phasing -- Improvements are to be made as a single project. This is a highly recommended early community improvement recommendation that must be accomplished in the community. Sequencing — This project is best done with other pathway and cross walk improvements however pavement improvements done to a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as the next existing drive way is preferred. D2 -C: Widen one side of the multipurpose asphalt pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard (west side) and Gulf Park Drive (north side) (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). Proposed Improvement: Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet in width from the Commons to the North Tram Station; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. � Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 205,700 ($ 35 /If) Alternative solutions: Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet in width along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from Ridgewood Drive to Oakmont Parkway; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 557,400 ($ 40 /If) 05/18/2010 1611813. Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet along the north side of Gulf Park Drive; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 138,000 ($ 40 /If) _ v Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway from the Commons to the North Tram Station with s limited pathway realignment. � Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 123,300 ($ 21 /If) Phasing --- We recommend that the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons ru to the North Tram Station is the first phase. Subsequent phasing would complete the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard and then move to Gulf Park Drive north side pathway. Sequencing -- ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already v and bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be O included. Collier County Engineering details for pathway construction and root barriers shall Q be applied. E D2 -D: Replace Single Family residential neighborhood asphalt paths with five feet wide concrete finished rp sidewalks (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). m C ro Proposed Improvement: Install concrete sidewalks on Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive (does not include potential new sidewalk along Oakmont Parkway R.0.W.). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 300,500 ($ 29 /If) Oakmont Lake sidewalk additional $101,500 (3500 LF) Alternative solutions: Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 215,300 ($ 21 /If) Oakmont Lake sidewalk additional $73,500 (3500 LF) Phasing: Phased replacement is possible and recommended to be no less than replacing all of Ridgewood Drive area together and replacing all of Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive together. Sequencing: ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already and street tree additions, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be included. Collier County Engineering details for concrete pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. D2 -E: Improve the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard western pathway from Seagate Drive to the Bridgeway neighborhood entrance (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). Proposed Improvement: Remove the existing asphalt pathway and replace it with a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 39,500 ($ 35 /If) Alternative solutions: Q, � Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway. a Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 24,000 ($ 21 /If) 05/18/2010 1611 8.E ® 3 ® Remove the existing asphalt pathway and replace it with a 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 69,300 ($ 61 /If) a Phasing: This is a one time improvement and should not be phased. Sequencing: Relocate this pathway to the edge of the right of way easement and /or acquire a a pathway easement from St. Williams Catholic Church further west of the Right -of -Way line to avoid tree and utility conflicts in the surface of the sidewalk. We do not recommend tree removals in the mid - parcel area of the Church property along Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. ro a D24: Maintain the secondary, non - boulevard entries into the community with the exception of item D2 -E E above as asphalt finished pathways. a� pProposed Improvement: Mill and resurface asphalt pathways for North Point Drive, Hammock Q Oak Drive and Crayton Road. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 228,800 ($ 21 /If) ro Alternative solutions: Replace the same pathways with a minimum 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 316,000 ($ 29 /If) a Phasing: Repair or replacement of these pathways can be done one street at time or in any other combination of whole street lengths when maintenance repairs are required. Sequencing: ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already and bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be included. Collier County Engineering details for pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. D2 -J: Add fence lines and barriers at the edges of water management bulkheads and public area retaining walls (North Tram Station and various bulkhead locations up to 600 If; reference Pathway Edge Railing Improvement graphic) Proposed Improvement: Bolt 4" x 4" and 4" x 6' PT or recycled timber posts to the side walls of the structures, add 2' x 8" cap rails and trim at 42" height above the top of the walls and include tensioning 1/8" SS cable every 4" above the top of wall as railings for the barrier. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 48,800 ($ 81 /If) Alternative solution(s): Construct the barriers entirely from wood. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 41,300 ($ 69 /If) Phasing: We recommend this be an early addition to the improvements of the community. Sequencing: Generally a stand alone project that can be done individually through the course of ■� operations and maintenance. 05/18/2010 1611 B Future maintenance and improvement guidelines. M Parks and recreational pathway systems shall be maintained as asphalt finished pathways where a variety of modes of transportation and participation from the residents and guests is expected; otherwise, pervious _ = pavements, non - erosive in character, of crushed stone, shell or native soils may be considered. Ln Install improved boulevard area pathways in an alignment and location that moves them away from ra a conflicts with maturing landscape, trees and palms. Collier County Engineering details for asphaltic pathway _ construction and root barriers shall be applied. O Site furnishings that are placed on, along or at nodes on the pathways are strongly recommended to be of a M a single manufacturer source, maintain a consistent relationship of a "family" of model choices and maintain = consistency in the color selection based on the location of the fixtures use (reference site ,furniture cut sheets v graphic). Please also refer to the longer discussion of site furnishings that accompanies the Tram Stations v section of this report. > O Lon term plans for pathways includes the connection to the US 41 proposed Collier Count 9 p p Y p p y pathway OL � illustrated in the pathways master plan for the County. - ry M C ro V N d lot 05/18/2010 v v 3 7 O rp 3 ro r+ Q D fl, v fl, Qj v 3 0 m 3 m rD n O 3 3 N 3 v O 7 tA Mwmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 v v 3 0 CD 3 CD c Q D rD a) v O v 3 0 0 O 0 0 v v v D Q 0_ o� ■` L 1 I I wiIsonMil/sr Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 00 v v 3 0 CD 3 rD 3 c Q D ni ni m T N r r) n O 3 3 M 3 Q. O 3 tA wiIsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 0 ii Victor Stanley Furnishings shown represent standard selection of street and site furnishings throughout the community. Refer to Tram Stations Improvement Plans for more information. 704-11 s a M a v E v 0 a E a M �a v a a ra a v E N O Q fu m r6 u a� a M Victor Stanley Furnishings shown represent standard selection of street and site furnishings throughout the community. Refer to Tram Stations Improvement Plans for more information. 1611 B13 Re-/ded Maple Recycled Cherry Recycled tNalnut Recycled Gray Manogony Wood Ipe Wood 4 Wood and Recycled Slats vary wood colors I I y Printed color representations vor , :s contact us for recycle or wood _ samples. Natural wood colors will vary Weathering may occur on site which will alter the color of the wood overtime. Block White Red Tovern Square Gray Blue New Teal Green Bronze Silver Burgundy Green 8 VICTOR STANLEY, INC.® Toll Free (USA & Canoda):1- 800 - 368 -2513 4 Eleven Standard Powder Coat Colors Printed color representations vary contact us for color swatches. We also offer other colors (including the RAl range) at on additional cost. Producl shown is DYN -SD -36 (patents pending) with OPTIONAL convex lid, see pages 2227 for details. 5 3 0 3 V1 D N Q (D Ql n 0 LA l4 n 0 M Q r+ 0 1 N P. M vF3 o�v a n °1 7 O Q N v .r 0 a (!SD 3 D 0 CD a M O N O _� O d ^ ^ O O D n v O �n � 3 N ^ L 7 7 � O O D N n rD 16 U 1 B13 .W 030 S �s �Q 7 rD 3 r v D O O Cu v O_ O � O O OO O O Q Q G O N O I \ \ \ z 1 I N 1 I O D I � I o i D i z I Z 70 D0 I O z / ! I v O O v r O O z v I �y0 v � Z Z a / p n n D D- / Omm mZ m m O O O D z m� ,°J„ z LA p Z I Om m Z > - 0 Z p �ZD NO Z O Der p°J O z =O �z O O DDz D= m m I D m T O z z D O D � m r D v r O v rD v O O rD rD r O O n 7� D S r r LO 3 O O rD -O r N 7 O � D D Q D Q aID v M • r v w n o QID L n _a N G rD ° D � n Q rD � s ^ _ a O � O O O L O : N O t0 O N v 7 O Q O a 2 -. rD - L �L v p Q Q Q N m rD n N G O O CL v O O � A O O 0 O O G LO � v =o= WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M 0 0 L2 Q { d JJ . Oft - w 0 qz In 0 gz V Q w w I= _J 0 LU U o~ 0 Y Ln LU W O. t4 .,.�, O . W Q N i u5/ i is/zu 10 Pathway Improvement Study Area j ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance 0 104 v Ln r� s a v E v 0 i Q M C V a� a �Q n ■ Ham, Ln LU W O. t4 .,.�, O . W Q N i u5/ i is/zu 10 Pathway Improvement Study Area j ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance 0 104 v Ln r� s a v E v 0 i Q M C V a� a �Q 44 Iffm c v E v 0 Q 00 c U M Existing Conditions - North Iram Parking Lot Pro I sed ROailing Improvement Example - Amelia Island Plantation Village Pathway Improvement Study Area I Pathway Edge Railing Improvement 1611 B13 m Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Lighting Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) Ln M t D3 -A: Replace the existing HID ballast and Metal Halide Light sources in the Boulevard street lighting with energy conserving LED fixtures. — c rp Proposed Improvement: Install 6 foot Sternberg CA bracket arm and Sternberg Omega a R 1527 LED fixture in verde green on all existing concrete poles in Gulf Park Drive and +j Pelican Bay Boulevard medians (206 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 712,585 ($ 3,459 /fixture) E Alternative solutions: Same as proposed improvement but with Metal Halide (MH) 0 fixtures in lieu of LED. Q- Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 506,585 ($ 2,459 /fixture) E >, ro Alternative solutions: Replace the concrete poles in the Boulevard street lighting m scenario with new smooth tapered shaft and decorative base. Install 30 foot Hapco cp York Post to receive the Sternberg Omege /R 1527R LED Fixture and six foot CA roadway arm. a Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,033,940 ($ 5,619 /fixture) Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. The pole replacement in the Boulevards could be phased separately from the fixture and roadway arm replacements however this would need to be known at the time of replacing the fixture and adding the roadway arm so that the manufacturer can plan for a pole connection retrofit in the future in the current connection design of the roadway arms to the concrete pole. Sequencing; Coordinate with the additional improvements of light poles outlined in D3- C below and landscape, irrigation changes withinthe medians should be considered within the same phase of work. D3 -B: Replace the existing HID ballast, Metal Halide lamp and fixture and the 16 foot concrete poles in the single family residential street lighting with energy conserving LED fixtures, bracket arms and poles (reference Roadway Lighting Diagram). Proposed Improvement: Install Sternberg 480PM Backet and Sternberg Euro E -460 LED Medium Fixture on 16 foot Sternberg 7700 series Birmingham Pole in verde green along Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive (93 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 645,987 ($ 6,946 /fixture) Alternative solutions: _ 1. Same as proposed improvement but with existing concrete poles in lieu of new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 334,445 ($ 3,596 /fixture) 05/18/2010 1611 81310 2. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures in lieu of LED. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 552,987 ($ 5,946 /fixture) 3. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures on existing concrete poles in lieu of LED on new poles. v, Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 241,445 ($ 2,596 /fixture) s a Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. — Sequencing; The solution choosen by the Owner becomes the dedicated solution for the c a single family residential streets noted in the proposed solution and as outlined on the Option 3 Lighting Master Plan Diagram. Landscape, irrigation and streetscape a) improvements should be considered within the same phase of work. E D3 -C: Move the existing double fixture light poles in the three entry drive medians of the Community from US 41 to both edges of the roadway in single fixture configurations and replace the existing HID CL ballast and Metal Halide light sources in these three locations and the secondary entry streets to the Community with energy conserving LED fixtures and bracket arms (reference Roadway Lighting Diagram). m Proposed Improvement: Install Sternberg 480PM Bracket and Sternberg Euro E -460 LED C ra Medium Fixture on 18 foot Sternberg 7700 series Birmingham pole in verde green at the 3 main entries along US 41, North Point Drive, Hammock Oak Drive, Oakmont Drive CL Extension, Crayton Road, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive South (102 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 665,040 ($ 6,520 /fixture) Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with existing concrete poles in lieu of new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 355,062 ($ 3,481 /fixture) 2. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures in lieu of LED. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 563,040 ($ 5,520 /fixture) 3. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures on existing concrete poles in lieu of LED on new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 253,062 ($ 2,481 /fixture) Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. Sequencing; The solution chosen by the Owner becomes the dedicated solution for the primary and secondary entry streets noted in the proposed solution and as outlined on the Option 3 Lighting Master Plan Diagram. Lighting from both sides of the street in the three primary entries and matching fixtures in the secondary entries provides a level � of street illumination that is indicative of community rather than a roadway thoroughfare. Landscape, irrigation and streetscape improvements should be considered within the same phase of work. 05/18/2010 161-1 -8-13 D3 -D: Install LED bollard lighting along the community pathways where indicated in the master plan (reference Pathway Lighting Plan). Proposed Improvement: Install Gardco Bevel Top, LED Demand Response bollards on —_ the side of St. Raphael beach pathway in dark bronze color (reference St. Raphael Pathway Lighting Plan graphic). V) Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 46,000 CL Alternative solutions: Install Sternberg bollard #3901 LB Richmond in 35W MH (with c goal to provide Sternberg in LED if available) 36" – 42" in height and verde green color M to match street light fixtures in immediate needs areas throughout Community minus berm access areas (reference Pathway Lighting Plan). c Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 412,000 a E Alternative solutions: Same as alternative solution but install the Stone Light fluorescen a) 0 bollards as used elsewhere in the community. L CL Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 412,000 (entire project noted) C Phasing: This is a one time bollard lighting addition project. Recommended bollard light ro locations should be further once street light improvements have been implemented to verify pathway lighting needs. M r6 u Sequencing: As an entire and complete project, add landscape, irrigation, Pelican Bay a Boulevard mid -block cross walk, signage and street furnishings improvements at the same time. Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: Lighting improvements that provide better CPTED conditions when principles of territorial surveillance are applied are encouraged in the parks and along the pathway edges of the community. Street lighting and bollard fixtures in the road rights of way shall be of a common family and green color. Future bollard fixtures used in the roadways are to match the family of street light poles and fixtures with the intention of having available LED lamped'fixtures available. Pathway bollards that lead to the Community Berm and Boardwalk areas are to be of a common family and dark bronze color. Maintain the maturing landscape to be free from direct blockage of the street lighting of the roadways – relocate street lights in favor of trees in the landscape and remove Sabal Palms where necessary to better, provide light to the ground or streets. Specimen landscape up- lighting or down - lighting is encouraged for evening lighting of specimen landscapes and for CPTED purposes in amongst the roadway and park areas existing large trees. i Banner arms and other decorative holiday lighting options /duplex electrical outlets in new poles may b considered and added to the proposed street light pole improvements. Banner arms would need to meet wind loading criteria and we recommend that the electrical outlets be added high on the pole for maintenance access by lift only. I* 21, 05/18/2010 16111 813 0 Hanging landscape baskets and internal irrigation supply may also be considered and added in a M limited location basis only to new street light pole improvements on Foundation properties and sites. U54 v c� s a C a C a) E v 0 CL a - m c V 4J CL NSA t� 05/18/2010 R I m m g I gi v c DPI ado LO p < sue. p „ rD rD H C g _ t ® 08 1 N o�iT ..� amz mcq 7J ��m1:r��F - -- -- - • $8q oazm Q <; < 0 i c JO Oy a j 3 lQ �y � I l4 0� I �g LO IL Wilsomiller FF4GATi U0. 13 �a .a 16 R:�W%wk L 50 j I awE y�2 fit: 3 '� t "Yi• ,tea � k L' fti = "` ti Al - GI:IFPMA C0. WL go VAO �. tLLT ?tip is aw XV7 m� e �¢i - tl go 3a' w Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 M S QQ 0 G N rD D Q D v D n n D h a� v r S LQ WNSOOMiller �E4GAiE Un p� O g G a r ♦ . c ♦ • • - _ • GUtE PAPJt UR • a t •♦• ° JAw GUIF PAAKON • � z • y0 p V4NUEMBILt Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E F-- / c % / (D § v » 2 I M z i § #?§ y2§/ ;I§a #o »o » / §I 2 -022 \ \ }� §.y §� ¥ \ k § /k\ /§2 § ` ƒ� G72 ;� §2k})) } i �§ Gf k� ¢ � \ ■§ /k )\ / .= C) § § a o z \� —��C) z 0 J �{ ` F-- / c % / (D § v » 2 I M z i § #?§ y2§/ ;I§a #o »o » / §I 2 -022 \ \ }� §.y §� ¥ \ k § /k\ /§2 § ` ƒ� G72 ;� §2k})) } i �§ Gf k� ¢ � \ ■§ /k )\ / ` §(j$\\ �} §§, —��C) z J ` \ \) # =R° § ƒ)f )7 .o� a& . § B LA� f _ > M 16 1 1 -. . . w%sonm%l r Pelican Bay Improvement mangy Phase m E9 0 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Landscaping and Irri aq tion Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 C construction rates) _ a Ln D4 -A: Provide current Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County design standards for vehicular sight visibility at public roadway intersections. Proposed Improvement: Remove palms and trees greater than 4" caliper within the first — 100' of median along Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive at the intersections of Ridgewood Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, Crayton Road, Green Tree Drive, North a Pointe Drive, Hammock Oak Drive, Oakmont Parkway as well as the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive (9 intersections, 19 median nosings). Replace W sod in this area with low drought tolerant groundcovers and accent trees (maintain E clear sight line visibility clearances and caliper standards). > O Opinion of Probable Cost $ 212,000 O- E Phasing: This project should be implemented and brought up to current FDOT and >' r6 County standards as roadway/ traffic improvements are implemented. m c ra Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and pathway improvements in these intersections. All private streets and driveways should be reviewed for current FDOT and County standards. D4 -B: Reduce maintenance and irrigation water needs throughout the boulevard medians and R.O.W. sides. Proposed Improvement: Replace sod within all boulevard turn lanes (beyond those noted in D4 -A), boulevard locations where the width is less than 16' and select R.O.W. sides (refer to Street Tree/ Sod Mitigation sheets this section) with groundcovers and retrofit irrigation system with low volume emitters (refer to Irrigation Calculations/ Options this section). Remove dated shrub and tree material within boulevard medians and R.O.W. sides and replace with updated, layered material with shrub beds integrated into existing and introduced tree and palm canopies. A. Pelican Bay Boulevard south of Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 612,500 B. Pelican Bay Boulevard north of Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,066,500 C. Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 382,500 Phasing: These projects may be phased in over time but it is suggested in longer stretches of roadway for each phase to maintain unity along the street corridor. Sequencing: This work may be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and A? pathway improvements in these areas. ■= D4 -C: Incorporate Best Management Practices where feasible. Lake and preserve edges should receive littoral type planting versus sod to reduce debris/ overspray infiltration from maintenance practices, A� 05/18/2010 1 1611 X13 ® help filter runoff into water bodies and enhance water fowl habitat. (Refer to Street Tree/Sod mitigation sheets this section) Proposed Improvement: Replace portions of sod along lake and preserve edges with littoral type planting. Locations include lake edges along Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, Crayton Road, Pelican Bay Boulevard at golf course edges, Foundation property along the lake edge at the corner of Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Lake and the preserve edge just south of Montenero. (Approximately 43,00 sf) a C Opinion of Probable Cost $ 122,900 v EPhasing: These projects can be phased in over time. Sequencing: This work may want to be coordinated with adjacent landscape and E pathway improvements. D4 -D: Several gaps are present in the R.O.W. street trees and locations have been identified to co maintain a consistent canopy. A unified street tree canopy will have an enhancing effect on traffic calming, reduction of heat island effect, pathway shading and aesthetics. V CL Proposed Improvement: Add canopy trees in noted gaps of street tree corridors (refer to Street Tree/ Sod Mitigation sheets this section). A. Pelican Bay Boulevard (57 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 34,200 B. Gulf Park Drive (12 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 7,200 C. Crayton Road (14 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 8,400 D. Ridgewood Drive (18 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 10,800 E. Green Tree Drive (24 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 14,400 Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time. Sequencing: This work may want to be coordinated with adjacent landscape and pathway improvements. r� 05/18/2010 r Q r) n v rD 3 0 3 rD Z5 C Q D v -D m m rD V) 0 Q L v c 0 D ro v Wilsdamiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III D Q Ln 0 G (D rD D Q v to 0 LQ v 0 D m a, D D � CD I� i " 01 D 16-Vl--- -- �M! >i I i� I' l y � i I l I I /I 1 I I , I , 11 I 1 �I �I �1 I � ` R� l _' US 41 ■ ® i% xI 1 1 m I. 1� 1 , ' l �I M -1 -D BLVD- it L , wilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 60 r v Q r) n rD v rD 3 0 rD 3 rD D .-r N f-r C Q D Gj v LA m (D rD 0 Ln 0 0_ L' v C2 0 rDD rD nj MI v M D w w WiftoMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 65 M LM (D 3 7 0 rD 3 rD Z) V) C rD a) M M --i rD rD C LQ w !Z!% 0 D 7� w M O)l iii I,l � K M >1 01 V/1 97 wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III & M r v f?. n n v 3 0 rD 3 C Q D v Un 0 Q v 0 D rrD v M, C. I \ � DG A It 120 02 �i i Uj g j "oi Wi/sgnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III ni to rD rD 3 -IR 0 rD 3 rD V1 (D (D (D ton 0 LQ 0) ,.4 0 M �l0 0 '01 Ab, OAKMONT PARKWAY s gj E! ggml PC 1. US 41 WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III r v Q r) n rD v rD O N 3 M 7 In C Q D Qj v Ln M 0 m M LA 0 Q.. v o' D rD m v D m D UN ' D Ma i I i �i I\ l wilsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M r) ni M ri) 3 rD D V) 7E fD (D (D V) 0 fll 0 rD a) 7-- 161 UI D G) 0 C cc =DR—IVE z rn 'is 41 gn WIISMMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase Ill (am D z m D rn r v Q n Q) rD O 3 rD 0- D Cu Cu rD rD m rD w O Q c-. v o j D rD v D i wiIsomiller ojig Hr' Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 � m rD rD _ � _ � ~ � Q- � - � � |-------- - �� Q� � t 0 � � 34 � | / | / \ ( ` / � ---| -'� / ~~ __-�--� -'� / /-_-` ' � ]0� � \ | /. Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III as � \ /-_-` ' � ]0� � \ | /. Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III as D z D Q v Ln I O rD 3 rD h Q D rD m I i i rD r° m rD Ln O �\ Q fll Q i 7 D CD 0, r 16 > ZiQ a a p'�_ c nl —_ g ova Asi �Q Wilsomille r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 i —_ g ova Asi �Q Wilsomille r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 v L r) n v rD 0 3 rD Q D v rD rD rD Un O Q v Ct 0 D rD v DI m' D� N' NI D1 Z vt A 7' � ` -- I EM ! sue' WIISOiIMIIIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 r v D 0- n v fD O rD rD 3 rD 0 Q D v tQ r_+ O D n v n C iL r-r O M ILA CL t° 0 O. 0 M -4 :: 1� C to W m � d � N n d W IV 2S x 3 as o � u N II II If d < m m °c m m N O E E3 f/1 Q O. to c CL 0 d X on-imfnD� mm� n 7 6 c N % O 0 9 v r i 00 o c d d n ° 13 N n C 3 N x d 0 0S 0 ^ o. m 0 0 o 0 � 4 7 C p a 0 N y a CD C v II II If dr w ° 3 -ny -:-4 d y m C 3 °f° 0 41 S O d 0 CD d d G X01 C m � N' mm� y y m d 7 m v N � 5. d - =CD 0 0 y N N may,. CL t° 0 O. 0 M -4 :: 1� C to W m � d � N n d W IV 2S x 3 as o � u N II II If d < m m °c m m N O E E3 f/1 Q O. to c CL 0 w x m E -mmg m r o o d CL � o r��m Q 0 2 � m 9 C nil r .. � Q1 0 � o r o D y o d o c 3 f° m to � mo m m a � � O ^ ^_ iu n m 'o x d v m m 0 m DC o CD n ° CD a v_ o °o n o� x 2 a a w D A a m m 0 d d N @ 0 d y ° 0 W c < 3 m a CD C m m w 0 N O x H A x N N y 11 9i O r CD bo 7 � In d c W n d 0 m WilsonmilIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 X. -0 o on-imfnD� mm� n y o 1 w u m° ll Dm 81 13 3 d ° t° • , 0 o 3 m T fD d d O O inn N 7 N n C 3 N n yO ' ac CD mm <° 0 M y -n d 7 C p a 0 N y a CD o ID 30 � m m 0 3 W -ny ° n m'm °f° ' m O •� v Cn tp °i 0 CD C: o < N' Fa m •o' w? act (A m v N � 5. d - =CD m 7 ? a, to' CD o a F d a� a 00iao 33n-0 cyi -� ma N N CD o a � ID 11 d C t0 c k d 7 q N 7 N d 7 S S O n N k o� :3 EP W did n "� 7 f�D :IE C Q a CD Q N (N p (C co N ED N C G) W tp N O O a, ? i Q n n N d 7 y a N Ca M o ° d m M w a m CD D o 0 Cb c <_. o > > m c D o0i CD m y C (D O 00 j (7 S O C N IV t� CL Q _ N O Q a tp r i -M CL 0 O M C7 m m s w x m E -mmg m r o o d CL � o r��m Q 0 2 � m 9 C nil r .. � Q1 0 � o r o D y o d o c 3 f° m to � mo m m a � � O ^ ^_ iu n m 'o x d v m m 0 m DC o CD n ° CD a v_ o °o n o� x 2 a a w D A a m m 0 d d N @ 0 d y ° 0 W c < 3 m a CD C m m w 0 N O x H A x N N y 11 9i O r CD bo 7 � In d c W n d 0 m WilsonmilIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 X. -0 o on-imfnD� mm� n y o o w u m° ll Dm n 3 d ° t° • , 0 tQ ° C r II 0 d N d t° a ?° •O 7 , y nmmDtn 0Fri a � m � =M �� n n 'O mII II .° mmll o Ili � m n a II If i°�I -j m oocoy 0 :01 m, o a C v Cn tp °i o WI C° nOrn o < �. w •o' w? act (A m v N � 5. d - =CD k m n m w a, to' a d a� to tpmo -� S N IM \ o a � m a x x n k r :.4 m n m M CD O k 0 N N N 0 D 0 7 O N W tG d N :IE C Q N � N S N N y d ° d CD O N d 0 w x m E -mmg m r o o d CL � o r��m Q 0 2 � m 9 C nil r .. � Q1 0 � o r o D y o d o c 3 f° m to � mo m m a � � O ^ ^_ iu n m 'o x d v m m 0 m DC o CD n ° CD a v_ o °o n o� x 2 a a w D A a m m 0 d d N @ 0 d y ° 0 W c < 3 m a CD C m m w 0 N O x H A x N N y 11 9i O r CD bo 7 � In d c W n d 0 m WilsonmilIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 r v D Q n rD 3 0 rD 3 rm Q D 0 v 0 3 0 r-r O wi1sonMiller M nL§ n� 0 CD IW � I O is N i� I� i I� i� / �gjl 911129 I/ 4 g B13 yN ik A W s mm ; m D _ A A -+ ��- m PN �� y CO °N y H 0 Ncm a� C 3 O Qo �+ _ cu ° o� S+ m ym N 3 �0 0` 7 o' w o m o g w a =a 3 y3 H a a'o N ?.W 0Ca GNN �� ° o 0 CL d ' and !o o oQ m N ' F. m N C o O GNl A d p •N+ Q m M N r° O S O C d m y am a 41, m� k m k O C Fa o iu Of° O W O A N O N O .�.,, Z.,)' f0 N V'i 1 - 3 w - 'A If O 11 e � � y� V•� IC N C Flo Tic r NN a•N a N 5 m w O y CD N V 10 W N O N O Q y O 10 N a N 7 O V � a o C m N N U y 1,1 a N a. IC DX 0 O 1 u NI J m v m N 0 1 y G d N O N iO n m n O N C d 0 ^N O N O 10 (1Qjl O G N^ O j c V 1° O O u - T y - 3 ID N ry 7 0= Of 1 °' z N ZI O O � _ F? '�. � Ch w 2 $ z (9 S a v wi1sonMiller M nL§ n� 0 CD IW � I O is N i� I� i I� i� / �gjl 911129 I/ 4 g nL§ n� 0 CD IW � I O is N i� I� i I� i� / �gjl 911129 I/ 4 g CD IMP o. s W In gzbF Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 r v Q n Ln v rD 3 O N 3 rD ul C Q D O CD fl1 Q D W 0 ID 0 D lb "i 1'813 i o m T i s O O . m-OO v N IT O j tl! N S lQ 32 3 7 ID O� a '' r°ic S Q S d fl Q C n O D C Q a Q 7 CD � O O O O. N 3 oC rD 3 K < t4 7 N LC WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E 0 r v Q n v rD O rD 3 rD Q D rD v rD O v Q. D CD W 0 D_ m CO 0 D_ 0 � rD a v Q (D Q o CD 0 o s Q r Cr D n rD F rD C O v �. -°o v rD Q = = � D m rD Q S fl_ N N N D 7 CL 10 N ° Q CL Q <. a rD c O v Z3 ID M s ? ° ° s N n ° M v � :3 o :3 � 0 o o 3 rD ID M D n o a WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E & _ a j \ % e \ § ? \ » § CO rD / � \ m CO ID rD } \ wV A W%sonm%l r . Pelican Bay Improvement mangy Phase m am LD \ \/ /3 _� / ®\ »° \� /y ID / \} \ as}& \ ƒ} - ./ 2\ Q, \\ W%sonm%l r . Pelican Bay Improvement mangy Phase m am r v x Q LA n Di rD 3 O rD 3 rD i3 V1 C Q D 41 W -h O (D fl1 Q D rD W 0 D_ m W 0 D_ 1611 x;13 WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 090 -„m Dv o :3 c Q� v QLa a CL as v O rip n O O- x .0 - CD = Q N -a. iv cQ v O O .w o LC) N N n 0 O_ !D C R O O A N 3 < iD o N p N CU QOO d S D N O to p — vi O- ,-i M < Q 7 M N fp CL 00 � eD N n K _ O O LO O O N Q Q — t0 D lQ 7 � NG N O n Q v 7 — N D O WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 090 r fl, Q.. r) n v O N 3 C Q N v Q 91 Q D rD z CO 0 D m UD 0 D LD 1611 B13 wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 M C A 6 'OR n On fD s n O O_ fD � 7 3 O C D .3 *' 7 10 m 3 a c, Q v o, ? o! 7 U O O 7 fD S N 0 7 lQ d 0 Q O O N 0 (M A =' N 7 eD 3 O N 0, �: Q m '-' 0 n H ID rD N _ 0 0 7 N N 0, S pD N ID IR S O ,D :3 La S C fN'1 d S /D < d Q �' h N O 7 0 N 3. s O wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 M / j \ % \ S \ / x % ± \ \ 2 / \ e' / 2 _ x 000 (a/ o o 1611 B 1 < ° 0 ± M \ x 3 0 [ § ) ) § m ) / \ k 0 \ / j 0 \ 2 z m 0 a I m § o CO # ( @ \ z m = o m = / E 0 ) / § 7 § ( ) { 0 c e e e e e e= 0 0 0 0 o z e r e e e e e e = 0 0 0 0 0 0 o x ® e e e e e e e = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I e e � f »; \IJ `T` ! - „ }J ;\ - _! _ 1. \g. ( }f /f & §7 ! / ƒ)a{ | :!� || i± / (� 7 % ( ] \ ) ! !, { - c } }/ \ ( § {( \} / (3 \ 2 ! EE } _ 1 \ \ \\ �( } \� ( R [�{! \ 2. \ \�\ � a!!( ( \ {! ! {� . ! 4 w%5onm%l r / « § \ m 7 f $ \\ )§ 2/ \ Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E 0 W m c m N Z S< m 0 AZ�maoN 2-�0 DO"mDmQ mQc OO z0ozpnD Dw v O O y A DZ�D=O wpm -i�ZZ W 0� nJOOn O0 mpm vD, C X vz C m m=�OM Z p �Z�GID G 3 --Z � NOO == =nAA 4 C m D «m D LINp� p z vi -x{�m O 0 Z D m m D z - ci O W n D r 2 m 0 z n c p N m m D m m D NOZ�GI D Dzq z��.,x zrpxm �f 1611 ,,,3 r Q N n a, N 70 M n O 3 rho Ln 7 Q v O Ln 84/ C K K m �p,m_x ^ 0 n c o s O � C)0z= Z ^' Z n z p * 0 A OFn>T> pz �M� 2 Z m m Z ZA � O Z = mm m -5 �O� Cn ?ow D FF z D D O< z n o p p D Aw Dp j D ZZ! O� D Dv� M Z m r < v Z K 2 m M ' m m � D v D' S>-7o S p '2 O o D Z O o0 I / :3 Q Z0 mA1c QOGCIO / in O 0) 70 D O O m p m-1m J N C mGl� �N O _ N O Z �mLZ'1D DDmmJO > Om I /� Z D / < z c v z N r0 0 y c��nZ< � p G l Q2 - E, S p O n Om 2 W l �+ < <� 00 -ziz in D� N D / Z /ZO 0- D D r Q N n a, N 70 M n O 3 rho Ln 7 Q v O Ln 84/ C K K m �p,m_x ^ 0 n c o s O � C)0z= Z ^' Z n z p * 0 A OFn>T> pz �M� 2 Z m m Z ZA � O Z = mm m -5 �O� Cn ?ow D FF WilsonmillPir Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III z D D O< z n o p p D Aw Dp j D ZZ! O� D Dv� Z m r < v Z K 2 m Z m m � D v D' °off Z O o0 cziD QOGCIO O zy �oOp m �N O _ N O Z Ll A > Om I D N y C 0 r0 0 D D c��nZ< inn 2 < m `^ 00 -ziz in D� N D C N o D D * 0 Z z Z N O �0t/�1 D m< N C zZ_, °nzCD We O p . WilsonmillPir Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III b� COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Section 4.06.01,D.1 Sight Distance Triangle Diagrams Swale "' Sidewalk Driveway _ I Landscape / 8' ht1 min.i Buffer ' clear trunk 10' s Triangles of Required 30" ht. max. Cross Visobility _ ( Hatched Areas) Area of Required r F { j Cross Visibility T, lear 30" ht. max. trunk r � - 3' Driveway 3' sod sod 10' Fdge of Pavement 10' _i I 4 Street 30' Swa[e • - - - . - Walk Landscape Buffer Triangles of Required Cross Visability (Hatched Areas) �— Extensions of Rights of Way (Prop. Line) 30' - EIIE: NSIBIIJ20WG 3-29 -00 - " � • -- S F �- � --� r SECTION IV — STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS COLLIER COUNTY RIGHTS -OF -WAY ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK August 15th, 2001 Right of Way (Prop. Line) 05/18/2010 Lag a� .0 C d +-+ C 41 N 0 i Q E A m C v d 1_ 106 MIA d C N E N O L Q i� m .v a b 10. OR L•E55 To-an 16116131 IO' OR W55 TO SIDEWALK, UTILITY . - - , ). j 1 ROOT BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. TREES PLANTED WrTHIN 10' OF A PAVED AREA OR UTi M ROOT / BARRM fff TYP.��. 4 AREA CONTAINING SIDEWALK. PAVED AREA,OR UNDERGROUND 18' :.MIN. DEPI?i ROUT BARRIER INSTALLED Pa MANUFACTURER'S SP,EC,IPWATION FOR A MIWNUM DISTANCE OF 20 Lf. 15' FROM EME•4DF. B(M -bVJG ROOTSARRIER,ZONE: 1 A.l.l. AMOING, SIDEWAMOR PAVED EDGES OCCURRING WITHIN THIS ZONE SHALL BE PRC?TMM FROM TREE ROOT51Y THE PLACEMENT OF A ROOT BARRIER. ROOT BARRIER'S SHALL NOT BE USED TO "BOX -IN" TREE ROOT&. PLAN ROOT BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. iRl1APEf1 BY:OFfEO:OF 6RA/FQ45ANp TSp•�AL SUPPIORT OATE;IOMO M .Sfto a,,Wbe►AW& 05/18/2010 F-- CZ n rD (D O rD 3 (D V) C CZ D 70 E (D Q (D Q fl1 r4 r n 0 0 3 v rD 0 v n D D m0(�D fw x3� �3 W c 0 0 0 0 Q m KT o- v S 0 c) x 0 c o 0 m x C) m (� m [) m m m D n Abbreviation x d x x v o o n 1. �o _ n n m D m Latin Name 3 ° - - 3 2 3 W 01 v+ m Q x m o 9 'm N o o x Common Name a v, 3 2 r _ - 3 - £ F Avg. Mature Height - - - - - - - o Avg. Mature Spread Form 3 $ 3 3 Flower Season CD o Flower Color N 3 UO sG < < z < z z < < < < < < < < Native m y m m v rD m j Growth Rate 1 p r r Water Requirements N rp = r = x Drought Tolerant H y ro Salt Tolerant Z C C (D < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Sun < < < < < < Partial Sun v < Shade 0 n Soil o, rb rD m ro Known Pests N ?°'r a 0 3�; d�a ° ° m Notes nsa _°'. - s mm 3 a3 NT = s n� o �,2 H m m 3 ° MN 3 Z n worm °w o S a w m n o = __ ff F s a£ o K N m 3 a 'm �' F w m y N 3 $£N m 36 - m _ -n 7 v,5 �5- F 3 Er 3< 3 ... _ X, _ °- T. 3 -° 3 - - 3 wiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III ® 0 4ri Q n n v rD 3 O rD N 3 rD r+ Ln r+ C Q (D 7V rD n O 3 3 Q (D Q DJ f- rN+ onn FT�S °s �x3r Wils0nMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III = o v ii n m Abbreviation 3 Latin Name - a 3 — 3 - O ti n 3 Q A S ° F 3 Common Name Avg. Mature Height Avg. Mature Spread Form - �. Flower Season rD < o _ Flower Color r1 < z `G < < < z < < Native m v n m m o Leaf Persisitence rb K 9 Growth Rate O 3 i r Water Requirements N rp x Drought Tolerant . 3 rD = Salt Tolerant 3 3 2 < < < < < < < < Sun < < < < Partial Sun v Shade _ =mK h 2. o f Soil rb Or (D Known Pests m Notes _m F mmn yo EF On _mFm � i 3 any ?3 3. 9 � o,. w o m F 9 57 12 F _ f D - a� Er w azo" Rz 9k Q _ so =� 3 3 Wils0nMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III QJ 7 Q n fD 0 rD (D 3 rD ,-r C Q D n 0 M Q Q v f_— LA 1+ c, 0 Q T 7 £Taa xg� m8� 3 rD 0 n v v v 3 $ = 3 n > o o Abbreviation x 3 m m n n 2 n W W _ Latin Name 3 Vi C. 3 = a _ Z < 3 9 W W Common Name _ m a 01 3 I 3 F 10 o = 3 Avg. Mature Height _ CO Avg. Mature Spread 0 01 3 m 8 8 ° Form Q W N TV 3 ' W W 3 °= p < W W 3 ° -_. Flower Season 1 n 3� l 3� 1 n 3,p 1< O m a c `e m m Flower Color @ 7.3 m m m m m CO < z < < < z < < z < Native Qj H m m m Leaf Persisitence S N T m � Growth Rate S O 3 x Water Requirments x x x < Drought Tolerant 3 !Z N = x x Salt Tolerant Q O < < < < < < < < < < Sun rp C Q 7 < < < < < < Partial Sun 2 N Shade n 0 Q m $OII _ o f m 3 m 4 rD _ v o` n �y 3 -' d Known Pests N 3 - c o m §. n - oO n - m Notes Ur RL x i E a 3 s 3 _ - v m 3 22. i. _ W m 221 gym''°° - 3 m - - 3 N 3 3 m 3 - _ _ - - 3 II NS6.7MIIIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III r v Q n 0 3 O rD 3 rD r+ Ln C Q D Z7 rD n 0 rD 0- rD Q v r Ln 1+ W s= T_ O m mon. �s3r '3 n 0 C 21 _N 3 N Q 0 g m r < < < o Abbreviation v Q z Z 3 3 m Latin Name 3 - 1 21 - f/1 3 xl - W - S O o F ti _ W a Common Name N S - a K � < m = y N - CT 3 ti Avg. Mature Height Avg. Mature Spread v3 3 m d3 Form a = n - 3 Flower Season "10 a rD ZZ 3 8 Flower Color z - � _ m F l � < < < < < < < < < < Native � H `G Leaf Persisitence S rD T T Growth Rate O' p r z Water Requirements vt m 7 = s Drought Tolerant O- rD r r Salt Tolerant G1 � Q < < < < < < < < < < Sun O rD C Q < < 7 < < < < < Partial Sun O_ � < < < Shade < Q C1 G 0 o n = d 3 IN 0 Soil - sy ff o Known Pests i s f o B n 3 Z c = 3 r ? D Notes 3 o. 3 _ c ,3 nsi z - F f� S e w 3 0 F F 1 9 00 T _ 3 n _ s - P43 go M 3 - o_ MU* - - N 3 ET WiIsgnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III P9 y ƒ / \ / } ± / c » § \ j 3 § / 2 \ 0 j ID \ \ rD LQ rD an l: =22| R98 | |\ W% -Vam%l r . Pelican Bay Improvement Hand Phase 111 090 % 2_ _n , , $ 7 _,w_ \ r } { { } Er $ _ . § / 2 ®E (2 - ee_rw- }� \ \ { k ! Avg. Mature «,@ ; Avg. Mature ,_w )' ©� ,! E; } ® _m (\ w___ ƒ ® \ ! = w_ Ge w__ ƒ : _ _. _ } $ __ _e I G s Water Requirements !] �__eamm n Salt T ant f\ eSun ca :_>w. EE Shade k \ �{ ®' ` ± $ Known Pests 7 t� ƒ7 0 ! ` / §[� ® . / 16 {\ R � 15 \( ( - _ \ / \, -,3 \ a W% -Vam%l r . Pelican Bay Improvement Hand Phase 111 090 16111 Bl� Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – US 41 Berm /Perimeter Walls M Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). _ v D5 -A: Infill landscape open spaces in the community berm to deter hiding spaces of and for s undesirable activities and to further provide added landscape buffer noise reduction from the street a (reference Study Area Plans 1 – 4). — Proposed Improvement: Install trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover in areas C ro a recommended in the US -41 berm area planting plans to infill landscape voids in the berm plantings. Opinion of Probable Cost: $'95,000 E Alternative solutions: Keep landscape as is without additional installations. Phasing: This project can be phased to install the tall and larger tree and palm material Q E first followed by the shrub and ground cover or by defined area where all of the infill >' landscaping is done at one time. m Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other improvements recommended in this section. a D5 -13: Add a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length of the US -41 berm (reference Recommendations Plan and Noise Level Data Sheets). Proposed Improvement: Add an eight foot precast concrete panel wall and columns /caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length of the US -41 berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,630,000 Alternative solution: Add an eight foot precast cement board wall and columns system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length,of the US -41 berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 969,500 Phasing: This project can be phased to install lengths of sections of the wall at one time. We recommend that the Foundation work with the private property Owners that abut US 41 right of way for easement access to install the wall improvement or replace existing wall sections as appropriate. Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other improvements recommended in this section. 05/18/2010 0 1611 B13' D5 -C: Improve the height of the berm at the south end of the Ridgewood Drive park beyond the water management lake. Proposed Improvement: Install a wooden retaining wall on the park/lake side and place up to 54" of new planting fill on the US -41 side — install the new concrete panel wall a noted above atop this new berm area and re- landscape and irrigate additional berm area. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,983,500 ra a Alternative solution: Place limited height soil berm of a maximum of 30" in the same area of the US 41 /Ridgewood Park parcel line: place the new wall atop this berm and E re- landscape the additional berm area. Opinion of Probable Cost: ' $ 1,877,500 L- Phasing: This project is limited in scope and length and can be installed at one time. CL E Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other r6 improvements recommended in this section. co - C D5 -D: Add a perimeter /barrier along the Serendipity and Naples Grande common property line along with acoustic treatments on the Naples Grande side of the wall to eliminate bounce noise to the pool area or re- transmitted to the Serendipity (reference Serendipity Perimeter Wall Study graphic). Proposed Improvement: Add a twelve foot precast concrete panel wall and columns /caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall across from the service dock wall of the Naples Grande. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 62,700 Alternative solution: Add a ten foot precast concrete panel wall and columns/caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall across from the service dock wall of the Naples Grande. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 52,400 Phasing: This project is to be implemented at a single time and include the landscape screening of the wall as required by the Pelican Bay Covenants. Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with operations and management understanding /agreement of the Naples Grande. lift 05/18/2010 rR D rD 0 C- Q rD n 0 rD 3 rD V) r+ Q D 1, v v v wilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III CD 3 rD 0 7 Q V7 n 3 O N 3 l/1 C Q `G D rD v ri- '.7 m r rD v hi v m Cr X, D! N M 3 L 3 S fD 0 .. a- !D D! < a n n O ID c rp v � r+ oa w ,= � v n '+ O c O � N w W a O O < O- v N C 0 O_ O Q N O O fD o :F C: =1-0 CL v # Q fD c N � A O 7 CD N 3 7 rD 7 O_ a n Dl O C 3 7 N C N n v C— o O s< --i 0 7 3 N S - fD ID 4 • 3 M (D N V !_ w ID ° v v rD 7 d N C O- N ID 0 d N D N 3 S O N 30�o Hoo- N p 7 D CO I N CL J p Q N O_ O '^ rD O_ p 7 d N N n 7 'D O- n p Q N N 1n � 3 3. N C fD O N T O O N O ID Q r v C: a O 7 _ N O 0 C H' 7 n C 70 a 3 o ID E : N N. CL N N -1 Z:�OoZDZZITS�A- -A, =-O -TccOM< Ono v7zam u, 3�,cn�o3w c5ma ^�-0 3 km Om " v (O A�p � � - 'O N 2 E S? A 0 CD 7'0 ClM O N 0OOat�D<<Mdo �.oCj am _ v v Q 2 O a 0 6i p C� a 73 3 O? 3 3 -3 r� WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III • All (♦MIN i =I♦M►,I♦ M IMW M1 M MPIAM IMMEF.EIME MMWAMM lE1M'AMM i MM,WI♦M MM►WMM =MOO= M MEMO MW-MMM IMWjMMMM =in==== mm i MMMKI MM mgmm �M MWI MM�� I� IMINIME mom III ■VIII ■IIIIIr.11l■III■III■III■ i = wlilll■ �El1MwWbzq■ mmm -� ��■ i MIMMWA M■ =EMI 41M M =lW1M W wMM1 WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III M 3 M M Ln O c Q rD n C `G 3 O N 3 rD C O_ D m v rD n O 3 3 M Q O O to n� la I D M O Ln v irk D ' A p; T T m z N n M.- p ' M D 0 I? 16 11 B, 3 AV A A 1 A A Co A. n; eor ° w C1 T A. �2 � C r i• A 0A «< a agx n n p u 8 0 A � g r WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III v rD m ,rt In 0 Q L/I ('1 a 3 rD r-f C Q `G v Q D v O rD INilsonMiller 1611 +B131 1 1 1 1 o, 1 0 I k-5� — a 1 1 1 1 o, Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III (9 I N I I 'li 1 1\ - i ozR n �P - �/ ;g °At C I \ \ � � I I Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III (9 3 i„ 0 rD Q 3 0 rD 3 un r.. C Q D v V) D v 0 C o z � a i WISO Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 E rD CD L, 0 C-- D 0 v, rD n c 0 D r+ r-F Q �G D V) D v rD m ro 1611 'B13 - -:- _— I I Qg :m rr �23 s E; G E 1IIIISOAVMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III a N 3 rD ID V) O C Q (D n O rD 3 rD r-F U) C Q D v N Q. D v -n 0 C 1 I- 1 , 1 , 1611 B13 I - - -- 1 ` -_ i P9 n �i IND J 3` all i FE �$ gAg ,I��II �, ia+ i �• � I m of ox o'" $x ' 13r�''i zz z$ oc�i oo z� �c�i I rr r , IlUilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09 rD n :D ua C. M v. x ID N N c- C ry N � C 0 C i fD � 0 A O S d h rD _N CD Q CD 11 La 2,5 ID L/IrD o rD S d 3 rD LO (DD z � � N N. s v � c < aQ (D rD �vrD Cr_< m o 'D n.a°J v a 0 o n. � c S a < rD N < rD v CA os v �. v Q < n 0 c w rfD CL : 2, U S -+, rD co O o (a 3 fD 0 c rD rF D v N N 0 Q v N s O rD c C r, o � m � rD o 3 < z o + 3 0 3 3 m 0 (D �. 0 fD O (D0 3 `° �< m (D� N 0 Q -i o m 3 D v3 rD 3 G � rD .0 (D 3 rD (D �C G v rf C Q I.. ^.:_.. fir:,:. i r z D -o r M N D z 0 m 16t1 B13 I D M M < Dn M 2 � <� O C 0 D N r M O c N m m Z Wiftomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 1611813 A 1 E Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Community Berm M Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). _ a 0 D6 -A: Repair and replace asphalt pathway atop berm. t d Proposed Improvement: Remove, repair and resurface the ten foot wide asphalt pathway — atop the berm removing undulations, cracks and differences of elevation at the edges of the C asphalt from the surrounding grade. c� o Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 406,500 � v Alternative solution: Berm repairs due to poor asphalt conditions are necessary but might v be able to be done in the phases listed below: > South Berm: $ 161,300 0 E Middle Berm: $ 79,700 North Berm: $ 165,200 - a ro m Phasing: Potential Environmental permitting may require a limited phasing opportunity for these efforts. South, north and middle berm sections are recognized in this report however the north and middle berm areas may need to be done in unison if stringent timing of Environmental permitting requires limited phasing. Sequencing: Initial understanding of the location of the berm and the ability to further improve the berm at the toe or top of the cross section is desirable prior to initiating work on the berm. Original permit cross sections, vegetative growth, erosion and mangrove advancement should all be reviewed and considered at the time of construction documentation and permitting of work through the entire cross section of any one area of the berm. Subsequent improvements listed in this section may be contingent on these improvements. D6 -13: Install seating areas and wildlife overlooks along the leng#h of the berm (reference Berm Master Plan and Overlook/ Rest Area Typical Plans). Proposed Improvement: Install seating areas and wildlife overlooks along the berm including any associated shading of seating and overlook areas along with screening landscape of drainage structures and the installation of site furnishings and interpretive signage. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 51,000 Alternative solutions: Add only the shading and screening landscape noted to the berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 13,700 Phasing: These areas can be phased in any order desired however we recommend the work be done at one time. Nim Sequencing: Consider implementing these improvements in conjunction with berm cross section work and asphalt re- topping. A� ■S 05/18/2010 0 131 D6 -C: Install Palms and Trees for shade and replace ornamental landsl6atlhelge of the berm ® and add nesting platforms to areas within view but not directly above the berm (reference Community Berm Planting Sheets). aJ Proposed Improvement: Add native trees for shade and native low growing landscape to the berm offering additional wildlife habitat and foraging and general interest to the open and long exposed lengths of the berm beyond identified seating and over look areas. Add and promote nesting opportunities in areas near the Community Berm. M Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 109,500 a Alternative solutions: Do not add these elements. aJ EPhasing: These improvements can be added over time in multiple phases. L Sequencing: Consider implementing these improvements in conjunction with berm E' cross section work and asphalt re- topping. M Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: Remove exotic and other ornamental landscape material that has encroached or been planted in association with the Community Berm. v a Make littoral landscape and /or rip rap improvements at the base of the berm as permitted to limit erosion from the tidal influences of the bay. Add informational signage of the environment and plant materials at the wildlife overlooks of the Community Berm. 05/18/2010 n 3 3 3 0 v Q 3 0 (D 3 M D �o v W (D 3 a) 7 MATCHLINE ` O o n m m v x A , 3 J N m 3 d a _ o " N V_ _ N N N C n J d— J J ] J 7 an d v m <2 O m°- m m n 0 0 3 3 m I °m < m m' m N m m -`" m� d m g m o ] o mx ] m 3 m J a Z ] f � m m o m » n 0 m y < y J ] :D N p 0 t _ to O O N ' ] 3 Z 7 N N d n \ n J J l .al �C 7. r �i. MATCHLINE wilso1%mille Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 �C„. "M "Rs,�'k' • `,� Via. t L " e to, fi', S �.. ' �'�" �. aka, y� "' •��q �{ �.ay� k k ' :' au s wp S Z 7 t , X� Mmiliff Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III Vj 01 R�..t °� '�,1 d ,v ... � t w5 �� ,. k T .,' .9'Y'*'• a 'f n,y pe L ►%ik r y y a v p9 i r41f«r y o �,.« 1.KP "� „ x fat ie,�*^a.wu ',•!y#' v y!`, r"qb ,n � FY.. #h J a. ��., r, .F ,r} .4 � � +S'►,. .. h wea y wir s�, cey Y^ Y.' � rat Y� � �� ✓�4 t i � @' i? �`,� "'Pe � �.'�h fa t ffde W� r!Ym �P.; r A iYM M1 t R ri,W , a";WX rY &f }tea may, 6Y z pryl SyrM �Qa lkj ION y �y� r a A� v]JM111e% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III L" M 11 T v, tw a�r 1• G��"',r� ,•x '' �" ot"„5"' qN ,y z" jlz � [' tax•. #� � {,.� " � 'd*S'; #7C9 t S . � .�� s- .x , w Ar a` tis N �+ 1 x AW n O 3 3 w rD 3 n fD Cu O 3 rD r+ D rD n 0 3 3 0 Ln 0 s1 Q (D Qj 9j 3 KriIsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III � 3-1 �zo 0 z x m� Az U, 0 1m A Z Dp w >m z DD rA �m O x C M O -� = _. O 0) � M A O Z CO MATCHLINE O M z 1 D r w m OA �m O< XO O r mP0 O OAO PmDr C NZ OA'0 r r mp rp ZTZi �m Crz � '0 1 0 3C 0,01 C) Z �1 < Cm Ar" U)A D-0 A z z 0 w .4 D T C m D --------------------------------------------------- MATCHLINE -------------------------- -- ------ -- -- - - -- \ --- --- -- ----- -------- - - --- -- KriIsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III i �nF s t E''.M^;�: ' �° �` ''3Yp.P� .. tie^ „r �, ,,P ,��m • A AS 7, ZAIAAV� iii i { r '° �' °r- `'t��. ins' & i' � ,{ ', ,��•� ' '� a l � yr 'Wro i y} ♦ � � d",Y —Y �:f r � !rt% ' ,� n r. "�r. r� � � x �n. •��,�; wit � �� n� �� { �' `.p._.��;r �- �� c nn xe��„ ��! w �r TA eo- n d^ i µ I 1Y P�5- +f '^ ides -µuy�, Y MSS`, ' 14d , '� i' a<' h',,, ,✓X�� M d F�tir ! J mr. r.•jc' i �.:y ter✓"; ' �+ _ CK"I tw mA �`�i?� A• f tea "1 ,: r' ' � •C " ..¢ ,L' lk :MV,', AN W P MM if Y n t Pg l3r, a Y sl � u yy A �� t t•'. �� -�' w i� a nA x �� 4Itn� Yb WVld V1 f„ I • t +. �' it Y' • ° '. . t,' *-w,. np •W �, 4, t Ak r , �� c I Rod IQ CO) --------- MATCHLIPE -ot 1d-tw Z� y R*i 01 w Olt IV VIII 101 1 4, ol� 4�4 10 T 4r- .1, Vo s IN -ji *'"% "a• MAW in M �AdW jwnp f eL°' w 5 i' il �`� �� '. �• sax'" e4 P y� r p rT k i-0 f '4— A � Alt i'Ir►! "g,,W 7 4� 3r N n O D 3 C rt 'G (D (D 3 O N 3 N 3. D v `G HT N (D rD fD � N o� � a �Q d O C O ro M (D V1 S S C w � a CL Q C QI d w O to Sr O ru a n m a 19 a O C .S0 .Sr S S O !D � n = oCO (D y a. 7 `G d a o_ La o O �C h S S O d n = O U, a Q D n Ul C Z CO m D M D C� C O 0 M V) V) 2 O m 0 0 N M O m D Z m 16111 Q'4 a C T; 0 A O O N T_ 7 O ri ri ~ a- 0- L. y, S (D N < N d C N D Q a D O_ c of m O 3 mn mn 0 Q ro N C� S < O_ a v o E' o CD n O T to N rF 7 O_ R- 0 C to w 0 m v n LA D D r D D 2 O O Z O INilspnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 M 'o m O d A Z ua 30 m S D 2 O O Z O INilspnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 M r) 0 3 �N 0 < - — --------- rD 19Z 3 ? rD 0 rD M- 0 0 77 rD rD -V a) M Un Aga 16 1 f' -3 Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 E �N Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 E AM Z W V1 c� 6 V Community Improvement Study Area I Reorganized Commons Site with Foundation Operations Relocated W 0 L Q E m u Q� aft cu— 1611813 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Tram Stations Concluding Improvement Recommendations g rovement p and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). a� D7 -A: Separate tram waiting and pick up from the cart storage and back of house functions of the ra tram station sites (reference North Tram Station Layout Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Modify the site and building footprint of the North Tram c Station to provide separate cover for the Tram users remote from the storage building ro overhead door approaches. Enclose and separate the service building from the tram waiting areas and provide for a wide enough turning radius for the largest of tram = wheel tracking in the tram cul -de -sac. Purchase a matching` family of site furnishings to a� E include up to four — five foot benches, a message board, ganged trash and recycling a' bins and bicycle parking for up to 12 bicycles. Install clay brick pavers in the waiting o area and ADA truncated clay bricks at the edge of the cart drive cul -de -sac area. CIL Include potted plants in the tram loading area. Continue to landscape the location for E shade and comfort of the station users and replace the parking lot pole lights with the A' 16 foot residential LED-fixtures noted in the lighting section. m Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 180,000 c Alternative solutions: ca u — aJ a 1. Provide improvements as listed above but pour a new concrete floor under the separate cover of the tram pick up area and install the clay brick truncated dome pavers at the edge of the cart cul -de -sac drive area. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 177,000 2. Leave the station as is and provide for new site furnishings and potted plants. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 15,000 Phasing: This project is contained on a small site and is not recommended to be phased. Sequencing: This project should be considered to be implemented with the new driveway curb cut and the cross walk improvements in the area of the north Tram Station. D7 -13. Separate tram waiting and pick up from the cart storage and back of house functions of the tram station sites (reference The Commons Layout Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Modify the Commons Tram Station by relocating the tram station to the north end of the site, refurnish the station and relocate the trash dumpster, tank farm and other back of house/beach restaurant service activities to the loading dock and cart storage areas at the south end of the Commons building. Add �, 50' of perimeter buffer along property line with concrete panel wall and landscape 05 enhancements, screen walls and gates to the new trash, compactor and tank farm �= locations of the site and reconfigure the employee stair access at the south end of the building, second floor. Reassign employee parking to the south end of the site allowing for resident and guest use of the north and central parking areas more proximately ft— associated with the amenities of the Commons. Adjust north entry drive, parking and A' 05/18/2010 r 16/1 r X13 replace the wooden entrance sign. Add concrete pedestrian side walks throughout the Commons site and install one Handicap parking stall and concrete side walk access to the ramp on the west side of the Tennis building. v Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 898,000 `C Alternative solutions: CL Adjust north entry drive, parking in the area and replace the wooden entrance sign. C Add only the concrete pedestrian side walks through the Commons site, new site M furnishings and install one Handicap parking stall and concrete side walk access to the -J ramp on the west side of the Tennis building. a� Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 72,600 E oPhasing: Phased improvements to the Commons Tram Station and greater site area are possible. The alternative solution may be phase one to include adding pedestrian Q pathways, one dedicated handicap parking stall for the Tennis Building, reconfiguring E the north entrance for better ingress /egress automobile and pedestrian movements and adding a mens /womens bathroom to the tennis site. Adding a palm tree bosque for M shaded cover to the outdoor lounge area within the tennis site is also a possibility. The next phase may be that the Tram Station relocates as suggested and all of the back of house functions (but the trash compactor) relocate to the loading dock area. The final a phase may be the relocation of the trash compactor to the new service area along with the opportunity to direct service traffic to the south entry of the site and install a roundabout in the service area from resident traffic entering on the north end of the site. Sequencing: This project is a site reorganization project and in its initial phases would be best to complete with pedestrian cross walk improvements in Pelican Bay Boulevard along with landscape and irrigation improvements in the median or edge of the right of way. Subsequent phases would be best accomplished with Commons building improvements such as a new roof or with Pelican Bay Foundation operational and office modifications at the site. D7 -C: Improve the site area and station structure of the Sand Piper Tram Station (reference Sandpiper Tram Station Enhancement Sheet graphic). Proposed Improvements: Modify and enhance the site landscape of the Sandpiper Tram station to provide a high quality filter swale and swale landscape in and around the station. Apply architectural fa4ade and roof upgrades to match the other station architectural upgrades. Replace the site furnishings and include potted plantings for definition of separation of waiting areas from tram circulation areas. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 57,500 Future maintenance and improvement guidelines. Ensure all improvements and repairs at the Tram Station locations throughout the community include ADA compliancy. Future architectural repairs in Tram system shade and building structures are to remain compatible with the rustic Florida architectural character and style of the Commons Building. This creates a unique 05/18/ 01@r 161 1B1310 architectural marker to the Community Berm and Mangrove Forest system through the back bays and 01 to the beach with a style that is invocative of the natural areas the Community Berm and Boardwalk meander through. Standing seam metal roofing improvements contemplated for the Commons building should be made to the Tram Station Structures too. Reorganization of the site functions of the North Tram and Commons location is so that the pedestrian v Ln ra and tram user relationships are separated from the other functional activities at or surrounding the a stations. Provide a single manufacturer, aesthetically compatible and consistent site furnishings to each Tram Station site. We suggest the breadth of product options made available by Victor Stanley, Inc. a including the variety of colors, shapes, castings, use of recycled products etc., to be a quality and likely source for all of the Pelican Bay community public area needs. http://www:victorstanley.com. Public E bidding requirements, when in force, shall note this as the standard for installation of the same or equal products to be purchased and installed (reference site furniture cut sheets in Pathways section). 0 0 Pelican Bay street and site furnishings may vary in color, casting and model choice by area of use so 0- E long as they are varied in compatible rather than starkly contrasting manners. Furnishings associated with the Tram Stations and Community Berm system should take on more natural colors (blues of the m clear sky, bronzes and wheat colors of the native grasses and vegetation, light greens of new vegetative c growth and littoral plants, black of the dark roots and water color of the mangroves) with color accents ro used with discretion. Park areas may choose to provide a more colorful range of choices in the furnishings (including reds, yellows, oranges, true greens and blues) and the pathway furnishings °- should associate with the street lighting, signage, etc., of the boulevard and parkway settings of the streets, typically a forest green. Site furnishing color selections do not have to be dictated by conventional thought or have color dictated erroneously. For example, we recommend that ganged recycling bins are used at Tram Station areas but we do not recommend the use of "Recycling Blue ". The color of these bins should match or be compatible with the color of the balance of the furnishings in the area. Newspaper or other furnishings that may be placed for residents' convenience in these locations and are recommended to be a vintage /classic aesthetic and a color that is consistent with the balance of the furnishings. Pelican Bay Covenants and Code Enforcement should have approval of the use and aesthetic of these elements. Classic, large, heavy rolled rim terra cotta planters for potted plantings should be used where potted plantings are desired in addition to the site furnishings. Pots that are less than 27 inches in height or width are discouraged as being out of scale and too fussy to plant and maintain. http: / /www.jalupotteryonline com. 1 05/18/2010 0 G CD 3 rD C/1 r-r C CD D v M x T n D v v 3 v n rD r O n v O v wiIsOnMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E 1611 B13 In Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Signage M Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) D8 -A: Replace and update the North Pointe Drive/ Vanderbilt Beach Road Pelican Bay Community entry a sign (reference Signage Options Type II graphic). d Proposed Improvement: Replace this sign with a new concrete block and stucco finished C sign providing a model for updates in sign construction finish, lighting, landscaping and the addition of pots/decorative elements that all other primary Community Entry signs may have added in the future. Opinion of Probable Cost: $'22,000 E Alternative solution: Replace this sign to match the existing signs at the Community entries a O on US 41. Q Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,700 E Phasing: This may be done at any time. However these wooden signs from an earlier time at a rp m the community edge or within the Pelican Bay community are limiting to the perception of the community behind and around the sign. Sequencing: Signage consistency is lacking throughout the community and we suggest that a� a signage improvements be implemented at the edge of the community first and then inwardly through phased improvements and the adoption of a signage standard. D8 -B: Install Neighborhood Monumentation Gateways for the single family neighborhoods (reference Signage Options Type V graphic). Proposed Improvement: Install pairs of pylon signs at the entry drives to the Oakmont and Ridgewood neighborhoods (4 pairs total: Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive and Oakmont Parkway; Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive and Green Tree Drive). Signs are to be built in concrete block and stucco finish and are to project the model updates proposed for community wide signage. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 146,600 ($ 36,665/pr.) Alternative solutions: Do not install these monument signs. Phasing: These projects can be phased in time however we recommend that they be done together or phased by neighborhood. Sequencing: These projects may want to be done in conjunction with pathway, landscape and irrigation or adjacent traffic pavement improvements. D8 -0 Install Pelican Bay minor gateway signs along the secondary entries to the community. Proposed Improvement: Install small pylon signs within the community and along the secondary entry drives into Pelican Bay. Signs are to be built in concrete block and stucco finish, must not be at the community perimeter to be construed as primary signage allowed 05/18/2010 0 1611 q-"'l 3 1 ® by the PUD and are to project the model updates proposed for community wide signage (Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Hammock Oak Drive). — Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 33,000 ( $ 16,500/pr.) Alternative solutions: Do not install these monument signs. t Phasing: These projects can be phased in pairs over time however we recommend that they be done together at Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Hammock Oak Drive. c c� CL Sequencing: These projects may want to be done in conjunction with pathway, pathway bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements. v ED8 -D: Replace all original Pelican Bay wooden amenity entry signs. L Proposed Improvement: Replace wooden amenity entry signs at the North Tram Station and CL Sandpiper parking lot concrete/ stucco signs (Commons sign included within Commons site E plan improvement costs). >_1 Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 24,000 ( $ 12,000 /ea.) M Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend both be completed at the same time. v a. Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements for consistency. D8 -E: Renovate/ replace US -41 entry signs at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Proposed Improvement: Update the three primary US -41 entry signs with materials and finishes consistent with Community branding. Costing allowance is based on matching material and finish improvements from D8 -A (reference Signage Options Typel graphic). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 90,000 ( $ 30,000 /ea.) Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend they be completed at the same time. Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements for consistency. D8 -F: Renovate site area around Community commercial corner monuments. Proposed Improvement: Renovate/ clean up site area around corner monuments located at US -41 and Seagate Drive and US -41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Remove and trim trees/ i palms and other vegetation as necessary to allow visual prominence. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 30,000 ( $ 15,000 /ea.) Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend both be completed at the same time. Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements. a05/18/2010 1611 g13 `I■ Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: M We recommend the Foundation conclude the preparation of the Signage Covenant standards that they _ have drafted for use in establishing a set of technical signage guidelines for application within Pelican — Bay. G) Phase replacement of the Pelican Bay Community signage as suggested in the signage master plan is to be consistent with the new signage standards of the community as well as consistent with the family of — street lighting and street furnishings being applied to the public areas of the community. co Banner arms and other decorative holiday lighting options may be considered to be additional to the a Signage Covenant standards and street light pole improvements. E C) O L Q E m �.i Qi 1` 05/18/2010 1611 ®� III aseyd I Ueld JuaWanoadwI Aeg ue:)ilad JOINNUPS M pis � C CL c O m V O J 4J �1 v1 i X w v Q T C Cv L Q) Q E aj O W g Y i O A A ® J fL � i LC c < U � cQc C O p O 2� �dJ � J q O J O A % �d Ct Z Cw7 a J a w � � w a Z m m a �m y6 Q V1 1 0 G t S G N `o v F E E d H E E c N N Z O � 3 v E m � o C C m d °a Z Y W G w O Q E N V C= v Q ®K o T% j w O 0 ® A ®� III aseyd I Ueld JuaWanoadwI Aeg ue:)ilad JOINNUPS M pis � C CL c O m V O J 4J �1 v1 i X w v Q T C Cv L Q) Q E aj T• G m • �N a,' rA i v rD 3 0 3 rD 0 c Q D v 0 0 rD Q Sn L' v LO M 3 .0 0 m 3 (D v wiIsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 L �J 0 3 3 WIE1 0 0 0 3 v i i� GG r) 0 3 3 C (D 3 m _0 < rD 3 :j (D 0 L/I Ct 0 C 0- > 0 (D a) V) Qj QQ rD 0 (D wilsonmiller L-, L -A M 0 3 r) 0 3 3 C M 0 0 0 (D M aD Ct 0 3 r) 0 3 3 C r.n L.Q :3 0 -0 S 0 161 13H i Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 090 L7J r) 0 3 3 La :3 0 _0 0 0 rD fix Lac F5, n 0 3 uq. QQ rD - G' 3 D < rD :3 rD 0 > (D Qj lilt 4' 1611's 8131 0 � I a M rD w C�% 0 :3 r) 0 3 3 (D 0 _0 C:t 0 M 0 :3 (D LJ 0 7 r) 0 3 3 (D 2. Qj V) 0 0 0 f. wilsof7miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III LSD rD 3 0 3 c Q D 3 w Sn UQ D w QQ m O o' a n 0 3 3 m n v N tQ O h o' D s m v M' CO Q s ) Seagate Drive 1611 R13'' 0 WiIsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 �J n 0 3 3 D r+ z M. a 0 0 0 o_ v v Q v 3 v r+ 0 WllspMiller 1611 B13 r 1 M tQ l v n r„ lQ O rp rD E v n 0 3 5 o' -9 O� o rD a o 3 3 fD O 3 N 7 C rD :3 C- C C Q Gl � v D rD r � v a 0 v LQ rD n M O o—< � � v 3 0' O IM O� O O 3 �3 n' v 0 o � r+ v WllspMiller 1611 B13 r 1 M v 0 n 0 3 -- 7 N ti r t" o tv z a IM a��ata�aa O0 , 1 tQ Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 161 1,q8 13 �JN Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Public Parks M Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) Ridgewood Park and Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry at US 41 v t a D9 -A1: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of — screening vegetation and landscaping (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 graphics). r6 Proposed Improvement: Open up views from Ridgewood Drive into park by thinning -J shrub material along western edge (refer to Ridgewood Park illustrative plan this v section). E Opinion of Probable Cost $ 2,600 > Alternative solutions: Reduce the area of sandy ground and the exercise trail in favor of 0 0' the relocation of swing sets and new picnic tables/ trash cans on the edges of a larger E semi -open sod area closer to Ridgewood Drive (refer to Ridgewood Park illustrative plan >% ro this section). - m Opinion of Probable Cost $ 66,000 C v Phasing: Territorial observation is an important safety principle and should be v implemented early primarily through general maintenance practices. Sequencing: Views from Ridgewood Drive should be enhanced immediately followed by the relocation of play equipment and picnic tables. D9 -61: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of screening vegetation and landscaping (refer to PBB South Community Entry graphic under Section Q. Proposed Improvement: Improve the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry drive area of Foundation land to be a linear park with the background of the perimeter wall from the US 41 berm (wall estimate not included). Opinion of Probable Cost $ 268,500 Phasing: The Foundation land on the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry between US 41 and Ridgewood Drive can be enhanced greatly with safety aspects through implementation of CPTED principles as well as enhancing the entry area aesthetics. The proposed improvement should be considered early in the process. Sequencing: This project should be done in conjunction with adjacent traffic pavement and neighborhood gateway improvements. lift D9 -C1: Enhance safety elements within the park (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 graphics). 1 Proposed Improvement: Install open metal grate over the top of the drainage structure at the western edge of the lake. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 850 05/18/2010 1611813, ® Alternative solutions: Add a vehicular gate with an access card reader at the parking lot entry drive. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 9,500 Ln ru Phasing: Improvements can be phased in with the other park elements. Sequencing: Proposed improvement of drainage structure grate should be completed prior to relocating play equipment due to close proximity. a D9 -D1: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 a) graphics). E v > Proposed Improvement: Add three water fountain features into the southern two lakes L for the addition of white noise helping to mask noise from US 41. Q E a Opinion of Probable Cost $ 20,700 0° Alternative solutions: Add a wooden bridge connecting the walking trail to the island M within the lake to the north of the parking area. v CL Opinion of Probable Cost $ 7,500 Phasing: These projects may be phased in over time with the remaining park elements. Sequencing: Fountain features will immediately enhance user experience through traffic noise abatement. Oakmont Park: D9 -A2: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of screening vegetation and landscaping (reference Oakmont Park Illustrative Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Open up views to children's play area from lake edge pathway by thinning shrub material on the western side of the play area. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1000 Phasing: Territorial observation is an important safety principle and should be implemented early primarily through general maintenance practices. Sequencing: This project should be done in conjunction with routine general upkeep and maintenance of the canopy understory which will also assist in territorial observation. D9 -132: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Oakmont Park Illustrative Plan graphic). 05/18/2010 1611 al Proposed Improvement: Update play structure with expanded activities and add two picnic benches. KJ Opinion of Probable Cost $ 39,800 = Alternative solutions: Add butterfly garden area with bench overlooking lake along a Ln s pathway at western end of park. a. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 8,800 rp Alternative solutions: Add small parking area (4 -5 spaces) of crushed stone like exists at a +J Ridgewood Park with vehicular gate and access card reader. v E Opinion of Probable Cost $13,000 > Phasing: Improvements may be phased in over time. O E Sequencing: These projects should be implemented after territorial observation projects. >+ _ rp M C c� V N d 05/18/2010 v 77 LA 3 0 rD rD D _un Q D v LD CD 0 0 Q v M X L MR fl, • WiIsonMiller f Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 , F t �s t , x kj' . 1 �t i k; Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 2 ƒ / 2 } ] § \ � % ± � c e } 0 / / O 0 / 5 \ ) -V � � ƒ !k; ( ( ! ; ) \ \\ g A !o, , § #f \ 2�) § k 1>/\ \\ 990 )n 7! H ;§ ® 2! §\ � !§ »!�» § ^ °G -/§ 0 sew§ L) !2 \M)\ M \�� k \�\ �� \)) \k $�§ ma; 22q! \ 61 22 ( d f ( j ` - !G /ZE / /() \k /k\ ƒ !k; ( ( ! ; ) \ \\ g A !o, , § #f \ 2�) § k 1>/\ \\ 990 )n 7! H ;§ ® 2! §\ � !§ »!�» § ^ °G -/§ § \J sew§ L) \M)\ M \�� k \�\ �� §\ ;2,¥ ma; 22q! \ z ( , f ( j 161 N B 1 / VC ) �\ \\ \\\. 7\ r W11SORM% l r Rnon Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 E •I . � O O y Z 16 1 1 31 C ✓ I) I r A Z y y y r Z= p Ln J � I D� rp, v a IJ oAo 77- Dvmim r�m Z On �,• °m O 00� �-+S° A^ _0 Ao� �Om D R'. �: m � n Op°OT --0 W a0 i�0i7 °y°OOG N v D y O °zy0 02 /q S X D 0 y D m O D DO m m~ pAD ��Z� OOH V). m 3° �Z ymN F T C) 0 Z v 8o OM O m�� rDDj2j �n v A Z )Cp M�C�� 2 CZ A O °K y _� s ° rrDD F 5i °T^:a O v� ry r A r m MF A v ~ Z wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase III v ?$ o Z y z m Dmm � / vmyi� D 2 s ° msz �AFft Chin° AN nm OCO my .— C c� aim n° r) DS Troy o ° 6. i C�JO A As =m NF m y0 Ac-- ' j •I . � O O y Z 16 1 1 31 C ✓ I) I r A Z y y y r Z= p Ln J � I D� rp, v a IJ oAo 77- Dvmim r�m Z On �,• °m O 00� �-+S° A^ _0 Ao� �Om D R'. �: m � n Op°OT --0 W a0 i�0i7 °y°OOG N v D y O °zy0 02 /q S X D 0 y D m O D DO m m~ pAD ��Z� OOH V). m 3° �Z ymN F T C) 0 Z v 8o OM O m�� rDDj2j �n v A Z )Cp M�C�� 2 CZ A O °K y _� s ° rrDD F 5i °T^:a O v� ry r A r m MF A v ~ Z wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase III L Ln 3 0 G N 3 rD C Q `G D v W v 77 3 0 v M X D m dr wiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 E v 3 0 G D O v 77 0 r-F E rrt G• v Ct 1AI I =t t� Z_ zD m u 0 wo mzz E3��D5 z ' z �o7pp' Cz�2z2 oo�m ZZ oOp0 0D � voO � $ "D A asp z <m m =W A A °o D O Z WiIsonMiller 41 m D09 Z9' Z Zoo O Day O - -Z D D L1 ~ O 002 9z 13+ m ti 9 Z O Z za v w c �m m Z � s �A 1 M. x 0= F m z z; rl m1ZD =P, >z 3,3 O Z A — ZL D Z1 AD m s D A M ? _ C 5 �D� ` no °D A -MT k #46X ! M6 f b a 4 7. m z 0 m i z 0 m 0 2 D G m z Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 M 16[1 B1 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — New Technologies M Concluding Improvement Recommendations Uiio A. Use of state of the art, LED lighting technology is recommended for its longevity of the light a emitting diode over conventional lamping, absence of any ballast needs to power the light and energy conserving nature when compared to the existing HID Metal Halide and PL Fluorescent s lighting systems in the community. B. Explore the option of having smart lighting technologies accompany the LED Street Lighting technology where Emergency Responders can be directed to an address in thecommunity and at a the same time, a remote signal to the street light pole closest to the address of the call can blink or c announce that the responders are near. v E C. Continue to explore the option of self contained solar powered LED light fixtures for use in remote o locations from electrical power. L D. Continue to monitor bulk solar power collection opportunities for remote collection from the LED CL E lamp source for powering of a group of fixtures through fixture remote solar collection and battery storage of power. CO E. Continue to use on- demand and other light level powering technologies in conjunction with LED C U lighting for evening pedestrian use. a) F. Consider the installation of Code Blue emergency call stations with camera surveillance at key locations in the community — working with the manufacturer is very important to arrive at an aesthetic for the station that would be fitting in the community. G. Continue to install a connective network of card swiping or attended stations for use of private facilities for members — use of card swiping to gain access through an automobile gate for example to allow members to enter remote and un- attended amenity areas such as the parking lot at the Ridgewood Park. 05/18/2010 z M M n O_ O QQ N O N 3 M i3 r+ C Q K (D N O N O sy r O n flJ O v 3 wiIsonMiller Q O ��ZII < N ^� N m N 3g "GGOd' o y x o VANDERB!(T BEACH RD- _ Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III SEAGATE DR 0 3 n n � n A Z 0 ~ A G P o K QQ rG 0 e`JO gPV Q O ��ZII < N ^� N m N 3g "GGOd' o y x o VANDERB!(T BEACH RD- _ Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 1b11 B13' Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Public Art Concluding Improvement Recommendations UJ A. Given public art promotes the general welfare and quality of life within a community; v enhances the real estate values of a community and expresses a communities pride ro and common principles of its relationship with its surroundings, we recommend the CL Foundation preserve and develop open space lands identified on the Public Art master _ plan as potential art gardens or locations for public art to be introduced in the future. c ca a. B. Pelican Bay benefits from many of its residents personal interests and activities as well as +- the presence of the Philharmonic, the Naples Art Museum, the Resort Hotel properties v and the Waterside Shops as venues and patrons of the arts. This community collection of E patronage, its unique knowledge and its passion for art provides the basis of leadership > and guidance in the creation of a public art program. We recommend this broad group Q of interests become the basis for establishing a committee for the addition of public art C into the Community of Pelican Bay in order to further establish as a premier and model — community its commitment to the quality of life, the value of owning a residence and the establishment of a business practice within the community. c ra C. The Pelican Bay Foundation establishes a community wide leadership committee, similar `—' to the Strategic Planning Committee, to work with The Foundation and its board to ri further define a Public Arts program for Pelican Bay. We recommend that this committee establish the standards for and the application process in which to donate public art in the Community. This committee would review applications of contribution of public art for the Pelican Bay Community, establish draft legal agreements for the contribution, maintenance and upkeep of artwork and make recommendations to the Pelican Bay Foundation Board as to the inclusion of public art in the Community. D. The Pelican Bay public arts committee establishes working ties locally and state wide to assist in the definition of the Community Public Arts program and to establish the funding mechanisms for the procurement, donation,, installation and maintenance of public art in the Community. Like almost every public art programs nationwide, we do not envision funding for such a program to be done by the Community as part of its fees or tax base but by contribution, grant and other public and private available funding mechanisms. E. Public Art should include specimen landscape items (The Bridgeway Yellow Tabebuia known as "Tabby Tabebuia") and unique open space areas conceived in part as art parks (The Foundation Lands on the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard south entry from US 41) as locations for public artwork to be installed. 05/18/2010 c n D 3 0 CD 3 c Q D v n, LA -1 . LQ Ip r- 0 n v h O� D n, tQ M wiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 Fiala Hales 16111 13 Hen Wi ng Coyle —___7_ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MUbTM MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday, May 5 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive. The following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenie Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager John Iaizzo Michael Levy ECE /VE Theodore Raia, Jr. D John Baron JUN 0 Hunter H. Hansen absent 9 ?410 80ero ofCounlY 3. Common ers Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate & Landscape Architect 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. March 31, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. April 5, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall c. April 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Monthly Financial Report b. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Preparedness add-on 7. Chairman's Report a. Suggestions to Improve Meeting Proceedings b. Appoint Mr. John Chandler to the Budget Subcommittee c. Review and Approval of a Scope of Work for an Independent Peer Review of the October 2009, Post Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS & J) Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report d. Governance Update e. Announcements 8. Capital Projects MISC. CorreS: 9. Community Issues a. Clam Bay Estuary System i. Mangrove maintenance permit update (M. Levy) Date: —'-` ii. Canoe trail markers update (M. Levy) -- --- 10. Committee Reports and/or Requests Item #: Budget Committee (M. Levy) a. Review and Approval of Fiscal Year 2011 Proposed Budget 11. Old Business a. Gulf Park Drive Safety Improvements (J. Chandler) 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet b. Future Private Beach Renourishment (J. Domenie) 14. Audience Comments 15. Adjournment ROLL CALL Seven Board members were present and quorum established. Vice Chairwoman Womble, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Raia arrived late. Mr. Hansen was absent. 8371 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 B y � � May 5, 2010 WILSON MILLER COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE Mr. Steve Sammons gave a brief community improvement plan update. At the April 28 Community Improvement Plan workshop Wilson Miller distributed the Phase III Design Development report that includes project recommendations and cost estimates, however it is a working document, subject to revision. He would deliver parks and landscaping project recommendations and cost estimates pages inserts for the binder on Thursday, May 6 to the Services Division and Foundation offices. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Levy made a motion, seconded by Mr. Domenie to approve the agenda as amended, to add "Deepwater Horizon Dil Spill Preparedness" to Mr. Dorrill's Administrator's Report as item 6 b. The Board voted unanimomb to approve the amudir as amended APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. Domenie amended the March 31 minutes, page 93 to read, "three feet" not "three inch" cobblestone strips. No changes made to the April 5 minutes. Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cravens amended the April 7 minutes, page 8364, adding the Board vote to approve the motion directing Mr. Hall to take necessary actions to install canoe trail markers in Clam Bay unanimously. Mr. Levy amended the April 7 minutes, page 8363, to read, "Mr. Levy asked if red and green markers were installed, would they have to dredge ?" Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. Chandler, to approve the April S minutes as they stand, and the March 31 and April 7 minutes as amended The Board voted unan*neusly to approve the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill presented the month ending April 2010 financial report. There is roughly $1.9 million available, a modest amount of outstanding payables, and revenue is ahead of forecasted budget. As of April 1, unpaid assessments are delinquent and sold at auction in June by the Tax Collector and Services Division will receive the proceeds. As previously reported, looking at a year -to -date analysis, tree trimming expenses and community beautification miscellaneous operating supplies are over budget, but expect it to be in line by year -end. Mr. Chandler noted the report was missing figures affecting variance and subtotal columns under water management administration, fertilizer and herbicides/chemicals; and flood control, replanting program. Mr. Dorrill said he would make corrections and reported that he needs to clarify why there is negative carry forward in the primary operating fund, so he will investigate and provide report. Dr. Rain made a motion seconded by Mr. Gibson to accept into the record the April 2010 monthly nancial mi The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion. 8372 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 B 1, May 5, 2010 DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL PREPAREDNESS (add on) Mr. Dorrill referred to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. To be proactive, prior to the Governor issuing a state of emergency, staff is monitoring the oil spill and exploring options available to close Clam Pass to prevent possible contamination. They have requested that Humiston and Moore look into one method to drive interlocking corrugated metal or vinyl sheet -pile bulkhead across the width of the Pass. State emergency plans prefer to use sand. Staff is also investigating closing the Seagate Drive culverts with a "pig" or large industrial balloon and compressor. He suggests the Board apply for an emergency permit now to close Clam Pass should conditions warrant. Mr. Cravens asked what it costs to apply for a permit, labor to perform work, and if sufficient funds are available. Mr. Dorrill said any work on the beach would require a permit application and they would pay an engine operator by the hour to drive interlocking sheet pile across the width of the Pass. This method would not affect the physical profile of the beach or adjacent vegetative areas. The permit application would specify intended work and necessary equipment and estimates total costs less than $ I OK. Alternatively, if enough sand were seaward of the dune line, the best course of action would be to have a dozer fill in the Pass at low tide. Mr. Hall agreed and added permit application fees are dependent upon the location's size and estimated that less than one acre is $540 and more than one acre is $1,500. The state considers emergency permits a high priority. Mr. Chandler asked if they plug the Pass with sand, how long would it last and could a storm undo it? Mr. Hall said yes, a storm could unplug the Pass regardless of the method and material. Creating a bulkhead using sand is quickest, easiest, and cost efficient. If the bulkhead were high enough, barring any storm event, sand would likely stay in place until summer rain and storms build the water line high enough behind it to start flowing over. Mr. Cravens asked if closing the pass would inhibit water circulation and have a negative impact on the mangroves. Mr. Hall said if mangroves were to die -off due to higher water levels and reduced flushing, they could restore them. Oil getting into the system would have greater impact Mr. Cravens asked if they close the Pass, and oil is on the beach, would the oil eventually contaminate the Pass? Mr. Hall said some contamination could happen, but the oil is moving through the current as a "slick," so the time of serious environmental impact should be finite. If the oil becomes waterborne, he is more concerned about sea grasses and shellfish than mangroves. His preferred method is to drive vinyl interlocking sheet pile, rather than steel which would cost more and take longer to complete. Regardless of material, driving sheet pile requires more labor, equipment, and material. Mr. Domenie said moving sand is probably easiest, but if Pelican Bay takes sand from County beaches, the County could use as an excuse to dredge later. Could they install flap gates, so the Pass could drain, while keeping oil out? Mr. Hall said part of the emergency permit would include a plan to restore the beach to its prior condition. 8373 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16 B13 May 5, 2010 Mr. Domenie asked if the County had plans to install booms offshore. Mr. Hall said he is aware of emergency management plans, but has not had an opportunity to review. Chairman Dallas said he understands the plan is to fill the inlet with a sand dyke. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Governor issued a state of emergency for the St. Petersburg District that covers this area. BP is responsible for cleanup and reimbursable expenses and the State's emergency plan is to build a sand dyke. Mr. Gibson is concerned that the County has Tourist Development funds to re- nourish beaches, but they may not do Pelican Bay beaches because the public does not have "ready access." Mr. Hoppensteadt said the County has not indicated that is the case. Mr. Dorrill said an emergency permit application to close Clam Pass is subject to the County's authorization to allow the Services Division to serve as their agent or permitting entity. A motion should include authorizing the Administrator with consultant assistance to retain necessary mobilization costs for materials and equipment. Mr. Hoppensteadt asked if they could photo document and take beach samples to show current conditions and Mr. Hall said he was recording current conditions. Mr. Dorrill would keep the Board apprised. Mr. Cravens made a mutton, seconded by Mr. Domenie, authorizing the Administrator with consultant assistance, file an emergency permit application with the appropriate agency to close Clam Pass should Deepwater Horizon oil spill conditions warrant Further, the Board authorizes the Administrator depending on consultant's final recommendation, to explore necessary materials, equipment, mobilization costs and resources to conduct work. Mobilization includes vinyl or steel sleet pile, "pig" or large industrial inflatable balloon. and heave equipment The Board voted unanimously to wwrove the mlodom CHAIRMAN'S REPORT SUGGESTIONS TO J MPROVE MEETING PROCEEDINGS Chairman Dallas is referred to "Roberts Rules for Dummies" and is concerned about protecting rights of Board members and the public not in attendance. He suggested that if they are planning to discuss and vote on a subject, then the item should be on the agenda, so that those interested are informed. The Board has a tendency to place items on the agenda at the last minute. When feasible, members should notify Ms. Resnick of the item for the agenda no later than the Friday prior to the meeting and if the public would like to distribute material for Board review, the same deadline applies. APPOINT MR JOHN CHANDLER TO THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman Dallas appointed Mr. Chandler to the Budget Subcommittee. He suggested that if any member was interested in being on a subcommittee to inform him. The only active committee currently is the budget subcommittee. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A SCOPE OF WORK FOR AN INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER, 2009 POST BUCKLEY SCHUH & JERNIGAN (PBS & J) CLAM BAY SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT Chairman Dallas said the Board held a workshop to discuss an independent peer review of the October, 2009 Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report and Services Division 8374 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 131 May 5, 2010 historical data. Board members made suggestions to correct Scriveners errors. The last sentence under "Consideration" should read, "It is marginally..." Periods removed from 1 — 4 under "Activities to be performed..." Members discussed whether they should eliminate any recommended individuals and Mr. Dorrill explained that the list is a preliminary vendor list. Those on the list would register with the County to receive notice of the opportunity. Members would consider respondents and make a decision at that time. No names removed. Mrs. Cravens provided additional sources for the bibliography, including Lewis, 1996; Hatcher, 1994, 1996, & 1997; Turrell, 1995; Snedeker 1996; Johnson, 1996; Mackie, 1996; and Wilson Miller, 1996. The majority of sources came from the Mangrove Action Group and Chairman Dallas requested Mrs. Cravens provide electronic copies. There was no further discussion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. Domenie to direct the Chairman to submit the independent peer review of the October, 2009 Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS &J) Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report and Services Division historical data scope of work as amended, to Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director of Collier County's Coastal Zone Management The Board voted unanimeous to approve the motion. GOVERNANCE UPDATE The Services Division is in process of exploring becoming an independent taxing district. It would be a communitywide effort and they will be scheduling a planning workshop to provide information about the pros, cons, what activities an independent district would perform, would not perform, and estimated costs. If the community responds positively, they would vote on whether to proceed. Mr. Dorrill met with the County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow requesting authorization for the Services Division to hire counsel that specializes in special districts, as well as for funding from the County Attorney legal expenses. Mr. Klatzkow agreed to hire the firm Nabor's Giblin as co- counsel and the County Attorney would provide half of the funding for legal expenses. Mr. Dorrill met with Mr. Hoppensteadt and Mr. Feldhaus and the Foundation is agreeable to collaborating and sharing funding, but they would hire their own counsel. Mr. Dorrill added the 2012 Session is the earliest that the Legislative Delegation could consider a referendum. He added that Pelican Bay would not gain control of the County's water management district, nor any beach related public assets, such as Clam Pass, however they might retain property and facilities to serve as the independent district's headquarters. The draft bill would contain a financial impact statement and Mr. Levy recommended that staff explore the financial impact early in the process. Staff would move forward and provide an update June 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas cancelled the Budget Subcommittee meeting on May 10 and a June meeting is tentative. There are two Community Improvement Plan workshops remaining, one on May 18 and final workshop on May 26. The Pelican Bay Foundation Board meets May 21. The next Services Division Board meeting is June 2. CAPITAL PROJECTS None 8375 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 B 13 May 5, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES CLAM BAY ESTUARY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PERMIT UPDATE Mr. Hall completed a Clam Bay maintenance permit application. Proposed maintenance activities would be done as needed and would follow the same practices as done previously by way of the original Clam Bay Restoration & Management Plan ten -year permit. Activities include manual cleaning of interior channels to maintain design depths and small flushing channels network, removing spoils by dispersing on adjacent areas, and trim mangroves along the canoe trail, berm, and boardwalk to provide access to pedestrians, waterways, and storm water facilities. The operational phase allows maintenance in perpetuity as necessary. He would drop from the application the proposed change to "authorize construction of new channels" for flushing purposes. There is no need to apply for an emergency permit. Application submission would require Board of County Commissioners' approval and staff should present an executive summary before June 2. Regarding the yellowing mangroves as seen from Mrs. Potter's apartment over the past year, Mr. Hall said the mangroves are stable, but due to a cold winter, they would grow back at a slower rate. After taking aerial photos in June, he will provide an update. CANOE TRAIL MARKERS UPDATE Staff presented Mr. Gibson's photo of a bamacle- covered canoe trail marker to illustrate the need to replace markers in poor condition because the County will not authorize installation of thirty-two canoe trail markers. Mr. Dorrill said the County perceives replacing canoe trail markers will jeopardize their appeal to the Governor to install red and green navigational markers. He would present photo to the County Manager explaining that replacing canoe trail markers in poor condition or missing is a maintenance only activity and provide an update on June 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET Mr. Levy presented the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget and explained how the Budget Committee developed it using the County's guidelines. Employees will not receive wage increases and indirect costs for their health insurance increased $1K per person. They did not propose an increase to the ad valorem street lighting millage. The proposed assessment is even at $370.64. The County will contribute $35K from Fund 111 to Clam Bay fund 320 for FYI and 2011 budgets. The Services Division proposed modifying the budget to match the County's FY10 and FYI l $35K contribution to the Clam Bay Fund 320, allocating $70K to both FYI budget and FYI I proposed budget. They would use reserves to make up for the deficit of $80K necessary to perform maintenance in Clam Bay and allocate the remainder to Capital Projects Fund 322 to total $2.5 million. The subcommittee recommended the Board approve the FY 2011 proposed budget as presented. Mr. Iaiuo made a motion seconded by Mr. Domeenie to authorize stad'to modify the Fiscal Year 2010 budget so that the Clam Bay Fund 320 contrOuton from both the Services Division's assessment and the County's General Fund 111 is $35K by trnnsferdag $65K from Own Bay Fund 320 into Capital Projects Fund 322 leavi a remaining balance o $70K The Board voted u to the motion. 8376 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 B1 ,3 May 5, 2010 Chairman Dallas and Mr. Chandler referred to the 2010 assessment of $370.64 and pointed out that the 2011 proposed assessment increased by ten cents and suggested keeping the same actual rate for 2011. Mr. Dorrill said consider it done. He believes an opportunity exists to save money on postage and printing expenses if the assessment stays the same because they may not have to notify property owners by mail, but he would need to confirm. Mr. Cravens made a motion seconded by Vice Chairwoman Womble to approve the LPF!&:wfad1Y:eaJr 2011 Pro ed Bu d as resented The Board voted u to ve the no OLD BUSINESS GULF PARK DRIVE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Approaching the stop sign at the intersection of Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, the lanes on Gulf Park Drive provide options striping options to turn left or right, however, an option exists to go straight through to St. Lucia. It is likely that the County will restripe at their expense. Chairman Dallas said the April 15 incident at the North tram station where a pedestrian was hit by a motor vehicle provides justification to implement Wilson Miller's recommendations to reconfigure the median and turn lane, as well as landscaping that to improve visibility. Mr. Chandler said a stop sign would be more effective than the "stop for pedestrians" signs in the roadway. Mr. Chandler made a motion, seconded by Mn Gibson to approve $1,$00 to install relkv ive pavement markers or RPM's at the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive at all bull noses, and turn lanes, and alonz the entire = g G Park Drive. The Board voted u to approve the motion. None MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Dorrill said the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard pathway repairs would be complete by May 7. He is awaiting a response from the County's Road Maintenance department for a cost estimate to replace, not repair the pathways and whether the Services Division would receive any maintenance credit if they decided to fund replacement. Mr. Domenie said the Foundation should be prepared to pay for a portion of beach renourishment the next time the County performs the work. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Jerry Moffatt referred to the Services Division's peer review proposal. The Board should consider whether it is necessary that the reviewer review twenty-two publications listed in the bibliography because it could increase costs for the review. Regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget, he asked how water management and community beautification funds budgets are lower if healthcare has increased by $1 K per employee. Mr. Levy and Mr. Lukasz said the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget allocated one -third of the healthcare costs to the street lighting fund, dividing the cost between three funds. He noted that at the intersection of Hammock Oak and Vanderbilt Beach Drive, heading out of Pelican Bay, the 8377 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 5, 2010 same lane is utilized to go straight through or turn right. A safety issue has developed because the traffic backs up, and cars are blocking the fire station driveway. They should bring the need to synchronize the lights to the County's attention. Regarding closing Clam Pass to prevent oil contamination, Mr. Bob Naegele asked if it was possible to install a dual layer of aluminum sheet pile, one layer to act as a barrier, and the other as backup. Mr. Dorrill said they could inquire about installing a dual layer bulkhead. He added that the preferred method is to construct a sand bulkhead. Funding sources have not been determined except for obtaining necessary permits, equipment, and contractor. Mrs. Cravens asked if installing a bulkhead with sheet pile is considered an " improvement" and Mr. Dorrill said no, it is reversible. She referred to Clam Bay Fund 320 and said Pelican Bay residents have historically provided funding for the Clam Bay projects through the assessment. It is a new concept that the Services Division is matching the County's Fund 111 contribution. Mr. Levy and the County's contribution has declined over the past several years, so the recent trend has been to match the contribution. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Chnvm made a swdm to adjonnr, seconded by Mr. laizzo, and Me Board YaW v to adjourn at 3:11 pin i Ke' J. Dail a Chairman 8378 Minutes by Lisa Resnick REV APP 6/4/2010 337:25 PM 161 ia H alas PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Henning A Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit Coyle NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAT, l�ZOit) THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 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: RECEIVED 1. 2. Roll can Wilson Miller Community Improvements Plan Update SUN 0 9 2010 3. Agenda Approval Board of COUnly COners 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. March 31, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. April 5, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall c. April 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Suggestions to Improve Meeting Proceedings b. Appoint Mr. John Chandler to the Budget Subcommittee c. Review and Approval of a Scope of Work for an Independent Peer Review of the October 2009, Post Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS & J) Gam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report d. Governance Update e. Announcements 8. Capital Projects 9. Community Issues a. Clam Bay Estuary System i. Mangrove maintenance permit update (M. Levy) ii. Canoe trail markers update (M. Levy) 10. Committee Reports and /or Requests Budget Committee (M. Levy) a. Review and Approval of Fiscal Year 2011 Proposed Budget 11. Old Business a. Gulf Park Drive Safety Improvements (J. Chandler) 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence Misc. Corres: a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet b. Future Private Beach Renourishment (J. Domenie) Date: 15. Audience Comments 16. Adjournment Item #: SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 4/30/2010 4:09:48 PM � f Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Uabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet April 30, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,925,826.78 16118131 $ 1,925,826.78 $ 1,925,826.78 - Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 1,477.09 31,415.94 1,715,639.09 177,294.66 $ 32,893.03 1,892,933.75 $ 1,925,826.78 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget April 30, 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 Fertilizer /Herb Chemicals Training and Education Total Water Management Administration Operating Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Water Mgmt. Flood Control Replanting Program 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 1611 'B13' Budget Actual Variance (10,000.00) $ 742,500.00 $ 705,740.47 $ (36,759.53) 1,922,500.00 1,827,411.63 (95,088.37) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) 40,500.00 8,607.52 (31,892.48) 2,697,000.00 2,541,759.62 (165,240.38) $ 44,500.00 $ 26,777.06 $ 17,722.94 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 2,050.00 2,050.00 117,600.00 117,600.00 - 16,600.00 - 16,600.00 21,300.00 8,225.00 13,075.00 4,100.00 1,607.24 2,492.76 3,000.00 46.44 2,953.56 - 1,081.40 (1,081.40) 13,400.00 8,905.58 4,494.42 1,300.00 975.00 325.00 2,300.00 250.00 2,050.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,261.57 2,157.82 2,103.75 2,981.20 1,100.00 252.93 847.07 255,861.57 172,909.67 85,933.10 148,600.00 93,705.59 54,894.41 12,000.00 - 12,000.00 22,500.00 - 22,500.00 1,975.00 21,100.00 5,719.00 15,381.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 42,400.00 25,105.70 17,294.30 500.00 252.28 247.72 - 272.00 (272.00) 8,300.00 5,145.03 3,154.97 - 47.60 (47.60) 2,600.00 1,950.00 650.00 3,600.00 2,700.00 900.00 4,500.00 2,478.12 2,021.88 2,000.00 3,804.50 (1,804.50) 27,600.00 14,316.00 13,284.00 1,900.00 2,988.05 (1,088.05) 500.00 - 500.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies Total Water Management Field Operations Operating Right of Way Beautification Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Storage Rental 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 806,700.00 161101 3,300.00 B131' 130,400.00 98,400.00 49 973.92 - 48,426.08 20,382.52 1,500.00 1,091.00 409.00 3,800.00 2,500.00 3,215.63 9,787.88 (715.63) 1,725.37 403,000.00 214,739.42 800.00 190,235.58 12-.300.00 45,600.00 27,342.19 6,975.00 18,257.81 15,180.01 16,900.00 - 800.00 16,900.00 25,000.00 4,200.00 2,100.00 2,927.89 2,100.00 2,151.12 28,000.00 9,697.00 60,200.00 18,303.00 30,000.00 3,900.00 1,607.24 - 2,292.76 530.00 3,000.00 20.70 11,500.00 2,979.30 13,800.00 9,164.82 4,635.18 500.00 375.00 125.00 - 291.75 (291.75) 2,600.00 - 2,600.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,774.26 2,240.38 2,533.88 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 128,774.26 52,839.08 75,935.18 806,700.00 475,735.02 3,300.00 - 130,400.00 88,239.28 6,500.00 - 29,500.00 20,382.52 211,800.00 103,539.46 475.28 3,800.00 1,823.60 24,900.00 9,787.88 3,400.00 1,725.37 8,500.00 2,970.25 800.00 216.00 12-.300.00 9,150.00 9,300.00 6,975.00 29,400.00 15,180.01 47,100.00 17,889.95 800.00 339.78 25,000.00 31,095.00 12,000.00 2,927.89 3,000.00 2,151.12 58,500.00 38,164.16 60,200.00 43,245.35 30,000.00 10559.79 1,500.00 - 3,000.00 530.00 3,000.00 2,664.15 11,500.00 13,505.67 1,536,100.00 899,272.53 2,323,735.83 1,339,760.70 330,964.98 3,300.00 42,160.72 6,500.00 9,117.48 108,260.54 (475.28) 1,976.40 15,112.12 1,674.63 5,529.75 584.00 3,050.00 2,325.00 14,219.99 29,210.05 460.22 (6,095.00) 9,072.11 848.88 20,335.84 16,954.65 19,440.21 1,500.00 2,470.00 335.85 (2,005.67) 636,827.47 988,931.33 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Administration Other Machinery and Equipment Total Water Management Administration Capital Water Management Field Operations General Improvements 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"" 613' 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 13,600.00 8,481.00 5,119.00 26,000.00 25,462.00 538.00 24,000.00 17,786.89 6,213.11 63,600.00 51,729.89 11,870.11 78,800.00 59,961.89 18,838.11 2,402,535.83 1,399,722.59 1,007,769.44 294,464.17 1,142,037.03 847,S72.86 (82,500.00) (50,662.98) 31,837.02 (75,200.00) (40,519.86) 34,680.14 (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 (297,700.00) (91,182.84) 206,517.16 (3,235.83) 1,050,854.19 1,054,090.02 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet April 30, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 276,555.15 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 276,555.15 Total Assets $ 276,555.15 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 1,798.94 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 1,798.94 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 314,193.43 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) (39,437.22) Total Fund Balance 274,756.21 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 276,555.15 1611 ' B13 r , Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget March 31, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) 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 Storage Rental Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Administration Operatin3 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 16111 B131 Budget Actual Variance (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 270,801.47 $ (14,898.53) 4,600.00 1,172.26 (3,427.74) 290,000LIX 271,973.73 (18,326.27) $ 33,900.00 $ 18,785.54 $ 15,114.46 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 3,075.00 1,025.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 8,225.00 12,575.00 4,100.00 1,163.86 2,936.14 2,000.00 2.10 1,997.90 13,400.00 8,682.63 4,717.37 400 -00 300.00 100.00 - 291.75 (291.75) 2,261.57 1,761.57 500.00 11000-0 - 1,000.00 108,461.57 48,987.45 59,474.12 54,000.00 30,782.61 23,217.39 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,300.00 126.14 2,173.86 44,200.00 20,397.53 23,802.47 8QQ.00 600.00 200.00 1,100.00 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,399.92 (1,099.92) 900.00 354.99 545.01 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 12,400.00 5,254.56 7,145.44 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operati 139 ,500.00 60,740.75 78,759.25 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Other Machinery and Equipment Total Street Lighting Administration Capital 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 (8,800.00) (5,442.30) 3,357.70 Property Appraiser Fees (5,800.00) (1,139.90) 4,660.10 Revenue Reserve (15,000.00) - 15,000.00 (29,6W.001 (6,582..20) 23,017.80 247,961.57 1611 109,728.20 8131 138,233.37 11000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000-00 - 1,000.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 14,200.00 8,232.00 51968.00 262,161.57 117,960.20 144,201.37 27,938.43 154,013.53 126,175.10 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditu Net Profit/(Loss) (1,761.57) 147,431.33 149,192.90 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1 �� Pelican Bay Services s 344 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet April 30, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 486,404.65 486,404.65 $ 486,404.65 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,926.25 3,926.25 392,850.20 89,628.20 482,478.40 $ 486,404.65 11; 1 I � I 1 Pelican Bay Services 3 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget April 30, 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 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total 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 Expenditu Variance $ 350,900.00 $ (350,900.00) 102,400.00 97,139.94 (5,260.06) 102,400.00 35,000.00 (67,400.00) 21,725.00 2,429.62 2,429.62 555,700.00 134,569.56 (421,130.44) $ 83,100.00 $ 9,061.25 $ 74,038.75 83,500.00 9,984.00 73,516.00 500.00 89.50 410.50 2,400.00 - 2,400.00 500.00 - 500.00 170,000•00 19,134.75 150,865.25 25,000.00 21,725.00 3,275.00 350,000700 - 350,000.00 375,000.00 21,725.00 353,275.00 545,000.00 40,859.75 504,140.25 10,700•00 93,709.81 83,009.81 (3,200.00) (1,942.81) 1,257.19 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,477.85) 7,222.15 Net Profit/(Loss) - 90,231.96 90,231.96 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet April 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,020,111.94 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 (452.36) 1,030,261.41 990,302.89 16114 B13 2,020,111.94 $ 2,020,111.94 (452.36) 2,020,564.30 $ 2,020,111.94 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Interdept. Payment Other Contractural Services Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping 1611 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget April 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer from Fund 109 Transfer from Fund 778 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, Net Profit/(Loss) $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 53,131.78 (2,768.22) 19,800.00 12,036.15 (7,763.85) 2,105,200.00 65,167.93 (10,532.07) $ 175,000.00 $ 22,175.95 $ 152,824.05 1,924,500.00 137,509.26 1,786,990.74 237.85 (237.85) 2•099,SW.W 159,923.06 1,939,576.94 (1,700:00) (1,062.67) 637.33 (1,100.00) (837.97) 262.03 (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 (5•70(XOD) (1,900 -64) 3,799.36 (96,655.77) (96,655.77) B13 ' 1611 B13"' May 5, 2010 Gary McAlpin, Director Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 RE: Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Dear Mr. McAlpin: This letter is in response to your proposal of the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work dated March 19, 2010 and provides alternative language for the scope of the review and additional professionals to contact to submit credentials to include on the list of candidates under consideration. Specifically included: • Revised proposal of the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work • Explanation of Changes made to 3/19/10 Draft of Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work • List of professionals to invite to submit credentials for inclusion on list of peer review proposals • Appendix A, Appendix of Service Division Historical Data We were pleased to hear of your recent meeting with individuals from the Pelican Bay Ad Hoc Committee on Clam Bay and discussion of possibly enhancing the peer review process to ensure that decisions made with respect to the Clam Bay Estuary are impartial and based on scientifically sound data and analysis. Following upon these sentiments, we are now proposing that the Coastal Zone Management department and Pelican Bay Services Division jointly select three (3) experts to perform the peer review of the historical data and PBS&J Final report. By performing three such peer reviews, we would increase the public's perception of the credibility of the conclusions and decrease the chances that one reviewer's views might be seen as biased. Recognizing the original number of peer reviews was reduced because of limited funding sources, the PBSD is willing to discuss how we can help to fund the expanded number of peer reviews. I want to thank you for your desire to move these efforts forward and we are looking forward to further discussion to resolve any differences in perspective that may exist. Sincerely, Keith Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c Page 1 of 8 4/30/2010 3:41:25 PM 1611 8131 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 BachMund During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review. Specifically, that an independent peer review of both Service Division historical data (see Appendix A) and the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report completed October 2009 by PBS &J be performed by a recognized expert This expert, jointly selected by Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, will be from an independent academic /university /research institute background with recognized credentials without a consultant relationship with Collier County. The review of the historical data and the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is to be conducted prior to development of any new flushing /circulation model. It is recommended that the cost of this peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management Consideration A thorough peer review will involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /eco systems. The Clam Bay Estuary (Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay) is a designated NRPA with a direct connection to the Gulf of Mexico through Clam Pass. It is bordered on the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road and on the south by the City of Naples and Collier County line. It marginally connected to the bays to the south (Moorings & Venetian Bay) through three culverts at Seagate Drive. Activities to be oerformed.during the Peer Review Process Three items should be performed during peer review. They are review, analysis and critique of: 1. Service Division historical data. (See Appendix A) 2. Sufficiency of the data collection used in developing report 3. Methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. 4. Findings in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. Recommendation Staff and Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC will be recommending that individuals along with those presented by the PBSD be given the opportunity to submit credentials, consistent with County purchasing policy. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. Proposals based on the mutually agreed scope of work will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda item 7 c Page 2 of 8 4/30/2010 3:54:35 PM 1611' g13 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Explanation of Changes from 3/19/10 Draft Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 • PBSD has not approved the peer review for the Clam Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program, and so eliminated those references from the Scope of Work. We are agreeable at an appropriate time to discuss further extending the peer review concept to later phases. • Added back language as stated in PBSD Board vote and letter to the County Manager regarding reviewing PBSD historical data. • Expanded reference of "academic /university" background to include "research institute," and qualified "not directly involved with a consulting firm" to allow professionals who do not have a working relationship with Collier County. This should allow a broader group of qualified professionals for consideration, but still avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest. • We have redefined disciplines needed to focus on those associated with the data and PBS &J report We recognize that later phases, if agreed upon, would probably involve different required reviewer skills. • Made it clear what we are referring to as Clam Bay Estuary. • Removed suggested list of potential professional candidates to a separate appendix • Revised activities to be performed with above changes for consistency. • Revised language of the bidding process, to make clear it is consistent with County purchasing policy (we want to review the actual procedures with Purchasing to make sure it is consistent with our understanding.) The PBSD desires that this revised Scope of Services will better define any differences of perspective and help to bring all interested parties to a mutually agreeable approach on a timely basis. May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular session Agenda Item 7 c 4/30/2010 3:56:55 PM Page 3 of 8 . 1611 813 List of Professionals to Invite to Submit Credentials for inclusion on List for Peer Review Proposals Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 Name Affiliation Comments Loren D. Coen Director, Marine Laboratory Ph.D., Ecology, University of Maryland, Sanibel - Captiva Conservation College Park; Recent studies funded by Lee www.sccf.org /files /content /dots Foundation County Tourist Development Council: study to identify potential sources of impaired /CV LDCoen.pdf waters and associated habitat status in nearby waters surrounding Captiva Island $114,925; Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation water quality observing system, $70,000; lcoen sccf.or Richard A. Davis Emeritus Distinguished Ph.D., University of Illinois; coastal geology, http: / /crl.usf.edu /people.htm Research Professor of Coastal Geology and Sedimentology, sedimentology; rdavisgcas.usf.edu University of South Florida, Geology Department; Coastal Research Laboratory Ernie Estevez Sr. Scientist and Director, Ph.D., Marine Ecology, University of South http: / /www.gulfbase.org /person Center for Coastal Ecology, Mote Marine Laboratory Florida; marine and estuarine ecology, freshwater inflows; coastal resource /view.php ?uid =ernie management.; ecology; population biology, ecological indicators; estevez mote.or James A. Gore Dean, College of Natural and Ph.D., Zoology, University of Montana; http : / /www.Lit.edu /detaii.aspx ?bio =l Health Sciences and Professor of Biology, University of research interests: ecology of rivers and streams, conservation of water resources; & id= l 2034 Tampa especially the influence of channel hydraulics on the distribution of riverine biota, establishing conservation flows for river ecosystems, and the potential impacts of climate change on the success of invasive species; ore ut.edu Randall Hughes Assistant Scholar Scientist, Ph. D., University of California, Davis; http : / /www.marinelab.fsu.edu /facult Coastal and Marine Laboratory, Florida State rhuches n,bio.fsu.edu; marine ecology and estuarine systems y /huehes.aspx UniversitZ Elizabeth A. Irlandi Associate Professor of Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel https: / /services.fit.edu /profiles /profiI Oceanography Department of Hill; marine benthic ecologist; ecology of e.php ?va1ue =63 Marine and Environmental seagrasses and other benthic macrophytes, Systems, Florida Institute of application of the concepts of landscape Technology ecology to aquatic ecosystems, linkages between terrestrial and aquatic environments, and the impacts of anthropogenic stresses on the ecological functioning of coastal zone habitats; irlandi fit.edu Mark Luther Associate Professor, Physical Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel http / /www.marine.usf.edu /facul Oceanography and Director, Ocean Monitoring and Hill; research involves combination of real- time ocean observations with numerical ty /mark- luther.shtml Prediction Lab, College of models of ocean currents and processes and Marine Science, University of application to various problems ranging South Florida from water quality in estuaries to variability in large -scale ocean circulation and relation to climate change; mlutherOmarine.usfedu May S, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c Page 4 of 8 4/30/2010 3.44:06 PM I6 813 List of Professionals to Invite to Submit Credentials for inclusion on List fo -P r r e� I�ew Proposals Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 Name Affiliation Comments Orrin Pilkey http: / /fds.duke.edu /db /Nicholas James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology, Earth & Ocean Sciences Professor Ph.D. Geology, Florida State University; Expertise: shorelines and coastal geology opilkey0duke.edu /eos /faculty /o in lkey Emeritus of Earth Sciences, https: / /fds.duke.edu /db /Nicholas and Founder and Director Emeritus, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, /eos /faculty /opilkey /files /CV pdf Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Thomas J. Smith, III http: /Isofia.usgs.gov /people /smit U.S. Geological Survey Ph.D., Environmental Sciences (Ecology and Climatology), University of Virginia, Expertise: ecology; environmental Science, h.html http: / /www.gulfbase.org /person ecological indicators; restoration; geographic information Science; modeling; tom j smithausgs.gov /view.php ?uid= tsmithiii Kathleen Sullivan Sealey http: / /www.bio.miami.edu /Fac/S Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Miami Ph.D., Marine Biology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; ksealeyabio miami edu ealey.html http: / /henge.bio.miami.edu /coast 1 0lo John D. Wang http: / /www.rsmas.miami.edu /di Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science, Division of Applied Marine Physics, University of Miami Ph.D., Civil Engineering, specialty in coastal hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coastal hydrodynamics and mass transport. wind, tide and density vs /amp /People /Faculty/Wang/ driven flows in estuaries, bays, and shelves; storm surges; runoff effects on salinity; microbial transport & fate at beaches, Coupled surface and groundwater flows. in and under the Everglades; Coastal wetlands hydrological restoration; Ping Wang http: / /crl.usf.edu /people.htm Associate Professor, Department of Geology, University of South Florida _jwangPrsmas.miami.edu Ph.D., Geology, University of South Florida, coastal geology and sedimentary processes; coastal engineering and management; http://crl.usf.edu/wangmitae.htm waniz@cas.usf.edu Harold R. Wanless http:/ /www.as.miami.edu /geolog Professor and Chair, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Miami Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University; sedimentology, coastal and environmental geology; hwaniess(@miami.edu y /faculty #hwanless Robert H. Weisberg http: / /www.marine.usf edu /facul Distinguished University Professor, Physical Oceanography, College of Ph.D., University of Rhode Island; research emphasizes in -situ measurements, analyses, and models of West Florida Shelf circulation ty /robert- weisberg.shtml httl2:llocgweb.marine.usf.edu/W Marine Science, Director, Ocean Circulation Group; Co-director, Coastal and the interactions between the shelf and the estuaries; w0sberg0marine usf edu eisberg ite /BWIndex.html Ocean Modeling and Prediction System, University of South Florida May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c Page 5 of 8 4/30/2010 3:44:06 PM 16I 1 813'1 Appendix A Appendix of Service Division Historical Data Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay water quality data exists as far back as the early 1980's and includes ambiguities with qualifiers. From 1998 until 2010, the sampling and monitoring protocol was consistent with the 1998 Army Corp. of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan consolidated coastal permit requirements. The State enacted the Impaired Waters Rule in 2002. Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62 -160 standardized minimum field and laboratory quality assurance, methodological, and State reporting requirements to ensure that chemical, physical, biological, microbiological and toxicological data used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is appropriate, reliable, collected, and analyzed by scientifically sound procedures. Turrell, Hall & Associates developed a Surface Water Sampling and Monitoring Protocol consistent with Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62 -160. Beginning in 2010, the Pelican Bay Services Division has implemented this protocol on a monthly basis and the data is eligible for entry into the State's storage and retrieval database or STORET for consideration by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in future decision - making. Enclosed: Disc of Historical Clam Bay water quality raw data Bibliography of recommended background material May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c Page 6 of 8 4/30/2010 3:33:40 PM 1611 1813 Pelican Bay Services Division Recommendations for Background Material to Provide to Peer Reviewers of "Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report" I Brown, T.R. and H.O. Hillestad, Project Managers. 1998. "Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan." Presented to Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division and WCI Communities LP. 98 pp plus permits and appendices. ' 2 Collier County Growth Management Plan, Collier County Future Land Use Map, 2006 -2016, December 2007. File FLUE- 2007 -3. DWG. Delineates Clam Bay NRPA conservation area boundaries. See also, "Future Land Use Element - Conservation" for goats by designated land uses and purposes and function of Natural Resource Protection Areas. 3 Collier County Natural Resources Department. "Coastal Zone Management Plan - 1991." See especially "Clam Pass," Section H. Part 7.6. pp 279 -296 and "Doctor's Pass." Section 11, Part 7.7. pp 297 -308. 4 Devlin, D.J., et al. 1987. "Natural Resources of Collier County. Florida. Part 2. Preliminary analyses of seagrass and benthic infauna in Johnson and Clam Bays. Collier County. Florida." Technical Report No. 87 -2. Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County Government. Naples, FL. 32 pp. 5 Gee and Jensen, Engineers - Architects - Planners, Inc. February, 1978. "Hydrographic study: Clam Bay System, Collier County, Florida." Prepared for Coral Ridge - Collier Properties, Inc. 32 pp. 6 Gore, R.H., C.E. Proffitt, and M.E. Curran. 1985. "Natural Resources of Collier County, Florida, Part 1. Recommendations and a program for resource management and protection for the undeveloped lands of Collier County's coastal zone." Technical Report No. 85 -1. Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County Government. Naples. FL. 119 pp. 7 Gore. R H. 1988. "Natural Resources of Collier County. Florida. Part 1. Natural resources management in the coastal, inland. and upland zones of Collier County: summary of data analyses and program recommendations." Technical Report No. 88 -1. Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, Collier County Government. Naples, FL. 173 pp. 8 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Water Resources Restoration and Preservation Section. 1981. "Diagnostic/Feasibility Study for Moorings Bay, Collier County. Florida," Appendix 7. 12 pp. 9 Harwell, R.W. and J. Hatcher, Principal Investigators. 1994. "Clam Bay Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA)." Draft Report. Collier County Environmental Services Division, Natural Resources Department. 93 pp plus appendices. 10 Humiston, K.K., Humiston and Moore Engineers, October 27, 2009, Letter to McAlpin, J.G., Comments on the Modeling Section of "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report" 11 Humiston and Moore Engineers, November 2008. "Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan - Bathymetric Monitoring Report No. 9." Final Report. Submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Pelican Bay Services Division, Collier County. 28 pp plus appendices. See also reports 1 through 8.2000 -2007. 12 Lugo. A.E. 1976. "Role and Productivity of Black Mangroves. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Report. pp 74 -103. (Available as pdf: General 20080826083149.pdt) 13 PBSJ. 2007 (Draft Final), 2008 (Final). "Clam Bay Seagraass Assessment." Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. 40 pp. ' May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c 4/30/2010 3:34 :55 PM Page 7 of 8 B13 Pelican Bay Services Division Recommendations for Background Material to Provide to Peer Reviewers of "Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report" 14 PBS&J. November 17, 2009. Response to Criticisms of "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report." 15 Roellig, D., November 2009. Comments on "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report." 16 Tackney &Associates, Inc. 1996. "Preliminary Hydrographic Assessment -Clam Bay Systems.' 17 Turrell, Hall, &Associates, Inc., Lewis Environmental Services. Inc.. "Clam Bay Restoration and Management - Biological Monitoring Report." Annual Reports 1 through 9, 2000 -2008. Prepared for Pelican Bay Services Division. 18 Turrell, Hall, & Associates, Inc. November 2005. "Water Quality Sampling Update Report No. 6 for Pelican Bay and Clam Bay." Prepared for Pelican Bay Services Division. 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Field Studies," Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems, Naples FL" Region IV, US EPA Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, GA.' 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Field Studies," Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems, Naples FL "Region IV, US EPA Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, GA.' 21 Wanless, H.R., January 2010, Peer Review of "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report." Prepared for Mangrove Action Group. 22 Worley, K., November 2009. Comments on "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&,J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report." 'Also included in references to "Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report," Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 7 c 4/30/2010 3:34:55 PM Page 8 of 8 1611 B13 -� 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: April 27, 2010 Subject: Clam Bay Canoe Trail Update At the request of the Board, I scheduled a meeting with the Coastal Zone Management Department (CZM) to discuss the status of the Canoe Trail and request cooperation with respect to utilizing the existing Trail permit to replace and repair the Canoe Trail markers. Present at the meeting, which occurred on April 14, were myself, Pamela Keyes, and Gary McAlpin though Mrs. Keyes had to leave the meeting after about 15 minutes. We briefly discussed the permit history associated with the Trail and the importance that the community put on keeping it in good repair and in service. I explained that the PBSD had already purchased the new markers and was asking to utilize the existing permit to replace the degraded markers in the same location without interference or objection from the CZM office. While Mr. McAlpin sympathized with the request, he was not supportive at this time. Given the stance the County has taken with respect to the placement of navigational markers between the Pass and the Seagate community, he was of the opinion that trying to replace the trail markers at this time might cause confusion with the permit review agencies in regards to the navigational marker request. He stated that if the PBSD board was adamant about replacing the trail signs at this time, they were welcome to approach the County Manager with the request to apply for their own permit or utilize the existing County permit but he did not think the manager would be supportive either. He also recognized that the Foundation had the ability to apply for this trail permit as well without going through the County manager or the BOCC but he expressed a desire that they not do so until the navigational marker issue was resolved one way or another. We ended the meeting on a friendly tone but without having resolved anything with regards to the trail marker replacement except that the CZM department was not in favor of supporting this activity at this time. May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 9 a Ii Page 1 of 1 4/30/2010 4:36:45 PM 161 i N13 ' . TtMZELL, HALL& ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 @ (239) 643 -0166 . Fax (239) 643 -6632 May 4, 2010 Mr. Mark Miller Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2295 Victoria Ave. Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 33965 RE: CIam Bay Proposed Maintenance Activities #0128463-001 -JC Dear Mark, Please find enclosed the original and four (4) copies of an ERP application for continuing maintenance activities within Clam Bay, located in Naples, FL. The site is located in Naples, Collier County, Florida, Latitude N 260 13' 49" and Longitude W 81 ° 48' 59 ". The site is more specifically located in Section 32, 33, 4, 5, 8, and 91 Township 48 and 49 South, and Range 25 East. This application is a request to continue maintenance activities of the Clam Bay system by continuing maintenance practices from the original permit #0 128463-001 -JC that have been practiced for the past ten years. The proposed work includes continuing to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting activities in association with and specified by the original Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRh4P). Proposed activities include manual clewing on an as needed basis of the interior channels to maintain design depths, maintain created network of small flushing channels throughout the system in order to alleviate ponding within the mangrove forest, conduct periodic mangrove trimming activities along the canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain waterways, pedestrian accesses, and stormwater areas. New flushing channels maybe proposed according to the designed specifications included in this submittal if ponding of water or new areas of stress area observed during the ongoing monitoring efforts. Spoil material removed will be dispersed on the adjacent mangrove areas as previously practiced. All cut branches and trimming debris will be removed. All proposed maintenance activities will be done manually on an as needed basis following the same practices conducted within the Clam Bay system the previous ten years. Regards, Jeff Rogers Staff Biologist Turrell, Hall & Associates 1611 813 FORhW: 62- 343.900(1) Swtkm A FORM TI LE: JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION DAM October 3,1995 SECTION A FOR AWNCY USE ONLY ACOE Appitcepion M DBP,'*M. D Apphcation « Date Applicatlan Rwn -vad Date:.Wwabm Reeved Proposed Projeux Lat. Fee Received i Pro d jxm- ftject Long. Fee R cea 4 PART 1: Are any of the activities described in this application proposed to occur in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters? ® yes ❑ no is this application being filed by or on behalf of a or dramage di tr-:r A. Type of Environmental Resource Permit Requested (check at least ones See Attachment 2 for thresholds and descriptions. ❑ Noticed General - include information requested in Section B. ❑ Standard General (Single Family Dwelling) - include information requested in Sections C and D. ❑ Standard General (all other Standard General projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E. ❑ Individual (Single Family Dwelling) - include information requested in Sections C and D. ® Individual (all other Individual projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E. ❑ Conceptual - include information requested in Sections C and E. ❑ Mitigation Bank Permit (construction) - include information requested in Sections C and F. (If the proposed mitigation bank involves the construction of a surface water management system requiring another permit defined above, check the appropriate box and submit the information requested by the applicable section.) ❑ Mitigation Bank (conceptual) - include information requested in Sections C and F. B. Type of activity for which you are applying (check at least one) ❑ Construction or operation of a new system, other than a solid waste facility, including dredging or filling in, on or over wetlands and other surface waters. ❑ Construction, expansion or modification of a solid waste facility. ❑ Alteration or operation of an existing system which was not previously permitted by a WMD or DEP. ® Modification of a system previously permitted by a WMD or DEP. Provide previous permit numbers:0128463- 001 -JC ❑ Alteration of a system ❑ Extension of permit duration ❑ Abandonment of a system ® Construction of additional phases of a ❑ Removal of a system system C. ®yyou � requesting authorization to use Sovereign Submerged Lends? (See Section G and Attachment S for more information before answering this question.) D. For activities in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, check type of federal dredge and fill e rmit "?quested: permit ❑Programmatic General []General ❑Nationwide ❑Not Applicable E. Are you claiming to qualify for an exemption? ❑yes Ono If yes, provide rule number if known. 1611 1 813" FORM .62- 343.900(1)SecdocA FORIt TIME JOW ENVl OMME TIAL RESOURM PERWr APPLICATION DATE: Oarober 3, M PART 3: a ENTITY TO BR.CEIV& PERMIT ()F OTHER THAN A.QWWAMOFLAND OWNER) Name Pelican BqYEML Inc NOW Two and Company Trite sad Company Pelican Bav Se rvioes Division AddMis 801 Laurel Oak Dr. Addmo City, Stier:, tip City, Stitt, Zip Naples, FL 34108 Tdephom and Fan Telephone and Fen 239 597 -1749 Fax 239 597 -4502 C- AGENT AUTHORIZED TO SECURE PERMIT D. CONSULTANT DUTME VT FROM AGENT) Nome Name Jeff MM Title and Company Title and Company T Hall & Associates, Inc Addmn 3584 Exchange Avenue Addmse City, SW Zip City. Stile. Zip No p1m FL 34104 Telephone and Fax Tdephme mad Fa 239- 643 -0166 Fax 239- 643 -6632 PART 4: (Plesse provide mdne equivalent for federally flmded projects): A. Name of Project including phase if applicable: Clem ft Maintmanice B. Is this cetionl for part of a multi-phase project? Ely D C. Total applicant -owned area contiguous to the pre j e W 772 ac.; ha D. Total area served by the system: ac.; ha. E. Impervious area for which a permit is sought: W.; ha. F. Volume of water that the system is capable of impounding: ac. R; m G. What is the total area of work in, on, or over wetlands or other a m&= waters? Der md= on required maintenance ac.; ha. sq. ft.; sq. r. H. Total volume of material to be dredged: pule ndmg an required maintenance yd; m I. Number of new boat slips prgxwcd: Q wet slips; Q dry slips 1611 1 B13 FORW- 62,343.900(1) SWd=A FORM TnlE JOWr ENVMONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICAMON DATE: Oambw 3, M PART 5: - - Project location (use additional sheets if needed): County(ies)Qllia Section(s) 32,& 33 Township 48 South Range 25 East Section(s) 4, 5, 8, & 9 Township 49 South Range 25 East Section(s) Township Range Land Grant name, if applicable: Clam Pass Natural Resource Protection Area Tax Parcel Identification Number: Folio ##00239480006 Street AddressRoador other location:801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 (cn4te City, Zip Code, if applicable: Names. FL 34108 PART 6: Describe in general terms the proposed project, system, or activity. The site is located in the City of Naples, Collier County, Florida, Section(s) 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, & 33 Township 49 South, Range 25 East of the Naples, Florida, United States Geological Survey 7.5- minute series quadrangle map. This application is a request to continue maintenance activities of the Clam Bay system by continuing maintenance practices from the original permit #10128463 -WI -JC that have been practiced for the past ten years. The proposed work includes continuing to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting activities in association with and specified by the original Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRWP Proposed activities include manual cleamg on an as needed basis of the interior channels to maintain design depths, maintain created network of small flushing channels throughout the system in order to alleviate pondmg within the mangrove forest, conduct periodic mangrove trimming activities along the canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain waterways, pedestrian accesses, and stormwater areas. New flushing channels maybe proposed according to the designed specifications included in this submittal if ponding of water or new areas of stress area observed during the ongoing monitoring efforts. Spoil material removed will be dispersed on the adjacent mangrove areas as previously practiced. All cut branches and trimming debris will be remomd. All proposed maintenance activities will be done manually on an as needed basis following the same practices conducted within the Clam Bay system the previous ten years. 1611813 FORM 64- 343.900(1) Swdon A FORMTrMR- JOINT ENVMONbaWAL RESOURCE PERMITAPPLICATION DATE: Oetoba 3,1995 PART 7: A. If there have been any pre- application meetings, including on -site meetings, with regulatory staff, please list the date(s), location(sl and names of key staff and project representatives. B. Please identify by number any MSSW/Wedand ResourodM /ACOE Permits pending, issued or denied for projects at the location, and any related enforcement actions. Agency Date No.\Type of Action Taken Application FDEP 1998 0128463 -001 JC ACOE im 199602789 C. Note: The following information is required for projects proposed to occur in, on or over wedands that need a fedael dredge and fill permit or an authorization to use state owned submerged lands. Please provide the names, addresses and zip codes of property owners whose property directly adjoins the project (excluding application) and/or (for proprietary authorizations) is located within a 500 ft. radius of the applicant's land. Please attach a plan view showing the owner's names and adjoining property lines. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 1 PORM11: 62- 343,900(1) 5=fion A FORM UrLE: JOR f ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMrr APPUcAnoN DATE: Ocmba 3,1995 PART 8: A. By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relive me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I agree on behalf of the applicant, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. I understand that lmowmgly snaking any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Pri11W Name of Applicant (If no Agent is used) or Agent (If one is so authorized below) XigfAture Applicant/Agent Date (Corporate Title if applicable) AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING: B. I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behal>; or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supplemental information in support of the application. In addition, I authorize the above - listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to Perform any requirements which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I understand that lmowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Name of Applicant I Signature of Applicant j Date (Corporate Title if applicable) Pka Cabe: ma last a Cowl Y rondnid ffibn& PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: C. I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environmental Protection, the Water btanagemeat District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents er personnel to enter the property as many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further, I agree to provide entry to the project site for such agents or personnel to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. Name of Applicmt I Sigenture of Applicant 1 DoW (Corporate Title if applicable) 1611 B11"! Environmental Exhibits 1611 B 13 ZZ IL `! rill o m WOs CL e Z O tz 0 3 0 O W W 'j J a y I z W d 0 H Z� J LL cc o o LL o „ ■ Z W W Z W K o f � .j az a �4 0 NN lu- W :0 W � d� Wo q Z u c og a z0 co wus go �W Z z OR ° J zz °V Vy Oi}00 ��5 J 9 U 8 z x Go �a M..MOMO OiAAMO,-MAN"NAMEAM c Z� I tp psi on �-'j LL d it XX ui l W W k d lifill Nei g4 Uri o ii Z 0 z � CO 0- > W x LU4 ^ ; d W W Z uwj J CL a `w` r r Z da ca e. ob i 2 i P.NNf CWa l4170t9 P J LL � b N X4 ai of -- a C N S2 z 00000 0 r 1° pa 15 WEI B13� 0% z ti cWn a. _ y a. Z i W _ Z 1 N %a U _ el •- asi a y,A W mb F W w � w � h � w h o z cos $ Z O O W �c W Z J LU W Z X. M J, Z OW 00000 0 OD LUJ Z ICLL) c0f) LLJ a. c l Z , 79 ��Q c na CL � Z WO 1611 613 - Q 8 xA!xd zMn Q � Z 110' 0 AV 0 0 0 � W z ui co a z� �n =�. , �wv • W F �---- _ N W° ~' ao CL { a f x� i m o� �l G� Cl- ampom FWWAwnlw"-C w O 344 0 1611 1 HIM"' J � •• a d � N � o� m W Z m a LU * a < � o id W o O�N�tly�ppa W WO s F aII mWm fGW 8 N a 0 LC U3 n n n n n A x Y Y Y Y Y 0 a o m 8 aW S d W z � LUUJ z a z CO 0 v O � C9 z a _ p --- w U. U '� Z Z N W�A� Vi ^, mow.. O CL W° QW.° 0 �- m O y / O en a 1:42 Via v ad COP f 11 r � POW er. SWAMO N IMM s 0 0 z rO V zH P R LL O W LLLL� J o LL 3 LL ! I N per m j Z � w o0 L. ~" li m 4 0 J gwiu`:7uj o� QQ �-?7 Or �yUul MZ a m � W}Aoww v 0 Y Y Y Y KW O W - Ox S� 0t-0 W U) X a w� z z an r a° } v_ z6P1 w U. w m w 0 aw W x O Itl 0 o n t g t d s O e _ m 1 W Z Z Q v z ti LL. ao J0 CL N r v� y� can o� v c �? � E-+ \V O w I z �r M 2 Z n U, F �0A W V Z i uj CO CL �. �� N W � W Z � Z x if Xbl � M 1� I I bE j. 9v r tr On ir K.T cr TO 16 4 set 5 - Ila am A 4 13341 F ul It Sections "C" 1611 'B1; B13 1 6Z .9WO) section C 1?ORM 1: 7oMf t1�vmOMWAL RESOEMM PERhUr APPUCATON DAZE: October 3, 1995 SECTION C Environmental Resource Permit Notice of Receipt of Application Note: this form does not need to be submitted for noticed general permits. This information is required in addition to that required in other sections of the application. Please submit five copies of this notice of receipt of application and all attachments with the other required information. Please submit all information on 8 1/2" x 11" paper. Project Name Clam Bay County Collier Owner Pelican Bay Foundation Applicant: Pelicon Bay Foundation Applicant's Address: 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Naples, FL 34108 1. Indicate the project boundaries on a USGS quadrangle map. Attach a location map showing the boundary of the proposed activity. The map should also contain a north arrow and a graphic scale; show Section(s� Township(s� and Range(s); and must be of sufficient detail to allow a person unfaniffier with the site to find it. 2. Provide the names of all wetlands, or other surface waters that would be dredged, filled, impounded, diverted, drained, or would receive discharge (either directly or indirectly), or would otherwise be impacted by the proposed activity, and specify if they are in an Outstanding Florida Water or Aquatic Preserve: Clam Bay 3. Attach a depiction (plan and section views), which clearly shows the works or other facilities proposed to be constructed. Use multiple sheets, if necessary. Use a scale sufficient to show the location and type of works. 4. Briefly describe the proposed project (such as "construct dock with boat shelter", "replace two existing culverts ", "construct surface water management system to serve 150 acre residential development"): Manually maintenance cleaning of all exiling flushcing channels within the Clam Bay mangrove force as well as trim mangroves in order to maintain pedistrain access through the canoe trail, along the berm, and boardwalks all on an as needed basis. 5. Specify the acreage of wetlands or other surface waters, if any, that are proposed to be filled, excavated, or otherwise disturbed or impacted by the proposed activity: filled ac.; czcanratcd ac.; other impacts ac. 6. Provide a brief statement describing any proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands and other surface waters (attach additional sheets if necessary): TM AM MY USE ONLY Appboabot mow Application Number: Opine "a t w&W.canan on be mrpeabd role fi.Ac+s 71s rrioaMwo. er iu. ono. t�s+ aeon �yhewra by r�aippue.hr� lei tti. rot G..r sseaw bf t�s,Mrc� is 1611013 Sections "E" 1611 R9-4 FORW 62- 343.90XI) Section E FORM TL IM JOiNr ENVIRONMENTAL RA9X= PERM APPLICATION DATE: Oft6a3,1995 SECTION E INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR STANDARD GENERAL, INDIVIDUAL AND CONCEPTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS NOT RELATED TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT Please provide the information requested below if the proposed project requires either a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval environmental resource permit and is not related to an individual, single family dwelling unit, duplex or quadruplex. The information listed below represents the level of information that is usually required to evaluate an application. The level of information required for a specific project will vary depending on the nature and location of the site and the activity proposed. Conceptual approvals generally do not require the same level of detail as a construction permit. However, providing a greater level of detail will reduce the need to submit additional information at a later date. If an item does not apply to your project, proceed to the next item. Please submit all information that is required by the Department on either 8 i/2 in. X 11 in. papa or 11 in. X 17 in. paper. Larger drawings may be submitted to supplement but not replace these smaller drawings. Site Information A. Provide a map(s) of the project area and vicinity delineating USDA/SCS soil types. Please see attached sorl map B. Provide recent aerials, legible for photo interpretation with a scale of V = 400 ft, or more detailed, with project boundaries delineated on the axial. Please am attached environmental exhibits C. Identify the seasonal high water or mean high tide elevation and normal pool or mean low tide elevation for each on site wetland or surface water, including receiving waters into which runoff will be discharged. Include dates, datum, and methods used to determine these elevations. Please see attached environmental exhibits and associated Notes D. Identify the wet season high water tables at the locations representative of the entire project site. Include dates, datum, and methods used to determine these elevations. II. Environmental Considerations A. Provide results of any wildlife surveys that have been conducted on the site, and provide any comments pertaining to the project from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B. Provide a description of how water quantity, quality, hydroperiod, and habitat will be maintained in on- site wetlands and other surface waters that will be preserved or will remain undisturbed. The proposed work is to ensure the overall gmlity of the mangrove forest by improving flashing. C. Provide a narrative description of any proposed mitigation plans, including purpose, maintenance, monitoring, and construction sequence and techniques, and estimated costs. D. Describe how boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters were determined. If there has ever been a jurisdictional declaratory statement, a formal wetland determination, a ford determination, a validated informal determination, or a revalidated jurisdictional determination, provide the identifying number. E. Impact Summary Tables: For all projects, complete Tables 1, 2 and 3 as applicable. 2. For docking facilities or other structures constructed over wetlands or other surface waters, provide the information requested in Table 4. 1611 'Bj3 .4 FORM#: 62-343.900(1) Section E FORM MI,E: JOQir ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMrr APFUCAMN DATE: OMAN 3, 1995 3. For shoreline stabilization projects, provide the information requested in Table 5. III. Plans Provide clear, detailed plans for the system including specifications, plan (overhead) views, cross sections (with the locations of the cross sections shown on the corresponding plan view), and profile (longitudinal) views of the proposed project. The plans must be signed and scaled by a an appropriate registered professional as required by law. Plans must include a scale and a north arrow. These plans should show the following: marks; A. Project area boundary and total land area, including distances and orientation from roads or other land Please see attached environmental exhibits B. Existing land use and land cover (acreage and percentages), and on -site natural communities, including wetlands and other surface waters, aquatic communities, and uplands. Use the Florida Land Use Cover elk Classification System (FLUCCSXLevel 3) for projects proposed in the South Florida Water Management District, the St Johns Rives Water Management District, and the Suwannee River Water Management District and use the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for projects proposed in the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Also identify each community with a unique identification number which must be consistent in all exhibits. C. The existing topography extending at least 100 feet off the project area, and including adjacent wetlands and other surface waters. All topography shall include the location and a description of known benchmarks„ referenced to NGVD. For systems watwward of the mean high water (WM or seasonal high water lines, show water depths, referenced to mean low water (MLW) in tidal areas or seasonal low water in non -tidal areas, and list the range between MHW and MLW. For docking facilities, indicate the distance to, location ol; and depths of the nearest navigational channel and access routes to the channel. D. If the project is in the known flood plain of a stream or other water course, identify the following: 1 the flood plain boundary and approximate flooding elevations; and 2) the 100 -yeas flood elevation and floodplam boundary of any lake, stream or other watercourse located an or adjacent to the site; E. The boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters within the project area. Distinguish those wetlands and other surikoe waters that have been delineated by any binding jurisdictions) determination; F. Proposed land use, land cover and natural communities (acreage and percentages), including wetlands and other surface waters, undisturbed uplands, aquatic communities, impervious surfaces, and water management areas. Use the same classification system and community identification number used in III (B) above. G. Proposed impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, and any proposed connectionsioutWis to other surface waters or wetlands; Manual maintenance clerninglexeavation activities of the existing flashing channels H. Proposed buffer zones; I. Pro- and post - development drainage patterns and basin boundaries showing the direction of flows, including any off site runoff being routed through or around the system; and connections between wetlands and other surface waters; Location of all water management areas with details of size, side slopes, and designed water depths; K. Location and details of all water control structures, control elevations, any seasonal water level regulation schedules, and the location and description of benchmarks (minimum of one benchmark per structure); L. Location, dimensions and elevations of all proposed structures, including docks, seawalls, utility lines, roads, and buildings; IVi Location, size, and design capacity of the internal water managernerit facilities; 1611'R1; FORMN: 62-343.900(1) Section E FORM TPII$ JOINr ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: OcIdw 3,1995 N. Rights -of -way, and easements for the system, including all on -site and off4te areas to be reserved for water management purposes, and rights -of -way and easements for the existing drainage system, if any; O. Receiving waters or surface water management systems into which runoff from the developed site will be discharged; P. Location and details of the erosion, sediment and turbidity control measures to be implemented during each phase of construction and all permanent control measures to be implemented in post - development conditions; Q. Location, grading, design water levels, and planting details of all mitigation areas; R. Site grading details, including perimeter site grading; S. Disposal site for any excavated material, including temporary and permanent disposal sites; All excavated material will be spread out on tither side of t Wftg dmad T. Dewatering plan details; U. For marina facilities, locations of any sewage pumpout facilities, fueling facilities, boat repair and maintenance facilities, and fish cleaning stations; V. Location and description of any nearby existing offshe features which might be affected by the proposed construction or development such as stormwatex management ponds, buildings or other structures, wetlands or other surface waters. W. For phased projects, provide a master development plan. IV. Construction Schedule and Techniques Provide a construction scheduulc: and a description of conduction techniques, sequencing and equipment. This information should specifically include the following: A. Method for installing any pilings or seawall slabs; B. Schedule of implementation of temporary or permanent erosion and turbidity control measures; C. For projects that involve dredging or excavation in wetlands or other surface waters, describe the method of excavation, and the type of material to be excavated; All exeavadon will be done manually on an as needed basis and the nuterid to be rensove d is a muck mad D. For projects that involve fill in wetlands or other surface waters, describe the source and type of fill material to be used. For shoreline stabilization projects that involve the installation of riprap, state how these materials are to be placed, (i.e., individually or with heavy equipment) and whether the rocks will be underlain with filter cloth; E. If dewatering is required, detail the dewatering proposal including the methods that are proposed to contain the discharge, methods of isolating dewatering areas, and indicate the period dewatering structures will be in place (Note: a consumptive use or water use permit may by required); F. Methods for transporting equipment and materials to and from the work site. If barges are required for access, provide the low water depths and draft of the fully loaded barge; G. Demolition plan for any existing structures to be removed; and H. Identify the schedule and party responsible for completing monitoring, record drawings, and as -built certifications for the project when completed. 1611�1B13 � FORMM 62- 343.900(t) Section E FORMTrna JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PE KW APPUCAMN DATIk October 3, 1995 V. Drainage Information A. Provide pre - development and post - development drainage calculations, signed and sealed by an appropriate registered professional, as follows: 1. Runoff characteristics, including area, runoff curve number or runoff coefficient, and time of concentration for each drainage basin; 2. Water table elevations (normal and seasonal high) including aerial extent and magnitude of any proposed water table draw down; 3. Receiving water elevations (normal, wet season, design storm); 4. Design storms used including rainfall depth, duration, frequency, and distribution; 5. Runoff hydrograph(s) for each drainage basin, for all required design storm event(s), 6. Stago-storage computations for any area such as a reservoir, close basin, detention area, or channel, used in storage routing; 7. Stage - discharge computations for any storage areas at a selected control point, such as control structure or natural restriction; S. Flood routings through on -site conveyance and storage areas; 9. Water surface profiles in the primary drainage system for each required design storm event(s); 10. Runoff peak rates and volumes discharged from the system for each required design storm event(s); 11. Tail water history and justification (tune and elevation); and 12. Pump specifications and operating curves for range of possible operating conditions (if used in system). H. Provide the results of any percolation tests, where appropriate, and soil borings that are representative of the actual site conditions; C. Provide the acreage, and percentages of the total project, of the following: Impervious surfaces, excluding wetlands; 2. Pervious surfaces (green areas, not including wetlands); 3. Lakes, canals, retention areas, other open water areas; and 4. Wetlands. D. Provide an engineering analysis of floodplain storage and conveyance (if applicable), including: 1. Hydraulic calculations for all proposed traversing works; 2. Backwater water surface profiles showing upstream impact of traversing works; 3. Location and volume of encroachment within regulated floodplain(s); and 4. Plan for compensating floodplaw storage, if necessary, and calculations required for determining minimum building and road flood elevations. E. Provide an analysis of the water quality treatment system including: 1. A description of the proposed stormwater treatment methodology that addresses the type of treatment, pollution abatement volumes, and recovery analysis; and 1611 B13 FORMA 62- 343.400(1) &wdm E FORM MLL- JOINT EDWIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PMW APPLICATION DATE: Oa"w 3,1493 2. Construction plans and calculations that address stageovwage and design elevations, which demonstrate compliance with the appropriate water quality treatment criteria. F. Provide a description of the engineering methodology, assumptions and references for the parameters listed above, and a copy of all such computations, engineering plans, and specifications used to analyze the system. If a computer program is used for the analysis, provide the name of the program, a description of the program, input and output data, two diskette copies, if available, and justification for model selection. VI. Operation and Maintenance and Legal Documentation A. Describe the overall maintenance and operation schedule for the proposed system. B. Identify the entity that will be responsible for operating and maintaining the system in perpetuity if different than the pcnnA ee, a draft document enumerating the enforceable affirmative obligations on the entity to properly operate and maintain the system for its expected life, and documentation of the entity's financial responsibility for long term maintenance. If the proposed operation and maintenance entity is not a property owner's association, provide proof of the existence of an entity, or the future acceptance of the system by an entity which will operate and maintain the system. If a property owner's association is the proposed operation and maintenance entity, provide copies of the articles of incorporation for the association and copies of the declaration, restrictive covenants, deed restrictions, or other operational documents that assign responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the system. Provide information rasuring the continued adequate access to the system for maintenance purposes. Before transfer of the system to the operating entity will be approved, the permittm must document that the transferee will be bound by all terms and conditions of the permit C. Provide copies of all proposed conservation easements, storm water management system easements, property owner's association documents, and plats for the property containing the proposed system. D. Provide indication of how water and waste water service will be supplied. Letters of commitment from off -site suppliers must be included. E. Pmvide a copy of the boundary survey and/or legal description and acreage of the total land area of contiguous property owned/controlled by the applicant VII. Water Use A. Will the surface water system be used for water supply, including landscape irrigation, or recreation. B. If a Consumptive Use or Water Use permit has been issued for the project, state the permit number. C. If no Consumptive Use or Water Use permit has been issued for the project, indicate if such a permit will be required and when the application for a permit will be submitted. D. Indicate how any existing wells located within the project site will be utilized or abandoned. wy�xr, n g � w y� °o i • Al big s A MINN 1611 B13 �O 1611 B13 N N 16 13'1 0 U A � N Mo' IIN� 'IIAAIIII U I I 1e 16 11 81 t:11 M d H p� _O �C O b b� A U A\ p� _O �C O b b� A U 1611 � 13 FORM: 62- 313.900(]) Sccdon E FORM TITLE: IOINT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMTI APPLICATION DATE: Oct � 3, 1995 TABLE a DOCKING FACTLTTY %TTUMARY vso vi aau%aua. Vi M the docking fw&ty provide: Live,abowd Slips`? If yes, Number. Fueling Facilities: If yap, Number Sewage Pump -oat Facilities? If yea, Number: Other or Services for Boating (ewe its„ but and tackle) ❑ YesVo Type of Materials for Decking and Pilings (Le.. CCA, pressure treated wood, plaatie, or concrete) Pilings Decking Proposed Dock -Plank Spacing (if applicable) Proposed Size (kngdi and draft), Type, and Number of Boats Expected to Use or Proposed to be Mooring at the fie ity) ............ vso vi aau%aua. Vi M the docking fw&ty provide: Live,abowd Slips`? If yes, Number. Fueling Facilities: If yap, Number Sewage Pump -oat Facilities? If yea, Number: Other or Services for Boating (ewe its„ but and tackle) ❑ YesVo Type of Materials for Decking and Pilings (Le.. CCA, pressure treated wood, plaatie, or concrete) Pilings Decking Proposed Dock -Plank Spacing (if applicable) Proposed Size (kngdi and draft), Type, and Number of Boats Expected to Use or Proposed to be Mooring at the fie ity) 1611 B13 Fi)n*. 62-343900(1) q " E FORM TMA IOB DWMONMWAL RE9OtMCE Pg31QT APPLJCATbN DA71L Ock6w 3, I"S Table S: SHORELINE STABILIZATION IF YOU ARE CONSTRUCTING A SHORELINE STABILIZATION PROJECT, PLEASE PROVIDE THE Ffw_i_nWmfi- Type of Stabilization Length (in Length (in Length (in Length (in Slope: Width of Being Done feat) of feet) of feet) of feet) of H: the Too (in New Replaced Repaired Removed V: fact) Vextical Seawall Seawall plus Rip - Rap Rip -Rap Rip -Rap plus Vegetation Other Type: of Stabilization Being Done:: Size of the Rip Rap: Type of Rip Rep: � i ea uoiner t-ounty 4/3012010 Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget , 8 f General Funds Capita! p,016- j 13 Water Community Street nN Clam Bay Capital Total M-agement Beautification Lights S�-stem j All Funds Revenue Carryforward $199,931 $495,070 $96,244 v $236,268 $284,400 $1,290,813 Incumbered Capital Carryforward $o $0 so $o $2,116,639 $2,116,639 Interest Income $3,200 $8,500 $1,200 $1,300 $7,700 $21,900 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Interfund Transfers (Fund I 11) $o so $0 $35,000 $o $35,000 Assessment or Advalorent Tax Levy $729,400 $1,939,600 $271,600 $35,000 $122,100 $3095700 Total Revenue P $921,931 $2,442,670 $359,044 $307 569 , $2,530,939 := 5EO52 Appropriations Projections personal Services $175,500 $870,100 $104,100 4%,fi� $1,149,700 Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements 5108,200 so $6,300 $114,500 Other Contractual Services $21,300 $29,000 $2%900 $70, . 100 Telephone - Service Contracts %W $" $600 $1,600 Telephone - Direct Lin $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $10,500 Postage, Freight & Ups $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $8,000 Rent - Buiddings $11,100 $11,400 $11,100 $33,600 Rent - Equipment 52,500 SZ600 SZ500 $7,600 Insurance- General 51,300 $500 "W $2,200 Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment Fees $14,600 $o $o $14,600 Information Tech Automation Allocation $9,200 $8,500 $8,200 $24,900 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 S4,900 Legal Advertising $2,000 S2,000 $o $4,000 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $4,000 S4,000 $o $8,000 Office Supplies - General 52_500 53,000 $900 $6,300 Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $1,500 so $2,600 Other Operating Supplies $0 so $1,000 $1,000 White Goods - Additional $18,300 $16,900 so $35,200 Field Services: Engineering $12,000 $o so S62,100 $74,100 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $o so $1,500 Electrical Contractors $o $o $7,300 $7,300 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $29,500 5800 $83,500 $114,800 Pest Control $o $5,000 $o 55,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $35,900 so $65,900 Temporary Labor $42,400 $204,500 $0 $246,900 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 so $0 $14,000 Water Use Charges so $83,800 $o 31 $83,800 Replanting Program $8,500 $51,600 $0 $60,100 Colluar TelephonagRadios $500 $3,200 $500 $4,200 Trash & Dun"er Fees $9,300 $24,900 $o $33,200 Water Quality Testing $22,600 so so $o $22,600 $22,600 Insurance - Vehicles M $9,900 $900 Insurance - General $2,400 $9,000 $900 $12,200 Electricity $0 $3,400 $44,200 $47,600 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $99,400 $62,000 $o $160,400 Sprinkler System Maim $o $30,000 $o $30,000 Mulch Requirements $o S60-200 $o $60,200 Equipment Rental $0 $5,500 $0 $5,500 Licenses and Permits $0 $800 so $800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $9,400 $66,100 $1,700 $77,700 Minor Operating Supplies so $3,000 so 52,400 $5,400 Employee Uniforms $1,100 $9,400 so $10,500 Other Operating Supplies $Z500 $11,500 $o $500 $14,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast so so $12,400 $12,400 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000 Paint supplies so $M so $800 Traffic Signs so $3,000 so S3,000 White Goods - Additional $0 $3,300 Capital Outlay $14,200 $58,600 $14,200 $0 $401,500 $3,300 5488,500 Rolled Capital Projects/Reserves Hardscape Imp- Project Lake Bank Imp. Project $2,093,963 $2,093,963 Reserves (2 /1/2 mo. for Operations) $156,106 $399,920 $59,744 $154,968 $22,776 $22,776 Equipment Reserve $32,725 $92,150 $27,500 $768,738 $152,375 Other Charges/Fees Tax Collector Property Appraiser $22,500 S60,000 $9,400 $1,100 $3,gN %95,8W Revenue Reserve M100 S38300 $53,200 S1 000 $5,500 $14300 5700 $2,500 $94,000 Total Appropriations $921,931 $2,447-670 - $1,800 K400 $7,530.939 $162.900 $6 5052 Equivalent Residential unit's: 7617.29 7617.29 7617.29 7617.29 1 76 7*291 Projected Rate: ERU or Mnage $".Q5 $25&500 0.0531 $4.59 $16.03 Projected Total Rate: ERU or Mulage $350.12 0.0531 520.62 $370.75 Actual Rate (FY 2010) $349.86 0.0531 $20.78 $ 0 37 d IrchuDolkr/Millage Change $0.26 0.00004 1 -65 $0.11 A rs m a A m y 6A f/9 �p 6q A O �yz 01-- r-+ O 69 O to N O o 0 o ~ S� O cr O N � C) pa H y A m m wl o O W VONO O f%1 [a p C, o cc A � �' o ^ ►e � `' "� eo It A � a' "A + 00 o m' w tJ 0 ' ti A o 0 er'o _ CS b< N ' O O f-A C O n t9 m vs ft'' 69 EJ9 0 N lD N rA fo o c) �, 69 � O O a b9 fJ9 b9 €� W `a ~ ~ O y�a c� o p p a -moo O W w N O O a P a" m �' W a 14 W to y fH a ham+ A o a 69 O �j ' 0 4 N 00 � O A C '(a w ON O j �D 0 w N C� ON all C� W ro 4 0 0 0 00 0 0 O O 00 O C N to U rO�D N O rW+ U F/9 46 00 N 'ta o o� O O O 6A N a cootNil oo� 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 6A f/9 �p 6q A O 00 01-- r-+ O 69 O to N O o 0 o 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 6A f/9 �p 6q A 4�, W 01-- r-+ W 14b- O� + C O O A ~ S� O cr O N 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 6A f/9 65 00 6q A c 69 V§ 65 W W C O O A ~ S� O cr n' 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 6A f/9 65 00 6q A c 69 V§ 65 W W A 44-, O N O cr n' � fA W N C N O O W VONO O f%1 [a p arn A O° ^ � w mW C N 69 "A + 00 O w tJ O O O A O O O A P O O f-A O O 6A 0 vs ft'' 69 EJ9 0 � O 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 6A f/9 G19 6q A c 69 V§ 65 W Go V !/� N O cr N T fA n in ILA fils [a arn A O ^ � w mW C C oo "A + 00 O w tJ O O O A O O O A P O O f-A O O 6A 0 vs ft'' 69 EJ9 0 � O 6ry b9 O 69 � O O 69 O b9 fJ9 b9 I W 0 0 O Cy p O O O Fes+ O O W W fH a ham+ A W iA 69 O �j ' 0 4 N 00 � O A C '(a w ON O j �D 0 w N C� ON all C� W ro 4 0 0 0 00 0 0 O O 00 O C N 619 O � 0 0 0 0 0 OIO p O p 619 H~9 f6s 2J a ~Q4 A W w w0 o Or L to 0 �o N O C w O V O\ N T O ~ to n w _ � fils [a arn b 71 p4 � w mW C C 69 69 69 yi b9 w 0o w tJ 6S W ER m I W Cy O O W W U 0 W O O 00 O O 1611 9 B j - 3� r m H~9 f6s 2J a ~Q4 A W w w0 o Or L to 0 W N O C w O V O\ N T O ~ to n w _ � fils arn b mW G. COO°~° alip m �+ W m m Cy Q+ 0 � O A C w � ro 4 e . to 1" raryy � ri. N m d O n m b "fl W n riO W Fa b19 H~9 f6s 2J a ~Q4 Oe W w w0 o Or L to 0 W N O C w O V O\ N T O ~ to w _ � fils arn oNO r a COO°~° alip I.Or O C 5 \d .P N co N Cl 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 4/28/2010 1611'�131 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Developer Plan Reviews Miscellaneous Income Prior Year Expenditures Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries and Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Information Tech Automation A Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F< Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Interdept. Payments Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Computer Software Other Educational Sub - total: Additional - Public Relations Sub - total: Total Administrative: FY 2009 Budget FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Budget Received Expended Year- To-Date Anticipated MarJSept. 2010 Total Received Ez nded Proposed FY 2011 Budget $661,400 $638,15 $742,500 $629,614 $80,000 $709,614 $728,400 $14,600 $16,208 $11,800 $340 $3,200 $3,540 $3,200 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $7,532 $0 $81 $0 $81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,000. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $808,500 $661 $755 800 $630,035 $83200 $713,23511 $733100 $38,900 $21,690 $28,000 $9,692 $18,308 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $13,013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,100 $1,555 $2,200 $713 $1,487 $2,200 $2,200 $4,065 $2,136 $3,200 $955 $2,245 $3,200 $3,300 $8,700 $8,700 $10,600 $0 $10,600 $10,600 $7,500 $300 $300 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $200 $19 $200. $0 $200 $200 $100 $59,900 $47,413 $44,500 $11,360 $33,140 $44,500 $41,200 $108,600 $108,600 $117,600 $58,800 $58,800 $117,600 $108,200 $37,100 $20,789 $21,300 $4,700 $16,600 $21,300 $21,300 $600 $336 $600 $0 $350 $350 $600 $5,000 $2,343 $3,500 $930 $1,500 $2,430 $3,500 $5,700 $2,690 $3,000 $41 $2,700 $2,741 $3,000 $11,100 $11,343 $11,100 $6,245 $5,000 $11,245 $11,100 $4,100 $0 $4,100 $2,050 $2,050 $4,100 $8k 200 $1,300 $980 $17,900 $0 $17,900 $17,900 300 $0 $2,300 $0 $2,072 $0 $2,300 $0 $0 $0 $2,300 $0 $2,300 600 500 $2,300 $1,056 $2,300 $250 $800 $1,050 300 $3,000 $1,153 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 000 $20,600 $20,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 000 $2,500 $664 $4,261 $2,067 $1,200 $3,267 00 $1,100 $1,374 $0 $1,100 $0 $103 $0 $500 $0 $6$ $0 100 $207,300 $174,000 $193,061 $75,186 $113,900 $189,086 00 $0 $207,300 $0 $174,000 $18,300 $211,361 SO $75,186 $0 $113,900 $0 $189,086 00 00 $267,200 $221,413 $255 861 $86 546 $147,040 $233,586 00 4/28/2010 Collier County 1611 813 1 Pelican Ba y Service Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries FY 2009 Budget $76,200 FY 2009 Actual $80,670 FY 2010 Budget Received Expended Year- To-Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2010 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2011 Budget $79,400 $27,467 $51,933 $79,400 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $700 $165 $700 $19 $681 $700 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $11,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Overtime Social Security Matching $16,400 $7,400 $16,500 $7,041 $15,400 $7,300 $6,157 $2,442 $9,243 $15,400 $15,500 Regular Retirement $10,054 $9,571 $11,000 $7,032 $4,858 $3,968 $7,300 $11,000 $7,300 $11,200 Health Insurance $26,200 $26,200 $31,700 $0 $31,700 $31,700 $17,400 Life Insurance $500 $500 $200 $0 $200 $200 $300 Worker's Compensation $3,500 $1,133 $2,900 $0 $2,900 $2,900 $2,500 Sub -total: $152,600 $141,780 1148,600 $43,117 $105,483 $148,600 $134,300 Engineering Fees $12,000 $10,270 $12,000 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $750 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $51,800 $28,959 $1,000 $272 $500 $772 $1,000 Tree Trimming Temporary Labor $0 $42,400 $0 $42,000 $27,600 $42,400 $2,496 $14,287 $27,000 $29,496 $30,000 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,500 $14,000 $0 $28,000 $14,000 $42,287 $14,000 $42,400 $14,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $14,700 $18,087 $21,100 $1,974 $19,500 $21,474 $22,600 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $1,000 $678 $500 $144 $300 $444 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $12,300 $9,790 $8,300 $3,331 $5,500 $8,831 $8,300 Insurance - General $2,500 $2,500 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $2,400 Insurance - Auto $4,600 $4,600 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,600 $900 Autos Trucks RM $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900 Motor Pool Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $0 $1,000 $0 $996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 Fleet Maint. Parts $3,000 $637 $4,500 $1,834 $0 $2,500 $0 $4,334 $1,000 $600 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $200 $662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Boat R&M Other Equip. R &M $500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,900 $1,869 $1,900 $0 $1,765 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,265 $1,500 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $111,100 $79,009 $98,400 $32,602 $64,000 $96,602 $98,400 Replanting Program Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,300 $1,736 $0 $2,000 $0 $713 $0 $1,500 $0 $2,213 $0 $3,200 Other Operating Supplies Personal Safety Equipment $13,500 $0 $20,966 $2,500 $1,530 $1,000 $2,530 $2,500 Sub - total: $293,300 $0 $237,009 $500 $254,400 $0 $60,948 $500 $192,500 $500 $253,448 $500 $256,000 2 4/28/2010 Collier County 16/1 B Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay Building Improvements Improvements General (Mnt. F Other /Off. Mach. & Equip./Tru Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: a, $20,445 $13,125 $13,200 $8,232 $3,000 $11,232 $13,200 c $34,200 $34,100 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $67,845 $49,325 $14,200 $8,232 $3,000 $11,232 $14,200 $513,745_ $428,114 $417,200 $112,297 $300,983 $413,280 $404,500 $20,500 $12,654 $23,000 $12,655 $1,007 $13,662 $22,500 $20,700 $11,663 $22,400 $11,185 $0 $11,185 $22,100 $34,800 $ $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,300 $76,000 $24,317 $84,400 $23,840 $1,007 $24,8471 -- $82,,90 -0 $856,945 $673,844 L. $757,461" $222,683 5449 030 $6777177-1-31F $7 Net Income from Operations $41,522 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $516,000 Current Year Transfer from Fund 133 0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $283.b $$ I Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) $273,831 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /10) $241,106 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $85,0$0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $156,106 Rese d f C 1 rve or ap Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/10) Adj, to 25% of Replacement $32,725 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $32,725 25% Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2011 (Projected) $188,831 of Replacem Cost 3 Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed FY 2009 F FY 2009 F FY 2010 E Expended M MarJSept. R Received F FY 2011 Budget A Actual B Budget Y Year -To -Date 2 2010 E Expended B Bud et $13,200 $ $2,100 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 Net Income from Operations $41,522 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $516,000 Current Year Transfer from Fund 133 0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $283.b $$ I Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) $273,831 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /10) $241,106 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $85,0$0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $156,106 Rese d f C 1 rve or ap Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/10) Adj, to 25% of Replacement $32,725 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $32,725 25% Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2011 (Projected) $188,831 of Replacem Cost 3 rve or ap Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/10) Adj, to 25% of Replacement $32,725 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $32,725 25% Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2011 (Projected) $188,831 of Replacem Cost 3 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 1611 Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y Expend. Carryforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Info Technology Automation Alh Other Contractual Serv. Beepers Telephone Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Data Proc. Eq. R&M Printing & Binding Legal Advertising Reimb. For Prior Year Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Eqpt. Other Operating Supplies Training & Education Sub - total: Additional- Public Relations, Lega Sub - total: Total Administrative: 4/28/2010 B13 4 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2011 Bud et Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2010 Expended Budget $1,600,000 $1,543,941 $1,922,500 $1,630,925 $200,000 $1,830,925 $1,938,600 $33,300 $39,680 $28,700 $871 $7,700 $8,571 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $291,600 $' $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $1,924,900 $1,583,863 $1941,200 $1,631,796 $207,700 $1,839,496 $1,951,100 $40,200 $18,822 $28,900 $9,986 $18,914 $28,900 $28,900 $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $6- $13,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,553 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200 $4,225 $2,200 $735 $1,465 $2,200 $2,200 $1,847 $1,854 $3,300 $984 $2,316 $3,300 $3,400 $8,700 $8,700 $10,600 $0 $10,600 $10,600 $7,700 $300 $300 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $100 -$83 $300 $0 $300 $300 $100 $59,100 $47,225 $45,600 $11,705 $33,895 $45,600 $42,400 > $4,200 $0 $4,200 $2,100 $2,100 $4,200 $8,500 $46,600 $27,742 $28,000 $5,212 $23,000 $28,212 $28,000 $400 $336 $400 $0 $260 $260 $400 $5,000 $2,343 $3,500 $930 $1,700 $2,630 $3,500 $5,500 $384 $3,000' $12 $2,900 $2,912 $3,000 $11,400 $11,686 $11,400 $5,534 $5,700 $11,234 $11,400 $2,400 $2,098 $2,400 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,600 $500 $374 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,600 $3,000 $752 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $3,000 $718 $4,774 $2,029 $900 $2,929 $3,000 $0 $1,190 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500 $265 $1,500 $0 $800 $800 $1,500 $91,100 $47,888 $66,274 $15,817 $44,860 $60,677 $71,000 $0 $0 $16,900 $0 $0 $0 $16,900 $91,100 $47,888 $83,174 $15,817 $44,860 $60,677 $87,900 $150,200 $95,113 $128,774 $27,522 $78 755 $106,277 $130,300 4 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 4t/28/2010 Operating Budget 1611 Fiscal Year 2011 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Retirement - Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Engineering Fees Water Use Charges Replanting Program Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Pest Control Temporary Labor Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Postage, Freight & UPS Electricity/Utilities Trash & Garbage Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicle Sprinkler System Maint. Landscaping Maint. Auto & Truck R&M Fleet Maint ISF Labor Fleet Maint ISF Parts Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts Hurricane Wilma Expenditures Other Equip. R &M Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental Fert. Herbicides & Chem. Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - ISF Minor Operating Equip. Other Operating Supplies Personal Safety Equipment Paint Supplies Traffic Signs Books & Publications Other Training/Educational Sub - total: Additional - Mulch Requirements Sub - total: Total Field Services: FY 2009 Bud et FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Budget Received Expended Year- To-Datt Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2010 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2011 Bud et $427,100 $436,891 $444,200 $155,004 $289,196 $444,200 $442,600 $2,200 $1,17 $2,200 $220 $1,980 $2,200 $2,200 $110,200 $109,180 $102,600 $36,331 $66,269 $102,600 $103,000 $49,376 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,500 $39,803 $41,900 $13,860 $28,040 $41,900 $41,900 $57,324 $53,788 $63,100 $18,846 $44,254 $63,100 $64,600 $96,200 $96,20 $116,100 $0 $116,100 $116,100 $133,500 $3,400 $3,400 $1,600 $0 $1,600 $1,600 $1,100 $24,900 - $1,327 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $813,200 $739,105 $806,700 $224,261 $582,439 $806,700 $827,700 $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,100 $83,722 $83,800 $33,764 $47,500 $81,264 $83,800 $46,600 $40,98 $46,600 $28,266 $25,000 $53,266 $51,600 $31,300 $37,308 $29,500 $14,660 $12,000 $26,660 $29,500 $25,000 $27,552 $25,000 $31,095 $7,500 $38,595 $35,900 $6,500 $6,475 $6,500 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $226,000 $200,233 $211,800 $58,899 $140,000 $198,899 $204,500 $800 $555 $800 $216 $300 $516 $700 $4,000 $3,337 $3,800 $1,040 $2,100 $3,140 $3,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,456 $3,400 $1,119 $1,900 $3,019 $3,400 $37,000 $16,364 $24,900 $6,324 $16,000 $22,324 $24,900 $8,500 $5,169 $8,500 $2,516 $3,000 $5,516 $5,500 $8,400 $6,288 $12,200 $0 $12,200 $12,200 $9,000 $11,300 $11,300 $9,300 $0 $9,300 $9,300 $9,900 $30,000 $32,209 $30,000 $5,188 $25,000 $30,188 $30,000 $63,500 $55,424 $60,200 - $28,753 $32,000 $60,753 $60,200 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $12,200 $12,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,500 $11,300 $9,131 $29,400 $11,819 $17,500 $29,319 $9,600 $900 $899 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $10,088 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $800 $0 $800 $340 $400 $740 $800 $12,000 $11,0 $12,000 $2,371 $7,100 $9,471 $9,400 $48,500 $61,861 $58,500 $28,355 $35,000 $63,355 $62,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $52,000 $31,818 $47,100 $10,305 $25,000 $35,305 $44,100 $3,000 $1,739 $3,000 $1,155 $1,800 $2,955 $3,000 $11,500 $33,143 $11,500 $7,630 $7,500 $15,130 $11,500 $3,000 $0411 $3,000 $532 $2,000 $2,532 $3,000 $1,500 $878 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $800 $3,000 $3,62 $3,000 $530 $2,000 $2,530 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40 $0 $259 $0 $259 $0 $744,900 $705,986 $726,100 $275,136 $438,600 $713,736 $716,000 0 $744,900 0 $705,986 $3,300 $729,400 $0 $215-136 $0 $438,600 $0 $713,736 $3,300 $719,300 $1,558,100 $1,445,091 $1,536,100 $499,397 $1021,039 $1520,436 $1,547,000 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 4-12F,8120'10 1611 B13 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Net Income $83,440 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2011 Budget Actual Budget Year- To-Dat( 2010 Expended Bud et $174,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $398,920 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10/01/10) $96,150 $13,600 $13,18 $13,600 $1,618 $11,481 $13,099 $13,600 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 $22,205 $26,000 $25,462 $0 $25,462 $28,000 $1,000 $ $25,000 $16,080 $9,000 $25,080 $17,000 $36,600 $35,394 $64,600 $43,160 $20,481 $63,641 r- $58,600 $46,300 $25,960 $52,800 $28,764 $0 $28,764 $53,200 $49,500 $30,981 $59,500 $32,543 $4,395 $36,938 $60,000 $84,200 $0 $101,000 $0 $0 $0 $102,000 $180,000 $56,941 $213,300 $61,307 $4,395 $65,702 $215,200 $1,924,900 $1,632,539 $1,942,774 $631,386 $1,124,670 $1,756 056 $1,951,100 Net Income $83,440 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $1,204,100 Current Year Transfer From Fund 133 $0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $618,270 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) $669,270 Distribution of Projected Fund Balance Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/10) $573,120 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $174,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $398,920 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10/01/10) $96,150 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $40,000 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $44,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $92,150 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2011 (Projected) $491,070 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 4/28/2010 1611B13" Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Current Ad valorem Taxes Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Health Insurance Life Insurance Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimb. Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation Allc Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Additional- Public Relation Sub - total: Total Administrative: 7 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended MarJSept. Received 2011 Budget Actual Budget Year- To-Date 2010 Expended Bud et $298,700 $281,818 $285,700 $236,458 $32,500 $268,958 $271,600 $6,200 $8,488 $4,600 $170 $1,200 $1,370 $1,200 $0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0 $0 $0 ($300) $0 $0 $0 $0 $304,900 $290,587 $290,000 $236,667 $33,700 $270,367 $272,800 $38,900 $18,26 $28,000 $9,692 $18,308 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $ $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $0 $14,075 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,235 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,100 $1,313 $2,100 $713 $1,387 $2,100 $2,200 $1,765 $737 $3,200 $955 $2,245 $3,200 $3,300 $100 -$50 $200 $0 $200 $200 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $100 $100 $200 $0 $200 $200 $100 $46,400 $34,435 $33,900 $11,360 $22,540 $33,900 $41,200 $12,100 $12,100 $6,700 $3,350 $3,350 $6,700 $6,300 $36,600 $20,706 $20,800 $4,700 $16,000 $20,700 $20,800 $600 $288 $600 $300 $300 $600 $3,500 $835 $3,500 $675 $200 $875 $3,500 $2,000 $0 $2,000 %$0 $500 $500 $2,000 $11,100 $11,343 $11,100 $5,173 $5,800 $10,973 $11,100 $2,300 $1,643 $2,300 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $302 $400 $0 $400 $400 $400 $4,100 $ $4,100 $2,050 $2,050 $4,100 $8,200 $500 $239 $2,262 $1,762 $400 $2,162 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,200 $0 $47,456 $1,000 $54,762 $0 $17,710 $400 $31,400 $400 $49,110 $1,000 $57,200 $0 $ $19,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,200 $47,456 $74,562 $17,710 $31,400 $49,110 $57,200 $120,600 $81,891 $108,462 $29,070 $53,940 $83,010 $98,400 7 4428/2010 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget B 1'7 Fiscal Year 2011 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub - total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Telephone Direct Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repa Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Additional - Electricl Repair Serv: Sub - total: Total Field Services Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay. Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: 8 Received Anticipated "Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended MarJSept. Received 2011 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2010 Expended Budget $38,800 $41,759 $40,500 $13,995 $26,505 $40,500 $40,500 $200 $165 $200 $19 $181 $200 $200 $4,300 $4,407 $4,000 $1,590 $2,410 $4,000 $4,000 1 $2,224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,400 $3,341 $3,400 $1,127 $2,273 $3,400 $3,400 $4,776 $4,547 $4,600 $1,535 $3,065 $4,600 $5,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $1,400 _ _ $216 $1,300 $0 $1,300 $1,300 $1,100 $0 $47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,100 $54,482 $54,000 $18,266 $35,734 $54,000 $62,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $814 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $206 $800 $72 $200 $272 $500 $44,200 $40,105 $44,200 $13,461 $30,000 $43,461 $44,200 $1,300 $1,30 $1,100 $0 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $700 $528 $800 $0 $800 $800 $800 $1,800 $1,383 $2,200 $1,289 $800 $2,089 $1,700 $12,200 $9,972 $7,300 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,300 $20,400 $9,563 $12,400 $2,609 $9,500 $12,109 $12,400 r $200 $2,404 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $ $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $85,100 $69,601 $71,000 $17,431 $50,400 $67,831 $69,100 C $0 $0 $14,500 1 1 �$0 $0 $0 $0 $85,100 $69,601 $85,500 $17,431 $50,400 $67,831 $69,100 $140,200 $124,083 $139,500 $35,697 $86,134 $121,831 $132,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $5,480 $13,200 $0 $11,232 $11,232 $13,200 $1,000 $14,200 $ $5,480 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $0 $1,000 $12,232 $1,000 $1,000 $12,232 $14,200 $14,200 $5,480 $14,200 $0 $12,232 $12,232 $14,200 $8,100 $0 $8,800 $4,756 $1,544 $6,300 $8,400 $5,300 $0 $5,800 $1,140 $0 $1,140 $5,500 $14,900 $28,300 $ $0 $15,000 $29,600 $0 $5,896 $0 $1,544 $0 $7,440 $14,300 $28,200 $28,300 $0 $29,600 $5,896 $1,544 $7,440 $28,200 $303,300 $211 454 $291,762 $70,663 $153,850 $224 r 't� stnn 8 T, 6 i ' Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2009 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Current Year Transfers To Fund 322 $45,854 $310,400 $186,410 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) $169,844 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/10) $142,344 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 110 - _ $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $83.600 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $58,744 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equip. Replacement: (Opening Balance 10- 01 -10) $27,500 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $27,500 Total Fund Balance - September 30,2011 (Projected) $86,244 4/28/2010 B 1 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 Revenue: Carryforward Assessment Levy Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Car yforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Water Quality Repairs & Maintenance Postage Frt Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 4/28/2010 1611 g13 10 Adopted FY 2010 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept 2010 Total Received Expended proposed FY 2011 Budget JAdop*ed $350,900 $102,400 $o $0 $o $102 400 $o $90620 $a $1,046 $0 $0 $o $6,600 $o $1,377 $0 $35,000 $a $97,220 $o $2,423 $0 $35,000 $0 $81,300 $35,100 $1,200 $35,000 $331,100 $555,700 $91,666 $42,977 $134,643 $152,600 $125,60 $87,100 $2,900 $900 $o $1,000 $0 $7,500 $83,100 $83,500 $0 $500 $0 $2,400 $0 $500 $3,300 $6,240 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $106,300 $50,760 $0 $500 $o $2,400 $0 $500 ]$2,400 $62,100 $83,500 $500 $2,400 $500 $225,000 $170,000 $9,540 $160,460 $170,000 $149,000 $843,000 $15,000 $25,000 $350,000 $13,175 $o $2,500 $25,000 S15,675 $25,000 $0 $0 595,000 5375,000 513,175 527,500 $40;675 $0 $3,300 $2,200 $5,600 $3,200 $2,100 $5,400 $1,812 $1,535 $0 $1,388 $565 $0 $3,200 $2,100 $0 $1,100 $700 $1,800 $11,100 $10,700 $3,347 $1,953 $5,300 $3,600 $331,100 $555,700 $26,062 $189,913 $215,975 $152,600 10 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 Net Income Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations -Fiscal Year 2011- - ($81,332) $382,600 $0 301,268 Opening Balance (10/01/10) $301,268 Reserved for Previously Budgeted Prog=/Projects Transfer to Fund 322 Transfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $154,968 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2011 (Projected) 11 $154,968 ?/28/2010 1611 "!g13 Collier County 1 Pelican Bay Services Division 161 Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 Appropriations: $500 Received Anticipated Total Variance Pelican Bay Handscape Renovations (500661) Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Over $170,218 FY 2010 Budget fear -To-Dat 2010 Expended (Under) Revenue: $0 $5,000 $5,000 $2,031,227 Landscape Materials Assessment Levy $55,900 $49,566 $3,500 $53,066 $2,834 Interest Income $19,800 $429 $11,671 $12,100 $7,700 Transfer from Other Funds $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Developer Contribution $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward of Rolled Ent $0 $o $0 $0 $0 Canyforward $2,029,500 $0 $0 $0 $2 029 500 Total Revenue $2.105.200 ea4 a" C1 1C 1171 Appropriations: $500 $0 $0 `" $0 $500 Pelican Bay Handscape Renovations (500661) $90,225 $67,949 $0 $67,949 Engineering Fees $170,218 $42,227 $65,355 $107,582 $62,636 Other Contractual Services $2,036,227 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $2,031,227 Landscape Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Landscaping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,776 $2,206,445 $42,227 $70,355 $112,582 $2,093,863 Lake Bank Enhancement (510261) Engineering Fees $500 $0 $0 `" $0 $500 Other Contractual Services $90,225 $67,949 $0 $67,949 $22,276 Sprinkler System Mainterna $0 $o $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Landscaping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape Materials $0 so $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,725 $67,949 $0 $67,949 $22,776 Total Operating Expenses $2,297,170 $110,176 $70,355 $180,531 $2,116,639 12 4/28/2010 313 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Expended Mar./Sept. Received Over FY 2010 Year -To-Dat 2010 Expended (Under) Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $1,700 $991 $709 $1,700 $0 Property Appraiser $1,100 $837 $263 $1,100 $0 Revenue Reserve $2,900 $0 $0 $0 $2,900 Total Other Fees & Chgs. $5,700 $1,828 $972 $2,800 $2,900 Total Appropriations $2,302,870 $112,004 $71,327 $183,331 $2.119,539 Net Income Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Current Year Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Capital Outlay Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10 /01 /10) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 Incumbered Carryforward Previously Budgeted Programs/Projects Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2010 (Projected) 13 ($118,165) $1,023,000 $1,0371 $1,993,206 $ I,993,206 $407,800 $284,367 $0 $0 4/28/2010 1611 B13 0 c n Q 0 0 O N V 11;1 1 R1 z _ rj dL.PJ _ W6 N W O) \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ N \ A \ A O V N A N W N W N W N W l0 l0 l0 t0 tD t0 W f° Q ax c m m a m o o a d o �. 0. EL In n .'� m d n d j d m m n at N m m O. 3 O m O= N 7 -0 N !t y D 070 ° x �c m F o. M n w m o m if o m CA i Z o m m N C r7e V CA Qp 00 m 3 w N ° e w N d 7 01 = m a G N C. d m d '-' 7. d u' 3 7' -i n• ry m S d 7 m A a 7 d 'O m W 70 T n O. 3 T aN^o w W A O0 w w On C O. d 7 lA rt c ry n 7' 7 i d -O d w �p 41 Ol u-i j 7 m C v O 7 aq m' H . d d A O 7 j n 0 0 a cx o N w (D a 3 = tea' (1 m< N n eZ d S C .+ C O l d C m N RO 7 a ='- m O m C �p �p N O iii C J m m H O N M 3 m O0 d N 7 m W N y O d m n a Do .x—. L$ n- a o. n 0 0 d 3 N �i v 7 F cn < n m ° 3 m m m ^ N d C 3 3 z z z z z 3 x o z r v r a O N Z O a z .dr C< N• f°l Z C m Z f0 m 7• f•1 Z m m � p d to "" D p�j O a O C �D p d �1 a m -< 7o O a M0 O N ff 7 CC G n a v 00 O d y y Qn o W, a 3 a >> 7 3 0 0 3 m 0 d 3 ro $ 3 3 c n o n m m d 3 p'�" 0. w a.m. F °+ .m. ^ N m a7o '°. n 7 '�* s e3, u�-i m m' 7m �. m -^ w m ° m n v d o 3 w d a f d A o \ '� m F D mow,•o < A n X, tod and E \ < .T W£ 3 m nao =Q N n Q 7 O fl 00 O r m r d 3 d 0- .w 3° 7 7 a W Qm mi. Al 7 ap m C p\p O r+o O m oY F d o m O C C r m N S d o c O 7 t o 3 m d m O � X- m -, o 7 7 ao d d d 00 d �O i C N a < d n 3 A °. O£ 7 er n a •z c� a 7^ � 3 n is C m � 0 7 0 3 ° 7� m 7 �� N O m o W a7 H m x s,.� m o w! r o m o w 3 3 c c ° r 3 d n 4A < 0 d o c m H0 o 7 N 3 a v pwp ui 7 y w 7 0 a s 3 n a m A 3 n d d m d °—' n' = .. m o a m o' p 'c ut 2 c£ n m o_�i '! w m O C O m m a 7 Q C N N N Vvi m N •O O' S m 00 O m d T d H n .7+ ° 7< a 'o m $° r w m m m 5'i < c N O j 0 C c + S o�, ? n d a v 'o o 7 7 v_ 3 ip m 0 a < m a o o d �'m 3 Q� m. ° N °:" ca f° g N�a n. 0 — ° m 3 s! o f 2 F ^ c �i o m d nm D fl O d a °' �� = x omo m '^ D 1°— m o 0 3 F m N N on0 < m C O o 7 et m n 7 O 7 d a 7 m 3 < 3 7c d a T a 0 7 S ,. m° cr < m O @ 7 7 of ° 7 m d < 7 O° a 7 7 W '^ d C ry l a T L G c 3 r j° N "c' j 00 O w d •C 7 N m O A �^ 7 < N C a m., O £ m A �^ 3 �. A 7 ? c c a' Q v m v� C o o• o F ° o, a Ira, N d O d S D d pop C eY ° n m o m a m N a '° o• n m '° N � n ►' o O° o mn m C F 7 'CO ao ,� C O m ... n O 7 w m O �. v O 3 °& d d 'O +` 3 Q ° 3 W '^ '< 7 "' •* O m < f+ -� Ot p m 7 ° 7' C m a `.� 7 °. R'� O � ^ 3 d o d 7 W" RD 3 m m Ro , 3 3 n 7 = m o w N m .r �0 C O N F < 7 p A C < c C O m m 40 x o m W 2 7 m m < '" O O s• d m H C A c W A O m C n 7 C Z ° m O �_ an d a c? H z 'm f A Z a o n on ° tr 0 7° a N y C 7 C 3 O70 ;o y 0 00 W' S W A N 7 N < m n N 0 C ° 3 ° m '» 3 j N 00 c Rn O 'Z N W m °° o f c C O R ry n N N n m d. 0. o C cx c m'' N 3 m o o o. o. ? F m a CL aoo �+ c °7° a 7d w m 0 Q a s 'i o 70 F v °' 'O 7 7 =r O70 m o ,a E 3 d CO n = m 3 3 01 �= C O_ o' ° a ° O° 3 °<—' a CD a d S< N 3 3 of 7 7 O N C. 00 N N N d\ $ 7 3 p a m gc° f 7 c 7 N anv GI $<d bo F m o 7 m d c 2 �` 7 m m m C f m 00 ° m a. W W m ^ g m S v m }°0 3 x no 0 3 7 0^, ° X FL O C m N C N° N m n N S 7 00 m a m a a 0- 0 d m O V >> m H o m o n m° w Z Q o m F m o w 0 0 mc m w C ° o CL �� Q �o o`�°° m Q- ' �'r� im m m A V (-0 3 C1 '* 7 3 7 ^ v v j co .< a m m m j < < j 3 fl nn0 N {A N {A V1 V1 m V1 m m< A IiNI m N IA {j1 V1 V1 (mn N 1p y Subject: On behalf of Mr_ Domenie; correspondence re: peer review & beach rerwurishment f w 1 3 May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session -------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Agenda Item 13b From: lor3lor3 @aol.com [mailto:lor3lor3@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:29 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Re: email on behalf of Mr. Domenie John, I hope you are feeling better. Gary would like to spend the $ 20,000,000 tourist tax dollars available to him on beach re- nourishment. But I don't think Pelican Bay will get any of it His excuse is that the public cannot access all of our beach. That's the reason PB had to spend $2,000,000 to re- nourish our beach a few years ago. Linda From: Johan Domenie [mailto:hobodory@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:34 AM To: ResnickL Subject: Meetings Lisa: Please tell Keith and Bob Uek that I will not be able to attend either meeting today as I have come down with a temperature which I do not wish to share with any one. [ like the Peer Review proposal and attachments, but I wonder what influence Tim Hall's and Steve Feldhaus' a -mails will influence our decision. We will also have to set aside a greater Dollar amount if the Peer Review will (indirectly) involve Turrell/Hall and Hummiston & Moore who have worked on the "historical" PBSD work. A peer reviewer looking at historical data may want to consult with the afore mentioned companies for clarifications. As far as names are concerned - do we want to limit the quantity of names? I would leave out Richard Davis, Mark Luther, Ping Wang and Robert Weisberg. ks for the noon meeting, Bob Uek has asked me to remind every one that within the next two /three years the County will be spending 620,000,000 on beach renourishment. This matter has never been discussed, but if the Foundation wants to place sand on our beaches this will ;ause a drain on available finances for any other projects - as this would have to take precedence. fohn 1 Of 1 4/30/2010 2:02 PM by LR Resnick, . From: Johan Domenie [hobodoryQmmcasLnet) Sent: Wednesday, April 28,2010 11:14 AM e 161 Sat Subject: P Peer er Re view Re Follow Up Flag: Follow up FlagStapue: Flagged At my request - about 5 years ago - Kyle made three months of daily tests for salinity at five locations along the berm - this would show good flushing. This was done at the time when we trying to eradicate the cat-tails - ask Kyle for the data. Another item of interest which happened ten to fifteen years ago (time flies it may have been even more then that, but during the time of the die -off) we were given results (by whom) of fresh water "bubbling up" into the mangroves from underground aquifers. But the two results were very different - but both confirmed that fresh water was entering the mangroves from underground sources. Then Kathy Worley has stated in the past that she found a well with fresh water in the mangroves - some one may wish to check on this with her. What is interesting here is that in the first case we see that salinity is coming into the mangroves adjacent to the berm (check when it was done and when the last dredging took pl;ace to see if there is any possible relation); and in the second that fresh water may be entering the mangroves from underground sources. Somehow all this info should be made available to the Peer Reviewer. Lisa - you may went to give copies of this to the Board. Thanks John 1 of 1 4/29/2010 11:01 AM by LR m: ResnkkL JL t) I it 1113 ro Monday, May 03, 2010 8:26 AM Geoffrey S. Gbson 0osWSeoff@&W.com) HuMar H. Hansen (Huntar.Hansenfh ton coml; Johan (John) Domenk IAnbodoryloomtast.Mt) ;Jahn B Ritzo (kiuoigcomast.neth- John P. Chandler ()pcbscNoornmst.net); Keith J. Dab" (keRhda"commst.net): Mary Anne Womble (TeedupWaoLcom); Mkhaat Levy (mtkekew0embar4maB com1; Theodore Rale (tedrale@yahoo.can); Tom Cravens (rdn16M01111Pksnet); Donve Cox (Donne Cox0hR[on com); Jim Powers ()inredrrg L orn); Resnidcl,; kukast_k; McCaughtryMary out RE: Foiknamp to Pelican Bay Foundation meeting on 5123/10 his is a one -way communication for informational purposes. To avoid a Sunshine issue, please do not respond. a behalf of Dr. Raia, please see email string below. isa Resnick dministrative Assistant flican Bay Services Division Municipal Service Taxing 8t Benefit Unit )1 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 aples, FL 34108 el. 239.597.1749 3x 239.597.4502 r,snick@colliergov.net tp:/ /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net his is a one -way communication for informational purposes. To avoid a Sunshine issue, please do not respond. he following is set forth by the Attorney General`s Office in the Government -in the Sunshine - Manual: Che Government in the Sunshine Law applies to 'any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of sy county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.' The statute thus applies to public collegial bodies within this state, at the local as ell as state level. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971). It is equally applicable to elected and appointed boards or )mmissions. AGO 73 -223. he use of a written report by one commissioner to inform other commissioners of a subject which will be discussed at a public meeting is not violation of the Sunshine Law if prior to the meeting, there is no interaction related to the report among the commissioners. In such cases, the .port, which is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, is not being used as a substitute for action at a public meeting as there is no ;spouse from or interaction among the commissioners prior to the meeting. AGO 89 -23. And see, AGO 01 -20 (e -mail communication of ictual background information from one city council member to another is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian )r public inspection and copying; however, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' Dmments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Sunshine Law). F, however, the report is circulated among board members for comments with such comments being provided to other members, there is iteraction among the board members which is subject to s. 286.011, F.S. AGO 90-03. See also, AGO 96-35, stating that a school board rember may prepare and circulate an informational memorandum or position paper to other board members, however, the use of a remorandum to solicit comments from other board members or the circulation of responsive memoranda by other board members would iolate the Sunshine Law." 'rom: Theodore Raia [mailto:tedraia@yahoo.com] �ent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:18 AM 'o: lisa resnick; ResnickL subject: Fw: RE: Follow -up to Pelican Bay foundation meeting on 5/23/10 ,isa, 'lease forward this email stream to the PBSD board for their information as a one -way communication. Thanks. -- On Sat, 511110, Theodore Raia <tedraia@yahoo.com> wrote: prom: Theodore Raia <tedraia@yahoo.com> >ubject: RE: Follow -up to Pelican Bay foundation meeting on 5/23/10 Co: "StephenFeldhaus" <sf @feldhauslaw.com> ,c: "Allan Grossman' <allangro@comcast net>, "Bill Klauber" <waklauber@aol.com >, "Coleman Connell" <CONCOLl@aol.com>, I 'Dr. 'atricia Bush" <pjbushwork@comcast.net>, "Gerhard Seblatnigg" <gseblatnigg@aoLcom >, "Ian McKeag" <ianmckeag@gmail.com>, "Joe kdams" <jadams5075@aol.com>, "Marcia Cravens" <goldandrose@mac.com >, "Murray Reichenstein" <Murray @Reichenstein.com >, 'Ronnie Bellone" <bellonev @yahoo.com>, "Ross 8t Cora Obley" <rossgolfs@aol.com>, "Susan Boland" <johnsusanboiand@aol.com>, "Ulla loose" <ujdoose@gmail.com >, "bill carpenter" <wrcjks@gmail.com >, "Bill Carpenter" <wrcjks@aol.com>, "Mike Coyne" -mcoyneI7@comcast.net>, "bob naegele" <ronjr@naegelenet.com> date: Saturday, May 1, 2010, 7:13 AM 1 of 3 5/3/2010 8:27 AM by LR ravo, Steve, 161 iBI3 his expose was a long time coming. The problem is who is going to report to the commissioners that all their votes regarding this matter ere based on misinformation provided by the conspiracy of Jim Mudd and Gary McAlpin. Although this information has been available for a w, it has never been presented to the BCC. As a PBSD board member, I tried repeatedly to have the board do this but was thwarted each (ne. I presented the information to a CAC meeting hoping it would become part of their report to the BCC but Gary managed to exclude it. )oes the BCC know this but do not want the public to know they do? Do they want to dredge because they thought they had to install lateral ivigation signs or do they want to dredge for some other reason and wanted to use the signs as an excuse? ed - On Thu, 4/29/10, Feldhaus, Stephen <sf@feldhauslaw.com> wrote: rom: Feldhaus, Stephen <sf @feldhauslaw.com> abject: RE: Follow -up to Pelican Bay foundation meeting on 5/23/10 o: "McAlpinGary" <GaryMcAlpin @col iergov.net>, "ochs_P' <LeoOchs@colliergov.net>, "ramsey_m" <MarlaRamsey @colliergov.net>, GatzkowJeff' <Je&Klatzkow @colliergov.net>, "colleengreene@colliergov. net" <colleengreene@colliergov.net>, "Cora Obley" CoraNaples@aol.com >, "Mike Coyne" <mcoynel7 @comcast.net>, "Jim Hoppenstea&' <jimh@pelicanbay.org >, "Bill Carpenter" wrcjks @gmail.com> ,ate: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 6:44 PM year Gary, appreciate your willingness to correct the misinformation you provided last Friday. Unfortunately, the email below that you sent in an )parent effort to do so provides neither clarity nor candor. t our meeting you affirmatively stated that the Corps would not give the county another permit until the prior permit has been closed out his is a position that you have stated publicly in many different forums: You now acknowledge that this statement has no support in fact, and )r that admission, however belatedly given, I do commend you. [owever, you also stated on Friday that the installation of the red and green lateral navigational markers is a condition of the Corps permit, and ►at the county has been advised by the Corps that it must come into compliance with that permit by installing lateral navigational markers. his also is a statement that you have made publicly and frequently. In fact, you state in the email below that "they [the Corps] continue to otice us on the unresolved compliance issues associated with the installation of the navigational markers" i fact, as you well know, the Corps does not continue to notice the county on this issue. Attached is a copy of a letter from Susan Blass of the :ores, on Corps stationary, dated June 9, 2009, to Jim Hoppensteadt, on which you were copied, in which she states: The Corps has informed the many forms of Collier County Government and all other interested parties that they are encouraged to work )gether to resolve any disputes. The Corps' position is that installation of "water dependent informational signs" as well as "aids to avigation" signage that have been proposed thus far, in order to come into compliance with the permit as required by Special Condition No. 2, could be covered under the NWPI [the Corps Nationwide Permit 1], this includes canoe trail markers and non - lateral navigation signs. No urther action is required of the Corps" 7iis letter makes it explicitly clear that non - lateral navigation signs would be in compliance with the permit. Not satisfied with this, Jim Mudd onmcted Ms. Blass and asked for an official statement from the Corps that the county has satisfied all conditions of the permit and the permit vas closed. A copy of Mr. Mudd's email and the other emails in that chain is attached This appears to have been an attempt by Mr. Mudd to hange the issue. As Ms. Blass clearly stated, either the aids to navigation signs that have been proposed, or non - lateral navigation signs would atisfy the permit. The issue was not, as Mr. Mudd tried to make it, whether the county had satisfied all conditions of the permit. When Mr. Mudd's email failed to elicit a favorable response from the Corps, you contacted the Corps, on September 8, 2009, in another Rtempt to get the Corps to say something, or anything, that you could use to support the public statements you had been making for over a year hat that the lateral navigational signs are required as a condition of the permit. The Corps is a professional organization, however, and even :ntreades from Mr. Mudd and you were not sufficient to get the Corps to change the message contained in Ms. Blass' letter of June 9. In a espouse to you, Mr. Hobbie of the Corps stated in a letter to you dated September 9, 2009, as follows: 'The plan required the installation of navigational markers in the main channel to ensure water craft do not operate outside the channel. In iddition, the markers must meet U. S. Coast Guard standards for signs." fou will notice that there is no mention of lateral navigational markers in Mr. Hobbie's letter, which is 10(r consistent with the letter from vls. Blass, which said that either the aids to navigation signs that have been proposed, "or non - lateral navigation signs," would satisfy the )ermit. 2 of 3 5/3/2010 8:27 AM by LR his is precisely what I told you at our meeting last Friday was the position of the Corps. You stated in respon Jt in t the Brpl is p Y 1 navigation si as a condition to closing out the 't. I have always been amazed that you could make xluunng the installation of latera signs g permit y y ich a blatantly false statement in public settings, but that does not begin to express my feelings upon hearing you make the statement in a teeting with Leo, Marla, and Jeff, a meeting called for the express purpose of trying to bury hatchets and to find ways for the county and the Dundation to work together on common issues. your misrepresentations and prevarications had stopped there, it would have been bad enough, but having dug yourself such a deep hole, you 3parently could not stop yourself. Your also told us at the meeting, and tried in a strange way to confirm it in your email to me of Monday, ,at the Corps continues to seek enforcement of the condition that lateral navigational markers be installed as a condition of the permit. Gary, iame on you. You know that this statement, just like your two other statements, was completely false. am attaching an email from Tunis McElwain of the Corps to you dated June 16, 2009, in response to an email from you, in which he stated: The Corps will not take enforcement action if the markers are not in place when the permit expires." You will recall from our meeting that us is what I told you was the Corps position, which you vehemently denied. o try to get to the bottom of this, I sat down today with Linda Elligott, a Projects Manager with the South Permits Branch of the Corps in Ft. lyers, and asked her point blank two questions: First, would the Corps issue a new dredging permit if there was still a compliance issue with te old permit over the markers, and second, will the Corps take enforcement action against the county if it fails to install lateral navigational Barkers in Clam Bay. he was very explicit. On the first question, she answered that enforcement of an old permit is not connected in any way to the issuance of a ew permit, and that she would definitely issue a permit to the county even if there were a compliance issue outstanding with the old permit ver the markers. ,nd on the second question, I wrote down her answer so that there would be no margin for my memory to play tricks on me: "No one in the nforcement division has indicated any interest in enforcing any marker requirement." Wy, the behavior you exhibited at our meeting on these issues, which is consistent with your behavior for the past several years on Clam Bay tatters, makes it impossible for anyone to have any faith in a word you say. You have been sowing doubt and distrust in our community since on fast became involved in Clam Bay matters. I know that there are difficult issues between the county and the Foundation, and that there are olitical and legal aspects to those issues, aspects which by their very nature make a solution more difficult, but I also know that we can only egin to resolve these issues if we act considerably more maturely than you have been acting for much too long. don't know what more to say. teve Feldhaus 'rom: McAlpinGary [ mailto :GaryMeAlpin@colliergov.net] ent: Monday, April 26,2010 11:00 AM 'o: ochs l; ramsey_m; KlatzkowJeff, mmsey_m; Feldhaus, Stephen; Cora Obley, Mike Coyne; Jim Hoppensteadt ubject; Follow -up to Pelican Bay foundation meeting on 5/23/10 n follow -up to our meeting last Friday, attached is the response from the USACE OW #I) to our permit application for tidal flushing that I lade reference to. be USACE comment in the second paragraph on page one states: "Please be advised that the Corps has determined not to gram the requested xtension, due to the unresolved compliance issues of the installation of navigational markers." This was in reference to the permit extension or the original permit that we filed along with the new permit application. We did this to have the ability to perform any work that might be equired before the new permit was issued. My error is in confusing the USACE response to the permit extension request and the new permit pplication comments. I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. t is important to recognize that even though the Corps comments address an extension to the old permit, they continue to notice us on the nresolved compliance issues associated with the installation of navigational markers. This again, reconfirms previous direction given to the ;ounty by the USACE. We continue to seek the regulatory permits to install navigational markers as directed by the BCC. will keep everyone informed to the status of our new permit application and the status of our navigational marker permit. im, I don't have Bill Carpenter and Henry Price's email address. Can you forward this to them. Jnder Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, to not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 of 3 5/312010 8:27 AM by LR Suble- peer review purchasing process? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: JohnsonScott Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:26 PM To: ResnickL; LynWood Cc: Jim Powers Oim @dmgfl.com) Subject: RE: peer review purchasing process? Lisa: (Please see my responses below)... Thanks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ResnickL Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:27 PM To: LynWood Cc: JohnsonScott; ResnickL; Jim Powers Oim @dmgfl.com) Subject: peer review purchasing process? Dear Lyn, I want to make sure I understand the peer review purchasing process and below is a recap of our discussion and several questions. I probably missed a few steps, and uncertain what happens after a letter of interest is sent... 1. Coastal Zone Management department and Pelican Bay Services Division will submit their lists of individuals under consideration to Purchasing (Fine) 2. The individuals on the list will register with Purchasing (under a new commodity code) to "prequalify" to receive notice of the opportunity Who will do the registering? (The vendors will self register) What information does the Services Division need to provide to Purchasing regarding the individuals, i.e., contact information? (Yes, as much information as possible) 3. Purchasing will send registered individuals a "letter of interest" What information does purchasing provide in this letter ?(Requirements to participate and scope of project) Is it a boilerplate or custom? (Custom) Is notice of the "letter of interest" limited to those individuals that are preregistered? (Everyone will be able to see it but will not be able to respond) If an individual is not "preregistered," how can we advise them of this opportunity? (Email) To whom do interested individuals respond? (There will be instructions in the document) Is this procedure standard? Does the procedure vary depending upon the cost? What is that cost threshold? Sorry for so many questions... Would you please provide clarification? Thanks for your help, Lisa Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnick@coliiergov.net http:/ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net 1 of 1 4/30/2010 4 :26 PM by LR ResnkkL From: r000rds@colliersheriff.net Sent: To: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:39 PM ResntkL 16 ^ (D,J Subject: RE: Incident Report Request Follow Up Par. Follow up Rat Stph Flagged Dear Requestor, Since this just happened we will not have this for 3 to 5 business days. If you were not the party that was involved in this accident it does not become public record for the first 60 days. Mary Linhard, Office Specialist H Collier County Sheriffs Office Central Records Bureau 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Bldg. J Naples, Florida 34112 Direct (239) 793 -9302 - - - -- Original Message--- - From: lisaresnick @colliergov.net [ mailto :lisaresnick @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:04 PM To: records @colliersheriffnet Cc: recordsmgr@colliersheriffnet Subject: Incident Report Request Requestor: Lisa Resnick Email: lisaresnickgcollier ov.net Phone number 239 - 597 - 1749 Case Number: - Location: 7779 Pelican Bay Boulevard Name of Person involved: DOB of Person involved: mmddyyyy Date of Incident: 4/15/2010 - mmddyyyy Time Range of Incident: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Type of Report: Incident Report Additional Info: Apparently, A woman pedestrian and a Vespa collided in the crosswalk at 7779 Pelican Bay Boulevard/North Tram Station #8 at about 11 a.m. on 4/15/10. From what I understand, the driver of the Vespa was cited, but I don't know their name. I believe the woman's name is Cecilia Wang. If you have questions, please call 597 -1749. Thanks. 1 of 1 4/19/2010 9:36 AM by LR Fiala ✓ .: 1611 1B =ng 13 _ _... C PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AND PELICAN BAY FOUNDATWj; A PLAN G COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee held a Community Improvement Plan workshop on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens absent Johan Domenie Geofrrey S. Gibson absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Ph Bob Uek, Chairman absent Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chairman Carson Beadle absent Rose Mary Everett arrived late Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Michael Levy RECEIVED Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent JUN 0 9 2010 Hunter H. Hansen absent Board of County Commissioners Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant inning Committee Gerald A. Moffatt Noreen Murray Ralph Ohlers absent Mary Anne Womble Jim Hoppensteadt, President Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Misc. Corres: Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate & Landscape Architect Date: Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner Item #: ROLL CALL Copies to: Seven Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present. Mr. Cravens, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Baron and Mr. Hansen were absent. Six Strategic Planning Committee members present. Mr. Uek, Mr. Beadle, and Mr. Ohlers were absent. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER COUNTY BICYCLE FACILITIES POLICY Mr. Mangan presented Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County bicycle facility policies adopted by resolution of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization May 14. In summary, the resolution provides regulations for the development of a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on new and rehabilitative roadways. APRIL 28 PHASE III DEIGN DEVF.OPMENT DRAFT REPORT MEMBER COMMENTS & WILSON MILLER RESPONSE Mr. Mangan distributed and reviewed a document incorporating members' comments and Wilson Miller's responses to the April 28, 2010 Phase III Design Development Draft Report. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CORPORAL MARCENO AND SERGEANT SAWYER Corporal Carmine Marceno, Collier County Sheriffs Office's representative for Pelican Bay and North Naples crime investigator Sergeant Sawyer spoke briefly. There is a low crime rate in Pelican Bay, but residents should still take 103 M 16/ . 613 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Com�ttee Community Improvement Plan Workshop Meeting Minutes May 1& 2010 precautions to prevent it. Corporal Mareeno encouraged residents to call him about anything suspicious at 239- 793 -9526, no matter how small it may seem because it can help solve crimes. He added that in the event of an emergency to call 911. IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & ASSOCIATED COSTS OPINION REVIEW Mr. Mangan distributed Phase III Design Development additional and replacement documents. He recommended members consider community berm improvements a priority, i.e., seating and wildlife- viewing platforms constructed along the length of the berm, because many residents use and enjoy the facility. He reviewed briefly recommendations for traffic, signage, pathways, technology and public art. WRAP UP Mr. Mangan requested that any comments be provided to Wilson Miller by Friday, May 21. They will present the final plan on May 26 at noon. Members discussed developing an executive summary that includes project recommendations, not plans, for years one through three that delineate priority and the entity responsible. Mr. Hoppensteadt would create a master spreadsheet with this information and the group could begin prioritizing projects as soon possible. ADJOURNMENT There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 3:12 pm. keiW J. Dall Chairman 104 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/20/20101:17:50 PM 16/ . 613 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Com�ttee Community Improvement Plan Workshop Meeting Minutes May 1& 2010 precautions to prevent it. Corporal Mareeno encouraged residents to call him about anything suspicious at 239- 793 -9526, no matter how small it may seem because it can help solve crimes. He added that in the event of an emergency to call 911. IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & ASSOCIATED COSTS OPINION REVIEW Mr. Mangan distributed Phase III Design Development additional and replacement documents. He recommended members consider community berm improvements a priority, i.e., seating and wildlife- viewing platforms constructed along the length of the berm, because many residents use and enjoy the facility. He reviewed briefly recommendations for traffic, signage, pathways, technology and public art. WRAP UP Mr. Mangan requested that any comments be provided to Wilson Miller by Friday, May 21. They will present the final plan on May 26 at noon. Members discussed developing an executive summary that includes project recommendations, not plans, for years one through three that delineate priority and the entity responsible. Mr. Hoppensteadt would create a master spreadsheet with this information and the group could begin prioritizing projects as soon possible. ADJOURNMENT There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 3:12 pm. keiW J. Dall Chairman 104 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/20/20101:17:50 PM 16I 3 ! B13 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Work Group Meeting Agenda May 18, 2010 Noon to 12:30 Work Group Discussion One • FDOT and Collier County Bike Lane Policies 12:30 to 1:00 Work Group Discussion Two • Work Group comments from April 28, 2010 Draft Report 1:00 to 2:30 Improvement Plan Element Recommendations and Associated Opinion of Costs Review • Hand Out new sections of Report • Continue Element Reviews 2:30 to 2:50 Review Initial Work Group Feedback on Task Priority Assignments • Final Draft Work Group feedback Review • Final Comment Period 2:50 to 3:00 Wrap -up • Final Questions and Answers 5118/2010 - 218453 - Ver. 1 - KMANGAN N0103-086-003- -0 From: Mike Levy [mikelevy @embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:36 PM r 1 To: Kevin Mangan; Steve Sammons [ "j` B13 Cc: ResnickL 6 1t Subject: PB Design & Development Report - Phase Three Hi Kevin & Steve, Wanted to share with you some comments re. subject report prior to tomorrow's meeting. 1. Pathways, Item D2 -C. I am in favor of phase 1 widening of PB Blvd (west side) extending from the commons to Hammock Oak. 2. Please explain D2 -F. What is the improvement WM is proposing to the the pathways on North Point Drive, Hammock Oak Drive and Crayton Road for $316K? Why is it less ($229K) to replace these existing pathways with a concrete sidewalk? 3. Which item contains the cost for the proposed new Oakmont Parkway 5' wide concrete sidewalk? What would be the cost for this community improvement? 4. Lighting, Item D3 -D. How does the alternative solution differ from Item D3 -A, replacing the Boulevard street lighting with LED fixtures and bracket arms? The cost for D3 -D (alternate) is estimated at $764K whereas the cost for D3 -A is estimated at $713K. 5. Item D3 -E, bollard lighting. I believe the cost for the St. Raphael beach pathway lighting should be shown separately. Also, wouldn't it be prudent to re- evaluate the need for additional street and boulevard pathway lighting after the street lights have been replaced? 6. LED street lighting pay -back. The various payback analyses first determine the annual operating savings of the LED lighting compared to our current MH lighting. Then they calculate the cost from scratch to install the MH system and compare that to the cost of installing a LED system. Since the LED system costs more, they divide the difference in cost between the two systems by the annual LED system operating savings and come up with approximately a 7 year payback. In my judgment this analysis is flawed; we already have the MH system, so the installation costs are "0 ". If you divide the annual LED savings into the cost of installing a LED system, the payback is more like 29 years; and that assumes the cost of money at "0 ". Hope these comments are helpful. Mike Levy mikelevv @embaramail .com <mailto:mikelevy @embargmail com> Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1611FB13 Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: CIP Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:57 PM From: Merlin Lickhalter <mlickhalter @comcast.net> To: Kevin Mangan <kevinmangan @wilsonmiller.com >, "Sammons, Steve" <SteveSammons @wilsonmiller.com> Cc: Robert Uek <rwuek7 @gmail.com >, Mary Anne Womble <Teedupl @aol.com >, Ralph Ohlers <rc_ohlers @comcast.net>, Carson Beadle <carsoneb @aol.com >, Rose Mary Everett <reverett@johnrwood.com >, Ronnie Bellone <bellonev @yahoo.com>, noreen murray <noreenmurray @comcast.net >, Jerry Moffatt <gamoffatt@msn.com>, <Iresnick @colliergov.net> Following are my comments /questions regarding the draft report: General: 1. Someone should proof the material; there are grammatical and punctuation errors that should be corrected in the final document. 2. The individual budget estimates (not the details) should be rounded to say the nearest $100 (maybe even $500 for larger numbers), and it should be clearly stated that these estimates are in May 2010 dollars and do not include time escalation. Specific pages /sections: p 4 missing p 5: As mentioned at our last meeting, I request that providing safe bicycling be specifically mentioned here. p 6: Likewise, this should be a specifically stated goal. Also, why do you refer to "long term" goals? Why not just "goals ?" p 7: Is the statement about "well known demographic ... number one recreational activity" documented somewhere? p 9: Shouldn't Dark Sky criterion be mentioned? p 10: Is landscape part of what is characterized as "strongest selling points ?" Again, why the use of "long term ?" p 11: Should fence design and type of fence material be mentioned here? p 12: 1 know what "f & b" means, but suggest it be spelled out. What is "limited Nationwide permitting" (1st bullet)? p 13: When was southern berm access point discussed, and what do you have in mind? And bird houses ? ?? p 15: 1 seem to recall that when the entry monument sign for the Community Center was discussed, the County dictated the sign design. Who has sole authority for signage design on Foundation property? p 16: When did dog parks become a "guiding principle ?" I agree with Bob and Ronnie. p 17: Are you kidding about the example of the design for a concealed security camera housing? By the way, this was in the copy you handed out a couple of weeks ago, but was not in the large 3 ring binder version. p 18: Suggest you clarify what is meant by public art, and reference the State's position on this as well as guidelines that they have published. This page was also not in the 3 ring binder version. D1 -D & E: Ralph asked me to follow up, in his absence, on the feasibility of employing sand and not mud setting beds for the brick in these areas. Is it feasible? Desireable? D1 -H: Also as mentioned in the last meeting, I believe the report is not sufficiently proactive about providing safe bicycling in the community. Specifically, I ask that you delete the reference to "future maintenance and improvement guidelines" and substitute something along the following lines: The joint working group overwhelmingly recommended new pavement lane markings throughout Pelican Bay Blvd, that would create a marked 4 ft. wide bicycle lane in each direction. It was noted that FDOT now required such lanes whenever resurfacing takes place, which is probably the most cost effective time to undertake creating these marked lanes. D7 -B: Regarding the improvement of pedestrian safety on the south side of the Commons, if the existing tram turnaround and station were relocated to the north (as recommended) and all of the other "activities" in that area were eliminated, is it not possible for delivery trucks to enter the property on the south side, maneuver into what was the trammaneuver area and station, and then back into the loading dock without having to relocate a tennis court? Thanks, Page 1 of 2 1611 B13 I wilsonmiller` To: Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Pelican Bay Services 'vision 'V From: WilsonMiller, Inc. Date: May 17, 2010 Re: Bicycle facility Policy of the FDOT and Collier County Please find specific position statements and policies for the inclusion of bicycle facilities of the Florida Department of Transportation outlined in Chapter 8 of their Plans Preparations Manual and from Collier County MPO by way of their May 14, 2010 unanimous resolution for adoption of the "United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations" attached. Also included is a June 8, 2009 roadway design bulletin from the Florida Department of Transportation that further outlines the requirements of Chapter 8 noted above. The Florida Department of Transportation Plans Preparation Manual references Florida Statute Section 335.065 that is for bicycle and pedestrian facilities along State roadways and transportation facilities of which Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive are local Collier County roadways and not State roadway facilities. However, this Chapter provides guidance to Collier County Transportation Services Division in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) as to the inclusion of bicycle lanes in all feasible cases on roadways under their jurisdiction when a project is located within one mile of an urban area and is to be resurfaced. Pelican Bay meets the distance from urban area criteria as a community. The Collier County MPO also unanimously adopted by resolution last Friday, May 14, 2010, the March 11, 2010 United States Secretary of Transportations Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Regulations and Recommendations. This paves the way beyond the current local guiding policies and sub - division regulations for the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to be an interconnected and comprehensive network of alternative transportation facilities constructed in both new roadways as well as included within rehabilitative works within our local existing streets. Given the above guidance, the positive posture within the Collier County Transportation Services Division for the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within County rights of way and the current best development practices for viable, healthy communities includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities; we believe that the policies and guidance are in place to include bicycle lanes on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. When these County roadways are resurfaced in the future, we also believe that the Collier County Transportation Services Division will review the policy, criteria and justifications along with proper engineering support, to consider and- recommend that these roadways are striped to include dedicated bicycle lanes within their current asphalt cross sections. 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 CorpoEv iG)fJjg&5 - v&2"JQ ARW Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 -- - No103- ON-W3- -o WilsonMiller.tom 1611 B131 Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1, 2010 Chapter 8 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8.1 General 8.1.1 Pedestrians and Bicyclists It is the goal of the Department and in accordance with Section 335.065, Florida Statutes, Bicycle and pedestrian ways along state roads and transportation facilities: "(1)(a) Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into state, regional, and local transportation plans and programs. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any state transportation facility, and special emphasis shall be given to projects in or within 1 mile of an urban area. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), bicycle and pedestrian ways are not required to be established: 1. Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety; 2. When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; 3. Where other available means or factors indicate an absence of need." Projects that comply with the design criteria contained within the PPM are considered to meet the requirements of the statute. If the design criteria contained within the PPM for pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not met, a Design Variation is required. The documentation shall reference which of the three conditions under Section 335.065 (1)(b), Florida Statutes support not providing a bicycle or pedestrian facility. Sidewalks and shared use paths are appropriate pedestrian facilities for all types of projects and locations. Table 8.1.1 identifies appropriate bicycle facilities for various types of projects. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -1 Topic #625- 000 -007 B1 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1, 2010 Table 8.1.1 Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -2 Type of Work New Construction, Resurfacing, Traffic Reconstruction Restoration, Operations, Location Condition Rehabilitation Intersection (RRR)', 2, 3 Improvements In or within All Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane or Bicycle Lane or one mile of an Wide Curb Lane Wide Curb Lane urban area Curb and gutter Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane or Bicycle Lane or Beyond one (DS :5 45mph) Wide Curb Lane Wide Curb Lane mile of an urban area All other Bicycle Lane or Bicycle Lane, Bicycle Lane, Paved Shoulder Paved Shoulder or Paved Shoulder or Wide Curb Lane Wide Curb Lane 1. Widening of existing curbed sections forthe project length to provide bicycle facilities may disproportionally affect the scope and cost of a RRR project, especially if reconstruction of the curb, sidewalk, and /or drainage system is required, additional right of way is needed, or utilities are impacted. No Design Variation is necessary, however, a statement similar to the following shall be included in the project file: "Bicycle facilities have been considered for this project but will not be provided, due to insufficient width between existing curb lines to provide bicycle facilities without substantial reconstruction of the roadway, drainage system and sidewalk (and /or requires additional right of way). Reconstruction (and /or right of way acquisition) is outside the scope of this project." 2. Substantial widening of an existing curbed section is outside the scope of a RRR project and is considered reconstruction. 3. See Section 25.4.19 for options that shall be considered on RRR projects with existing roadways where no widening is planned. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -2 16111 B13 Topic #625 - 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — Enalish Revised — January 1, 2010 Bicyclists and pedestrians should be expected on all of Florida's state roadways except where restricted on limited access facilities and interstate highways (Section 316.091 Florida Statutes). Decisions on appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be determined with input from the District Pedestrian /Bicycle Coordinator, throughout the project development and implementation process. Further coordination may also be necessary with the District Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator. When considering other available means, the alternate route or facility should include accommodation for cyclists and pedestrians which meet the design criteria for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on state roadways, and provide access to the same services, origination and destination sites, and transit connections as the project corridor. The alternate route shall not result in a significant increase in travel time or trip length, exposure to motorized traffic or substantial elevation changes. If the alternate route requires the pedestrian or bicyclist to cross limited access, arterial or collector roadways, or rail corridors, appropriate crossing locations shall be provided. 8.1.2 Transit For projects within the operational limits of a local transit agency service area, consideration should be given to connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with transit stops. Bicycle access to transit facilities should be provided because most bus service has bike -on -bus (bicycle rack) capability. Decisions on appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to connect with transit service shall be determined with input from the District Pedestrian /Bicycle Coordinators, District Modal Development Office Coordinators, District Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinators, and the District Public Transportation staff. Where there is a demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, there could also be a demand for public transit or public transportation facilities. Public transit street side facilities should be considered in all phases of a project, including planning, preliminary design and engineering, design, and construction. Coordination with the District Modal Development Office and /or the local public transit provider(s) will help determine the need for and justification of bus bays and transit shelters on a project by project basis. Multimodalism is the ultimate goal of the Department. The integration of public transit street facilities along with pedestrian and bicycle facilities furthers the implementation of this goal. Additional information on the design of transit facilities can be found in Accessing Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -3 16110131 Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — Enalish Revised — January 1. 2010 8.4 Bicycle Facilities Appropriately designed and located bicycle facilities play an important role in supporting safe bicycle travel. Bicycle facilities include bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes, shared use paths, traffic control devices, and bicycle parking facilities. Measures that can considerably enhance a corridor's safety and capacity for bicycle travel are: 1. Providing bicycle facilities. 2. Maintaining a smooth, clean riding surface, free of obstructions. This includes ensuring drainage inlets and utility covers that cannot be moved out of the travel way are flush with grade, well seated, and use bicycle -safe grates and covers. 3. Responsive and appropriate traffic control devices, consistent with guidance in the MUTCD, including providing bicycle oriented directional signage. 8.4.1 Bicycle Lanes Where required by Table 8.1.1, a bicycle lane shall be provided for each direction of travel on the roadway. On flush shoulder roadways, the paved shoulder described in Section 8.4.2 shall be marked as a bicycle lane in or within 1 mile of an urban area. Bicycle lanes shall be marked in accordance with Design Standards and the MUTCD. On curb and gutter roadways, a 4 -foot minimum bicycle lane width measured from the lip of the gutter is required. This provides for a 5.5 -foot width to the face of curb when FDOT Type F curb and gutter is used. The 1.5 -foot gutter width should not be considered as part of the rideable surface area, but this width provides useable clearance to the curb face. A minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided when the bicycle lane is adjacent to on- street parking, a right -turn lane, guardrail or other barrier. Bicycle lanes shall be one -way facilities and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On one -way streets, bicycle lanes should generally be placed on the right side of the street. A bicycle lane on the left side of the street can be considered if it will substantially reduce the number of potential conflicts, such as those caused by frequent bus traffic, heavy right -turn movements, high- turnover parking lanes, or if there is a significant number of left- turning bicyclists. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -10 164 1813 Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1 2010 8.4.2 Paved Shoulders A paved shoulder is a portion of a roadway which has been delineated by edge line striping, but does not include special pavement markings or signing for the preferential use by bicyclists. Paved shoulders shall be 5 feet in width for new construction, reconstruction and RRR projects, however existing 4 -foot paved shoulders on RRR projects may be retained. A paved shoulder of at least 4 feet in width is considered to be a bicycle facility, however a minimum 5 -foot clear width between the traveled way and the face of curb, guardrail or other roadside barrier is required. 8.4.3 Wide Curb Lanes Wide outside curb lanes are through lanes which provide a minimum of 14 feet in width. This width allows most motor vehicles to pass cyclists within the travel lane, which is not possible in more typical 10 -foot to 12 -foot wide travel lanes. Wide curb lanes do not meet Department requirements for bicycle facilities on new construction or reconstruction projects. However, in some conditions, such as RRR projects, they may be the only practical option for a bicycle facility. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -11 �� "? 313q Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — Enalish Revised — January 1. 2010 8.4.4 Bicycle Lane Between Through Lane and Right Turn Lane, Bus Bay or Parking Lane In new construction, reconstruction and traffic operations projects, at locations with right turn lanes, bus bays or parking lanes, a 5 -foot bicycle lane shall be provided between the through lane and the right turn lane, bus bay or parking lane. For bicycle lanes adjacent to parking lanes, if the parking volume is substantial or the turnover is high, an additional 1 to 2 feet of width should be provided for the bicycle lane if right of way is adequate. When a RRR project includes the addition or modification of a right turn lane, bus bay or parking lane, a 5 -foot bicycle lane shall be provided between the through lane and the right turn lane, bus bay or parking lane if existing right of way is adequate. On RRR flush shoulder projects where the approaching paved shoulder is 4 feet wide, a minimum width of 4 feet is acceptable for a bicycle lane between the through lane and right turn lane. When a RRR project has an existing right turn lane without a bicycle lane between the through lane and right turn lane, bus bay or parking lane, a bicycle lane should be provided. Factors to be considered include the opportunity to provide a continuous alignment, reduce the potential for conflicts with turning vehicles, and availability of right of way. 8.4.5 Bicycle Route Systems Bicycle route systems are linked by signs to aid bicyclists. Bicycle route systems are ineffectual unless signs are highly specific, giving a clear indication of destination. It may be advantageous to sign some urban and rural roadways as bicycle route systems. Bicycle route signing should not end at a barrier. Information directing the bicyclists around the barrier should be provided. The decision whether to provide bicycle route systems should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle use on a particular road, instead of on parallel and adjacent roadways. The roadway width, along with factors such as volume, speed, types of traffic, parking conditions, grade, sight distance and connectivity to transit, should be considered when determining the feasibility of bicycle route systems. Roadway improvements such as adequate pavement width, drainage grates, railroad crossings, pavement surface, maintenance schedules and signals responsive to bicycles should always be considered before a roadway is identified as a bicycle route system. Further guidance on signing bicycle route systems is provided in the MUTCD. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -12 1611 8131 Topic #625-000-007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 - English Revised —January 1, 2010 25.4.19 Pedestrian, Bicyclist and Transit Needs Whenever a RRR project is undertaken, pedestrian and bicyclist needs must be addressed, and transit needs should be considered. Recommendations by the District Pedestrian /Bicycle Coordinator and the District Modal Development Office shall be obtained; local government and transit agency contact in developing these recommendations is essential. This should be part of the project scoping and programming effort. 25.4.19.1 Pedestrian Needs 1. Sidewalks and Shared use Paths On RRR projects, detectable warnings and curb ramps shall be brought into compliance with ADA requirements. This includes installing new detectable warnings for both flush shoulder and curbed roadway connections and signalized driveways where none exist or do not meet current requirements. New curb ramps shall be provided on curbed roadways where none exist; existing substandard curb ramps shall be replaced. Existing ramps not meeting detectable warning requirements which otherwise comply with ADA, shall be retrofitted with detectable warnings. (See Design Standards, Index 304 & 310.) Pull boxes, manholes, and other types of existing surface features in the location of a proposed curb ramp or detectable warning should be relocated when feasible. When relocation is not feasible, the feature shall be adjusted to the new ramp to meet the ADA requirements for surfaces (including the provision of a non -slip top surface, and adjustment to be flush with and at the same slope as the curb ramp). When compliance with ADA curb ramp requirements is determined to be technically infeasible documentation as a Design Variation is required. This may occur where existing right of way is inadequate and where conflicts occur with existing features that cannot be feasibly relocated or adjusted, e.g., drainage inlets, signal poles, pull boxes, etc... Other than meeting detectable warning and curb ramp requirements, existing sidewalks and flared driveway turnouts are not required to be upgraded for the sole purpose of meeting ADA requirements, unless included in the project scope by the District. All new sidewalk and driveway construction or reconstruction included on RRR projects shall be designed in accordance with ADA requirements. However, even if new sidewalk is to be constructed, non - conforming driveways are not required to be upgraded. Florida's Design Criteria for Resurfacing, Restoration and 25 -38 Rehabilitation (RRR) of Streets and Highways B137 Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 - English Revised — January 1, 2010 2. Medians Medians shall be evaluated to determine if modifications such as pedestrian refuge sections are necessary. 5 -lane and 7 -lane sections are restricted or eliminated under current policy, usually by the introduction of a raised or restrictive median, which enhances the opportunity to accommodate pedestrian needs. Traffic separators with a width sufficient to provide refuge should be used at intersections where possible. When adequate pedestrian refuge cannot be provided at the intersection, midblock islands should be provided. Design details for disability access features including sidewalk, curb ramps and driveway turnouts are found in the Design Standards. Additional standards for ADA are found in the regulations and design guidelines issued by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 25.4.19.2 Bicyclist Needs Bicycle Lanes, Wide Curb Lanes, Paved Shoulders For existing sections without bicycle facilities where no widening is planned, consideration shall be given to reducing lane widths to provide bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, or paved shoulders. These facilities shall meet the criteria provided in Chapter 8. Existing thru lane widths on urban multi -lane roadways and two -lane curb and gutter roadways shall not be reduced to less than 11 feet for design speeds 2:40 mph, and to no less than 10 feet for design speeds 5 35 mph. See Section 25.4.5 for additional information on lane widths. Coordinate with the District Public Transportation (Modal Development) Office and local transit agency when considering the reduction of lane widths on roadways where public transit routes are present. When bicycle facilities are not provided in accordance with Section 8.1, a Design Variation is required. 2. Right Turn Lanes Bicycle lanes at right turn lanes shall meet the criteria provided in Section 8.4.4. 3. Drainage Inlets, Grates, Utility Covers Existing drainage inlets, grates and utility covers shall be evaluated as to whether they present an obstruction to bicyclists, and should be relocated out of the cyclist's path of travel. Drainage inlets, grates and utility covers to remain should be adjusted to be flush with the adjacent pavement surface, utilize a grate recommended for bicycle travel, and be marked as an obstruction. See the MUTCD and Design Standards for further information. Existing inlets, grates or covers which present gaps sufficient to trap the wheel of a bicycle should be, referred to the Maintenance Office for remediation until the project is constructed. Florida's Design Criteria for Resurfacing, Restoration and 25 -39 Rehabilitation (RRR) of Streets and Highways 4 1611 8131 IM, Florida Department of Transportation CHARLIE CRIST 605 Suwannee Street STEPHANIE C. KOPELOUSOS GOVERNOR Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 SECRETARY Mail Station 32 ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 09 -03 DATE: June 8, 2009 TO: District Design Engineers, Plans Preparation Manual Hol f FROM: David C. O'Hagan, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer COPIES: Lora Hollingsworth, Robert Robertson, Mark Wilson SUBJECT: Bicyclist Needs on Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) Projects Background: The January 1, 2009 PPM Update contained changes that clarified FDOT requirements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This Design Bulletin clarifies the intent of those recent changes. Requirements: In the Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Section 25.4.19, replace the first paragraph under Bicyclist Needs with the following paragraph: Bicyclist Needs - For existing sections without bicycle facilities where no widening is planned, consideration shall be given to reducing lane widths to provide bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, or paved shoulders. These facilities shall meet the criteria provided in Chapter 8. The reduction of existing lane widths for this purpose is restricted to no less than 11 feet for design speeds > 40 mph, and to no less than 10 feet for design speeds <_ 35 mph, for this purpose. When bicycle facilities are not provided in accordance with Section 8. 1, a Design Variation is required. Additional information regarding bicycle facilities is contained in Chapters 2, 8, 10, and 21 of this volume. See Section 25.4.5 for additional information on lane widths. Implementation: These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning immediately. Contact: Robert F. Quigley, PE (850) 414 -4356 robert.quiQley(a);dot.state. fl. us www.dot.state.fl.us COLLIER Metropolitan Planning Organization NOTE SPECIAL MEETING TIME AGENDA 1611 MPO 813 Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of County Commissioners Chambers 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples May 14, 2010 9:00 a.m. This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252 -8192. The MPO's planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file a complaint with the Florida Department of Transportation District One Interim Title VI Coordinator Robin Parrish at (863) 519 -2675 or by writing her at P.O. Box 1249, Bartow, Florida 33831. 1. Call to Order /Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Open to the Public for Comment on Items not on the Agenda 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Committee Chairman's Report A. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Report B. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report C. Pathway Advisory Committee (PAC) Report D. Local Coordinating Board (LCB) Report E. Congestion Management System / Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholders Committee (CMS /ITS) Report 6. Consent Section A. April 9, 2010 Board and Luncheon Meeting Minutes B. March 19, 2010 Joint Lee / Collier MPO Meeting Minutes C. Reappointment of PAC Members D. Reappointment of CAC Members E. Ratification of New CAC Member B. Approval of the Addendum to the 2006 Comprehensive Pathways Plan C. Approval of the Updated Transportation Planning Funds Joint Participation Agreement D. Addendum to the Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund Memorandum of Agreement and Resolution E. Approval of Resolution Regarding the USDOT Ped Bike Policy Statement F. Approval of the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) G. Approval of a TAC Member to Serve on the Program Management Plan Selection Committee for the FIFA Section 5316 and 5317 Grants H. Endorsement of the FTA Section 5307 and 5309 Program of Projects 9. Reports and Presentations (May Reauire Board Action A. Review of the Draft FY2010 /11— 2014/15 TIP B. FDOT Update 10. Director's Report( May Require Board Action) 11. Member Comments 12. Next Meeting Dates 7. Public Hearing Items June 11, 2010 -10:00 a.m. A. Approve a FY 2009/10 — 2013/14 Transportation 13. Adiournment Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment B. Approval of FY 2010/11 — 2011/12 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Including 5303 Grant Application and Associated Resolution 8. Board Action Items A. Approval of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Grant Application Package and Resolution 1611 B131 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Action Item 8E Approval of a Resolution Regarding the USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations Objective: For the Collier MPO Board to approve a resolution (Attachment A) endorsing the attached USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations (Attachment B) and encouraging the MPO's member jurisdictions to adopt similar policy statements. Considerations: On March 15, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announcad the Department's new Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations (Attachment B). Summarizing the new policy in his official blog, Secretary LaHood wrote, "We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally- funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities." The Policy Statement encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, public transportation agencies and other government agencies to adopt similar policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. The Policy Statement features Eight Recommended Actions for transportation agencies and local communities to take that would go beyond adherence to minimum design standards and create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible and convenient bicycling and walking networks: 1. Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. 2. Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient and interconnected transportation networks. 3. Going beyond minimum design standards: Planning projects for the long -term should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. 4. Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated and limited - access bridges. 5. Collecting data on walking and biking trips: Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of new facilities. 6. Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time. B13 7. Removing snow from sidewalks and shared -use paths: Although snow removal does not apply to Collier County, current maintenance provisions (28 CFR Section 35.133) require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be maintained in the same manner as other roadway assets in order to ensure accessibility and usability by persons with disabilities. 8. Improving non - motorized facilities during maintenance projects: Transportation agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects. The Policy Statement does NOT create any new Federal authority to withhold approval of road construction projects beyond that already in effect before enactment of this policy. During the April 9, 2010 MPO Board meeting, after review and consideration of the USDOT Policy Statement, associated backup information provided in the agenda package and public comment received during the presentation of the agenda item, the Board directed the MPO staff to prepare the attached resolution supporting the USDOT Policy Statement and encouraging the MPO's member jurisdictions to adopt similar policies. Deputy County Attorney Scott Teach has reviewed and approved the attached resolution as to form and legal sufficiency. Committee Recommendations: The TAC, CAC and PAC all unanimously endorsed the attached resolution and recommended Board approval. Staff Recommendations: For the Collier MPO Board to approve the attached resolution (Attachment A) endorsing the USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations (Attachment B) and encouraging the MPO's member jurisdictions to adopt similar policy statements. Attachment(s): A. Collier MPO Resolution 2010 -05 B. USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations Prepared/ J Approved by: C �^ Date: 5/5-//V Phil indall, MPO Director � 3 ATTACHMENT N0. M RESOLUTION 2010 - 05 RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENT ON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENCOURAGING THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S MEMBER JURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT SIMILAR POLICY STATEMENTS AS AN INDICATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS AS AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the United States Secretary of Transportation signed on March 11, 2010 and announced on March 15, 2010 a Policy Statement (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy Statement ") to reflect the United States Department of Transportation's support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks that include well - connected walking and bicycling facilities with linkages to public transit as important components thereof with equal priority to other transportation modes; and WHEREAS, the Policy Statement encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, public transportation agencies and other government agencies to adopt similar policy statements on pedestrian and bicycle accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists as an integral element of the transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Policy Statement further elaborates that every transportation agency has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems, and are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for non - motorized transportation; and WHEREAS, incorporating pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as a routine part of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Area's road and street network is a cost - effective way to create opportunities for safe walking and bicycling available to all residents and visitors and to enable those who walk and bicycle to safely reach all needed destinations; and WHEREAS, walking and bicycling improve public health and reduce treatment costs for conditions associated with reduced physical activity, including obesity, heart disease, lung disease and diabetes; and WHEREAS, promoting walking and bicycling for transportation improves the natural environment, reduces congestion, reduces the need for costly expansion of the road and highway systems and reduces our nation's dependence on foreign energy sources; and 16 11 ' B13 WHEREAS, public transit users depend on walking or bicycling to safely reach their bus stops; and WHEREAS, an integrated, well - connected network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities encourages more children to safely walk and bike to school, and will make streets, sidewalks and communities safer and more inviting to children and families to walk and bicycle to their desired destinations; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned Policy Statement encourages transportation agencies and local communities to go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible and convenient walking and bicycling networks, and recommends that such actions should include: (1) Giving walking and bicycling the same priority as is given to other modes of transportation; (2) Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people $f all ages and abilities; (3) Avoiding the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to the minimum standards; achieving this end by planning projects with consideration of likely future demand for walking and bicycling and by incorporating design features, where practical, that accommodate future pedestrian and bicycle - related improvements; (4) Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated and limited access bridges; (5) Collecting data on walking and biking trips in order to track trends and prioritize investments; (6) Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time with the aim of increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and bicycling; (7) Maintaining pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds in the same manner as other roadway assets; (8) Improving non - motorized facilities during resurfacing and other maintenance projects; and WHEREAS, the Collier MPO's member jurisdictions could achieve the stated purpose of the Policy Statement by supporting routine and appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled persons and transit users on all transportation projects, as appropriate to the context, community and project use, except: a. Where walking and bicycling are not allowed; b. Where the scarcity of population or other factors indicate an absence of any need for such accommodations now or in the future; c. Where the cost of establishing such accommodations would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; and — 1611 131 WHEREAS, the MPO has reviewed the Policy Statement and concurs with the purpose and recommended actions contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THAT: 1. The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization endorses the United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations, signed by the United States Secretary of Transportation on March 11, 2010. 2. The member jurisdictions of the Collier MPO, i.e., Collier County and the Cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City, are hereby encouraged to adopt similar policy statements on pedestrian and bicycle accommodation as an indication of their commitment to the support of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as integral elements of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Area;.s transportation system. THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED BY THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BOARD ON MAY 14, 2010. Attest: Phillip R. Tindall, Collier MPO Director Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Councilman Dr. William Trotter Collier MPO Chairman DOT Press release 1611 Bple3 �' United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010 the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this Policy Statement to reflect he Department's support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. The !stablishment of well - connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable :ommunities, and their design should be a part of Federal -aid project developments. Walking and Bicycling foster safer, more livable, family- friendly communities; promote physical activity and iealth; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require nclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project ievelopment. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements o their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages ransportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, ;afe, and context - sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages ind abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs ind facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to irive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive. licy Statement e DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into insportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve nditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their insportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and :ycling provide — including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life — insportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and nvenient facilities for these modes. ority his policy is based on various sections in the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal .egulations (CFR) in Title 23— Highways, Title 49— Transportation, and Title 42 —The Public Health nd Welfare. These sections, provided In the Appendix, describe how bicyclists and pedestrians of all bilities should be involved throughout the planning process, should not be adversely affected by ther transportation projects, and should be able to track annual obligations and expenditures on onmotorized transportation facilities. mmended Actions ie DOT encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, iblic transportation agencies, and other government agencies, to adopt similar policy statements on cycle and pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating cyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. In support of this �mmitment, transportation agencies and local communities should go beyond minimum design andards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient btti)://www.dot.eov/affairs/201 0/bi cvcl a -ned. htm 1 3/300.010 DOT Press release 1611 9 ge 2 of 4 1�� ng and walking networks. Such actions should include: • Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway design. • Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient, and interconnected transportation networks. For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and efficient transportation choices. • Going beyond minimum design standards: Transportation agencies are encouraged, when possible, to avoid designing walking and bicycling facilities to the minimum standards. For example, shared -use paths that have been designed to minimum width requirements will need retrofits as more people use them. It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility. Planning projects for the long -term should antic4pate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. • Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limited- access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited- access bridges with connections to streets or paths. • Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip data to optimize investments. Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip information. Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of new facilities. These data are also valuable in linking walking and bicycling with transit. • Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that communities can establish targets for increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and bicycling. • Removing snow from sidewalks and shared -use paths: Current maintenance provisions require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be maintained in the same manner as other roadway assets. State Agencies have generally established levels of service on various routes especially as related to snow and ice events. • Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects: Many transportation agencies spend most of their transportation funding on maintenance rather than on constructing new facilities. Transportation agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects. nclusion : ncreased commitment to and investment in bicycle facilities and walking networks can help meet )oals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost - efficient :ommunities. Walking and bicycling provide low -cost mobility options that place fewer demands on ocal roads and highways. DOT recognizes that safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities nay look different depending on the context — appropriate facilities in a rural community may be dfferent from a dense, urban area. However, regardless of regional, climate, and population density iifferences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be integrated into transportation ;ystems. While DOT leads the effort to provide safe and convenient accommodations for pedestrians ind bicyclists, success will ultimately depend on transportation agencies across the country !mbracing and implementing this policy. LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation httn• / /www tint unv /affairs / ?.010/hinwIp -ned html 1 /zni1?0 1 n DOT Press release PENDIX 1611 B 1,3of 4 Statutes and Regulations Regarding Walking and Bicycling g Requirements he State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning regulations describe how walking nd bicycling are to be accommodated throughout the planning process (e.g., see 23 CFR 450.200, 3 CFR 450.300, 23 U.S.C. 134(h), and 135(d)). Nonmotorists must be allowed to participate in the lanning process and transportation agencies are required to integrate walking and bicycling facilities nd programs in their transportation plans to ensure the operability of an intermodal transportation ystem. Key sections from the U.S.C. and CFR include, with italics added for emphasis: The scope of the metropolitan planning process "will address the following factors ... (2) Increase the safety for motorized and non - motorized users; (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non - motorized users; (4) Prote4t and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life..." 23 CFR 450.306(a). See 23 CFR 450.206 for similar State requirements. • Metropolitan transportation plans "...shall, at a minimum, include... existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system..." 23 CFR 450.322(f). See 23 CFR 450.216(g) for similar State requirements. . The plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPS) of all metropolitan areas "shall provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities)." 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(2). 23 CFR 450.324(c) states that the TIP "shall include ...trails projects, pedestrian walkways; and bicycle facilities..." • 23 CFR 450.316(a) states that "The MPOs shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing... representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, and representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan planning process." 23 CFR 450.210(a) contains similar language for States. See also 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5), 135(f)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5), and 5304(f)(3) for additional information about participation by interested parties. of Route Severance Secretary has the authority to withhold approval for projects that would negatively impact !strians and bicyclists under certain circumstances. Key references in the CFR and U.S.C. include: "The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists." 23 U.S.C. 109(m). "In any case where a highway bridge deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial participation is located on a highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations." 23 U.S.C. 217(e). Although this statutory requirement only mentions bicycles, DOT encourages States and.-local governments to apply this same policy to pedestrian facilities as well. httn• / /www riot vnv/ affair c /9`.010/hirvrle -neri html 3/30/7010 � �j DOT Press release 6 Igo3of 4 • 23 CFR 652 provides "procedures relating to the provision of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on Federal -aid projects, and Federal participation in the cost of these accommodations and projects." Documentation . "In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49. U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year." 23 CFR 332(a). ility for All Pedestrians Public rights -of -way and facilities are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities through the following statutes: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) (29 U.S.C. §794) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12164). The DOT Section 504 regulation requires the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to monitor the compliance of the self - evaluation and transition plans of Federal -aid recipients (49 CFR §27.11). The FHWA Division offices review pedestrian access compliance with the ADA and Section 504 as part of their routine oversight activities as defined in their stewardship plans. FHWA posted its Clarification of FHWA's Oversight Role in Accessibility to explain how to accommodate accessibility in policy, planning, and projects. httP: / /www.dot.gov /affairs /2010/bicycle- ped.html I /InOnz n WilsonMiller QD 1611 B131 PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Phase Three Design Development Report April 28, 2010 Draft Report Work Group Comments and Replies — 05/18/10 • Page B7 - bottom of page - what "known jogging paths "? I didn't know we had any official ones. REPLY.• The word `known' has been removed, but distance marking such as is presently done on the community berm could be expanded to the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard and the loop from Pelican Bay Boulevard to Gulf Park Drive to Ridgewood Drive. • Page B10 - 10th bullet - you recommend a "site walk" once a week. By whom? REPLY: Comment noted and additional information included in the report, this is suggested to be a joint effort by the PBSD and the Foundation staffs. • Page B13 - 2nd bullet -You suggest the "addition of a recognized southern berm access point... ". What is that all about? REPLY: This was in reference to the existing Glenview Place access point and the verbage has been revised. • Page B16 - 4th bullet -Dog Parks? Given the communities pat discussions, and the controversy involved, I would prefer that reference be deleted. REPLY.- The reference has been deleted based on Insurance Policy review and recommendations by others to the Pelican Bay Foundation. • I have no comments on Section D - These seem to be a restatement of items we have seen before, put in the order recommended by WilsonMiller. • 1 wasn't sure what you intended for Section E. Budgets. Is this something that will be provided by the Foundation and PBSD for their respective areas? If so I'm not sure it is needed here, or will be supplanted by some "executive summary" produced by the workgroup. This should be discussed at the next workshop to determine the group's preference. REPLY. • Opinion & Probable Costs have been added to the individual element sections of the report. 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 Corporate Office 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 - -- - - - -- - __ WilsonMiller.com W l B13 Landscaping -Need cost estimates for the proposed revisions, by area REPLY: Cost estimates have been added. -What would be the cost to install high efficiency drip irrigation, new nozzles for existing sprinklers or new sprinklers to achieve the calculated savings in water consumption? REPLY.• Square foot costs for irrigation retrofit are included in landscape OPC's. Berm The proposed benches and overlook platforms will need to be well shaded to deal with the summer sun. Roofs may be needed. REPLY. • Shading by landscape has been included with an additional add /deduct estimate for overhead trellis. Tram Stations Relocating the Commons tram station to the NW corner of the site will greatly increase "noise pollution" for St. Lucia residents. REPLY. • Comment noted. Signage -New main entrance signs are not needed REPLY. Comment noted. - Adding "monumentation gateways" to neighborhoods is pretentious REPLY. Comment noted and enhances CPTED principles. - Gateway signs at secondary entrances to PB are not needed REPLY. Comment noted. Parks - Putting "white noise" fountains in Ridgewood Park is a good idea REPLY. Comment noted. and opinion of cost is included in the Parks section of the report. Public Art -Is not needed and will alienate more residents than it pleases REPLY. Comment noted. 161'1 B13 wilsonmiller' 1. Pathways, Item D2 -C. I am in favor of phase 1 widening of PB Blvd (west side) extending from the commons to Hammock Oak. REPLY. • Comment noted. 2. Please explain D2 -F. What is the improvement WM is proposing to the the pathways on North Point Drive, Hammock Oak Drive and Crayton Road for $316K? Why is it less ($229K) to replace these existing pathways with a concrete sidewalk? REPLY. Mill and resurface pathway to remove trip hazards for pedestrian safety, estimate $$ were reversed and have been corrected. 3. Which item contains the cost for the proposed new Oakmont Parkway 5' wide concrete sidewalk? What would be the cost for this community improvement? REPLY: Not included as a highlighted improvement, only as a potential improvement, OPC has been added. 4. Lighting, Item D3 -D. How does the alternative solution differ from Item D3 -A, replacing the Boulevard street lighting with LED fixtures and bracket arms? The cost for D3 -D (alternate) is estimated at $764K whereas the cost for D3 -A is estimated at $713K. REPLY. D3 -D is now incorporated into D3 -A and the OPC has been adjusted. 5. Item D3 -E, bollard lighting. I believe the cost for the St. Raphael beach pathway lighting should be shown separately. Also, wouldn't it be prudent to re- evaluate the need for additional street and boulevard pathway lighting afterthe street lights have been replaced? REPLY.• Completed, noted regarding street lights, this further recommendation has been discussed in work group format and will be added to the final version of the report 6. LED street lighting pay -back. The various payback analyses first determine the annual operating savings of the LED lighting compared to our current MH lighting. Then they calculate the cost from scratch to install the MH system and compare that to the cost of installing a LED system. Since the LED system costs more, they divide the difference in cost between the two systems by the annual LED system operating savings and come up with approximately a 7 year payback. In my judgment this analysis is flawed; we already have the MH system, so the installation costs are "0 ". If you divide the annual LED savings into the cost of installing a LED system, the payback is more like 29 years; and that assumes the cost of money at "0 ". REPLY: Comment noted. It is our opinion that the existing light fixtures are near the end of their life expectancy and that they are inefficient based on today's standards of available products and sustainable technologies. Besides this we understand that the product is no longer made and the factory must retool and die at a higher expense to replace fixtures. Based on this information and current technologies, replacement of the ballast and the Metal Halide fixture is an option as is moving to the LED technology that is now available. We have produced this payback scenario on the need to replace the fixtures in the community where the base line is the Metal Halide fixture and ballast — therefore, the LED payback on the base line cost is seven years and it continues to pay back on energy consumption and maintenance activity costs in to the future. 1611 B13 wilsonmiller' General: 1. Someone should proof the material; there are grammatical and punctuation errors that should be corrected in the final document. REPLY.- Comment noted and revisions made. 2. The individual budget estimates (not the details) should be rounded to say the nearest $100 (maybe even $500 for larger numbers), and it should be clearly stated that these estimates are in May 2010 dollars and do not include time escalation. REPLY.• Completed. Specific pagestsections: p 4 missing REPLY. Intended as foldout plan, page numbers will be reviewed for final version p 5: As mentioned at our last meeting, I request that providing safe bicycling be specifically mentioned here. REPLY. • Bicycling has been included in the reference to safety and separation of traffic uses. p 6: Likewise, this should be a specifically stated goal. Also, why do you refer to "long term" goals? Why not just "goals ?" REPLY. Comment noted and text adjusted with the understanding that the Foundation and the PBSD will establish timeframe references. p 7: Is the statement about "well known demographic ... number one recreational activity" documented somewhere? REPLY., In the early 1990's, a demographic study of American Lives and Community Preferences was published by Neighborhood America. Demographic and community consultants continue to reaffirm this position of the need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in a community. p9: Shouldn't Dark Sky criterion be mentioned? REPLY. Comment noted and included. p 10: Is landscape part of what is characterized as "strongest selling points ?" Again, why the use of "longterm?" REPLY. The overall landscape character from inland natural canopy cover to the bay mangrove landscape is a large asset to the community and a strong selling point — as before, timeframe references will be left to the Foundation and PBSD to establish in phasing and budgeting exercises. p 11: Should fence design and type of fence material be mentioned here? REPLY- Design and type is discussed in the conclusions/ recommendations. p 12: 1 know what 1 & V means, but suggest it be spelled out. What is "limited Nationwide permitting" (1 st bullet)? REPLY. F &B has been spelled out, Nationwide permitting is a level of Army Corps of Engineer permit and has been noted as such. p 13: When was southern berm access. point discussed, and what do you have in mind? And bird houses ? ?? REPLY.- Reference was to existing Glenview Place access point and not for additional access. 16/11' B13 wilsonmiller 0 p 15: 1 seem to recall that when the entry monument sign for the Community Center was discussed, the County dictated the sign design. Who has sole authority for signage design on Foundation property? REPLY. Signage criteria is based on Collier County code. p16: When did dog parks become a "guiding principle ?" I agree with Bob and Ronnie. REPLY. Reference has been deleted as noted above. p 17: Are you kidding about the example of the design for a concealed security camera housing? By the way, this was in the copy you handed out a couple of weeks ago, but was not in the large 3 ring binder version. REPLY: Reference was used as a security option to demonstrate that community character or specific housings may be applied as is shown in this example of an urban park in Saratoga, New York, pages have been added for New Technology and Public Art p 18: Suggest you clarify what is meant by public art, and reference the State's position on this as well as guidelines that they have published. This page was also not in the 3 ring binder version. REPLY. Pages have been added for New Technology and Public Art D1 -D & E: Ralph asked me to follow up, in his absence, on the feasibility of employing sand and not mud setting beds for the brick in these areas. Is it feasible? Desireable? REPLY.• Crosswalk pavers should be mud set on slab to avoid settling while intersection fields of pavers within the boundaries of crosswalks may be sand set based on Collier County Traffic approvals. D1 -H: Also as mentioned in the last meeting, I believe the report is not sufficiently proactive about providing safe bicycling in the community. Specifically, I ask that you delete the reference to "future maintenance and improvement guidelines" and substitute something along the following lines: The joint working group overwhelmingly recommended new pavement lane markings throughout Pelican Bay Blvd. that would create a marked 4 ft. wide bicycle lane in each direction. It was noted that FDOT now required such lanes whenever resurfacing takes place, which is probably the most cost effective time to undertake creating these marked lanes. REPLY. Comment noted, refer to revisions in the Traffic section as well as the May 18, 2010 handout of FDOT and Collier County policy on the same subject. D7 -B: Regarding the improvement of pedestrian safety on the south side of the Commons, if the existing tram turnaround and station were relocated to the north (as recommended) and all of the other "activities" in that area were eliminated, is it not possible for delivery trucks to enter the property on the south side, maneuver into what was the tram maneuver area and station, and then back into the loading dock without having to relocate a tennis court? REPLY- We have reviewed this in the attached and believe that the circulation requirements are marginal to achieve for a 40 foot trailer turning movements and likely unachievable by a larger tractor trailer. We also believe that the location required for the trash compactor to come-to the back of house area as intended in making such site modifications is undesirable near the access ramp and main door of the facility. Landscape and site wall additions can be made to screen the equipment but our concern is to smells that may be introduced into the area of the tennis court and main door to the Commons building. 1611 B13 y �K n ,, Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1 6 1 I, t B13 In order to create an integral study of improvements and a phased implementation plan each element of the community was required to be viewed in both its individual needs and the contributing role it had on any one improvement solution. Throughout this design process, site reconnaissance was required on a regular and ongoing basis. This allowed for the complexity of the site improvement issues to unfold with time, permitted us to observe the different use habits of the residents in the community at different times of the day and evening hours and allowed for a variety of observations that mirrored the complexity of the community wide needs. The following further outlines the conclusions of community needs based on the site reconnaissance, public discussions and observations of this effort. • Increase safety and security throughout the community in lighting, landscaping, pathways, technology and traffic design applications. • Restate and reinforce the community's commitment to being a safe, walkable and mobile community through the separation of uses where the automobile /truck, bicycle, and the pedestrian activities will often vie for common space in the boulevards and facility areas. • Quality enhancement of lifestyle may be found in use of quality, long lived materials; by providing enhanced access and mobility to the community amenities and facilities; by providing a secure environment for its residents; and ensuring that probative life cycle costs do not burden the contemplated improvement. • Provide consistent application of improvements across the community in the use of materials and design solutions. • Maintain the community's strong ties with the natural environment as these continue to be green and sustainable relationships established before it was quantified and fashionable to be green. • Introduce new and forward looking sustainable practices where possible. Sa 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 5 1447i W tA r� a a c v E v O CL E m V N a 1_ 6 FM I Iffli Q) s C a� E 0 S. 0- E m ca Y v a Cb Traffic Analysis � B�3 The wide boulevards of Pelican Bay oulevard and Gulf Park Drive provide for traff —ic cmi opportunities Y P Pp and better pedestrian /automobile relationships to be developed in the Community. There is a lack of consistency in the application of pedestrian /traffic design and traffic signage improvements throughout the community. Traffic volumes ebb and flow throughout the day and the four corners of the community are each a commercial land use. Specialty and evening events at the Philharmonic are immediately intensive on the local roadways and intersections. Inconsistency in the striping and markings of the crosswalks throughout the community is prominent and evident. Mid -block crosswalks are limited along Pelican Bay Boulevard and absent for almost two miles in the length where destination amenities and facilities of the Community on the west side of the road are not served by crosswalk facilities. Crosswalks do not exist at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard where the pathways lead you into the roadways at this intersection. Driver recognition of improvements and the reinforcement of driver expectation of these improvements will take some time however given the strong commitment to a walkable and safe community, the roadway improvements may be the most important functional issue and aesthetic issue to begin to interject into the community. The following are improvement goals for Traffic in the Community: .w ,.I • Add midblock crossings to provide identifiable pedestrian crossing and build driver expectations along the length of the boulevards that these facilities exist on a regular basis. • Build crosswalks where existing pathways lead from the road side to curb cuts at the edges of travel lanes and no crosswalk exists. • Improve sight lines within the roadway areas and medians in order to better observe other traffic and the pedestrian facilities. • Eliminate obstructive landscape and median grades in favor of pedestrian and driver sight lines. • Build crosswalks from brick materials that contrast with the asphalt that surround them. • Add a wide band of split face pavers from curb line to curb line that form a framework for the crosswalk finish and pattern. • Use of reflective pavement markings (RPM'S) in both boulevards skip striping and at median end nosings as required by the Collier County departments and State are recommended in the roadway facilities. • Total traffic solution plans must include adjustments to lighting and signage; curb lines, pathways, landscape and sight line recommendations throughout the length of the roadways. • Continue to work with the Collier County Sherriff Department in street improvement applications. • The Collier County Transportation Department encourages consideration of use within the auspices of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans traffic calming techniques such as roundabouts, connectivity to the County pathways (in the County wide pathways master plan as a missing link) and transportation systems on US -41, signing and advanced warning techniques or devices and lane width reductions to include bike lanes as exhibited on other boulevard type roadways within the County at Vineyards Boulevard and Bayshore Drive. Although not a County law, Collier County supports the incorporation of bike lanes where feasible in new construction or resurfacing of roadways. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Pathways Analysis 161 The pathways are an original design element that date to the inception and creation of the Pelican Bay B1 y Community. While the community is large in land area, the five foot pathways that connect the developed community of almost 6,500 homes and the variety of uses placed on the pathways render some of these areas as undersized at this time. Interestingly enough, the wider 8 foot path portion of the system we found was the dead end pathway on the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the intersection at US -41 to Ridgewood Drive. Residents and guests jog, bike, roller blade and participate in a variety of walking activities with friends and pets on the pathway system throughout the day. Given that it is a well known use demographic that the number one recreation activity for the last twenty years or more has been walking in communities like Pelican Bay and that the interest in personal health and exercise is as strong as ever, these facilities should be planned for phased widened in order to best serve the wide interests of the residents. The following are improvement goals for the Community Pathways: • Pathways widths should be a maximum of 8 feet wide and no less than 5 feet wide throughout the community. • ADA issues must be addressed in the community pathway systems; improvements to be made are most often found at intersections or in cross slopes of the pathways. • The pathways are to be brought current to today's public development standards and codes that did not exist at the time of their original installation. • Promotion of pervious options (sand set pavers /pervious asphalt sections) for storm water percolation in drive and walkway areas should always be considered. • Dimension and space for dedicated bike ways and bike lanes within the existing roadways of the community exists and should be preserved for future implementation for mobility, alternative transportation and traffic calming purposes. • Pathway systems need to provide unique interest, resting, learning and social opportunities as they are used; examples of this includes distance markings in the paths, botanical and common names of plants along the way, public artwork, shaded bench locations to include trash receptacles, dog litter stations, bike racks, overlooks to long views of golf or community, emergency call stations. • Expand and mark jogging trails by name and distance for community mapping and distribution for all 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 7 r !001 a� a a a E v O E m r� V N d • rL v M a c a aJ E a� O Q E m Y v a Foundation Association users and guests. • Coordinate way finding si V13 gnage and bollard lighting improvements with the pathway improvements. • Pathways run into the back of elevated curb and gutters creating a step at street intersections rather than a sloped ramp to crosswalk condition. Widen the recessed concrete curb and gutter to allow for full width of passage of the pathway. • Textured ADA warning landings are worn out at pathway and street connections and should be renovated to current standards. • Remove overhanging tree limbs adjacent to the paths that create a potential hazard for bikers and walkers. • Remove material differential and tree root trip hazards; replace materials for flush conditions and root prune and install root barriers per Collier County codes. 1 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Lighting Analysis 16 /1 Lighting changes will provide the most dramatic effect within the Community. They will define how Pelican can Bay is used after dusk and how the community is perceived in the day time and evening hours. This element has the best opportunity to be understood from a cost benefit payback scenario. It cannot be overstated that lighting is a primary element of functional and aesthetic concern within the community. The following are improvement goals for the Lighting in the Community: • Replace the mercury ballast driven, Metal Halide lamps in the street lighting system with sustainable and more efficient lighting technologies. • Improve light level delivery to the roadways and path systems by adding lights, trimming landscapes, relocating fixtures and replacing the existing technology. • Improve landscape lighting for pathways and plant materials in the community. • Current and future technologies for lighting in the community are to consider solar power sources and LED (light emitting diodes) technologies. • Landscape lighting at the community's entries that better illuminate signage and landscape features is recommended. • A purposeful higher delivery of lighting levels at traffic calming locations and mid -block pedestrian crosswalks is suggested. • Light pole relocation or redistribution in some areas may in fact better distribute light and remove conflicts of lights from mature vegetation. • Light poles should be considered as an aesthetic as well as functional choice throughout the community including the addition of banner arms, outdoor power for maintenance or holiday decorations. • Light pole aesthetics should emulate the fluted sign post detail of the existing street signs. (Establishing a family color for street furnishings at this time is important, the patina green color of the sign posts and mailboxes is an apparent choice — an alternative and classic color to move to for all street elements would be black requiring repainting of the sign posts and mail boxes in the future.) • Maintain /enhance sustainable practices such as Dark Sky criteria through the use of full cut -off luminaires. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 9 N a) Ln M a a a, E a, 0 Q E a ra m a: V v a 1 Landscape Analysis 16/1 m R a, �a t a v E v O CL E m C M Li a� a The landscape, canopy cover, natural preserves, bays and beach amenities of the Pelican Bay community are a tremendous asset. These are one of the community's strongest selling points and often the remembered experience of those who visit and live within Pelican Bay. This remains a strong natural asset and a visual cue to the relationship of this community with its natural surroundings. The following are improvement goals for the Landscape and Irrigation in the Community: • Establish a street landscape plan that develops the landscape in a layered fashion with the tallest material to the background. • Replace sod and sod area spray irrigation along preserves, along portions of the lake edges and in the last 200 feet of the road median nosings. • Establish a predominantly native plant material plant list for common use by the Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division in their operations and maintenance activities. • Replace or trim landscape that interrupts sight lines in park and traffic areas for purposes of visual inspection, a CPTED principle and the recognition of traffic operations at intersections. • Add or replace missing street trees in the residential neighborhoods where lengths of roadway and sidewalk are not landscaped with canopy trees. • Promote Best Management Practices for watering, fertilization and maintenance practices. • Establish succession landscape planting programs with coordinated irrigation system delivery improvements. • Plant materials should be drought tolerant when established, grow in the coastal and near coastal environment of the community and where possible, native plants should be considered for use first before non - native plants. • We recommend a site walk once a week into different areas of the community to observe community maintenance and operations needs on foot. This should be coordinated between representatives of both the Foundation and Services Division and conducted in unison. • Landscape, lighting and pathways that lead into the community are the first impression of the community, they should be designed to and maintained at exceptional standards. • Replace sod under Sabal Palm clusters at median nosings with low growing groundcover and review palm clusters for replacement due to sight visibility conflicts. • Develop canopy tree clusters with color and new tree and palm materials to include massings of shrub beds in the boulevards. • Coordination of Landscape and maintenance activities with HOA Associations is a must. • Introduce limited palette of accent trees for selective enhancement of roadway /pathway experiences including: Poinciana, Geiger Trees, Gumbo Limbo, Cassia, Pink Tabebuia, Holly and Cypress. • Review the potential for addition of littoral /phyto planting along lake edges. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview US -41 Berm Analysis 1 The US -41 berm provides provides two solutions along its length to security and sound attenuation issues; landscape massing is a common response with openings and hiding areas within it and a five foot concrete board slated fence is used along about 30 percent of its length which is easily mounted and in some disrepair in areas. The berm height relative to the US -41 roadway and development inside the community rises and falls with the development grades and contours of both. When the project was originally conceived and built, US- 41 was an important and local two lane roadway; while it was the primary roadway connection to Ft. Myers and the balance of the west coast of Florida, its traffic volumes and relative relationship to the community was very different. Given the booming growth of the area since the projects inception and the known Collier County master plans to add a public pathway along US -41 in the right -of -way in the future, additional support to its intended security and sound qualities is recommended. The following are improvement goals for the US -41 Berm improvements in the Community: • Provide continuous application of berm physical security and community edge wall solutions along the US- 41 berm to return into the community entry areas along the road rights of ways for a distance from 150 to 300 feet depending on each entry condition. • Include private association lands along the US -41 edge within the community for common solutions of enhanced berm landscape and physical wall improvements. • Provide landscape enhancements at the community entries and the berm to eliminate hiding places in the voids of the landscape massing as found in many areas of this edge including the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry area. • Fence lines and walls up to a minimum of 8 feet in height are recommended for consideration for security purposes — continue to monitor the LDC amendments currently in review for development code additions of security and highway noise abatement walls. • An 8' height precast panel wall is recommended for the length of the berm. The base pier dimension provides for a ledger 24" above existing soil to set the wall panels on between the columns. Backfilling to wall panel base at a 2.5:1 slope with landscape will allow for more height. Paint final wall and column assembly with two coats of textured exterior grade paint. Paint additive to be vermiculite or similar. • Include fountains, lake water features, low volume remote music or other white noise technologies in the parks and lakes along the US -41 berm to effect sound attenuation and a more inviting park environment. • CPTED principles of safety and security should always be considered primary design and improvement program elements of community security and noise abatement from US -41. • Community education of reporting undesirable and security incidents along the US -41 berm is critical to long term community success and understanding of safety and security measures. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview H 11 it a) Ln a C c a, E a, O Q E rB m a= V v a Al ® Community Berm Analysis 161 1 W Ln a C ra a a, E v 0 E M m M v a� bft The Community Berm and Boardwalks may be the most used of the facilities and have at peek times the highest concentration of residential users on them. Improvements throughout the two mile length of the berm must consider carefully use patterns and beach access to include an improvement areas proximity and crossings of Clam Bay to the Beach and the adjacency to preserve and water management areas and the habitat, flora and fauna encountered. Beyond this, interruption of Food and Beverage services, trash hauling and emergency access to the beach facilities should be maintained at all times. The following are improvement goals for the Community Berm improvements: • Improvements should endeavor not to require environmental permitting or mitigation for their efforts and therefore should stay within the built footprint, require limited Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permitting and /or stay within the standing permit requirements entitled Pelican Bay. • Continuous operational needs and characteristics should be part of the phased improvement planning for any additions to the community berm. • All improvements shall occur within the foot print of the berm and boardwalk structures as they exist today and be sympathetic to not cause influence to wetland or preserve areas to the greatest extent possible. • Coordinate improvements to the extent possible to support the infrastructure of the berm relative to water management and where possible, hide undesirable views to infrastructure or other water management devices. • Landscape solutions should reduce berm side slope maintenance requirements and return and blend edges naturally back to the surrounding environment. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 16 . Vj 813 • Use of sustainable, naturally resistant or recycled products in this area is highly encouraged. • Consider highlighting the location of the existing southern berm access point at Genview Place. Tram services will be reviewed along with the expansion of this point for pedestrian access and tram service. • Berm pathway widening is not encouraged as the existing width assists with controlled speeds and contributes to the good neighbor, considerate use of the path and boardwalks in this system. an • Pedestrian only zones that include rest areas and overlooks should be added to this facility. a • Reducing the visual prominence and "hiding" storm water control structures is encouraged by _ including the structures in the rest areas and overlook improvements and the accompanying landscape improvements of the berm. ra • Provide additional exotic vegetation maintenance along east side of berm /pathway. • Install only native plantings on the berm for added interest in the user experience, encourage shore birds � and wading birds to inhabit the area and to conceal rip -rap and water management structures. E • Construct cantilevered look -out platforms that do not impact the preserve or the Mangrove forested > wetland areas. o • Add educational bird signage at existing look -out on south boardwalk area where numerous shore birds/ 0- wading birds are typically observed. E • Add educational signage regarding benefits of native vegetation. ro • Install bird houses and osprey platforms to attract inhabitant birds. m 0 • Reduce the amount of sod and replace non - native and ornamental plant material with native plant ra material within berm areas. — a, CL Note: Modifications made to the berm may require that the slopes adjacent to the preserve area are planted with 100 % native vegetation (in order to meet setbacks per Section 3.05.07.H.3 of the County Land Development Code). The Pelican Bay Improvement Water Management Plan shows an 8' drainage swale along the west side of the berm. The area east of the berm is not considered a preserve but a detention area. b 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview l�J PF a a E v O Q E DO u a M Tram Stations Analysis 16/'l ri The tram stations are as much an opportunity to develop short term social centers as they are for the movement and transport to and from the beach and beachfront restaurant facilities. These facilities should be unified in their architectural character and use of site furnishings, have the physical room to accept embarking and disembarking passengers, and continue to serve as points of Community news and events. Along with the resident card system controls, these stations avail a higher level of security and safety technology applications as well with the addition of emergency call buttons and other security elements as they not only serve as trail heads but are often in close proximity to the major pathways and streets of the community. The following are improvement goals for the Community Tram Station improvements: • Name the Tram locations using unique and individual names representative of the Community and in association with a near -by natural namesake rather than simply station numbers. (Because Sand Piper is well known, it may not be desirable to change this name and consider shore -bird and wading- bird names for each of the stations, for example: Osprey, Blue Heron, Egret, Ibis). • The North Tram Station site has been improved with very good results. Tram station improvements of additional roof cover to the north, a quality selection of site furnishings and Community message boards is recommended. • The Commons provides a unique opportunity for improvement in moving the tram services away from the back of house and loading dock activities and include the addition of dedicated pathways for pedestrians across the site. • Reallocation of Foundation office uses may allow long term reorganization of the site around the tennis facility and separate guest/resident traffic from service and employee traffic. • Relocation of the trash compactors, dumpsters, tennis clay shed and tank farm structures may also allow for the reuse of these upland areas • Architectural compatibility between Tram Station structures and the Commons building is recommended including the use of standing seam metal roofing as outlined in the Sustainability Report produced by Twenty -Fifty. • Station roofing appears to be at its life cycle limits; replace roofing, repair wood rot and other degradation of soffits, trusses or exposed beams and repaint. • Community berm observation and seating areas should reflect the architectural character of the Tram Station improvements in finish and furnishings. • The addition of native trees and palms at the Tram Stations marks the trail head as a prominent location in the community boardwalk system. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Signage Analysis 16/1 B13 The signage of the community is limited in its use which can be positive so as to not add visual clutter to the environment by over signing. However it is often hard to read, and it dates the community and can be improved. The entry monumentation is a first impression of the community and while understated in nature, its colors, texture of materials, scale of elements that make up the sign and general appearance relates little to the balance of the community signage. Improvements that provide a consistent background and graphic image, a family hierarchy of signs and legible message for each sign face is important. The following are improvement goals for the Community Signage improvements: • Material and color modifications of the existing community entry and identity signs is recommended to provide a timeless and understated elegance to the entry areas — this should be done in concert with landscape, traffic, lighting and security improvements as a unified solution. • The size and area requirements of the signage by Collier County code is considered sufficient at this time to create a signage package for the community and its tenants where their brands are included so as to provide a quality and consistent backdrop for both Community identity and brands. • Establish design guidelines or covenants that identify entry monuments, way finding, regulatory signage, banners, flags and commercial advertisement of the community. • The continued use of the fluted sign posts and sign backer boards is encouraged in the community traffic regulatory needs. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 15 "S v Ln a C ra CL aj E C) O Q. E 00 U N a_ 16 IMA MT a, Ln rp s a c W E v 0 L Q E m u v r r� Parks Analysis 161 r' One of the greatest assets next to the beach within Pelican Bay is the open spaces and natural areas of the community. The open spaces and parks are peaceful and have a variety of natural landscape settings that invite wildlife into the community and offer a context of respite. There are a number of CPTED principles that are violated by the current conditions of the parks and we encourage park upgrades to specifically address the issues of safety and security as well as consider the programming of the parks uses for future flexibility of the users. The following are improvement goals for the Parks and open spaces of the Community: • Parks should include elements of passive and active recreation; these areas should not conflict with one and other. • Adhere to and implement CPTED principles in park renovations and ongoing operations and maintenance for passive territorial inspection of these common community lands. • Consider future programming of the park areas to include Wi -Fi access for internet and intranet community interaction, interactive play areas for children and general social and recreational interaction in the park areas. • Add Art to the parks and open spaces in the community. • Park areas should be able to support programmed community classes in art, drawing, photography, outdoor yoga, community fresh cut flower garden, gardening and horticultural classes, etc. • Parks and open spaces should be inviting to wildlife to animate and live in the community. • Add water fountains and features to provide interest, white noise and improve water quality within the lakes of the parks. • Include play equipment for a variety of physical activities for children of multiple ages. • Provide mile markers on park walkways to enable users to track miles traveled. • Add informative signage identifying plants, natural settings, flora and fauna of the community - consider expanding informative community sessions to interactive cell phone recordings or other digital recording technologies available to personal electronic devices. 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview New Technologies Analysis 1611 8131 We have explored the variety of new technologies that are available to be brought to the community for life quality, safety and security improvements. We have met with the Collier County Sherriff's office to understand their own observations that point to community needs. • Video Security /Surveillance Technology — Video security can be both a defense and a deterrent. Several technol- ogies exist — from CCTV and Web Cameras, to the latest wireless IP Camera technology. An IP Camera acts like a computer on a network, allowing you to view its video feed from anywhere in your network or over the Internet and the capability to record information digitally with superior resolution. • Security Lighting Technology — Lighting is a valuable tool that can increase security and maintain a perceived level of safety. It can be used to define spaces, guide people and provide sufficient illumination to deter poten- tial unwanted activities. Lighting for security or safety does not imply bright lighting. Instant -on motion detect- ing, dusk -to -dawn photocell, dual -level (low level /full bright) motion sensing and low level continuous illumina- tion are all a means of achieving the goal of a safe and comfortable area. /110 Concealed security camera can contribute to community theming and security - Saratoga, NY. Motion - sensitive lighting can define pedestrian paths at night, appropriately adjusting illumination as needed. Digital display screens can provide captive audiences at tram stations with the most current news and special events. User Identification Technology — this has recently been implemented by the Foundation through the issuance of resident identification cards. These card technologies have the ability to allow access and for immediate recog- nition at attended facility areas. • Multifunctional Tower Call Box & Security Cameras The primary use of tower emergency call box systems is to provide immediate help to those who need it. The secondary use is to effectively facilitate the documentation of an incident as it happens. Locations such as public venues, parking facilities, college campuses, medical centers and industrial parks place call box systems for their patrons. Within Pelican Bay, we suggest considering a reasonable application of emergency call box towers to the following locations: • within remote public locations not readily available by security, police or rescue vehicles • in high volume public areas such as tram stations, community centers and sports facilities • at selected parks and beach areas 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 18 MO.,! a tA CL a� E v O Q E M 00 u a� a Public Art Analysis 16I We recommend a Heritage Landscape and Public Arts Program in the community in order to establish guidelines that further preserve and enrich the environment of the Community through the addition of public art, enhancing the community's visual character and promoting the rich heritage of a sustainable relationship with nature. Efforts that promote the heritage of a place combined with those that promote art in the public domain are mutually beneficial. These common efforts acknowledge the vitality of a community and commemorate common values within; it preserves and promotes the history of a place contributing to the general welfare and quality of life of the community. Art and the landscape have the power to enhance the economic vitality of a community identifying it as a premiere destination, enhancing real estate values and providing recognition of community quality and pride in the market place. We strongly believe that there exist places in the community that would be receptive to public arts now and in the future in concert with improvements noted elsewhere in this study in stage set and unison with each other. In the State of Florida, the Division of Cultural Affairs maintains a web site and assistance to those who are interested in Public Art and establishing Public Art Programs. Also referenced on the Division of Cultural Affairs web site is a number of other domestic as well as international resources for similar purpose and programming. The Division of Cultural Affairs web site for the State of Florida is: http: / /www.florida- arts. org/resou rces /pu blicartresou rces. htm The address is: Division of Cultural Affairs R.A. Gray Building, 3rd Floor 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 Phone: 850.245.6470 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area ( Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1611813 � Project Improvement Plan Introduction The Pelican Bay Community Improvement plan is a community wide endeavor of which there are a variety of improvements to be implemented. The application of these improvements across the community can be by individual element, system or need such as street lighting; they can be site or area specific such as our recommendations for the Commons reorganization or they are identified as complete projects including many elements of the master plan improvement efforts. The following project improvement plan provides a composite master key plan of each of these types of conditions above and demonstrates well the potential community wide influence of the entire improvement works. This plan is intended to be instituted over time, phased with fiscal care and responsibility. There is a mutual benefit to The Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division to implement these improvements in concert with each other and as seamlessly as possible. The Composite Master Plan legend describes the symbols and elements of the larger plan as they are distributed through the community. The numerically boxed in areas reference larger plan area improvements that follow in this section providing a geographic map of the location of each of these larger project areas. The boxed in letters represent computer graphic images also in this section of existing conditions and proposed improvements developed at each of these locations. Beyond this section of the report are the Project Element Plans and Improvement Recommendations set forth by element of the community. Specific improvement statements and material finishes are established and accompanying budgetary pricing information is provided. This will allow The Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division to plan for the phased implementation of these projects and tasks through time. At the back of this report is the detailed Opinions of Cost that the project cost estimates have been built from. These detailed estimates represent an opinion of cost prior to the creation of final detailed design documents that would be submitted for construction permit, tendered for contractor pricing and provide the detailed information to implement these projects. This Improvement Master Plan purposefully stopped at the door step of this level of detail as we cannot predict construction detailing requirements or construction price adjustments into the distant future. As this is a road map to that future, these costs and programs for project specific improvements will be reviewed again in the normal sequence of the design and construction process. Lastly, a separate Appendix is provided to establish the bibliography, community feedback, supporting documentation provided by the Collier County Sheriff's Office that we reviewed with the work group and received from the community throughout the duration of these efforts. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Priority Project Opinion of Probable Costs 1611, B13 Site Work, Landsca a and Li htin - St Ra hael Beach Walk, Communit Berm and Beachwalk Mid -block Crosswal .... P Lighting P Y WilsonMiller - April 22, 2010 May 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 3,680 SF $0.49 $1,803.20 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 5.0'w 1,630 SY $8.00 $13,040.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Furnishings - Bench @ 6.0' 2 EA $850.00 $1,700.00 Asphalt Pathway @ 8.0'w 209 TN $200.00 $41,800.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 3,680 SF $3.00 $11,040.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 70 CY $40.00 $2,800.00 Irrigation 3,680 SF $0.80 $2,944.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 18 EA $1,400.00 $25,200.00 Conduit and Conductor 1,200 LF $13.30 $15,960.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 EA SUBTOTAL: $600.00 Shrubs / Groundcovers 1 $124,287 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 0 EA $300.00 $0.00 Palms 3 EA $200.00 $600.00 Shrubs / Groundcovers 15 EA $15.00 $225.00 Low Groundcovers 2,000 SF $1.75 $3,500.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 24 SF $8.00 $192.00 Viewing Platforms $3,917 $3,917 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 ^ Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • •- Item �� Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subto Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) B1�: 2 61 El $280.00 $560.00 .� Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 SUBTOTAL: 1 $14,102 Optional trellis structure over overlook platform 128 SF Q $70. /SF = $8,960. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,433 SF $0.49 $702.17 Demolition - Curb 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 630 SF $9.25 $5,827.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 797 SF $12.80 $10,201.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 89 SY $6.50 $578.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Sitework - Add Cobble Paver Bands 1 LS $5,100.00 $5,100.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Design Permit Fee Estimates $5,700 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Permitting 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL: 1 $49,579 TOTAL: $187,968 15% CONTINGENCY: $28,195 GRAND TOTAL: $216,164 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 $1,200.00 B 13 North Tram Roadway Priority Project $150.00 $1,650.00 2 EA Roadway Planting, North Tram Parking Median Cut and Crosswalk WilsonMiller - April 22, 2010 May 18, 2010 Crosswalk, • •- and Sidewalk LS $1,200.00 $0.00 • EA $150.00 $1,650.00 2 EA Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Asphalt Walkway/ Path 0 5.0' Width Existing 667 SY $8.00 $5,336.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 28,215 SF $0.49 $13,825.35 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump removal) 5 EA $550.00 $2,750.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump to 6" below grade) 20 EA $300.00 $6,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Signage Demolition - Light Poles Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch Landscape- Sod Landscape - Irrigation Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) Lighting - Dual Omega LED Light, Pole and Arm Fixtures Lighting - Dual Euro LED Light, Pole and Arm Fixtures 0 LS $1,200.00 $0.00 11 EA $150.00 $1,650.00 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 620 SF $9.25 $5,735.00 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 964 LF $10.50 $10,122.00 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 440 SY $6.50 $2,860.00 35 TN $200.00 $7,000.00 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 0 LF $4.06 $0.00 18,716 SF $3.00 $56,148.00 11,450 SF $0.40 $4,580.00 27,565 SF $0.80 $22,052.00 493 CY $40.00 $19,720.00 9 EA $8,840.00 $79,560.00 2 EA $8,890.00 $17,780.00 TOTAL: $277,516 15% CONTINGENCY: $41,627 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Civil and Traffic Engineering and Survey 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000.00 Landscape Architecture, Irrigation and Structural Design 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $352,143 'Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. DDtion - Add Area Between Montenero Driveways 5,3370 lltem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal) Demolition - Asphalt Walkway / Path @ 5.0' Width Existing 175 SY $8.00 $1,400.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,288 SF $0.49 $3,571.12 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump to 6" below grade) 8 EA $300.00 $2,400.00 Sitework - Asphalt Sidewalk (8.0' width) 23 TN $200.00 $4,600.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 3,469 SF $3.00 $10,407.00 Landscape- Sod 3,819 SF $0.40 $1,527.60 Landscape - Irrigation 6,346 SF $0.80 $5,076.80 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 118 CY $40.00 $4,720.00 Pelican Bay - Priority Project 1611 1311 Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Clay Brick Paver Crosswalks, Landscape and Lighting W ilsonMiller - April 22, 2010 May 18, 2010 • • Quantity Unit Unit Cost / Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt Roadway to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 415 SY $8.00 $3,320.00 Demolition - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'w 295 SY $8.00 $2,360.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 23,214 SF $0.49 $11,374.86 Demolition - Selective Clearing - Palm (remove and grind stup to 6" below grade) 40 EA $300.00 $12,000.00 Demolition - Curb 180 LF $6.00 $1,080.00 Demolition - Light Pole 2 EA $850.00 $1,700.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Concrete - Clay Brick Pavers 3,728 SF $9.25 $34,484.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 90 LF $15.00 $1,350.00 Asphalt - Sidewalk @ 8.0'w 472 SY $32.00 $15,104.00 Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 3,728 SF $12.80 $47,718.40 Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 82 LF $10.50 $861.00 Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 415 SY $6.50 $2,697.50 Roadway - Asphalt 4 TN $200.00 $800.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 160 EA $3.34 $534.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 720 LF $2.01 $1,447.20 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees - Large 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Trees - Small 15 EA $600.00 $9,000.00 Shrubs, Groundcovers, Mulch 15,467 SF $5.50 $85,068.50 Sod 7,747 SF $0.35 $2,711.45 �— Topsoil (6" Depth) 430 CY $40.00 $17,200.00 Irrigation 23,214 SF $0.80 $18,571.20 • • $30,510 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Omega LED Boulevard - 2 Fixtures, Dual Arm Fitting and 30.0' Pole 3 EA $8,840.00 $26,520.00 Conduit and Conductor 300 LF $13.30 $3,990.00 TOTAL: $301,373 15% CONTIGENCY: $45,206 Design $40,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $386,578 1 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit " Additional cost to upgrade asphalt field to sand set clay paver field with ribbon curb: $142,733.00 -0 rD z. 3 rD rD V1 O Q un rD n r+' 3 O rD 3 rD r+ r-F Q D rD (D 3 (D r--F (D r+ i <0) -1 m n ::y- cO E*. rD {• X + rD N. < N rD N < C rD i n. rD v V) O rD La rD rD N O r) rD N �. m =3 Q rmtQLC) 0 r-D O rD rD =T { rD rD rD o- rD �C z N N o o v —=5 N Q rD N n, m rD n rD O rD c� o Q� c o r) <. O rD Ln < rD v 7 O < < C N � v rD v :3 rD N Q < n n, — rp C 4) rD Q r+ =3 0' 3 rD O m 0 o N rD Q1 O q� ,+ n =5- rD rD 73+ n U N O rD � rD rD Q O X_ - 3 < o 3 o B v, , c rD n � rD m -0 o _ . rD rD mrD r+ � o � N (D W -� O FD (1)� rt V r--F rC < n� r � rt IL- 4 i 4 ` 1611 813,�- V) D m M < Dn m m-4 O D0 rr m J L% rplak"1141, a C- rD rD rD rD rD O rD 1611 613 s i anap33asN�'�a� 5� m m Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Traffic 1611813 Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in may 2010 construction rates). D1 -A: Provide consistent signing, marking and use of RPM'S for roadways throughout the community Proposed Improvement: Install reflective pavement markings (RPM'S) in the center line skip striping of Gulf Park Drive and replace the missing RPM'S in Pelican Bay Boulevard (estimated 235 RPM'S). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 800 Alternative solution: This is a roadway maintenance item. Phasing: This work should be done at one time. Sequencing: This work requires maintenance from time to time to replace RPM's that break away from the pavement. We suggest that the center line skip striping be done at the same time that the entire community is reviewed for missing blue fire hydrant RPM's. Whenever pavement resurfacing occurs new pavement striping, markings and RPM'S are to be included in the work. D1 -B: Install yellow RPM's on the asphalt at the base of the curbing of all the median bull noses throughout the community for better visual identification of turning movements and lane demarcation at night (estimated 2,178 RPM'S). Proposed Improvement: Install yellow RPM's only on the asphalt at the base of curb lines at all median nosings — do not paint curb line or asphalt yellow. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 7,300 Alternative solution: This is a roadway maintenance item. Phasing: This work should be done at one time. Sequencing: This work requires maintenance from time to time to replace RPM'S that break away from the pavement. We suggest that this work be done with the center line skip striping and while the entire community is reviewed for missing blue fire hydrant RPM's. Whenever pavement resurfacing occurs new pavement striping, markings and RPM'S are to be included in the work. D1 -C: Relocate to the north and re- construct the deceleration lane and realigned curb cut to access the North Tram Station parking lot from north bound Pelican Bay Boulevard traffic. Proposed Improvement: Replace the original curb line in Pelican Bay Boulevard with a new curb line and drive access that is in alignment with the new parking lot drive way access, keeps the crosswalk in its current location and provides for landscape removal for improved sight line distance (reference Crosswalk Sheet #11). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 164,500 05/18/2010 ■ ® Alternative solutions: 1611 B13 — _ 1. Close the current vehicular median turn lane and return it to landscape while maintaining the existing crosswalk location. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 182,000 2. Maintain the current vehicular median turn lane but remove landscape for better lines of sight. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 5,700 a Phasing: This is a one time project and based on the Owners chosen solution should be Wdone all at once. oSequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement Q projects for mid -block crosswalks and the North Tram Station improvements including street lighting and landscape improvements in the median. D1 -D: Install consistently finished, signed and marked existing and proposed crosswalks in the community (9 intersections; reference Intersection Crosswalk Layout plans; refer to D1 -E for mid -block C crosswalks). �a V a Proposed Improvement: Install monolithic concrete base and 12" header curb each side of cross walk to receive mud set clay brick crosswalks in a herringbone field pattern and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters including all associated signing and ADA compatible connections. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 817,000 Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with color concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 742,500 2. Install thermoplastic paint in a high visibility piano key striping pattern for all existing and proposed crosswalk locations in the community. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 289,500 Phasing: These projects can be phased however we suggest that little phasing or time passes between beginning and completing the work. We suggest that a reasonable phasing would be to improve the crosswalks south of Gulf Park Drive in one year and improve the balance of the crosswalks north of Gulf Park Drive in the next year. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement projects or should be considered to be part of the pathway, signage and ADA ramping improvements. D1 -E: Install mid -block crosswalks in Pelican Bay Boulevard at Community Amenity Destination points (5 locations; reference Mid -block Crosswalk Location plan). '6, 05/18/2010 1611 'B13 Proposed Improvement: Install mud set clay brick crosswalks on a monolithic base with 12" header bands to match D1 -D above and include a 32" split face cobble stone band edge inside the header band at both sides of the cross walk as an upgrade to these five crosswalk locations including all associated signing and ADA compatible connections. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 263,000 Alternative solutions: Same as proposed improvement, but do not include the cobble stone band edge with the clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 220,000 2. Same as proposed improvement, but install precast colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick as noted above. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 247,500 3. Same as alternative solution #2, but do not include the cobble stone band edge with the colored concrete pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 204,500 4. Install only Thermoplastic paint in a high visibility piano key striping pattern. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 115,300 Phasing: These projects can be phased however we suggest that little phasing or time passes between beginning and completing the work. We suggest that a reasonable phasing would be to improve the mid -block crosswalks that may be done in part of area wide improvements such as the North Tram Station or the St. Raphael beach access lighting project. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement projects or should be considered to be part of the pathway, signage and ADA ramping improvements. D1 -F: Install fields of clay brick pavement in the major community intersection areas. Patterns should be artful and aesthetically pleasing, serve as announcement of entry and primary intersections within the community and assist on the ground -plane by expressing the expected turning movements around adjacent street medians (reference Intersection Treatment Alternatives this section) Proposed Improvement: Install sand set clay brick pavers in the field areas between the crosswalks in the street intersections of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard and Oakmont Parkway /Extension and Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 536,000 Alternative solutions: 1. Install sand set colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers in conjunction with colored concrete paver crosswalks in the intersection field areas noted above Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 496,500 05/18/2010 16111 B13 ® 2. Install stamped concrete pavement and exposed aggregate colored concrete in the intersection field areas with clay brick paver crosswalks. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 549,500 Phasing: This work can be phased by whole intersection field areas. a Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk improvements in these intersections. C M E D1 -G: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the three roadway entries into Pelican Bay from US 41 -J at Pelican Bay Boulevard north and south as well as Gulf Park Drive (reference pages 19, 20 and 21 E under the Project Improvement Plan section Q. oProposed Improvement: Install 12" header curb between the valley gutters each side of the pavement area to receive sand set clay brick pavement in a herringbone field pattern CL and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters for a length of up E to 150 feet. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 463,000 m Alternative solutions: V 1. Same as proposed improvement but with colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 429,000 Phasing: These projects can be phased by individual location however we suggest that consideration of the installation of an intersection field area noted in D1 -F above would also include the installation of the corresponding US -41 entry drive area improvement in D1 -G too. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other Community entry specific area improvement projects for landscape, lighting and signage. D1 -H: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the roadway entries in to the single family neighborhoods where intersection improvements noted in D1 -F above are not suggested (2 locations, Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive/ Gulf Park Drive and Green Tree Drive). Proposed Improvement: Install 12" header curb between the valley gutters each side of the pavement area to receive sand set clay brick pavement in a herringbone field pattern and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters for a length of up to 50 feet behind any cross walk improvement. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 52,600 Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 48,900 05/18/2010 1611 B13 Phasing: These projects can be phased by individual location however we suggest that consideration of the installation of an intersection field area noted in D1 -F above would also include the installation of the corresponding US -41 entry drive area improvement in D1 -G too. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other residential area entry specific area improvement projects for landscape, lighting and signage. Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: The addition of a four foot bike lane in accordance with FDOT policy as delivered through its Plans and Preparation Manual and through the Collier County MPO Policies and Resolutions within the existing asphalt cross section of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive is recommended to be implemented at the next resurfacing of these roadways. This remarking and restriping is to occur at the time of the next resurfacing of each street and provide for two ten foot automobile travel lanes and one four foot bicycle lane in each direction unless otherwise deemed unjustified through the variance process. Although not a County law, Collier County highly recommends incorporation of bike lanes where feasible in new construction or resurfacing of roadways. Transportation engineering design will be required to provide the documentation necessary for this improvement. Maintain un- obstructive landscape and elevated median grades in favor of pedestrian and driver sight lines at the edges of the rights of way and within the medians of the community. Continue to work with the Collier County Transportation Division on multi -modal and pathway master plans at the exterior edges of the Pelican Bay Community so as to budget and plan for Community Landscape, Perimeter Wall and connective pathway improvements in the future. Continue to work with the Collier County Sherriff Department in street and community policing and reporting of community incidents. Continue to work with the Collier County Transportation Department within the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans for additional traffic calming techniques beyond the addition of the bike lane noted above. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary JilsonMiller - March 29, 2010 1611 B13 01 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Ridgewood Drive 3 Direction $19,276 $69,591 $77,755 01a -Add paver field (1) $158,116 (1) $189,286 02 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Myra J. Daniels Blvd. 2 Direction $15,019 $41,360 $45,373 03 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Crayton Road 2 Direction $15,036 $47,118 $52,320 04 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Glenview Place Mid -Block $19,213 $35,666 $38,283 04a - Add cobble bands (2) $5,960 (2) $5,960 05 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ The Commons Mid -Block $19,309 $33,101 $35,479 05a - Add cobble bands (2) $6,110 (2) $6,110 06 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Gulf Park Drive 4 Direction $92,506 $158,011 $169,257 06a -Add paver field (1) $154,396 (1) $184,580 07 - Gulf Park Drive @ Ridgewood Drive 2 Direction $16,859 $47,688 $52,923 08 - Gulf Park Drive @ Green Tree Drive 2 Direction $19,149 $49,964 $55,157 09 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Sandpiper Parking Mid -Block $23,983 $36,291 $38,658 09a - Add cobble bands (2) $4,800 (2) $4,800 10 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Beachwalk Pathway Mid -Block $23,220 $36,417 $38,779 10a - Add cobble bands (2) $5,100 (2) $5,100 11 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station Mid -Block $3,591 $17,042 $19,450 11a -Add cobble bands (2) $11,213 (2) $11,213 12 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Pointe Drive 2 Direction $14,863 $48,161 $53,561 13 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Hammock Oak Drive 2 Direction $15,057 $46,613 $51,724 14 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Oakmont Parkway 3 Direction $16,535 $67,072 $75,284 Subtotal: 1 $313,6161 $734,0951 1 $804,002 15% Contingency: 1 $47,042 1 $110,1141 1 $120,600 Design / Permit Fee Estimate: 1 $43,279 1 $101,305 $110,952 Grand Total: 1 $403,9371 $945,5141 1 $1,035,555 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. " Prices are a comparison of finishes only and do not include design or permitting fees. (1) Additional cost beyond crosswalk improvements to include field area between crosswalks in special pavement. (2) Additional cost to include 3.0' wide split -face cobble paver either side of mid -block crosswalks. (3) Additional Item 11 costs to improve median: Close Median Re -Align Median +/- $126,648.00 +/- $125,130.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 B Crosswalks - Summary 01 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Ridgewood Drive Wilson Miller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18.2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 250 SF $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Curb 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 480 LF $2.08 $998.40 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 28 SY $32.00 $896.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 10 LF $10.50 $105.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 860 LF $2.01 $1,728.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 230 SF $5.50 $1,265.00 Landscape - Irrigation 230 SF $0.80 $184.00 Option 2 - C• $69,591 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 250 SF $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Curb 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2,177 SF $5.50 $11,973.50 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 28 SY $32.00 $896.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,729 SF $12.80 $34,931.20 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 10 LF $10.50 $105.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 304 SY $6.50 $1,976.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 860 LF $2.01 $1,728.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 230 SF $0.80 $184.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 230 SF $5.50 $1,265.00 Cliption 3 - Clay Brick Paving Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 250 SF $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Curb 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 2,177 SF $9.25 $20,137.25 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 28 SY $32.00 $896.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,729 SF $12.80 $34,931.20 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 10 LF $10.50 $105.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 304 SY $6.50 $1,976.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 860 LF $2.01 $1,728.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 230 SF $0.80 $184.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 230 SF $5.50 $1,265.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 B13 Crosswalks - Summary 02 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Myra J. Daniels Blvd. WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 196 LF $2.08 $407.68 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 430 LF $2.01 $864.30 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 0 LF $4.06 $0.00 Option 2 - C• •, Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,070 SF $5.50 $5,885.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,383 SF $12.80 $17,702.40 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 154 SY $6.50 $1,001.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 295 LF $2.01 $592.95 Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving i Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 1,070 SF $9.25 $9,897.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,383 SF $12.80 $17,702.40 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 154 SY $6.50 $1,001.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 295 LF $2.01 $592.95 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable 1611 p p Costs Crosswalks - Summary 813" 03 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Crayton Road WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 280 LF $2.08 $582.40 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 550 LF $2.01 $1,105.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Opt ion Concrete $47,118 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 197 SY $8.00 $1,576.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,387 SF $5.50 $7,628.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,765 SF $12.80 $22,592.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 197 SY $6.50 $1,280.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 345 LF $2.01 $693.45 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 197 SY $8.00 $1,576.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 1,387 SF $9.25 $12,829.75 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,765 SF $12.80 $22,592.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 197 SY $6.50 $1,280.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 345 LF $2.01 $693.45 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary B1 04 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Glenview Place WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $7.49 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 20 LF $2.08 $41.60 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Option 2 - C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 100 SY $8.00 $800.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 698 SF $5.50 $3,839.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 895 SF $12.80 $11,456.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 100 SY $6.50 $650.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 135 LF $2.01 $271.35 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 'Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving $38.283 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 100 SY $8.00 $800.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 698 SF $9.25 $6,456.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 895 SF $12.80 $11,456.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type W Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 100 SY $6.50 $650.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 135 LF $2.01 $271.35 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 1611813 05 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ The Commons Wilson Miller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 20 LF $2.08 $41.60 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Option 2 - C• , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $0749 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 634 SF $5.50 $3,487.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 811 SF $12.80 $10,380.80 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 90 SY $6.50 $585.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 136 LF $2.01 $273.36 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, While, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 685 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Curb 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 634 SF $9.25 $5,864.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 811 SF $12.80 $10,380.80 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 90 SY $6.50 $585.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 136 LF $2.01 $273.36 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 06 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Gulf Park Drive WilsonMiller- March 17, 2010 1611 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 - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 84 SY $6.50 $546.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 940 LF $2.01 $1,889.40 Landscape - Trees 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Landscape- Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Landscape - Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 !Option 2 - Concrete 560 LF $2.01 $158,011 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt 319 SY $8.00 $2,552.00 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 - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2,999 SF $5.50 $16,494.50 Sitework - Concrete - Ribbon Curb 560 LF $15.00 $8,400.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,871 SF $12.80 $36,748.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 403 SY $6.50 $2,619.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 560 LF $2.01 $1,125.60 Landscape - Trees 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Landscape - Sod 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Landscape - Irrigation 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• • • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt 319 SY $8.00 $2,552.00 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 - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 2,999 SF $9.25 $27,740.75 Sitework - Concrete - Ribbon Curb 560 LF $15.00 $8,400.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,871 SF $12.80 $36,748.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 403 SY $6.50 $2,619.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 560 LF $2.01 $1,125.60 Landscape - Trees Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape- Sod 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Landscape - Irrigation 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 07 - Gulf Park Drive @ Ridgewood Drive WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 161 1B13 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 225 SF $0.49 $110.25 Demolition - Curb 35 LF $6.00 $210.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 10 SY $8.00 $80.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 26 LF $10.50 $273.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 20 SY $6.50 $130.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 540 LF $2.01 $1,085.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 180 SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Irrigation 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Topsoil IF Depth) 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 Option 2 - C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 225 SF $0.49 $110.25 Demolition - Curb 35 LF $6.00 $210.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 10 SY $8.00 $80.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,396 SF $5.50 $7,678.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,772 SF $12.80 $22,681.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 26 LF $10.50 $273.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 208 SY $6.50 $1,352.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 166 LF $2.01 $333.66 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 180 SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Irrigation 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• r • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 225 SF $0.49 $110.25 Demolition - Curb 35 LF $6.00 $210.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 10 SY $8.00 $80.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 1,396 SF $9.25 $12,913.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,772 SF $12.80 $22,681.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A! Curb 26 LF $10.50 $273.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 208 SY $6.50 $1,352.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 166 LF $2.01 $333.66 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 180 SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Irrigation 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6 "Depth) 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 08 - Gulf Park Drive @ Green Tree Drive WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 380 SF $0.49 $186.20 Demolition - Curb 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 163 SY $8.00 $1,304.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 12 SY $32.00 $384.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 18 SY $6.50 $117.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 550 LF $2.01 $1,105.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 255 SF $5.50 $1,402.50 Landscape - Irrigation 255 SF $0.80 $204.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 Option 2 - C• $49,964 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 380 SF $0.49 $186.20 Demolition - Curb 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 150 SY $8.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,385 SF $5.50 $7,617.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,755 SF $12.80 $22,464.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 12 SY $32.00 $384.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 213 SY $6.50 $1,384.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 336 LF $2.01 $675.36 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 255 SF $5.50 $1,402.50 Landscape - Irrigation 255 SF $0.80 $204.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 380 SF $079 $186.20 Demolition - Curb Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 150 SY $8.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,385 SF $9.25 $12,811.25 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,755 SF $12.80 $22,464.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 12 SY $32.00 $384.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 213 SY $6.50 $1,384.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 336 LF $2.01 $675.36 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 255 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation SF $5.50 $1,402.50 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 255 SF $0.80 $204.00 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 Crosswalks - Summary 09 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Sandpiper Parking WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 913 Demolition -Curb 50 LF w�. +� $6.00 yOzu.10 $300.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $36,291 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') Quantity Unit $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 14 SY $32.00 $448.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 72 LF $10.50 $756.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 305 SY $6.50 $1,982.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 20 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 EA LF $3.34 $2.01 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $522.60 $194.88 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Irrigation 850 SF $0.80 $680.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 16 CY $40.00 $640.00 Option 2 - C• $36,291 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,075 SF $0.49 $526.75 Demolition - Curb 50 LF $6.00 $300.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 631 SF $5.50 $3,470.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 806 SF $12.80 $10,316.80 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 14 SY $32.00 $448.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'N Curb 72 LF $10.50 $756.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 90 SY $6.50 $585.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Irrigation 850 SF $0.80 $680.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 16 CY $40.00 $640.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• S38,658 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,075 SF $079 $526.75 Demolition - Curb 50 LF $6.00 $300.00 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 631 SF $9.25 $5,836.75 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 806 SF $12.80 $10,316.80 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 14 SY $32.00 $448.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'N Curb 72 LF $10.50 $756.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 90 SY $6.50 $585.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Irrigation 850 SF $0.80 $680.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 16 CY $40.00 $640.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16 i 1 B 13 Crosswalks - Summary 10 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Beachwalk Pathway WilsonMiller - March 17. 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,433 SF $0.49 $702.17 Demolition -Curb Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 38 SY $6.50 $247.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 260 EA LF $3.34 $2.01 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 50 LF $4.06 $522.60 $203.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Option 2 - C• $36,417 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,433 SF $0.49 $702.17 Demolition - Curb 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 630 SF $5.50 $3,465.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 797 SF $12.80 $10,201.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 89 SY $6.50 $578.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• • • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,433 SF $0.49 $702.17 Demolition - Curb 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 630 SF $9.25 $5,827.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 797 SF $12.80 $10,201.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'N Curb 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 89 SY $6.50 $578.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 11 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with No Median Adjustments WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 1661 B13 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 592 LF $2.08 y 1 ,231.36 $1,231.36 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 E4 $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 0 E4 $1,150.00 $0.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 0 EA $3.34 $0.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 480 LF $2.01 $964.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Option 2 - C• $17,042 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 642 SF $5.50 $3,531.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 819 SF $12.80 $10,483.20 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 91 SY $6.50 $591.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 0 EA $3.34 $0.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 'Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving • , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 90 SY $8.00 $720.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 642 SF $9.25 $5,938.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 819 SF $12.80 $10,483.20 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 91 SY $6.50 $591.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 0 EA $3.34 $0.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary I ` v � B13 11 a - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with Filled, Continuous Landscape Median WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18. 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 630 SY $8.00 $5,040.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 160 2 LF $2.08 $332.80 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 82 SY $6.50 $533.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 7 40 TN EA $200.00 $3.34 $1,400.00 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $0.80 $10,360.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 240 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 'Option 2 - Concrete • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 620 SF $5.50 $3,410.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 142 SY $6.50 $923.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $0.80 $10,360.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 240 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 !Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving , Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb Demolition - Sidewalk 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Signage 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 620 SF $9.25 $5,735.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type W Curb 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 142 SY $6.50 $923.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 40 160 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 12,950 SF $0.80 $10,360.00 240 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 m nt Level elican Bay Design Develop Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 e p Crosswalks - Summary ^ 11a - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with Filled, Continuous Landscape Median WilsonMiller - March 26, 2010 May 18, 2010 :Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving $154,622 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 620 SF $9.25 $5,735.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 142 SY $6.50 $923.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $0.80 $10,360.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 240 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 TOTAL: 1 $154,622 15% CONTINGENCY: 1 $23,193 Design/ Permit Fee Estimates $22111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal _ Engineering / Survey/ Geotechnical 1 LS $11,500.00 $11,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $199,815 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 11 b - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with New Turn Lane Relocated 3 Wilson Miller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18. 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 630 SY $8.00 $5,040.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 160 LF $2.08 $332.80 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'N Curb 964 LF $10.50 $10,122.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 416 SY $6.50 $2,704.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 34 TN $200.00 $6,800.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,770 SF $5.50 $53,735.00 Landscape - Irrigation 9,770 SF $0.80 $7,816.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Option 2 - C• r • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 620 SF $5.50 $3,410.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 964 LF $10.50 $10,122.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 440 SY $6.50 $2,860.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 35 TN $200.00 $7,000.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,770 SF $5.50 $53,735.00 Landscape - Irrigation 9,770 SF $0.80 $7,816.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 'Option 3 - Clay Brick Paving $139819 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 620 SF $9.25 $5,735.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 964 LF $10.50 $10,122.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 440 SY $6.50 $2,860.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 35 TN $200.00 $7,000.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,770 SF $5.50 $53,735.00 Landscape - Irrigation 9,770 SF $0.80 $7,816.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 Crosswalks - Summary 11 b - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with New Turn Lane Relocated WilsonMiller - March 26, 2010 I I Option 3 - Clav Brick Pavina 8139.81 c lltem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal) Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Tree Removal (includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Curb 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Demolition - Signage 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 620 SF $9.25 $5,735.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A!Curb 964 LF $10.50 $10,122.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 440 SY $6.50 $2,860.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 35 TN $200.00 $7,000.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 9,770 SF $5.50 $53,735.00 Landscape - Irrigation 9,770 SF $0.80 $7,816.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 TOTAL: $139,819 15% CONTINGENCY: $20,973 1-IN 11tern Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering / Survey/ Geotechnical 1 LS $11,500.00 $11,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $182,792 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16118131 Crosswalks - Summary 12 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Pointe Drive WilsonMiller - March 17. 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 168 LF $2.08 $349.44 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 580 LF $2.01 $1,165.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 2 - C• $48,161 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 202 SY $8.00 $1,616.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,440 SF $5.50 $7,920.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,816 SF $12.80 $23,244.80 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 202 SY $6.50 $1,313.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 358 LF $2.01 $719.58 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• $53,561 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 202 SY $8.00 $1,616.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 1,440 SF $9.25 $13,320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,816 SF $12.80 $23,244.80 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 202 SY $6.50 $1,313.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 358 LF $2.01 $719.58 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16 11 1 B Crosswalks - Summary 13 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Hammock Oak Drive WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 Mav 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 300 LF $2.08 $624.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 540 LF $2.01 $1,085.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 2 - C• S46,613 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 194 SY $8.00 $1,552.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 1,363 SF $5.50 $7,496.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,740 SF $12.80 $22,272.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 194 SY $6.50 $1,261.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 340 LF $2.01 $683.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 194 SY $8.00 $1,552.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 1,363 SF $9.25 $12,607.75 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,740 SF $12.80 $22,272.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 194 SY $6.50 $1,261.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 340 LF $2.01 $683.40 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 8 Crosswalks - Summary 14 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Oakmont Parkway WilsonMiller - March 17, 2010 May 18, 2010 1 -Striping Only ,Option • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 420 LF $2.08 $873.60 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 880 LF $2.01 $1,768.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 2 - C• $67,072 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 309 SY $8.00 $2,472.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2,190 SF $5.50 $12,045.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,780 SF $12.80 $35,584.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 309 SY $6.50 $2,008.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 532 LF $2.01 $1,069.32 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Option 3 - Clay Brick Pavin• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 309 SY $8.00 $2,472.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 2,190 SF $9.25 $20,257.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,780 SF $12.80 $35,584.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 309 SY $6.50 $2,008.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 532 LF $2.01 $1,069.32 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay Communit 161 1 Improvement Plan — Pathwa s B13 Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in may 2010 construction rates) D2 A: Improve and replace approaches in pathways to include ADA compliant ramp systems at roadway intersections and crossings (Florida law to comply with ADA standards on all new or improved pathways). 1) Proposed Improvement: Gulf Park Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard, secondary entry streets (12 ramp pairs at public road intersections; 23 additional including private roads and driveways along west side Pelican Bay Boulevard): Repair up to 150 feet of asphalt path for line and grade, repair concrete gutter curb and match new concrete ramp assembly with insert of mud set clay brick paver w/ truncated dome surface (reference ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance graphic) Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,500 per ramp pair Alternative solution(s): Same as proposed improvement but with applied plastic truncated dome surface in lieu of clay brick paver insert. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 17,500 per ramp pair Phasing — Improvements can be phased by project associated area, geographically within the community or in conjunction with other improvements. This is an early community improvement that must be accomplished in the community. Sequencing — This project can be completed individually but is best done with other pathway and cross walk improvements with pavement improvements done to a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as an existing drive way. 2) Proposed Improvement: Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway, Green Tree Drive: Replace up to 150 feet of asphalt path with concrete walk (versus asphalt) including compliant line and grade, repair concrete gutter curb and match new concrete ramp assembly with insert of mud set clay brick paver w/ truncated dome surface. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 20,500 per ramp pair Alternative solution(s): Same as proposed improvement but with applied plastic truncated dome surface in lieu of clay brick paver insert. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 19,800 per ramp pair Same as proposed improvement but use asphalt pavement for pathway replacement in lieu of concrete. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,500 per ramp pair 05/18/2010 v N t a C a C W E a O Q. E �a m C V N a to 161 1613 Phasing — Improvements can be phased by project associated area, geographically within the community or in conjunction with other improvements. This is an early community improvement that must be accomplished in the community. Sequencing — This project can be completed individually but is best done with other pathway and crosswalk improvements with pathway pavement improvements completed at a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as a drive way cut. D2 — B: Remove automobile and pedestrian conflicts at private property exits into County Streets due to stop sign locations on the County roadway side of the pathway (7 locations; reference Driveway Crossing Conditions graphic). Proposed Improvement: Each of these is site specific and based on the location of the conflict. 1) Relocate the stop sign to the private community side of the path and maintain sight visibility from the automobile to the right -of -way. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 800 per stop sign 2) Relocate the pathway beyond the stop sign and re -site the stop sign if necessary where the full width of the pathway and at least five feet of landscape area is maintained between the curb line and pathway edge. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 2,700 per stop sign 3) Add a mirror to assist the exiting driver entering the right -of -way from private property to come to a full stop position and observe /check for pathway users in both directions prior to exiting the property. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 500 per stop sign Phasing — Improvements are to be made as a single project. This is a highly recommended early community improvement recommendation that must be accomplished in the community. Sequencing --- This project is best done with other pathway and cross walk improvements however pavement improvements done to a natural break in the existing pathway systems such as the next existing drive way is preferred. D2 -0 Widen one side of the multipurpose asphalt pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard (west side) and Gulf Park Drive (north side) (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). 05/18/2010 Proposed Improvement: Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet in width from the Commons to the North Tram Station; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 205,700 ($ 35 /If) Alternative solutions: Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet in width along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from Ridgewood Drive to Oakmont Parkway; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. -- Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 557,400 ($ 40 /If) 1611 613 Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet along the north side of Gulf Park Drive; realign pathway where possible for greater separation from existing trees. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 138,000 ($ 40 /If) Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway from the Commons to the North Tram Station with limited pathway realignment. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 123,300 ($ 21 /If) Phasing — We recommend that the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram Station is the first phase. Subsequent phasing would complete the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard and then move to Gulf Park Drive north side pathway. Sequencing — ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already and bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be included. Collier County Engineering details for pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. D2 -D: Replace Single Family residential neighborhood asphalt paths with five feet wide concrete finished sidewalks (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). Proposed Improvement: Install concrete sidewalks on Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive (does not include potential new sidewalk along Oakmont Parkway R.O.W.). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 300,500 ($ 29 /If) Oakmont Lake sidewalk additional $101,500 (3500 LF) Alternative solutions: Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 215,300 ($ 21 /If) Oakmont Lake sidewalk additional $73,500 (3500 LF) Phasing: Phased replacement is possible and recommended to be no less than replacing all of Ridgewood Drive area together and replacing all of Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive together. Sequencing: ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already and street tree additions, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be included. Collier County Engineering details for concrete pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. D2 -E: Improve the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard western pathway from Seagate Drive to the Bridgeway neighborhood entrance (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). Proposed Improvement: Remove the existing asphalt pathway and replace it with a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 39,500 ($ 35 /If) Alternative solutions: Mill and replace 5 foot asphalt pathway. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 24,000 ($ 21 /If) 05/18/2010 913 1611 ® Remove the existing asphalt pathway and replace it with a 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 69,300 ($ 61 /If) Phasing: This is a one time improvement and should not be phased. M Sequencing: Relocate this pathway to the edge of the right of way easement and /or acquire a a pathway easement from St. Williams Catholic Church further west of the Right -of -Way line to avoid tree and utility conflicts in the surface of the sidewalk. We do not recommend tree C removals in the mid - parcel area of the Church property along Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. cp a D2 -F: Maintain the secondary, non - boulevard entries into the community with the exception of item D2 -E E above as asphalt finished pathways. a) Proposed Improvement: Mill and resurface asphalt pathways for North Point Drive, Hammock Q Oak Drive and Crayton Road. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 228,800 ($ 21 /If) ca Alternative solutions: Replace the same pathways with a minimum 5 foot wide concrete ca sidewalk. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 316,000 ($ 29 /If) M Y CL Phasing: Repair or replacement of these pathways can be done one street at time or in any other combination of whole street lengths when maintenance repairs are required. Sequencing: ADA ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already and bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements should be considered to be included. Collier County Engineering details for pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. D2 -J: Add fence lines and barriers at the edges of water management bulkheads and public area retaining walls (North Tram Station and various bulkhead locations up to 600 If; reference Pathway Edge Railing Improvement graphic) Proposed Improvement: Bolt 4" x 4" and 4" x 6' PT or recycled timber posts to the side walls of the structures, add 2' x 8" cap rails and trim at 42" height above the top of the walls and include tensioning 1/8" SS cable every 4" above the top of wall as railings for the barrier. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 48,800 ($ 81 /If) Alternative solution(s): Construct the barriers entirely from wood. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 41,300 ($ 69 /If) Phasing: We recommend this be an early addition to the improvements of the community. Sequencing: Generally a stand alone project that can be done individually through the course of operations and maintenance. I -61 ► 05/18/2010 Future maintenance and improvement guidelines. 1611 B13 Parks and recreational pathway systems shall be maintained as asphalt finished pathways where a variety of modes of transportation and participation from the residents and guests is expected; otherwise, pervious pavements, non - erosive in character, of crushed stone, shell or native soils may be considered. Install improved boulevard area pathways in an alignment and location that moves them away from conflicts with maturing landscape, trees and palms. Collier County Engineering details for asphaltic pathway construction and root barriers shall be applied. Site furnishings that are placed on, along or at nodes on the pathways are strongly recommended to be of a single manufacturer source, maintain a consistent relationship of a "family" of model choices and maintain consistency in the color selection based on the location of the fixtures use (reference site furniture cut sheets graphic). Please also refer to the longer discussion of site furnishings that accompanies the Tram Stations section of this report. Long term plans for pathways includes the connection to the US 41 proposed Collier County pathway illustrated in the pathways master plan for the County. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level X611 B13 Opinion of Probable Costs: Pathways - West Side of Pelican Bay Blvd. (Asphalt) W ilsonMiller - January 26, 2010 ` May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION $11 ' Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (5.0') 7,775 SY $8.00 $62,200.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 350 SF $0.49 $171.50 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 19 EA $1,200.00 $22,800.00 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 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. It 1/2" thick & 4" stone x 8.0' wide) 13,995 LF $17.00 $237,915.00 Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 56 EA $545.00 $30,520.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 380 LF $15.00 $5,700.00 Headwall Railing (Sand Piper) 60 LF $10.00 $600.00 Root Barrier (18" Deep Rigid Panel Type) 3,050 LF $6.50 $19,825.00 LANDSCAPE $48,283 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Irrigation (Retrofit) 41,985 SF $0.80 $33,588.00 Sod 41,985 SF $0.35 $14,694.75 TOTAL: $450,294 15% CONTINGENCY: $67,544 Permit • 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering 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 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $557,338 Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 6 B 13 Opinion of Probable Costs: Pathways - West Side of Pelican a p Y Y WilsonMiller - January 26, 2010 May 18, 2010 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (6" thick x 8.0' wide) 13,995 LF $32.00 $447,840.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (5.0') 7,775 SY $8.00 $62,200.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 350 SF $0.49 $171.50 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 19 EA $1,200.00 $22,800.00 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 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete Walkway / 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 $545.00 $30,520.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 380 LF $15.00 $5,700.00 Headwall Railing (Sand Piper) 60 LF $10.00 $600.00 Root Barrier (18" Deep Rigid Panel Type) 3,050 LF $6.50 $19,825.00 LANDSCAPE $48,283 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Irrigation (Retrofit) 41,985 SF $0.80 $33,588.00 Sod 41,985 SF $0.35 $14,694.75 TOTAL: $660,219 15% CONTINGENCY: $99,033 Design / Permit Fee Estimates • 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal �. Engineering 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 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $798,752 " Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1611 B13 Opinion of Probable Costs: Pathways - West Side Pelican Bay Blvd. Phase One (Asphalt) Widen pathway to 8' from The Commons to North Tram WilsonMiller - April 27, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITIOR Quantity Unit Unit Cost � Asphalt Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (1 1/2" thick & 4" stone x 8.0' wide) 5,909 LF $17.00 $100,453.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway/ Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (5.0') 3,283 SY $8.00 $26,264.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 350 SF $0.49 $171.50 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 5 EA $300.00 $1,500.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Tree and stump removal) 1 EA $500.00 $500.00 Demolition - Curb 0 LF $6.00 $0.00 IRK $10E Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt Walkway / Path - Pelican Bay Blvd. (1 1/2" thick & 4" stone x 8.0' wide) 5,909 LF $17.00 $100,453.00 Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 0 LF $15.00 $0.00 Headwall Railing (Sand Piper) 60 LF $10.00 $600.00 Root Barrier (18" Deep Rigid Panel Type) 1,180 LF $6.50 $7,670.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Irrigation (Retrofit) 17,727 SF $0.80 $14,181.60 Sod 17,727 SF $0.35 $6,204.45 TOTAL: $15,000.00 $157,545 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: 1 LS $23,632 --- Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 aRAND TOTAL: 1 $205,676 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance 81 Install concrete ADA compliant ramps, mill & repave 5.0' asphalt sidewalk and grade surrounding area WilsonMiller - April 22, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION $7.. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'W x 150.0'L Demolition - Curb SITEWORK 84 12 SY LF $8.00 $6.00 $672.00 $72.00 ,4 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Grade to ADA compliant slopes Sitework - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'W x 150.0'L Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly — Sitework - Concrete Curb Sitework - 6" Limerock Base LANDSCAPE 334 7 1 12 84 SY TN EA LF SY $4.00 $200.00 $545.00 $25.00 $6.50 $1,336.00 $1,400.00 $545.00 $300.00 $546.00 i Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Irrigation Landscape- Sod 1 2,250 LS SF $450.00 $0.35 $450.00 $787.50 TOTAL: $6,109 'Design / Permit Fee Estimates $1,750 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $750.00 $750.00 $250.00 $750.00 $750.00 $250.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $916 GRAND TOTAL: $8,775 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. "Price shown includes plastic detectable warning tiles - may be substituted for brick paver tiles with truncated domes for additional $231.25 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Quantity Unit 1 Subtotal Drive Pathway Relocation 0 SY B $0.00 Relocate pathway at private property exits to beyond stop sign 2 TN y % WilsonMiller - April 27, 2010 0 LF $25.00 $0.00 May 18, 2010 28 SY $6.50 $182.00 DEMOLITION $223 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demofltion - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'W x 50.0'L 28 SY $8.00 $224.00 LS Demolition - Curb 0 LF $6.00 $0.00 SF Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Grade to ADA compliant slopes 0 SY $4.00 $0.00 Sitework - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'W x 50.0'L 2 TN $200.00 $440.00 Sitework - Concrete Curb 0 LF $25.00 $0.00 Sitework - 6" Limerock Base 28 SY $6.50 $182.00 LANDSCAPE $223 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Irrigation 1 LS $100.00 $100.00 Landscape- Sod 350 SF $0.35 $122.50 TOTAL: $1,069 D- sign / Permit Fee Estimates $1,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 LS $750.00 1 LS $750.00 0 LS $250.00 $750.00 $750.00 $0.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $160 GRAND TOTAL: $2,729 ' Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Oakmont Parkway Sidewalk 1611813 Install concrete sidewalk within R.O.W. and medians WilsonMiller -April 22, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION $8,560 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 16,000 SF $0.49 $7,840.00 Demolition - Curb 120 LF $6.00 $720.00 SITEWORK $81,190 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly" 29 EA $545.00 $15,805.00 Sitework - Concrete - 5.0' Sidewalk 1,139 SY $32.00 $36,448.00 Sitework - Concrete - 5.0' Sidewalk with Exposed Stone/ Shell Aggregate 639 SY $40.50 $25,879.50 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 60 LF $10.50 $630.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 125 EA $3.34 $417.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width "' 1,000 LF $2.01 $2,010.00 LANDSCAPE 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Irrigation 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Landscape- Sod 5,000 SF $0.35 $1,750.00 TOTAL: $92,500 Design 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $17,500.00 $17,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $13,875 GRAND TOTAL: $141,875 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. "Price shown includes plastic detectable warning tiles - may be substituted for brick paver tiles with truncated domes for additional $231.25 "'Crosswalk material should be reflective of standard chosen material for community crosswalks 1611 B13 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Lighting Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) D3 -A: Replace the existing HID ballast and Metal Halide Light sources in the Boulevard street lighting with energy conserving LED fixtures. Proposed Improvement: Install 6 foot Sternberg CA bracket arm and Sternberg Omega R 1527 LED fixture in verde green on all existing concrete poles in Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard medians (206 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 712,600 ($ 3,459 /fixture) Alternative solutions: Same as proposed improvement but with Metal Halide (MH) fixtures in lieu of LED. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 506,600 ($ 2,459 /fixture) Alternative solutions: Replace the concrete poles in the Boulevard street lighting scenario with new smooth tapered shaft and decorative base. Install 30 foot Hapco York Post to receive the Sternberg Omege /R 1527R LED Fixture and six foot CA roadway arm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,033,900 ($ 5,619 /fixture) Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. The pole replacement in the Boulevards could be phased separately from the fixture and roadway arm replacements however this would need to be known at the time of replacing the fixture and adding the roadway arm so that the manufacturer can plan for a pole connection retrofit in the future in the current connection design of the roadway arms to the concrete pole. Sequencing; Coordinate with the additional improvements of light poles outlined in D3- C below and landscape, irrigation changes within the medians should be considered within the same phase of work. D3 -B: Replace the existing HID ballast, Metal Halide lamp and fixture and the 16 foot concrete poles in the single family residential street lighting with energy conserving LED fixtures, bracket arms and poles (reference Roadway Lighting Diagram). Proposed Improvement: Install Sternberg 480PM Backet and Sternberg Euro E -460 LED Medium Fixture on 16 foot Sternberg 7700 series Birmingham Pole in verde green along Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway and Green Tree Drive (93 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 646,000 ($ 6,946 /fixture) Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with existing concrete poles in lieu of new poles Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 334,500 ($ 3,596 /fixture) 2. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures in lieu of LED. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 553,000 ($ 5,946 /fixture) 05/18/2010 ■ 9 a N a C ca a +r C W E a, 0 CL E ca M u a, a 1611 B 3. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures on existing concrete poles in lieu of LED on new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 241,500 ($ 2,596 /fixture) Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. 13" Sequencing; The solution choosen by the Owner becomes the dedicated solution for the single family residential streets noted in the proposed solution and as outlined on the Option 3 Lighting Master Plan Diagram. Landscape, irrigation and streetscape improvements should be considered within the same phase of work. D3 -C: Move the existing double fixture light poles in the three entry drive medians of the Community from US 41 to both edges of the roadway in single fixture configurations and replace the existing HID ballast and Metal Halide light sources in these three locations and the secondary entry streets to the Community with energy conserving LED fixtures and bracket arms (reference Roadway Lighting Diagram). 05/18/2010 Proposed Improvement: Install Sternberg 480PM Bracket and Sternberg Euro E -460 LED Medium Fixture on 18 foot Sternberg 7700 series Birmingham pole in verde green at the 3 main entries along US 41, North Point Drive, Hammock Oak Drive, Oakmont Drive Extension, Crayton Road, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive South 0 02 fixtures). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 665,000 ($ 6,520 /fixture) Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with existing concrete poles in lieu of new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 355,100 ($ 3,481 /fixture) 2. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures in lieu of LED. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 563,000 ($ 5,520 /fixture) 3. Same as proposed improvement but with MH fixtures on existing concrete poles in lieu of LED on new poles. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 253,100 ($ 2,481 /fixture) Phasing: If phased, entire street lengths should be done at one time. Sequencing; The solution chosen by the Owner becomes the dedicated solution for the primary and secondary entry streets noted in the proposed solution and as outlined on the Option 3 Lighting Master Plan Diagram. Lighting from both sides of the street in the three primary entries and matching fixtures in the secondary entries provides a level of street illumination that is indicative of community rather than a roadway thoroughfare. Landscape, irrigation and streetscape improvements should be considered within the same phase of work. 1611 B13 D3 -D: Install LED bollard lighting along the community pathways where indicated in the master plan (reference Pathway Lighting Plan). Proposed Improvement: Install Gardco Bevel Top, LED Demand Response bollards on the side of St. Raphael beach pathway in dark bronze color (reference St. Raphael Pathway Lighting Plan graphic). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 46,000 Alternative solutions: Install Sternberg bollard #3901 LB Richmond in 35W MH (with goal to provide Sternberg in LED if available) 36" — 42" in height and verde green color to match street light fixtures in immediate needs areas throughout Community minus berm access areas (reference Pathway Lighting Plan). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 412,000 Alternative solutions: Same as alternative solution but install the Stone Light fluorescent bollards as used elsewhere in the community. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 412,000 (entire project noted) Phasing: This is a one time bollard lighting addition project. Sequencing: As an entire and complete project, add landscape, irrigation, Pelican Bay Boulevard mid -block cross walk, signage and street furnishings improvements at the same time. Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: Lighting improvements that provide better CPTED conditions when principles of territorial surveillance are applied are encouraged in the parks and along the pathway edges of the community. Street lighting and bollard fixtures in the road rights of way shall be of a common family and green color. Future bollard fixtures used in the roadways are to match the family of street light poles and fixtures with the intention of having available LED lamped fixtures available. Pathway bollards that lead to the Community Berm and Boardwalk areas are to be of a common family and dark bronze color. Maintain the maturing landscape to be free from direct blockage of the street lighting of the roadways — relocate street lights in favor of trees in the landscape and remove Sabal Palms where necessary to better provide light to the ground or streets. Specimen landscape up- lighting or down - lighting is encouraged for evening lighting of specimen landscapes and for CPTED purposes in amongst the roadway and park areas existing large trees. Banner arms and other decorative holiday lighting options /duplex electrical outlets in new poles may be considered and added to the proposed street light pole improvements. Banner arms would need to meet wind loading criteria and we recommend that the electrical outlets be added high on the pole for maintenance access by lift only. Hanging landscape baskets and internal irrigation supply may also be considered and added in a limited location basis only to new street light pole improvements on Foundation properties and sites. 05/18/2010 1611 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 813 Option 1 - Street Lighting : Maintenance Program of Current Conditions Existing concrete poles and fixtures - maintenance of current conditions. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITIO Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal $42,550 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 26 EA $1,200.00 $31,200.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 41 EA $150.00 $6,150.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Pole - Remove and Relocate Existing 20 EA $230.00 $4,600.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Install Existing (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox within 30.0' of original location) 20 EA $850.00 $17,000.00 TOTAL: I $59,550 15% CONTINGENCY: 1 $8,933 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $73,483 *Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs �/ Option 2 - Street Lighting : Original Poles with New Fixtures & Arms 1 B 13 Add 4.0' arms and decorative fixtures to existing concrete poles. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 Total DE Quantity Unit Unit Cost ''• WW Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) Light Fixture - Existing Total • ' 20 8 368 EA EA EA $150.00 $75.00 $160.00 $3,000.00 $600.00 $58,880.00 $ Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 206 162 102 133 EA EA EA EA $2,800.00 $2,650.00 $850.00 $975.00 $576,800.00 $429,300.00 $86,700.00 $129,675.00 TOTAL: $1,284,955 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall 15% CONTINGENCY: 168 EA $2,800.00 $192,743 D- . 0 EA $2,650.00 $48,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $45,000.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 $45,000.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,526,198 ^ " Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Delican Bay Boulevard 45 -) emnlitinn $28,38C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 8 EA $150.00 $1,200.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 168 EA $160.00 $26,880.00 Sitework rr Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 168 EA $2,800.00 $470,400.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 0 EA $2,650.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 0 EA $850.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 84 EA $975.00 $81,900.00 Pelican Bay Boulevard Subtotal: $580 680 Gulf Park Drive 0'• Dernolition $6,980 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subto tal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 4 EA $150.00 $600.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 38 EA $160.00 $6,080.00 $124,925 Sitework Item /Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subto tal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 38 EA $2,800.00 $106,400.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 0 EA $2,650.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 0 EA $850.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 19 FA $975.00 $18,525.00 — Gulf Park Drive Subtotal: $131 905 1611" B13 Quantity Unit Unit Cost u tote Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 3 EA $150.00 $450.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 0 EA $75.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Existing 25 EA $160.00 $4,000.00 $85,325 :Sitework Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost u tote Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 25 EA $2,650.00 $66,250.00 Light Fixture - Ann Fitting (Single) 19 EA $850.00 $16,150.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 3 EA $975.00 $2,925.00 Rid ewood Drive Subtotal: S89,775 Oakmont •'• •- . . i Item Quantity Unit' Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 3 EA $150.00 $450.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 0 EA $75.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Existing 72 EA $160.00 $11,520.00 S243 300 Sitework Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 72 EA $2,650.00 $190,800.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 48 EA $850.00 $40,800.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 12 EA $975.00 $11,700.00 Oakmont Neighborhood Subt 1 $255,2701 Secondary Community Entries Demolition • rr Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 2 EA $150.00 $300.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 0 EA $75.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Existing 65 EA $160.00 $10,400.00 $216,625 Sitework Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 65 EA $2,650.00 $172,250.00 Light Fixture - Ann Fitting (Single) 35 EA $850.00 $29,750.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 15 EA $975.00 $14,625.00 ISecondary Community Entries Subtotal: $227,325 1611 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles. Boulevards to decorative fixtures & poles. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITIO 4t,464V Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Light Pole - Remove 235 EA $200.00 $47,000.00 SITEWORK $1,847,570 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 182 EA $2,800.00 $509,600.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 196 EA $2,650.00 $519,400.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 91 EA $975.00 $88,725.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 91 EA $2,265.00 $206,115.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 126 EA $2,880.00 $362,880.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 35 EA $3,590.00 $125,650.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 22 EA $1,600.00 $35,200.00 TOTAL: $1,957,050 15% CONTINGENCY: $293,558 Design I Permit Fee Estimates $80,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 jGRAND TOTAL: $2,330,608 ` Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1 Option 3a - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms @ Gulf Park Drive u Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles. Boulevards to decorative fixtures & poles. WilsonMiller - March 31, 2010 May 18, 2010 a o Quantity Unit 000M.W. 1 Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 34 EA $2,800.00 $95,200.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 46 EA $160.00 $7,360.00 Light Pole - Remove 26 EA $200.00 $5,200.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 34 EA $2,800.00 $95,200.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 14 EA $2,650.00 $37,100.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 17 EA $975.00 $16,575.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 17 EA $2,265.00 $38,505.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 8 EA $2,880.00 $23,040.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 3 EA $3,590.00 $10,770.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 5 EA $1,600.00 $8,000.00 TOTAL: $245,350 15% CONTINGENCY: $36,803 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $26,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ;GRAND TOTAL: $308,153 ' Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. 161 1 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs I B 13 Option 3b - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms @ Ridgewood Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles WilsonMiller - March 31, 2010 May 18, 2010 / • • '1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 4 EA $150.00 $600.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 19 EA $160.00 $3,040.00 Light Pole - Remove 19 EA $200.00 $3,800.00 SITEWORK $113,070 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 19 EA $2,650.00 $50,350.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 0 EA $975.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 0 EA $2,265.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 19 EA $2,880.00 $54,720.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 0 EA $3,590.00 $0.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 5 EA $1,600.00 $8,000.00 TOTAL: $120,810 15% CONTINGENCY: $18,122 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $23,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture 1 1 LS LS $15,000.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $161,932 . Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 B13 Option 3c - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms @ Oakmont Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles WilsonMiller- March 31, 2010 May 18, 2010 D 1 • • Quantity Unit Unit Cost • Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 4 EA $150.00 $600.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 62 EA $160.00 $9,920.00 Light Pole - Remove 57 EA $200.00 $11,400.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 62 EA $2,650.00 $164,300.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 0 EA $975.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 0 EA $2,265.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 52 EA $2,880.00 $149,760.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 5 EA $3,590.00 $17,950.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 5 EA $1,600.00 $8,000.00 TOTAL: $362,230 15% CONTINGENCY: $54,335 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $439,565 ' Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611813 Y 9 p p Option 3d - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms @ Pelican Bay Blvd. — Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles WilsonMiller - March 31, 2010 May 18, 2010 u � iu r•» r r �•� ►� �;ti.�.'�az• lltem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 10 EA $75.00 $750.00 Light Fixture - Existing 190 EA $160.00 $30,400.00 Light Pole - Remove 107 EA $200.00 $21,400.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 150 EA $2,800.00 $420,000.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 40 EA $2,650.00 $106,000.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 75 EA $975.00 $73,125.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 75 EA $2,265.00 $169,875.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 3 EA $2,880.00 $8,640.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 8 EA $3,590.00 $28,720.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 10 EA $1,600.00 $16,000.00 TOTAL: 1 $877,910 15% CONTINGENCY: $131,687 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,042,097 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 813 Option 3e - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms @ Secondary Entries Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles WilsonMiller - March 31, 2010 May 18, 2010 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 10 EA $150.00 $1,500.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 5 EA $75.00 $375.00 Light Fixture - Existing 61 EA $160.00 $9,760.00 Light Pole - Remove 48 EA $200.00 $9,600.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 61 EA $2,650.00 $161,650.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 0 EA $975.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 0 EA $2,265.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 35 EA $2,880.00 $100,800.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 18.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 13 EA $3,590.00 $46,670.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 2 EA $1.600.00 $3,200.00 TOTAL: $333,555 15% CONTINGENCY: $50,033 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $406,588 ` Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. 1 B1 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161' 1 Option 4 - Street Lighting : Lighting at Outside Edges of Street ROW All community boulevard street lights shift to ROW with decorative fixtures & poles. All single - family neighborhood & community entry street lights. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 • I I lei EA $3,190.00 $111,650.00 308 EA $2,480.00 $763,840.00 14 EA Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 40 EA $150.00 $6,000.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Light Pole - Remove 235 EA $200.00 $47,000.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Conduit and Conductor for Poles 42,510 LF $13.50 $573,885.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Boulevards, Entries and Residential 378 EA $2,650.00 $1,001,700.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes dual brackets) Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes single bracket) Roadway - Horizontal Drilling to 100.0' Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection Trenching - Common Earth 35 EA $3,190.00 $111,650.00 308 EA $2,480.00 $763,840.00 14 EA $2,360.00 $33,040.00 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 42,510 LF $3.00 $127,530.00 TOTAL: $2,793,525 15% CONTINGENCY: $419,029 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $185,000.00 $185,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $3,409,554 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " Final design power requirements to be reviewed by an Engineer - costs may vary on necessary power requirements /loads, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers. 1. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 813 Option 5 - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms Community entries & single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles. Boulevards to decorative fixtures on existing poles. WilsonMiller - April 14, 2010 May 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Light Pole - Remove 140 EA $200.00 $28,000.00 SITEWORK 64 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 182 EA $2,800.00 $509,600.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 196 EA $2,650.00 $519,400.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 91 EA $975.00 $88,725.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 0 EA $2,265.00 $0.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 126 EA $2,880.00 $362,880.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 35 EA $3,590.00 $125,650.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 22 EA $1,600.00 $35,200.00 TOTAL: $1,731,935 15% CONTINGENCY: $259,790 ,Design / Permit Fee Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ,GRAND TOTAL: 1 $2,071,725 ` Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 Option 1a - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to immediate need, dark areas only 813 Gardco pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller - April 13, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 0 EA $180.00 $0.00 SITEWORK $301,707 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 6,661 LF $3.00 19,983.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 6,661 LF $13.50 $89,923.50 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 0 EA $1,400.00 $0.00 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 112 EA $1,400.00 $156,800.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $301,707 15% CONTINGENCY: $45,256 Design I Permit Fee Estimates $65,001 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $57,000.00 $57,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $411,962 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 B13 Option 1 b - Pathway Lighting : Standard MH to immediate need, dark areas only Sternberg pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller -April 13, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION �1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 0 EA $180.00 $0.00 •' $ Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 6,661 LF $3.00 $19,983.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 6,661 LF $13.50 $89,923.50 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 0 EA $1,130.00 $0.00 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 112 EA $1,130.00 $126,560.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $35.000.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $271,467 15% CONTINGENCY: $40,720 � Design / Permit Fee Estimates $ • 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $57,000.00 $57,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $377,186 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs 16I l Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs R1. 3 Option 2a - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to one side of boulevards Gardco pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller -April 13, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 0 EA $180.00 $0.00 SITEWORK $979,361 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 21,937 LF $3.00 $65,811.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 21,937 LF $13.50 $296,149.50 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0'0C) - Replace Existing 0 EA $1,400.00 $0.00 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 366 EA $1,400.00 $512,400.00 Transformer. Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $105.000.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: $979,361 15% CONTINGENCY: $146,904 D' • $105,001 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $96,000.00 $96,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $9,000.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,231,265 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 Option 2b - Pathway Lighting : Standard MH to one side of boulevards Sternberg pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller -April 13, 2010 B13 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION $1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 0 EA $180.00 $0.00 SITEWORK $iil Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 21,937 LF $3.00 $65,811.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 21,937 LF $13.50 $296,149.50 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 0 EA $1,130.00 $0.00 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 366 EA $1,130.00 $413,580.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $105,000.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: T $880,541 15% CONTINGENCY: T $132,081 Design $105,001 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $96,000.00 $96,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $9,000.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,117,622 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs I'1 B13 Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) D4-A: Provide current Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County design standards for vehicular sight visibility at public roadway intersections. Proposed Improvement: Remove palms and trees greater than 4" caliper within the first 100' of median along Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive at the intersections of Ridgewood Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, Crayton Road, Green Tree Drive, North Pointe Drive, Hammock Oak Drive, Oakmont Parkway as well as the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive (9 intersections, 19 median nosings). Replace sod in this area with low drought tolerant groundcovers and accent trees (maintain clear sight line visibility clearances and caliper standards). Opinion of Probable Cost $ 212,000 Phasing: This project should be implemented and brought up to current FDOT and County standards as roadway/ traffic improvements are implemented. Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and pathway improvements in these intersections. All private streets and driveways should be reviewed for current FDOT and County standards. 134 -13: Reduce maintenance and irrigation water needs throughout the boulevard medians and R.O.W. sides. Proposed Improvement: Replace sod within all boulevard turn lanes (beyond those noted in D4 -A), boulevard locations where the width is less than 16' and select R.O.W. sides (refer to Street Tree/ Sod Mitigation sheets this section) with groundcovers and retrofit irrigation system with low volume emitters (refer to Irrigation Calculations/ Options this section). Remove dated shrub and tree material within boulevard medians and R.O.W. sides and replace with updated, layered material with shrub beds integrated into existing and introduced tree and palm canopies. A. Pelican Bay Boulevard south of Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 612,500 B. Pelican Bay Boulevard north of Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,066,500 C. Gulf Park Drive Opinion of Probable Cost $ 382,500 Phasing: These projects may be phased in over time but it is suggested in longer stretches of roadway for each phase to maintain unity along the street corridor. Sequencing: This work may be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and pathway improvements in these areas. 05/18/2010 ■ D4 -C: Incorporate Best Management Practices where feasible. Lake and relerve es show p rec i� ® g littoral type planting versus sod to reduce debris/ overspray infiltration from maintenance practices, _ help filter runoff into water bodies and enhance water fowl habitat. v kA Proposed Improvement: Replace portions of sod along lake and preserve edges with littoral type planting. Locations include lake edges along Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, Crayton Road, Pelican Bay Boulevard at golf course edges, Foundation property along the lake edge at the corner of Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Lake and the preserve edge just south of Montenero. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 122,900 a EPhasing: These projects can be phased in over time. Sequencing: This work may want to be coordinated with adjacent landscape and E pathway improvements. D4 -D: Several gaps are present in the R.O.W. street trees and locations have been identified to maintain a consistent canopy. A unified street tree canopy will have an enhancing effect on traffic calming, reduction of heat island effect, pathway shading and aesthetics. V a Proposed Improvement: Add canopy trees in noted gaps of street tree corridors (refer to Street Tree/ Sod Mitigation sheets this section). A. Pelican Bay Boulevard (57 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 34,200 B. Gulf Park Drive (12 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 7,200 C. Crayton Road (14 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 8,400 D. Ridgewood Drive 0 8 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 10,800 E. Green Tree Drive (24 trees) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 14,400 Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time. Sequencing: This work may want to be coordinated with adjacent landscape and pathway improvements. Aft 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level 16 1 Opinion of Probable Costs: Boulevard ROW Landscape -- WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 Ma 18, 2010 10 EA $1,200.00 $12,000.00 Roadway Study Area - 1 $43,298 @ 480 LF $90 LF Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 5.859 SF $0.49 $2,870.91 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 7 EA $200.00 $1,400.00 Sitework - Tree 3 EA $300.00 $900.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 5,859 SF $0.80 $4,687.20 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 5,859 SF $3.00 $17,577.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 109 CY $40.00 $4,360.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 470 LF $6.50 $3,055.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch "` 480 LF $17.60 $8,448.00 Roadway Study Area - 2 $57,234 @ 500 LF $114 LF Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 8,156 SF $0.49 $3,996.44 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 16 EA $200.00 $3,200.00 Sitework - Tree 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 8,156 SF $0.80 $6,524.80 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 8,156 SF $3.00 $24,468.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 151 CY $40.00 $6,040.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 370 LF $6.50 $2,405.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch "' 500 LF $17.60 $8,800.00 Roadway Study Area - 3 $106,730 @ 1112 LF $96 LF Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 11,242 SF $0.49 $5,508.58 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 15 EA $200.00 $3,000.00 Sitework - Large Palm 10 EA $1,200.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Large Tree 2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Tree 26 EA $300.00 $7,800.00 ^ Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 15,687 SF $0.80 $12,549.60 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 11,242 SF $3.00 $33,726.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 208 CY $40.00 $8,320.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 470 LF $6.50 $3,055.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch "' 1,112 LF $17.60 $19,571.20 AVERAGE COST PER LINEAL FOOT: $100 LINEAL FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE MEDIAN AREA: 18,388 TOTAL: $1,842,805 15% CONTINGENCY: $276,421 D- 00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 LS $2,500.00 1 LS $120,000.00 1 LS $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $120,000.00 $10.000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $2,251,726 Planting estimates for median landscape only in Pelican Bay Boulevard (14,831 LF) and Gulf Park Drive (3,557 LF). Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. Assumes 35% of ROW sides with sod mitigation averaging 5.0' width from back of curb to pathway edge. Additional Street Tree Option Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Pelican Bay Boulevard 57 EA $600.00 $34,200.00 Gulf Park Drive 12 EA $600.00 $7,200.00 Crayton Road 14 EA $600.00 $8,400.00 -� Ridgewood Drive 18 EA $600.00 $10,800.00 Green Tree Drive 24 EA $600.00 $14.400.00 16 11,1 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Turn Lane Median Landscape Improvements Clear /Grub up to 200.0' LF from Median Nosing and Add New Landscape WilsonMiller - March 29, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION Wj • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Selective Clearing (palm removal and stump to 6" below grade) SITEWORK 3,472 18 SF EA $0.49 $300.00 $1,701.28 $5,400.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Mid -Size Flowering Tree Landscape - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch Landscape - Topsoil (6" depth) Landscape - Irrigation Retrofit 3 3,472 68 3,472 EA SF CY SF $500.00 $3.00 $40.00 $0.80 $1,500.00 $10,416.00 $2,720.00 $2,777.60 TOTAL: $24,515 15% CONTINGENCY: $3,677 D- 00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $33,892 'Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts 161/1 'B1 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — US 41 Berm /Perimeter Walls Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). D5 -A: Infill landscape open spaces in the community berm to deter hiding spaces of and for undesirable activities and to further provide added landscape buffer noise reduction from the street (reference Study Area Plans 1 — 4). Proposed Improvement: Install trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover in areas recommended in the US -41 berm area planting plans to infill landscape voids in the berm plantings. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 95,000 Alternative solutions: Keep landscape as is without additional installations. Phasing: This project can be phased to install the tall and larger tree and palm material first followed by the shrub and ground cover or by defined area where all of the infill landscaping is done at one time. Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other improvements recommended in this section. D5 -13: Add a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length of the US -41 berm (reference Recommendations Plan and Noise Level Data Sheets). Proposed Improvement: Add an eight foot precast concrete panel wall and columns /caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length of the US -41 berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,630,000 Alternative solution: Add an eight foot precast cement board wall and columns system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall the length of the US -41 berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 969,500 Phasing: This project can be phased to install lengths of sections of the wall at one time. We recommend that the Foundation work with the private property Owners that abut US 41 right of way for easement access to install the wall improvement or replace existing wall sections as appropriate. Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other improvements recommended in this section. 05/18/2010 ■ 1611' Bl:z ® D5 -0 Improve the height of the berm at the south end of the Ridgewood Drive park beyond the water management lake. Proposed Improvement: Install a wooden retaining wall on the park/lake side and place up to 54" of new planting fill on the US -41 side — install the new concrete panel wall a noted above atop this new berm area and re- landscape and irrigate additional berm area. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,983,500 M a Alternative solution: Place limited height soil berm of a maximum of 30" in the same = area of the US 41 /Ridgewood Park parcel line: place the new wall atop this berm and E 0) re- landscape the additional berm area. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,877,500 i CIL Phasing: This project is limited in scope and length and can be installed at one time. E Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with other M improvements recommended in this section. m C D5 -D: Add a perimeter /barrier along the Serendipity and Naples Grande common property line along with acoustic treatments on the Naples Grande side of the wall to eliminate bounce noise to the pool area or re- transmitted to the Serendipity (reference Serendipity Perimeter Wall Study graphic). Proposed Improvement: Add a twelve foot precast concrete panel wall and columns /caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall across from the service dock wall of the Naples Grande. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 62,700 Alternative solution: Add a ten foot precast concrete panel wall and columns /caps system as a continuous perimeter /barrier wall across from the service dock wall of the Naples Grande. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 52,400 Phasing: This project is to be implemented at a single time and include the landscape screening of the wall as required by the Pelican Bay Covenants. Sequencing: This improvement will need to be done in conjunction with operations and management understanding /agreement of the Naples Grande. ri■ 05/18/2010 BPelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1'z Option 1 - U.S. 41 Berm : Addition of Vegetation Only WilsonMiller -February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 DEMOLITION ,1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 0 SF $0.49 $0.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Shrubs / Mulch 47.450 SF $1.50 $71,175.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL: $0.00 $76,175 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: 1 LS $11,426 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL: $95,101 ' Assumes 6500 SF of shrubs per 1000 LF of berm length (7300 LF total) excluding existing wall portions. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 3*4 Option 2 - U.S. 41 Berm . Add Height to Earth Berm WilsonMiller -February 25, 2010 May 18, 2010 _)EMULI TION (t7i Iltem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 50,050 SF $0.49 $24,524.50 EARTHWORK at Ridgewood Park Lake TOTAL: $171,771 $318,871 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork and Grading - Berm (Includes fill) 572 CY $50.00 $28,600.00 Earthwork and Grading - Lake Edge 388 SY $4.00 $1,552.00 Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf 760 SY $4.00 $3,040.00 Earthwork and Grading - RipRap Channel Zone 1,000 SY $2.00 $2,000.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 6.0' ht 270 LF $165.00 $44,550.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 8.0' ht 290 LF $214.00 $62,060.00 Retaining Wall - Wood 250 LF $115.00 $28,750.00 RipRap Channel 23 CY $53.00 $1,219.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Tree Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 75 50,050 1 EA SF LS $400.00 $1.50 $17,500.00 $30,000.00 $75,075.00 $17,500.00 TOTAL: $318,871 15% CONTINGENCY: $47,831 D- $58,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $38,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $38,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $424,701 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 U.S. 41 Berm: Fence / Wall Options Summary Sheet 1611"'1313 - WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 May 18, 2010 Item Foundation Property Private Property Total Option A - 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence $642,239 $309,219 $951,457 Option B - 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing $455,743 $145,997 $601,740 Option C - 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall $933,683 $445,053 $1,378,736 Option D - 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence $722,739 $361,659 $1,084,397 Option E - 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing $644,539 $324,859 $969,397 Option F - 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall $1,094,683 $535,443 $1,630,126 Notes: 1. Epsting fence on private property assumed to be removed and proposed fence /wall installed. 2. Design and permitting may decrease with economy of scale through combined Foundation and private property based upon construction phasing. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm : Fence / Wall Options - Foundation Property — WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 161/1 B13 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 21,000 SF $0.49 $10,290.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 2,300 LF $14.00 $32,200.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence 7,000 LF $65.00 $455,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $23,500.00 $23,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 100 LF $60.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: 1 $544,990 $57,423 D- . n / Permit Fee Estimates 15% CONTINGENCY: $15,500 Item 1 $81,749 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: LF LS LS LF $55.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $330,000.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 $642,239 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing SITEWORK 18,000 SF $0.49 $8,820.00 $374,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 6,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $55.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $330,000.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $382,820 15% CONTINGENCY: $57,423 D- . n / Permit Fee Estimates $15,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $455,743 n Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 28,000 SF $0.49 $13,720.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 2,300 LF $14.00 $32,200.00 IRK $752,50C Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal) 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $100.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $60.00 $700,000.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: Quantity Unit Unit Cost $798,420 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $75.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $525,000.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 15% CONTINGENCY: TOTAL: $119,763 ,Design/ Permit Fee Estimates $15,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 11 1 $933,683 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 21,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $10,290.00 $32,200.00 $572,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $75.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $525,000.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $614,990 15% CONTINGENCY: $92,249 Design 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $722,739 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 21,000 SF $0.49 $10,290.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 2,300 LF $14.00 $32,200.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing 7,000 LF $65.00 $455,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $23,500.00 $23,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 100 LF $60.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $546,990 15% CONTINGENCY: $82,049 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $644 539 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 28,000 SF $0.49 $13,720.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 2,300 LF $14.00 $32,200.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall 7,000 LF $120.00 $840,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 100 LF $60.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $938,420 15% CONTINGENCY: $140,763 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,094,683 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm : Fence / Wall Options - Private Property WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 1611 B13 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 9,900 SF $0.49 $4,851.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 1,400 LF $14.00 $19,600.00 SITEWORK Quantity Unit Unit Cost 000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs /Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $65.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 $214,500.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 TOTAL: 1,900 1 1 LF LS LS $55.00 $6,400.00 $5,000.00 $258,451 TOTAL: $118,693 15% CONTINGENCY: $38,768 ;Design - 000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 1 1 LS LS LS $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $309,219 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 5,700 SF $0.49 $2,793.00 •It Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 1,900 1 1 LF LS LS $55.00 $6,400.00 $5,000.00 $104,500.00 $6,400.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL: $118,693 15% CONTINGENCY: $17,804 D- P- $9,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $145,997 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,200 SF $0.49 $6,468.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 1,400 LF $14.00 $19,600.00 SITEWORK Quantity Unit Unit Cost $350,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs/ Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $100.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $330,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $75.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 I $376,568 TOTAL: 15% CONTINGENCY: $56,485 Design Fee Estimates 15% CONTINGENCY: $12,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 1 $445,053 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 9,900 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $4,851.00 $32,200.00 $267,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs/ Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $75.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 $247,500.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 TOTAL: $304,051 15% CONTINGENCY: $45,608 Design Permit Fee $12,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $361 659 1611 B Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal .� Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 9,900 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $4,851.00 $32,200.00 $235,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs /Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $65.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $214,500.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: $272,051 15% CONTINGENCY: $40,808 .,Design Design -- Estimates 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $324,859 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing ^ Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall �SITEWORK 13,200 2.300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $6,468.00 $32,200.00 $416,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs /Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $120.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $396,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: $455,168 15% CONTINGENCY: $68,275 .,Design / Permit Fee Estimates $111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $535,443 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Community 1611 Berm B13 Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). D6 -A: Repair and replace asphalt pathway atop berm. Proposed Improvement: Remove, repair and resurface the ten foot wide asphalt pathway atop the berm removing undulations, cracks and differences of elevation at the edges of the asphalt from the surrounding grade. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 406,500 Alternative solution: Berm repairs due to poor asphalt conditions are necessary but might be able to be done in the phases listed below: South Berm: $ 161,300 Middle Berm: $ 79,700 North Berm: $ 165,200 Phasing: Potential Environmental permitting may require a limited phasing opportunity for these efforts. South, north and middle berm sections are recognized in this report however the north and middle berm areas may need to be done in unison if stringent timing of Environmental permitting requires limited phasing. Sequencing: Initial understanding of the location of the berm and the ability to further improve the berm at the toe or top of the cross section is desirable prior to initiating work on the berm. Original permit cross sections, vegetative growth, erosion and mangrove advancement should all be reviewed and considered at the time of construction documentation and permitting of work through the entire cross section of any one area of the berm. Subsequent improvements listed in this section may be contingent on these improvements. D6 -13: Install seating areas and wildlife overlooks along the length of the berm (reference Berm Master Plan and Overlook/ Rest Area Typical Plans). Proposed Improvement: Install seating areas and wildlife overlooks along the berm including any associated shading of seating and overlook areas along with screening landscape of drainage structures and the installation of site furnishings and interpretive signage. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 51,000 Alternative solutions: Add only the shading and screening landscape noted to the berm. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 13,700 Phasing: These areas can be phased in any order desired however we recommend the work be done at one time. Sequencing: Consider implementing these improvements in conjunction with berm cross section work and asphalt re- topping. 05/18/2010 ■ 1611� .� ® D6 -C: Install Palms and Trees for shade and replace ornamental landscapes at the edge of the berm and add nesting platforms to areas within view but not directly above the berm (reference Commur,t, Berm Planting Sheets). W Proposed Improvement: Add native trees for shade and native low growing landscape a to the berm offering additional wildlife habitat and foraging and general interest to the open and long exposed lengths of the berm beyond identified seating and over look areas. Add and promote nesting opportunities in areas near the Community Berm. ra Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 109,500 E � Alternative solutions: Do not add these elements. a) EPhasing: These improvements can be added over time in multiple phases. L- L Sequencing: Consider implementing these improvements in conjunction with berm CL cross section work and asphalt re- topping. E mFuture maintenance and improvement guidelines: C fa Remove exotic and other ornamental landscape material that has encroached or been planted in Y association with the Community Berm. a� a Make littoral landscape and /or rip rap improvements at the base of the berm as permitted to limit erosion from the tidal influences of the bay. Add informational signage of the environment and plant materials at the wildlife overlooks of the Community Berm. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161-1 B 13 $ Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal -- Site Work and Landscape - North Berm (North Tram Station to Sandpiper) WilsonMiller - April 20, 2010 May 18, 2010 Demolition $ Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 5,304 SF $0.49 $2,598.96 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w 5,067 SY $8.00 $40,536.00 •• Sitework 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures 2,600 SF $4.00 $10,400.00 Sitework - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w 406 TN $200.00 $81,200.00 Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0' In 4,560 LF $1.30 $5,928.00 Sitework - Osprey Nest Platform and Pole 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Landscape D- . Permit Fee Estimates $4 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 16 EA $500.00 $8,000.00 Palms 93 EA $200.00 $18,600.00 Shrubs 122 EA $15.00 $1,830.00 Low Groundcovers 5,304 SF $1.75 $9,282.00 Littoral Planting 3,000 SF $2.00 $6,000.00 Rest Areas $992 x 4 $3,968 1 $268,128 Item Benches Accent Paving Quantity Unit Unit Cost EA $800.00 SF $8.00 Subtotal $800.00 $192.00 ' Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009 Viewing Platforms $3,917 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal', Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • .- $2,800 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) 10 EA $280.00 $2,800.00 TOTAL: $204,894 D- . Permit Fee Estimates $32,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $21,500.00 $21,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: T $30,734 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $268,128 ' Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161 1 B13 Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm ' p Y �-. Site Work and Landscape - Central Berm (Sandpiper to The Commons) WilsonMiller - April 20, 2010 May 18, 2010 Demolition 1 EA $2,000.00 � • • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0'w 2,532 2,516 SF SY $0.49 $8.00 $1,240.68 $20,128.00 ' : ' Sitework 13 EA $500.00 $6,500.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures Sitework - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0'h 800 202 2,264 SF TN LF $4.00 $200.00 $1.30 $3,200.00 $40,400.00 $2,943.20 Sitework - Osprey Nest Platform and Pole 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Landscape 1 1: Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 13 EA $500.00 $6,500.00 Palms 29 EA $200.00 $5,800.00 Shrubs 32 SF $3.00 $96.00 Low Groundcovers 2,532 SF $1.75 $4,431.00 Littoral Planting 6,629 SF $2.00 $13,258.00 •• Rest Areas Item •• Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 24 SF S8.00 $192.00 Viewing Platforms $3,917 1 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost _Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • • Item Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) Quantity 6 Unit EA Unit Cost $28000 •:1 Subtotal $1,680.00 TOTAL: $102,669 Design - 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 1 1 LS LS LS $9,500.00 $4,200.00 $3,500.00 $9,500.00 $4,200.00 $3,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $15,400 GRAND TOTAL: $135,269 ' Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1-+ 13' Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Site Work and Landscape - South Berm (The Commons to Naples Grande) WilsonMiller - April 20, 2010 May 18, 2010 Demolition $3• : 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,270 SF $0.49 $622.30 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0'w 4,906 SY $8.00 $39,248.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures 2,800 SF $4.00 $11,200.00 Sitework - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w 393 TN $200.00 $78,600.00 Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0' h 4,416 LF $1.30 $5,740.80 Landscape 1 1 1 LS LS LS $15,500.00 $3,600.00 $3,200.00 '. 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 7 EA $500.00 $3,500.00 Palms 42 EA $200.00 $8,400.00 Shrubs 27 EA $15.00 $405.00 Low Groundcovers 1,270 SF $1.75 $2,222.50 Littoral Planting 2,880 SF $2.00 $5,760.00 Rest Areas $992 x 2 $1,984 Item — Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 24 SF $8.00 $192.00 Viewing Platforms $3,917 x 1 $3,917 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost---.- Subtotal Benches 2 EA S800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • Item Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) Quantity 10 Unit EA Unit Cost $280.00 :11 Subtotal $2,800.00 TOTAL: $164,400 Design 1/ Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 1 1 LS LS LS $15,500.00 $3,600.00 $3,200.00 $15,500.00 $3,600.00 $3,200.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $24,660 GRAND TOTAL: $211,360 . Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009 1611 B130' Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan —Tram Stations Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). D7 -A: Separate tram waiting and pick up from the cart storage and back of house functions of the tram station sites (reference North Tram Station Layout Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Modify the site and building footprint of the North Tram Station to provide separate cover for the Tram users remote from the storage building overhead door approaches. Enclose and separate the service building from the tram waiting areas and provide for a wide enough turning radius for the largest of tram wheel tracking in the tram cul -de -sac. Purchase a matching family of site furnishings to include up to four — five foot benches, a message board, ganged trash and recycling bins and bicycle parking for up to 12 bicycles. Install clay brick pavers in the waiting area and ADA truncated clay bricks at the edge of the cart drive cul -de -sac area. Include potted plants in the tram loading area. Continue to landscape the location for shade and comfort of the station users and replace the parking lot pole lights with the 16 foot residential LED fixtures noted in the lighting section. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 180,000 Alternative solutions: 1. Provide improvements as listed above but pour a new concrete floor under the separate cover of the tram pick up area and install the clay brick truncated dome pavers at the edge of the cart cul -de -sac drive area. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 177,000 2. Leave the station as is and provide for new site furnishings and potted plants. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 15,000 Phasing: This project is contained on a small site and is not recommended to be phased. Sequencing: This project should be considered to be implemented with the new driveway curb cut and the cross walk improvements in the area of the north Tram Station. D7 -13. Separate tram waiting and pick up from the cart storage and back of house functions of the tram station sites (reference The Commons Layout Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Modify the Commons Tram Station by relocating the tram station to the north end of the site, refurnish the station and relocate the trash dumpster, tank farm and other back of house /beach restaurant service activities to the loading dock and cart storage areas at the south end of the Commons building. Add screen walls and gates to the new trash, compactor and tank farm locations of the site and reconfigure the employee stair access at the south end of the building, second floor. Reassign employee parking to the south end of the site allowing for resident and guest use of the north and central parking areas more proximately associated with the amenities of the Commons. Adjust north entry drive, parking and replace the wooden entrance sign. Add concrete pedestrian side walks throughout the Commons site and 05/18/2010 ■ 1611 ® install one Handicap parking stall and concrete side walk access to the ramp on the west side of the Tennis building. — Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 898,000 (A Alternative solutions: ro t Adjust north entry drive, parking in the area and replace the wooden entrance sign. Add only the concrete pedestrian side walks through the Commons site, new site M furnishings and install one Handicap parking stall and concrete side walk access to the E ramp on the west side of the Tennis building. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 72,600 v EPhasing: Phased improvements to the Commons Tram Station and greater site area are possible. The alternative solution may be phase one to include adding pedestrian Q pathways, one dedicated handicap parking stall for the Tennis Building, reconfiguring C the north entrance for better ingress /egress automobile and pedestrian movements and adding a mens /womens bathroom to the tennis site. Adding a palm tree bosque for m shaded cover to the outdoor lounge area within the tennis site is also a possibility. The next phase may be that the Tram Station relocates as suggested and all of the back of ro house functions (but the trash compactor) relocate to the loading dock area. The final YJ phase may be the relocation of the trash compactor to the new service area along with a the opportunity to direct service traffic to the south entry of the site and install a roundabout in the service area from resident traffic entering on the north end of the site. Sequencing: This project is a site reorganization project and in its initial phases would be best to complete with pedestrian cross walk improvements in Pelican Bay Boulevard along with landscape and irrigation improvements in the median or edge of the right of way. Subsequent phases would be best accomplished with Commons building improvements such as a new roof or with Pelican Bay Foundation operational and office modifications at the site. D7 -C: Improve the site area and station structure of the Sand Piper Tram Station (reference Sandpiper Tram Station Enhancement Sheet graphic). Proposed Improvements: Modify and enhance the site landscape of the Sandpiper Tram station to provide a high quality filter swale and swale landscape in and around the station. Apply architectural facade and roof upgrades to match the other station architectural upgrades. Replace the site furnishings and include potted plantings for definition of separation of waiting areas from tram circulation areas. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 57,500 Future maintenance and improvement guidelines. Ensure all improvements and repairs at the Tram Station locations throughout the community include ADA compliancy. Future architectural repairs in Tram system shade and building structures are to remain compatible with .S. the rustic Florida architectural character and style of the Commons Building. This creates a unique architectural marker to the Community Berm and Mangrove Forest system through the back bays and 05/18/2010 1611 B13 to the beach with a style that is invocative of the natural areas the Community Berm and Boardwalk meander through. Standing seam metal roofing improvements contemplated for the Commons building should be made to the Tram Station Structures too. Reorganization of the site functions of the North Tram and Commons location is so that the pedestrian and tram user relationships are separated from the other functional activities at or surrounding the stations. Provide a single manufacturer, aesthetically compatible and consistent site furnishings to each Tram Station site. We suggest the breadth of product options made available by Victor Stanley, Inc. including the variety of colors, shapes, castings, use of recycled products etc., to be a quality and likely source for all of the Pelican Bay community public area needs. http: / /www.victorstanley.com. Public bidding requirements, when in force, shall note this as the standard for installation of the same or equal products to be purchased and installed (reference site furniture cut sheets in Pathways section). Pelican Bay street and site furnishings may vary in color, casting and model choice by area of use so long as they are varied in compatible rather than starkly contrasting manners. Furnishings associated with the Tram Stations and Community Berm system should take on more natural colors (blues of the clear sky, bronzes and wheat colors of the native grasses and vegetation, light greens of new vegetative growth and littoral plants, black of the dark roots and water color of the mangroves) with color accents used with discretion. Park areas may choose to provide a more colorful range of choices in the furnishings (including reds, yellows, oranges, true greens and blues) and the pathway furnishings should associate with the street lighting, signage, etc., of the boulevard and parkway settings of the streets, typically a forest green. Site furnishing color selections do not have to be dictated by conventional thought or have color dictated erroneously. For example, we recommend that ganged recycling bins are used at Tram Station areas but we do not recommend the use of "Recycling Blue ". The color of these bins should match or be compatible with the color of the balance of the furnishings in the area. Newspaper or other furnishings that may be placed for residents' convenience in these locations and are recommended to be a vintage /classic aesthetic and a color that is consistent with the balance of the furnishings. Pelican Bay Covenants and Code Enforcement should have approval of the use and aesthetic of these elements. Classic, large, heavy rolled rim terra cotta planters for potted plantings should be used where potted plantings are desired in addition to the site furnishings. Pots that are less than 27 inches in height or width are discouraged as being out of scale and too fussy to plant and maintain. http : / /www.jalupotteryonline.com. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 R 813 North Tram Station u W ilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 DEMOLITION Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Roadway 173 SY $8.00 $1,384.00 Clearing and Grubbing 340 SF $0.49 $166.60 Concrete Pavement 22 SY $12.00 $264.00 Type'D' Curb 73 LF $6.00 $438.00 �SITEWORK $48,485 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Roadway 13 TN $200.00 $2,600.00 Concrete Pavers - Tactile 175 SF $6.00 $1,050.00 Curb - Type 'D' 150 LF $25.00 $3,750.00 High Friction Surfacing 200 SF $8.50 $1,700.00 Tram Station Structure 320 SF $70.00 $22,400.00 Concrete Slab (4" re- inforced on grade) 165 SF $9.00 $1,485.00 Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 2001-F) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS $4,560 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Roof Metal (Includes Demolition as Required) PLANTING 760 SF $6.00 $4,560.00 i • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Palms 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 220 EA $5.50 $1,210.00 Irrigation 220 EA $0.80 $176.00 SITE FURNITURE i • -- Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal _ Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 ACCENT LIGHTING $4,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost SubtotaI Accent Lighting 8 EA $500.00 $4,000.00 NORTH TRAM STATION TOTAL: $77,734 15% CONTINGENCY: $11,660 ,Design / Permit Fee Estimates 00• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $144,394 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1 X13 The Commons - Option 5 (Service Consolidation) WilsonMiller - April 22, 2010 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Ma 18, 2010 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 DEMOLITION 2 EA $600.00 • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt - Cartpath 289 SY $8.00 $2,312.00 Demolition - Asphalt - Roadway 445 SY $8.00 $3,560.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 14,815 SF $0.49 $7,259.35 Demolition - Concrete Pavement 192 SY $12.00 • $2,304.00 Demolition - Curb - Type'D' 400 LF $6.00 $2,400.00 Demolition - Entry Sign 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Demolition - Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 6 CY $56.00 $336.00 Demolition - Tram Station Structure 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 'SITEWORK $384,835 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Asphalt - Cartpath 27 TN $200.00 $5,400.00 Sitework - Asphalt - Roadway 42 TN $200.00 $8,400.00 Sitework - Boardwalk (Pedestrian - Wood / Raised) 125 LF $86.00 $10,750.00 Sitework - Boardwalk Bridge (Heavy Timber / Raised) 640 SF $80.50 $51,520.00 Sitework - Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk 967 SY $32.00 $30,944.00 Sitework - Concrete - Pavers 2,762 SF $9.25 $25,548.50 Sitework - Concrete - Pipe 292 LF $95.00 $27,740.00 Sitework - Concrete Stairs (CIP) (5.0'w - 3 to 5 Risers @ 6') 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Curb - Ribbon 320 LF $15.00 $4,800.00 Sitework - Curb - Type 'D' 604 LF $25.00 $15,100.00 Sitework - Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 2001-F) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Entry Sign 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Fence - 4.5' Ornamental Aluminum 495 LF $60.00 $29,700.00 Sitework - Retaining Wall (CIP) 60 LF $118.00 $7,080.00 Sitework - Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 10 CY $53.00 $530.00 Sitework - Tram Station Structure 1,035 SF $70.00 $72,450.00 Sitework - Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED 16 EA $1,400.00 $22,400.00 Sitework - Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 100 LF $13.50 $1,350.00 Sitework - Service Vehicular Gate 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Sitework - Stormwater Management Allowance 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 Sitework - 8' Limerock Base 865 SY $6.50 $5,622.50 RAL IMPROVEMENTS $126,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Employee Entrance Stairs (Incl. Demolition) 600 SF $65.00 $39,000.00 Trash Enclosure Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Propane Tank Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00 12'x 24' Pre - Fabricated Storage Building 1 EA $14,000.00 $14,000.00 • $140,207 Item L ..__ Quantity Unit Unit Cost _ Subtotal. Trees 30 EA $300.00 $9,000.00 Palms 22 EA $200.00 $4,400.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 19,909 SF $5.50 $109,499.50 Irrigation 21,634 SF $0.80 $17,307.20 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 LIGHTING $16,500 ,I,em Pole Light Relocation Quantity 5 Unit EA Unit Cost $1,800.00 Subtotal $9,000.00 Accent Lighting 15 EA $500.00 $7,500.00 TOTAL: $706,963 115% CONTINGENCY: $106,044 1611 B13 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $898,008 Options as recommended by TwentyFifty Sustainability Report: Commons Building Roof (Metal) includes Demolition Tennis Center Roof (Metal) includes Demolition �1 9,000 SF $6.0C $54,000.00 1,600 SF $6.00 $9,600.00 161.1 613 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Signage Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) D8 -A: Replace and update the North Pointe Drive/ Vanderbilt Beach Road Pelican Bay Community entry sign (reference Signage Options Type II graphic). Proposed Improvement: Replace this sign with a new concrete block and stucco finished sign providing a model for updates in sign construction finish, lighting, landscaping and the addition of pots /decorative elements that all other primary Community Entry signs may have added in the future. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 22,000 Alternative solution: Replace this sign to match the existing signs at the Community entries on US 41. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,700 Phasing: This may be done at any time. However these wooden signs from an earlier time at the community edge or within the Pelican Bay community are limiting to the perception of the community behind and around the sign. Sequencing: Signage consistency is lacking throughout the community and we suggest that signage improvements be implemented at the edge of the community first and then inwardly through phased improvements and the adoption of a signage standard. D8 -13: Install Neighborhood Monumentation Gateways for the single family neighborhoods (reference Signage Options Type V graphic). Proposed Improvement: Install pairs of pylon signs at the entry drives to the Oakmont and Ridgewood neighborhoods (4 pairs total: Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive and Oakmont Parkway; Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive and Green Tree Drive). Signs are to be built in concrete block and stucco finish and are to project the model updates proposed for community wide signage. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 146,600 ($ 36,665/pr.) Alternative solutions: Do not install these monument signs. Phasing: These projects can be phased in time however we recommend that they be done together or phased by neighborhood. Sequencing: These projects may want to be done in conjunction with pathway, landscape and irrigation or adjacent traffic pavement improvements. D8 -C: Install Pelican Bay minor gateway signs along the secondary entries to the community. Proposed Improvement: Install small pylon signs within the community and along the secondary entry drives into Pelican Bay. Signs are to be built in concrete block and stucco finish, must not be at the community perimeter to be construed as primary signage allowed 05/18/2010 ■ w i" 1611" �� ® by the PUD and are to project the model updates proposed for community wide signage (Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Hammock Oak Drive). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 33,000 ( $ 16,500/pr.) v V) Alternative solutions: Do not install these monument signs. ca t a Phasing: These projects can be phased in pairs over time however we recommend that they C be done together at Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Hammock Oak Drive. M E Sequencing: These projects may want to be done in conjunction with pathway, pathway C bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements. 0) ED8 -D: Replace all original Pelican Bay wooden amenity entry signs. C Proposed Improvement: Replace wooden amenity entry signs at the North Tram Station and L E Sandpiper parking lot concrete/ stucco signs (Commons sign included within Commons site plan improvement costs). M Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 24,000 ( $ 12,000 /ea.) Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend both be completed at the same time. a� Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements for consistency. D8 -E: Renovate/ replace US -41 entry signs at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Proposed Improvement: Update the three primary US -41 entry signs with materials and finishes consistent with Community branding. Costing allowance is based on matching material and finish improvements from D8 -A (reference Signage Options Typel graphic). Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 90,000 ( $ 30,000 /ea.) Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend they be completed at the same time. Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements for consistency. D8 -F: Renovate site area around Community commercial corner monuments. Proposed Improvement: Renovate/ clean up site area around corner monuments located at US -41 and Seagate Drive and US -41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Remove and trim trees/ i palms and other vegetation as necessary to allow visual prominence. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 30,000 ( $ 15,000 /ea.) Phasing: These projects can be phased in over time however we recommend both be completed at the same time. J1 Sequencing: These projects should be done in conjunction with other signage improvements. 05/18/2010 Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: 1611, A13� We recommend the Foundation conclude the preparation of the Signage Covenant standards that they have drafted for use in establishing a set of technical signage guidelines for application within Pelican Bay. Phase replacement of the Pelican Bay Community signage as suggested in the signage master plan is to be consistent with the new signage standards of the community as well as consistent with the family of street lighting and street furnishings being applied to the public areas of the community. Banner arms and other decorative holiday lighting options may be considered to be additional to the Signage Covenant standards and street light pole improvements. 05/18/2010 1611 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Roadside Neighborhood Entry Column Pairs 10.0' Height Stucco Column with Precast Cap and Sill / Cast Bronze Sign Plaque and Niche Lighting WilsonMiller - March 29, 2010 613 May 18, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Limited Area Cost) 144 SF $1.00 $144.00 •- K - 2 Columns $13,406 • Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Structural - Precast Concrete Sill (7 ") 20 LF $18.00 $360.00 Structural - Precast Concrete Cap (5.0' sq.) with Niche Light Block -out 1 EA $780.00 $780.00 Structural - Concrete Footing (3000 psi) (7.5' sq x 1.5' deep) - Includes Excavation & Compaction 1 EA $970.00 $970.00 Structural - Concrete Block (SXSx16, Hollow / Normal, 2000psi) 280 SF $1.56 $436.80 Structural - Concrete (Fill Block Cores) 160 SF $13.59 $2,174.40 Structural - Concrete Tie -Beam (4 ") 160 SF $2.96 $473.60 Structural - Stucco Finish (1 ") on Masonry with Trowel Finish 18 SY $40.00 $720.00 Structural - Steel Reinforcing Bar - #4 to #7 218 LBS $3.50 $763.00 Lighting - Niche Light (3" dia., exterior grade) 5 EA $300.00 $1,500.00 Lighting - Conduit (2" dia., Sch 40 PVC) 165 LF $10.85 $1,790.25 Lighting - Conductor ( #12, 2- conductor, NM- Sheathed) 165 LF $2.71 $447.15 Signage - Cast Bronze Plaque (24 "x30", Pin Mounted) 1 EA $1,975.00 $1,975.00 Landscape - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 120 SF $3.00 $360.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" depth) 14 CY $40.00 $560.00 Landscape - Irrigation Retrofit 120 SF $0.80 $96.00 TOTAL: $27,100 15% CONTINGENCY: $4,065 1 Design / Permit Fee Estimates per Pair $5,500 ,-. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $36,665 'Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 161J B1370 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Public Parks Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) Ridgewood Park and Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry at US 41 D9 -A1: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of screening vegetation and landscaping (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 graphics). Proposed Improvement: Open up views from Ridgewood Drive into park by thinning shrub material along western edge (refer to Ridgewood Park illustrative plan this section). Opinion of Probable Cost $ 2,600 Alternative solutions: Reduce the area of sandy ground and the exercise trail in favor of the relocation of swing sets and new picnic tables/ trash cans on the edges of a larger semi -open sod area closer to Ridgewood Drive (refer to Ridgewood Park illustrative plan this section). Opinion of Probable Cost $ 66,000 Phasing: Territorial observation is an important safety principle and should be implemented early primarily through general maintenance practices. Sequencing: Views from Ridgewood Drive should be enhanced immediately followed by the relocation of play equipment and picnic tables. D9 -61: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of screening vegetation and landscaping (refer to PBB South Community Entry graphic under Section Q. Proposed Improvement: Improve the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry drive area of Foundation land to be a linear park with the background of the perimeter wall from the US 41 berm (wall estimate not included). Opinion of Probable Cost $ 268,500 Phasing: The Foundation land on the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry between US 41 and Ridgewood Drive can be enhanced greatly with safety aspects through implementation of CPTED principles as well as enhancing the entry area aesthetics. The proposed improvement should be considered early in the process. Sequencing: This project should be done in conjunction with adjacent traffic pavement and neighborhood gateway improvements. D9 -0: Enhance safety elements within the park (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 graphics) Proposed Improvement: Install open metal grate over the top of the drainage structure at the western edge of the lake. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 850 05/18/2010 nupg W kA r6 t CL C c� a +r c a) E W O L^ CL E a �a m c ra V v a .� 0 1611 B13 04 ® Alternative solutions: Add a vehicular gate with an access card reader at the parking lot entry drive. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 9,500 ra a Phasing: Improvements can be phased in with the other park elements. Sequencing: Proposed improvement of drainage structure grate should be completed prior to relocating play equipment due to close proximity. a. D9 -D1: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 E graphics). W Proposed Improvement: Add three water fountain features into the southern two lakes for the addition of white noise helping to mask noise from US 41. E Opinion of Probable Cost $ 20,700 Alternative solutions: Add a wooden bridge connecting the walking trail to the island within the lake to the north of the parking area. u Opinion of Probable Cost $ 7,500 Phasing: These projects may be phased in over time with the remaining park elements. Sequencing: Fountain features will immediately enhance user experience through traffic noise abatement. Oakmont Park: D9 -A2: Improve application of CPTED principles of territorial observation with some removal of screening vegetation and landscaping (reference Oakmont Park Illustrative Plan graphic). Proposed Improvement: Open up views to children's play area from lake edge pathway by thinning shrub material on the western side of the play area. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1000 Phasing: Territorial observation is an important safety principle and should be implemented early primarily through general maintenance practices. Sequencing: This project should be done in conjunction with routine general upkeep i and maintenance of the canopy understory which will also assist in territorial W- observation. D9 -62: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Oakmont Park Illustrative Plan graphic). 05/18/2010 X13 1 44 Proposed Improvement: Update p la y structure with ex p aldelactivities and a dd two picnic benches. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 39,800 Alternative solutions: Add butterfly garden area with bench overlooking lake along pathway at western end of park. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 8,800 Alternative solutions: Add small parking area (4 -5 spaces) of crushed stone like exists at Ridgewood Park with vehicular gate and access card reader. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 4,800 Phasing: Improvements may be phased in over time. Sequencing: These projects should be implemented after territorial observation projects 05/18/2010 Item 161 1813 Unit Cost Subtotal Schematic Design Level i D i Pelican Bay - g 40 EA $300.00 $12,000.00 Opinion of Probable Costs: Ridgewood Park (Option 01 - Berm) $200.00 WilsonMiller - January 26, 2010 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 26,300 SF $5.50 Mav 18, 2010 Sod 20,180 SF $0.40 $8,072.00 DEMOLITION 6,825 SF $2.00 $19,798 !Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtot4 Clearing - Selective 24.663 SF $0.15 $3,699.45 Clearing and Grubbing 41,025 SF $0.35 $14,358.75 Fitness Station - Remove and Relocate 4 EA $316.00 $1,264.00 Play Equipment - Remove and Relocate 2 EA $238.00 $476.00 i'SITEWORK ', Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Chain Link Fence (4.0' ht Vinyl Coated) 300 LF _ $9.00 $2,700.00 Earthwork and Grading - Berm 286 CY $50.00 $14,300.00 Earthwork and Grading - Lake Edge 388 SY $4.00 $1,552.00 Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf 760 SY $4.00 $3,040.00 Earthwork and Grading - RipRap Channel Zone 1,000 SY $2.00 $2,000.00 Fitness Station - Install Existing 4 EA $1,300.00 $5,200.00 Play Equipment - Install Existing 2 EA $1,875.00 $3,750.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 6.0' ht 270 LF $165.00 $44,550.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 8.0' ht 290 LF $214.00 $62,060.00 Retaining Wall - Wood 250 LF $115.00 $28,750.00 RipRap Channel 23 CY $53.00 $1,219.00 Wood Pedestrian Bridge - 8.0'w 70 LF $86.00 $6,020.00 Fencing 0 LF $0.00 $0.00 Card Access 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Emergency Call Station 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 40 EA $300.00 $12,000.00 Palms 30 EA $200.00 $6,000.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 26,300 SF $5.50 $144,650.00 Sod 20,180 SF $0.40 $8,072.00 Littoral Planting 6,825 SF $2.00 $13,650.00 Mulch - Dogpark 3,520 SF $0.30 $1,056.00 Irrigation 46,500 SF $0.80 $37,200.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 5 head spray w/o IightsFountain (Incl. Power and Anchoring) 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000.00 Item Benches Trash Cans Picnic Table Quantity Unit Unit Cost 5 EA $800.00 2 EA $525.00 4 EA $1,800.00 Subtotal $4,000.00 $1,050.00 $7,200.00 RIDGEWOOD PARK TOTAL: X465,817 CONTINGENCY: $81,518 GRAND TOTAL: $547,335 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1611 B Opinion of Probable Costs: Ridgewood Park (Option 02 - Wall) WilsonMiller - January 26, 2010 May 18, 2010 • • $18,898 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Clearing - Selective 19,655 SF $0.15 $2,948.25 Clearing and Grubbing 40,600 SF $0.35 $14,210.00 Fitness Station - Remove and Relocate 4 EA $316.00 $1,264.00 Play Equipment - Remove and Relocate 2 EA $238.00 $476.00 Concrete Head Wall 1 LS $2,750.00 $2,750.00 Concrete Pipe 240 LF $95.00 $22,800.00 Earthwork and Grading - Lake Edge 300 SY $4.00 $1,200.00 Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf 760 SY $4.00 $3,040.00 Earthwork and Grading - RipRap Channel Zone 442 SY $2.00 $884.00 Fitness Station - Install Existing 4 EA $1,300.00 $5,200.00 Play Equipment - Install Existing 2 EA $1,875.00 $3,750.00 RipRap Channel 10 CY $53.00 $530.00 Sound Barrier Wall - Concrete @ 6.0' ht 4,230 SF $18.00 $76,140.00 Wood Pedestrian Bridge - 8.0'w 70 LF $86.00 $6,020.00 Fencing 0 LF $0.00 $0.00 Card Access 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 Emergency Call Station 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 • 8• Item Unit Cost Subtotal Quantity Unit Trees 40 EA $300.00 $12,000.00 Palms 30 EA $200.00 $6,000.00 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 25,875 SF $5.50 $142,312.50 Sod 20,180 SF $0.40 $8,072.00 Littoral Planting 6,825 SF $2.00 $13,650.00 Mulch - Dogpark 3,520 SF $0.30 $1,056.00 Irrigation 46,005 SF $0.80 $36,804.00 WATER FEATURES $18,000 tem . Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subto" tall 5 head spray w/o lightsFountain (Intl. Power and Anchoring) 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000.00 SITE FURNITURE 1 Item_ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 5 EA $800.00 $4,000.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Picnic Table 4 EA $1,800.00 $7,200.00 RIDGEWOOD PARK TOTAL: $412,057 CONTINGENCY: $72,110 GRAND TOTAL: $484,167 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — New Technologies 1611 X13 Concluding Improvement Recommendations A. Use of state of the art, LED lighting technology is recommended for its longevity of the light emitting diode over conventional tamping, absence of any ballast needs to power the light and energy conserving nature when compared to the existing HID Metal Halide and PL Fluorescent lighting systems in the community. B. Explore the option of having smart lighting technologies accompany the LED Street Lighting technology where Emergency Responders can be directed to an address in the community and at the same time, a remote signal to the street light pole closest to the address of the call can blink or announce that the responders are near. C. Continue to explore the option of self contained solar powered LED light fixtures for use in remote locations from electrical power. D. Continue to monitor bulk solar power collection opportunities for remote collection from the LED lamp source for powering of a group of fixtures through fixture remote solar collection and battery storage of power. E. Continue to use on- demand and other light level powering technologies in conjunction with LED lighting for evening pedestrian use. F Consider the installation of Code Blue emergency call stations with camera surveillance at key locations in the community — working with the manufacturer is very important to arrive at an aesthetic for the station that would be fitting in the community. G. Continue to install a connective network of card swiping or attended stations for use of private facilities for members — use of card swiping to gain access through an automobile gate for example to allow members to enter remote and un- attended amenity areas such as the parking lot at the Ridgewood Park. 05/18/2010 Pelican Bar Community Improvement Plan — Public Art 1611 B13 Concluding Improvement Recommendations A. Preserve open space lands identified on the master plan as potential art gardens or locations for public art to be introduced in the future. B. Establish a community wide representative committee that is similar to the Strategic Planning Committee to work with The Foundation to further define a Public Arts program for the Pelican Bay Community. C. Pelican Bay benefits from many of its residents as well as the presence of the Philharmonic, the Naples Art Museum, the Resort Hotel properties and the Waterside Shops as venues and patrons of the arts — this patronage should be expressed in a public art program throughout to the benefit of life quality and the value of owning a residence within the community. D. Public Art should include specimen landscape items (The Bridgeway Yellow Tabebuia known as "Tabby Tabebuia") and open space areas conceived in part as art parks (The Foundation Lands on the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard south entry from US 41) as locations for fixed artwork to be installed. 05/18/2010 Fiala 16 I 1 4 ✓ (RECEIVED Halas December 14, 2009 JUN 16 2010 Henning_ —�-- Coyle _--- Board of County Commissioners Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Naples, Florida, December 14, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles VICE CHAIRMAN: Lowell Lam Jerry Morgan Dr. Sherwin Ritter Jack Markel (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWWA Ken Kovensky, Sr. Management/Budget Analyst Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Date: 1 Item #: T I L`7i Copies to: 161 B14 December 14 2009 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Chairman Biles called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda — Meeting of December 14, 2009 Dr. Ritter moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 4 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of May 15, 2009 Mr. Morgan moved to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2009 meeting. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP Limited Proceeding Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWWA presented a memorandum to the Chairman requesting the CCWWA adopt "Final Order No. 2009 -05, Collier County Water and Waste Water Authority" He noted: • The application requested a 5.15% increase to their water rates and a 7.33% increase in wastewater rates • In order to lessen the burden on its customers, AMUC has elected to voluntarily reduce the requested rate increase to 5% for both the water and wastewater services for pass thru electric costs. • Since they only requested the increase for the pass thru electric costs, they have the right, in the future, to request the Consumer Price Index (2009 CPI) increase. • The Authority is to approve the revised Tariff Sheets for the "pass - through electricity costs." • Staff has reviewed the supporting documentation and found it supports the proposed adjustment to the rates and recommends approval. Mr. Lam moved to approve (the revised tariff sheet). Second by Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 4 -0. Jamie French noted and the Authority agreed, the approval was for Final Order No. 2009 -05, Collier County Waste Water Authority including: 1. The water and wastewater rates, as depicted in the revised Tariff Sheets attached hereto as Attachment "C" and by reference incorporated herein are authorized effective as of December 1, 2009, which is at least thirty (30) days prior to its notice to the A UTHORITY of the implementation of the increase. 2. Pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 96 -6, as amended, the UTILITY shall provide written notice to its customers to the increase and the basis for the rate increases. 2 B141611 December 14, 2009 B. North Marco Utility Company, Inc. Limited Proceeding Ken Kovensky presented a memorandum to the Chairman requesting the CCWWA adopt Final Order 2009 -06. He noted the North Marco Utility is requesting a 4.30% increase to its Waste Water rates based on increased costs for waste water services it purchases from the City of Marco Island and the 2009 Consumer Price Index (CPI). Staff has reviewed the application and supporting documentation and recommends adoption of the Final Order.. Mr. Morgan moved to approve the Tariff Sheet for North Marco Utility. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 -0. Jamie French noted and the Authority agreed the approval was for Final Order No.2009 -06, Collier County Waste Water Authority including: 1. The 2009 Price Index and pass- through application, which seeks and additional $13,95 7.22 in annual wastewater revenues resulting and a 4.30% increase in wastewater rates, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The water and wastewater rates, as depicted in the Tariff Sheets, attached hereto as Attachment "G: and by this reference incorporated herein, are approved and authorized, effective January 1, 2009, to be implemented in the Utility's January 2009 billing cycle. 3. Pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 96 -6, as amended, the UTILITY shall provide written notice to its customers to the increase and the basis for the rate increases. V. Staff Discussion A. Orange Tree Utility Company, Inc. Late Annual Report Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWWA presented the memorandum to the Chairman, Subject "Authority Agenda Item — December 14, Delinquent 2008 Annual Report Filing- Orange Tree Utility. Also submitted were Final Order 2009 -07, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. He noted: • Utilities are required to submit their annual report 120 days after the end of the calendar year. • A Utility may request a 30 day extension for the submittal until May 31. • Orange Tree Utility, Inc. requested and was granted a 30 day extension for filing of their Report. • Their Annual Report was received on June 29, 2009. • It is CCWWA policy to charge a penalty of $10 a day for late Reports. • Staff is recommending the Utility be assessed a penalty of $290. The Authority requested clarification on the reason for the late filing. Stephen Lowitz of Orange Tree Utility, Inc. addressed the Authority noting the Report was filed late as their Consultant had an employee resign who was familiar with the account. Jamie French noted the Utility has greatly improved their Reporting, as in past years it has been many months late; however the Ordinance does require the $10 a 3 1 B14 6 ' December 14, 2009 day penalty. If the Authority wishes to revise the amount of the penalty, direction should be given to Staff. The late filing has not created a burden for Staff. Dr. Ritter recommended waiving the penalty based on the vast improvement shown in filing their reports. Mr. Morgan noted previously, the Authority had decreased the penalty from $100 day to $10 day and recommended the penalty be assessed. Mr. Morgan moved to assess Orange Tree Utility, Inc. a $10 a day penalty for filing their late annual Report. With lack of a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Lam was in favor of waiving the penalty for this year, but if a late submittal occurs next year, a substantial penalty be assessed. Chairman Biles recommended reducing the penalty to $5 a day. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney stated the Authority can make any determination they see fit. Mr. Lam moved to reduce the fine to $5 a day ($145 total) for the Utility for this year only due to the circumstances of the economy. Second by Mr. Morgan. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Jamie French noted "Final Order 2009 -07, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority "will be revised to reflect the action taken by the Authority. The Authority provided direction to Staff to prepare a policy to increase the penalty for late filings of Utility Annual Reports (i.e. $20 a day) B. Ave Maria Developer Agreements Jamie French provided a copy of the "Developer Agreement — Ellington Park and Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP" to the Authority. He noted it was for informational purposes. VI. Open to Public None VII. Authority Member Discussion Jamie French noted Nick Casalanguida, Director of Transportation Planning will be performing the daily function of the Community Development Environmental Services (CDES) Administrator. CDES Administrator Joe Schmitt has been re- assigned to a special project for the County Manager. Stephen Lowitz, Orange Tree Utility noted Orange Tree Utility has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Collier County so the widening of Oil Well Road may move forward. 4 16 11 Bl4ecember 14, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY �� Q , /e�. - P. Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on .S- /o ' ° y as presented ✓ , or as amended 5 RECEIVED 161 j C �1 May 3, 2010 JUN 092010 j 111 1 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala ►/ Halas Henning .T Coyle Naples, Florida, May 3, 2010 Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson sc. Coffe$� Date: d� Item #: .,,PLC's to: ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Sgt. Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Deputy Sheriff 6 J I�j Y Ma 3, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were outlined by Special Magistrate Garretson. The Special Magistrate noted, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with the Investigating Officer and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:07 AM RECONVENED: 9:20 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 #1, Notice #1361000049598 — BCC vs. Joan DeVito Burke • Agenda #3, Notice #1361000049788 — BCC vs. Dalo Plumbing, Inc. • Agenda #10, Notice #1361000054408 — BCC vs. Gary Gottfried Newman • Agenda #13, Notice #1361000039664 — BCC vs. Irena Rozio • Agenda #19, Notice #1361000046156 — BCC vs. Mark Edward Wertheim (b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings, " the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #2, Notice #1361000039680 — BCC vs. Marcelo and Frances A. Bustamante • Agenda #6, Notice #1361000035993 — BCC vs. Fred M. Hoffman or Linda C. Zyburo • Agenda #7, Notice #1361000043153 — BCC vs. Fred M. Hoffman or Linda C. Zyburo • Agenda #9, Notice #1361000046545 — BCC vs. Joan R. Muncy 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 — April 5,2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on April S, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. q c � May 3, 2010 1 b`:' IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 4. Notice #1361000026943 — BCC vs. Richard Allen Farmer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch and Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 28621 San Lupis Lane, Naples, Florida, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: January 23, 2010 Time: 3:59 PM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Immokalee Road The Respondent questioned the authority of the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate referred him to Florida Statutes, Title XI, "County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations," Chapter 162 — County or Municipal Code Enforcement. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and noted the light had been red for 103 seconds when the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through it. The Respondent stated he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. He refereed to "the Ordinance" stating the vehicle's driver is the responsible party. He cited from Ordinance 2008 -22 of the "... failure of a vehicle's driver to obey the traffic light ... " Lt. Minch referred him to Section 4 of the Ordinance citing: "The owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for paying the civil fine for the Notice Violation of this Article ... " and further stated the Ordinance does not require the driver to be identified. The Special Magistrate stated there was no defense presented that would qualify under the categories presented in the Ordinance and there was an admission by the Respondent that he was the owner of the vehicle. If the Respondent allowed other individuals to drive his vehicle with his permission, he was responsible for the 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 of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 11. Notice #1361000010699 —BCC vs. Michael Pinsky The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. 16 11 C1 May 3,2010 The Respondent stated he resides at 1212 Carol Lane, Glencoe, Illinois 60022, and verified he and his wife are the registered owners of the vehicle. Date of Violation: January 6, 2010 Time: 10:42 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and noted the light had been red for 19.4 seconds when the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through it. The Respondent contended he made a short stop at the intersection. He asked if the County maintained the camera at the intersection and when the camera was last checked. Lt. Minch said the equipment is operated and maintained by American Traffic System. The Respondent stated there was a 2.5 second lag between Picture "A" and Picture `B." The Officer explained the photographs were taken at different times — one did not immediately follow the other. The Special Magistrate stated she did not see a stop and start in the video. The operational log was produced by Supervisor Waldron from the evidence packet. The Special Magistrate adjourned the Hearing to allow the Respondent to review the document. 4. Notice #1361000070743 — BCC The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent resides at 760 Wiggins Lake Drive, Naples, Florida 34110, and confirmed he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: March 21, 2010 Time: 9:15 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the light was clearly red as the vehicle drove through the intersection. The Respondent stated he was not disputing the violation. He was objecting to the time it took to receive notification of the violation. On March 31, 2010, he received a notice from the Post Office concerning two Special Delivery letters which he retrieved the next day and found he was charged with two violations. He thought the purpose of the cameras was to catch drivers who ran red lights. He stated he did not "run" the light but made a turn on a red light. He called the office and was told he did not come to a complete stop when turning. He paid the first fine. He was charged with a second 9I 161 I May 3, 2010 violation that occurred several days later. He, again, did not dispute it but stated if he had known he had violated the law in the first place, he would not have made the same mistake a second time. He stated it took over took over two weeks receive the notice. He objected to having to pay a second fine for the second Citation. The Special Magistrate stated the law requires a full stop at a red light before making a turn whether there is a camera present at an intersection or not. Lt. Minch stated if an officer had cited him, the fine would have been $238.00 and three points would have been charged against his license. The Citation Fees were discussed and the Special Magistrate noted the Intersection Safety Program does not assess points against the owner's license. The Respondent maintained notification process should be quicker. The Special Magistrate stated there was no exception within the Ordinance that applied to the Respondent's situation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 for a second offense plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 ** RE: Agenda #11, Notice #1361000010699 — BCC vs. Michael Pinsky, Lt. Minch stated the Respondent paid the fine and the case will not proceed to a formal Hearing. 5. Notice #1361000161651— BCC vs. Peter Ferrante The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 11, 2009 Time: 12:49 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated the light was red as the vehicle approached and remained red as it proceeded through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated there was a 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 161 1 C1 May A, 2010 administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 8. Notice #1361000064456 — BCC vs. Robert Vincent Messerly The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 16, 2010 Time: 9:51 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road (at Seagate) and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light had been red for 34.8 seconds when the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through it. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had 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 12. Notice #1361000048806 — BCC vs. Bernice M. Rockower The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: February 24, 2010 Time: 2:42 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach. Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The vehicle crossed from one lane around another vehicle into the turning lane, then proceeded through the red light. The Special Magistrate stated at least one violation had 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 16 I f I C 1 May '3, 2010 15. Notice #1360900185239 — BCC vs. Margaret G. Spitz The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 27, 2009 Time: 10:41 AM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Immokalee Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and noted while the vehicle had changed lanes, it had actually stopped. The Special Magistrate concurred. Lt. Minch stated the County will WITHDRAW the Notice. 16. Notice #1361000046255 — BCC vs. Adeline E. Tarrant The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 20, 2009 Time: 8:10 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light had been red for 7 to 8 seconds as the Respondent's van approached and proceeded through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had 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 17. Notice #1360900179976 — BCC vs. George Vega The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 23, 2009 Time: 3:49 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light had been 16111 C1 May 3, 2010 red for 25 seconds as the Respondent's vehicle approached and proceeded through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had 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 18. Notice #13610000161926 — BCC vs. W.W. Enterprises of SW Florida, Inc. The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: January 12, 2010 Time: 2:08 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Rd. (at Seagate) and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light had been red for 48.7 seconds as the Respondent's truck approached and proceeded through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance has been violated. 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 20. Notice #1360900028694 — BCC vs. Loretta Young The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: August 25, 2009 Time: 8:24 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Rd. and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light had been visibly red for 68 seconds as the Respondent's vehicle approached and proceeded through the intersection. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. 16 1 1CI May 3, 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 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: None VI. NEXT HEARING DATE: June 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by order of the Special Magistrate at 10:07 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Jenda Garre , Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented i/ , or as amended 161 1 C1 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, May 7, 2010 May 7, 2010 RECEIVED JUN 0 8 2010 Board Of County Commissioners Fiala Halas ----- Henning Y� Coyle _ Coletta 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 Secretes Corres: Date: _ Item #: 1 C 'n;eS ±a: 1611 C 1 I May 7, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing. Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:16 AM RECONVENED: 9:47 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV, "Motions," the following was added: • "B. Motion for Continuance:" Agenda #8 — PR 044540 — CEEX 20100005227 — BCC vs. Gregory & Marylynn Meyer (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," STIPULATIONS were reached in the following cases: • Agenda #23, Case #CEV 20100003793 — BCC vs. Filiberto & Agustin Velazquez • Agenda #25, Case #CEV 20100003264 — BCC vs. Minerva Olivarez • Agenda #15, Case #CEV 20100002640 — BCC vs. IEC Rentals, Inc. • Agenda #16, Case #CELU 20090018069 — BCC vs. IEC Rentals, Inc. • Agenda #17, Case #CEAU 20090011319 — BCC vs. Arturo Gonzalez • Agenda #19, Case #CENA 20090007984 — BCC vs. Julian H. Camacho • Agenda #20, Case #CEV 20090007995 — BCC vs. Julian H. Camacho • Agenda #21, Case #CENA 20090005196 — BCC vs. Steven Camacho (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following cases were DISMISSED at the request of the Deputy /Park Ranger /DAS Officer: • Agenda #1, Case #SO 168105 — CEEX 20100004656 — BCC vs. Carol & John Russo • Agenda 0, Case #SO 166706 — CEEX 20100005374 — BCC vs. Nicholas Rendziperis • Agenda #5, Case #SO 148869 — CEEX 20100004403 — BCC vs. Brian Escobedo • Agenda #6, Case #PR 042901— CEEX 20100004959 — BCC vs. Michael J. Carrabba 2 161 1 C 1 May 7, 2010 • Agenda #10, Case #DAS 11868 — CEEX 20100004661— BCC vs. Francis Brown (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #4, Case #50144816 — CEEX 20100005212 — BCC vs. Dana Becker • Agenda #9, Case #PR 043389 — CEEX 20100004969 — BCC vs. Joseph Rola • Agenda #11, Case #PU 4754 — CEEX 20100004393 — BCC vs. Richard MacClugage Trust • Agenda #22, Case #CEV 20100003099 — BCC vs. Aprilette Rose • Agenda #24, Case #CEPM 20100000481— BCC vs. Daniel Chirinos & Patricia Saunier (e) RE: Agenda 918, Case #CEAU 20090008537, the owners names were corrected to Anton Karaba & Eva Karabova (f) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases, "the following cases were added: • #1, Case #CEPM 20100006290 — BCC vs. Jose L. Munoz • #2, Case #CEPM 20100006374 — BCC vs. Daniel Chirinos (g) Court Interpreters will be available at 11:00 AM ( "Time Certain ") for the following: • under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," Agenda #1, Case #CEPM 20100006290 — BCC vs. Jose L. Munoz, • under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," Agenda #2, CEPM 20090017256 — BCC vs. Ulises Puentes, Platinum Home Investment Corp. 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 — April 16, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on April 16, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Extension of Time: None B. Motion for Continuance 8. Case #PRO 44540 — CEEX 20100005227 — BCC vs Gregory & Marylynn Mever y 1611 � C May 7, t� 010 1 The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -66 Parking in an unauthorized parking area Violation address: Barefoot Beach Preserve The Special Magistrate noted the Respondents submitted a letter requesting a five - month Continuance but had not submitted proof of the representations made in the letter, i.e., the trip was planned prior to the occurrence of the violation. Park Ranger Araquistain stated the Respondent requested too much time. The Special Magistrate requested Code Enforcement send a letter to the Repondents explaining they will be allowed fifteen days (1 S) to submit proof of their travel plans such as travel itinerary or copy of tickets, etc. Upon receipt of such proof, the Special Magistrate will rule on their Motion. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 23. Case #CEV 20100003793 — BCC. vs. Filiberto & A ustin Velazquez The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondents had been present earlier but left before the Case was heard. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A); Unlicensed vehicles and an unlicensed trailer being stored on the property Folio No: 35748000308 Violation address: 1989 46th Street SW A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents on May 7, 2010. Investigator Mucha stated the terms of the Stipulation were agreed to by both Respondents. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to attach a current, valid tag for each trailer / vehicle, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises, on or before May 14, 2010 or a ftne 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 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. C 1 May 7, 2010 1611 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 the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 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: $112.38 25. Case #CEV 20100003264 — BCC vs. Minerva Olivarez The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Unlicensed vehicle being stored on the property Folio No: 35648520001 Violation address: 2374 45th Street SW The Respondent resides at 2374 45th Street SW, Naples, Florida 34116. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 7, 2010. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to attach a current, valid tag for each trailer / vehicle, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises, on or before May 21, 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 the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 2010. 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. Total Amount Due: $112.38 15. Case #CEV 20100002640 — BCC vs. IEC Rentals Inc. The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who 161 C 1 L,l 7, 2010 was present. The Respondent was represented by Robert Cadenhead. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(B)(3) A commercial dumpster truck and a front loader parked/stored on un- improved residential zoned property. Folio No: 74414080008 Violation address: FOLIO #74414080008 The Respondent resides at 3145 Cherry Street, Naples, Florida 33142. A Stipulation was entered into by Robert Cadenhead on behalf of the Respondent on May 7, 2010. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation was abated on May 5, 2010. The Respondent is prohibited from storing such vehicles on the property in the future. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and finding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 2010. Total Amount Due: $112.38 16. Case #CELU 20090018069 — BCC vs. IEC Rentals, Inc. The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was represented by Robert Cadenhead. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.03.02 Fill dirt and rock being stored on unimproved residential zoned property Folio No: 74414080008 Violation address: FOLIO #74414080008 A Stipulation was entered into by Robert Cadenhead on behalf of the Respondent on May 7, 2010. The Respondent resides at 3145 Cherry Street, Naples, Florida 33415. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation was abated on May 5, 2010. The Respondent is prohibited from storing fill dirt/rocks on the property in the future. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served and finding the violation 161 I C lmai7olo 10 did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $11256 on or before June 7, 2010. Total Amount Due: $112.56 17. Case #CEAU 20090011319 — BCC vs. Arturo Gonzalez The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(A) Wooden fence in need of repair Folio No: 22620320009 Violation address: 4608 Normandy Drive A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 7, 2010. The Respondent resides at 4608 Normandy Drive, Naples, Florida. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion, on or before May 21, 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 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 the case in the amount of $112.56 on or before June 7, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.56 19. Case #CENA 20090007984 — BCC vs. Julian H. Camacho The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was not present. 1611 C1 " 7201 May 0 Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sections 54 -181 and 54 -179; Litter consisting of, but not limited to; buckets, spa, coolers, broken furniture, piles of wood and metal, appliances, vegetation debris, paint, tools, tires, and other debris scattered throughout vacant lot. Folio No: 66680280006 Violation address: 338 Pettit Drive, Goodland A Stipulation was entered into by Steven Comacho, the Respondent's brother on behalf of the Respondent on May 6, 2010. Investigator Sorrels noted the Respondent sent an email to Code Enforcement authorizing his brother, Steven Camacho, to represent him. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove the litter to an appropriate waste disposal site on or before July 7, 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 Sheriff's 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 the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 2010. The Respondent is to not#y the 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 20. Case #CEV 20090007995 — BCC vs. Julian H. Camacho The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A); Several types of trailers and recreational camper located on property are unlicensed and/or inoperable Folio No: 66680280006 Violation address: 338 Pettit Drive, Goodland A Stipulation was entered into by Steven Comacho, the Respondent's brother on behalf of the Respondent on May 6, 2010. 161 IN 14ay7,2010 Investigator Sorrels noted the Respondent sent an email to Code Enforcement authorizing his brother, Steven Camacho, to represent him. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to repair all defects and make the vehicles operational, and to attach a current, valid tag for each vehicleItrailer or camper, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises, on or before July 7, 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 the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 2010. 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. Total Amount Due: $11238 21. Case #CENA 20090005196 — BCC vs. Steven Camacho The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sections 54 -181 and 54 -179; Litter consisting of, but not limited to, broken furniture, appliances, buckets, piles of wood and aluminum, rope, coolers, paint, tools and a wooden boat filled with vegetation. Debris scattered throughout front, side and rear yards Folio No: 66680480000 Violation address: 217 Goodland Drive East, Goodland A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 6, 2010. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove the litter to an appropriate waste disposal site on or before July 7, 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 1611 C 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 the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before June 7, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the 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 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 2. Case #SO 168101— CEEX 20100004438 — BCC vs. Mark Smith The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Kenneth Robins was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Parked on striped access aisle. Handicapped space Violation address: Collier County Library, 2385 Orange Blossom The Respondent resides at 1091 Oakes Blvd., Naples, Florida 34119. The Respondent stated he was issued a Handicapped parking permit in 2007 and no information was given to indicate the striped area was considered part of the Handicapped Parking space. He stated areas where parking is prohibited are outlined in yellow, and Handicapped spaces are outlined in blue. The area in question was painted white. He had no idea parking in the white striped area was illegal, and stated the position of his scooter in the access area would still allow a wheelchair van to operate its ramp. Deputy Robins introduced two photographs, taken on March 22, 2010, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated he is unable to pay fines due to limited income and offered to perform community service if allowed. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent had admitted to the violation and the Ordinance did not allow other provisions to satisfy the fine, other than payment.. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $250.00 on or before June 7, 2010. Operational Costs were not assessed. 10 161 1 C1 47, 2010 Total Amount Due: $250.00 7. Case #PR 042883 — CEEX 20100003810 — BCC vs. Richard Farmer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Barry Gorniak was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Handicapped space; no visible permit Violation address: Pelican Bay Community Park The Respondent resides at 28621 San Lucas Lane - #201, Bonita Springs, Florida. The Respondent objected to the proceedings due to jurisdiction and stated the proceedings should be held in County Court. The Special Magistrate stated the Florida Legislature gave Law Enforcement Officers the choice for disposition of Citations to be heard in either County Court or by a Special Magistrate. Florida Statutes gives jurisidiction to Counties who authorize the Special Magistrate hear the cases. The Respondent claimed the Park Ranger was not a Law Enforcement Officer or employed by the Collier County Sheriff's Office as a Parking Specialist. He referenced 130.67 and stated the definition of Law Enforcement Officer in the Florida Statutes did not include Park Ranger. He recalled that a Law Enforcement Officer is allowed to carry a weapon and make arrests. He asked that the Citation be dismissed. Park Ranger Gorniak cited: "Section 246 -26: It is the intent of the Legislature to authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County to designate employees of Collier County's Department of Parks and Recreation as Park Enforcement Officers. It is declared as a matter of Legislative Intent that a County Park Enforcement Officer be empowered to issue Citations to enforce any County Ordinance duly enacted by the Board of County Commissioners." Regarding juridiction, he also cited: "Section 246 -27: Any person designated by the Board of County Commissioners as a Park Enforcement Officer (Park Ranger) is hereby authorized to issue Citations within the boundaries of a Collier County park, public beach, beach access area adjacent to County parks, County- operated parking facilities, and public areas immediately adjacent to any park for any violations of the Collier County Ordinances." He further stated he was an authorized Parking Specialist and presented a copy of the Certification from the Collier County Sheriff's Office, dated October 11, 2007, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He also introduced two photographs, taken on April 8, 2010, which were marked as County's Composite m 161 1 C1 "Nay 7, 2010 Exhibit `B" and admitted into evidence. The Respondent admitted he was not issued a Handicapped parking permit. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $250.00 plus an administrative fee of $5.00 on or before June 7, 2010. The Respondent was furthered ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $50.00 on or before June 7, 2010. Total Amount Due: $305.00 13. Case #CESD 20090012849 — BCC vs George Lambert The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and Amendment of The Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(B)(104.5.1.4.4) Permit #2006053609 issued on February 27, 2007 and expired without the issuance of Certificate of Completion/Occupancy. Folio No: 37987440002 Violation Address: 3580 White Blvd The Respondent resides at 3580 White Blvd., Naples, Florida 34117. Investigator Keegan stated a Lis Pendens was filed against the property and he received the case from the Foreclosure Team on March 12, 2010. The Permit was pulled but the Certificate was not issued. The Respondent stated he could not begin the project due to a work - related injury. He did not renew the permit because he could not afford the fees. He further stated no work had been done on either the exterior or interior of the home. The only violation was to allow the Permit to expire. The property is in the process of foreclosure. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 14. Case #CESD 20090012848 — BCC vs George Lambert The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was also present. 12 C116 1 2 May 7 , 2010 Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and Amendment of The Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(B)(104.5.1.4.4) Pool and spa permit issued August 27, 2004 and canceled on June 5, 2007. No final inspection or Certificate of Completion issued. Folio No: 37987440002 Violation address: 3580 White Blvd The Respondent resides at 3580 White Blvd., Naples, Florida 34117. Investigator Keegan introduced two photographs of the pool which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and `B" and admitted into evidence. He stated neither the pool or the spa were permitted or inspected. The Respondent stated the plumbing has been inspected and only the electrical and final inspection are due. He reiterated he is financially unable to complete the work. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before July 7, 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 provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.56 on or before August 7, 2010. 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. Total Amount Due: $112.56 RECESS: 11:18 AM RECONVENED: 11:51 AM Supervisor Waldron amended the Agenda as follows: • Under Item C, "Emergency Cases," thefollowing case was WITHDRAWN by the County: Agenda #1, Case #CEPM 20100006290 — BCC vs. Jose L. Muno 13 161 1 May 7, 2010 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. Case #CEPM 20090017256 — Ulises Puentes Platinum Home Investment Corp. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Cristina Perez on behalf of Investigator Ralph Bosa. The Respondent was represented by Ulises Puentes. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -58, Section 12 Hazardous and dangerous building Folio No: 40352480008 Violation address: 3231 18th Avenue NE, Naples The Respondent indicated he spoke /understood only a little English. The Special Magistrate requested Supervisor Perez to serve as translator since the Court's Interpreter was not present. Supervisor Perez stated the violation was abated on April 20, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from February 13, 2010 through April 20, 2010 (67 days) for a total fine amount of $16,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.62 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $16,750.00. The County recommended abatement of the fines due to the cooperation of the Respondent. The property has been properly secured. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 18. Case #CEAU 20090008537 — BCC vs. Anton Karaba & Eva Karabova The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondents were also present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(A) and Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 Wooden fence built on property without a valid Collier County Building Permit Folio No: 48600000705 14 1 6 1101 May 7, 2010 Violation address: 12243 Fuller Lane The Respondents reside at 12234 Fuller Lane, Naples, Florida 34113. Investigator Sorrels introduced two photographs taken on May 19, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. She stated a Permit was issued in April 2005, but the Final Inspection failed by the Inspector on September 26, 2005. In October 2009, she spoke with Mrs. Karabova at the property, explained the violation and advised her to re -apply for the 2005 Permit, fix the fence, and then schedule another inspection. They were also advised they could apply for a Demolition Permit to remove the fence. In March 2010, Mrs. Karabova indicated the fence would not be removed. The Respondents stated there was no real case, and cited problems with canal (flooding) and the necessity to construct a concrete wall to keep water from running onto their property. The height of the fence was also necessary because the neighbors owned several large dogs which the Respondents were afraid would jump a lower fence. They wanted security for their family. The Respondents claimed they were unable to obtain help from anyone (Code Enforcement, Animal Control, Habitat for Humanity). Mr. Karaba claimed his fence construction was stronger than the 4' x 4' poles required by the County. He provided additional support for the fence to make it hurricane - proof. He also claimed the case was in retaliation for his complaints. He stated he fixed the problems "his way" because there was no guidance, and he did not understand the procedures. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondents had interpreted the County's requirements rather than following them which resulted in the violation. The Special Magistrate asked to review the original Permit application and site plans to determine what the Respondent was advised to construct and the initial requirements. Investigator Sorrels outlined the County's recommendations: • The Respondents are to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 7, 2010, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains • 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 Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. • The Respondents are to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.64 on or before June 7, 2010. 15 16 11 C1 47,2010 • 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. The Respondents stated they would not tear down the fence to replace it with an inferior fence. He said when he complained about problems in the neighborhood to Code Enforcement or Animal Control, no one responded. He asked the Special Magistrate to "give him a break." The Special Magistrate suggested making the corrections as outlined by the Inspector and to find a way to come into compliance with as little additional expense as possible. The Special Magistrate requested Code Enforcement order the records (permit, site plan, etc.) and forward them to her. She will not rule or impose fees /fines until after she has examined the documents. A written Order will be sent to the Respondents within ten days. The Special Magistrate stated if the Respondents have questions concerning the Order, they can contact Code Enforcement. If no one responds to their call, they may contact the Director of Code Enforcement, Diane Flagg. C. Emergency Cases: 2. Case #CEPM 20100006374 — BCC vs. Daniel Chirinos The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Ordinance 2004 -58, Property Maintenance Code, as amended, Section 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 Occupied residental units without adqequate water supply Folio No.: 73280040008 Violation address: 2315 Bayside Street, Naples, FL 34112 The Respondent resides at 4250 Lorraine Avenue, Naples, Florida 34104. Investigator Sorrels stated a complaint was made on May 6, 2010. She conducted a site visit and introduced two photographs which were marked as County's Composite "A" and admitted into evidence. The tenants claimed there has been no water service for the past three days and water was included in their rent. She stated a landlord is obligated to provide water to the tenants. The Respondent stated the tenants have not paid rent in several months and he cannot continue to cover the water bills for them. He spoke with the tenants and stated he would pay half of the bill if they agreed to pay the other half. He paid $500 to the 16 May 7, 2010 City. The tenants agreed to contact the City but have not done so. He had not started eviction proceedings to give the tenants time to catch up on their back rent but will immediately issue a Three -Day Notice to the tenants to vacate the premises. The Special Magistrate stated the Landlord -Tenant Statute prohibits a landlord from depriving tenants of utilities. It is a Health, Safety and Welfare issue. She suggested the Respondent contact the City to obtain a meter reading and check with the billing department to see if there was a typographical error. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to restore water service with the City of Naples Utilities on or before the close of business on Monday, May 10, 2010, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $11229 on or before August 7, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.29 The Respondent noted the City may not physically restore the service on Monday even if he pays the fee. Investigator Sorrels will contact a Supervisor with the City's Water Department to verify the status. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20090016303 — BCC vs. Robert Nolan and A &G Sunshine Properties, LLC The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Renald Paul. Robert Nolan was present. Robert Conner represented A &G Sunshine Properties, LLC. 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 18th Court SW 17 16] 1 C 1 May 7, 2010 Mr. Nolan resides at 4210 Third Avenue SW, Naples, Florida. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation has been abated as of April 19, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from March 7, 2010 through April 19, 2010 (44 days) for a total fine amount of $11,000.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.73 have been paid. The total amount due is $11,000.00. Mr. Conner stated the property was acquired from the Bank on March 7, 2010 and it took over ten days to obtain a new (custom) liner for the pool and have it installed. Supervisor Letourneau stated the Respondents made every effort to correct the situation as quickly as possible. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 3. Case # CEPM 20090015545 — BCC vs Re ions Bank The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Ronald Martindale. The Respondent was represented by Marco Scola, Independent Brokers Realty. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Private swimming pool not maintained. Presenting unsightly appearance, water stagnate, polluted with conditions conducive to insect infestation Folio No: 51978031765 Violation address: 14739 Indigo Lakes Circle, Naples Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated by the County on March 9, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from January 26, 2010 through March 9, 2010 (43 days) for a total fine amount of $10,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have been paid. Abatement costs in the amount of $870.00 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $10,750.00. Mr. Scola stated the Bank acquired the property in March 2010. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 4. Case #CESD 20080013392 — BCC vs. Miramar Beach & Tennis Club Inc. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. 18 16 Cjay7, .I 2010 The Respondent was represented by Dale Moeller, Assistant General Manager. Ben Nelson, Nelson Marine, appeared as a witness for the Respondent. Violations: Collier Co. 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)(I) Permit #920004509 for a boardwalk was issued on April 16, 1992 and expired on October 16, 1992 without obtaining Certification of Completion. Folio No: 54775120753 Violation address: 105 Shell Drive, Bonita Springs Mr. Moeller stated he was authorized to represent Miramar Beach & Tennis Club. The Special Magistrate noted she had previously heard the case. Supervisor Waldron stated the Respondents attended a meeting with the County and had new information. Mr. Nelson explained the process of obtaining the Permit. The Permit Department approved the plans and designs pursuant to the 1992 specifications and the same Permit number was re- issued. The work was completed but the Inspector did not approve it because the County's Building Department wants the work to adhere to 2007 specifications and ADA standards. Turtle hatching season began on May 2, 2010 and he must apply to the Department of Natural Resources in order to comply with the Building Department's requirements. (All beach work is halted during turtle hatching season.) The Special Magistrate ruled the Respondent will have an extension to May, 2012 to complete the work and fines were stayed and will not accrue. RECESS: 1:40 PM RECONVENED: 1:49 PM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 12. Case #CEV 20100002334 — BCC vs. Robert Hoover Trust The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was present earlier but left before the case was heard. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Recurring violation of unlicensed/inoperable vehicles stored outside on Estates zoned property 19 1611 r 1 N177,2010 Folio No: 37348360006 Violation address: 1280 25th Street SW, Naples A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 7, 2010. Investigator Keegan stated the Respondent agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to repair all defects and make the vehicles operational, and to attach a current, valid tag to each vehicle, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises, on or before May 21, 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 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 the case in the amount of $112.64 on or before June 7, 2010. 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. Total Amount Due: $112.64 B. Hearings: 26. Case #CEPM 20090004566 — BCC vs. Edith Granados The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Supervisor Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code Of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subsections 12C, 12N, and 15 Vacant structure with roof damage, wood fence in disrepair, and swimming pool that is not being maintained. Folio No: 35882280000 Violation address: 1818 41st Street SW The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 26, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on April 23, 2010. Investigator Mucha stated the property is vacant and in foreclosure. He introduced eight photographs, taken on October 14, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The violation has not been abated. 20 16 i C1 -, # May 7, 2010 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to hire a licensed General Contractor to obtain all required Permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair the roof on or before June 7, 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. The Respondent was ordered to hire a licensed General Contractor to obtain all required Permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair or remove the fence on or before June 7, 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. The Respondent was further ordered to kill the algae by chemically treating the pool water and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water, or to chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool pursuant to HUD standards on or before June 7, 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 maybe requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.82 on or before June 7, 2010. 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. Total Amount Due: $112.82 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 5. Case #CEPM 20090005325 — BCC vs Susan Shroyer The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231, Subsections 121, 12B, and 12C Missing windows, exterior wall damage, and roof damage Folio No: 63402960002 Violation address: 4728 Capri Drive 21 1611 C1 May 7, 2010 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 26, 2010 and notification was left by the U.S. Postal Service at the Respondent's residence on April 27, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on April 27, 2010. Investigator Musse stated the violation has not been abated Fines have accrued at the rate of $200.00 per day for the period from April 10, 2010 through May 7, 2010 (28 days) for a total fine amount of $5,600.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.64 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $5,712.64. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $5,71264 and noted fines will continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE: June 4, 2010 at 9: 00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, "3rd Floor, 3301 East 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 2:07 PM. 22 16111 "w °2°1° COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING Zl--N .--D — &Iskml� Br da Garretson, cial Magistrate The Minutes wer q approved by the Special Magistrate on ., �M►�, i p as presented or as amended ' 23